Why Does God Hate the Poor: Virus Supplemental Part III

The individual is in a dilemma: either he decides to safeguard his freedom of choice, chooses to use traditional, personal, moral, or empirical means, thereby entering into competition with a power against which there is no efficacious defense and before which he must suffer defeat; or he decides to accept technical necessity, in which case he will himself be the victor, but only by submitting irreparably to technical slavery. In effect he has no freedom of choice. — Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. Vintage Books: N.Y., N.Y. (1963) p. 84.

The new school epistemic agnosia of nihilism: the only certain or foundational knowledge you have is that you exist, you think, and want more than just existence. All else is unknowing, you know nothing else. These existential meanings are present in all words but precede the meanings of all words and thus are something of which in reality we cannot speak and of which we should be silent and thus are pragmatically meaningless. These existential meanings do serve as the implicit axioms or recursive meanings of all words and all language and of everything else pretending to be foundational knowledge. All such non-existential knowledge is uncertain at best and usually just made-up of socially constructed verbiage intended to hide there is no other foundational knowledge but only pragmatic knowledge and beliefs sometimes called truth for aesthetic effect and sometimes called normative or morality for the same aesthetic effect. At this point, you can accept what you are as you are and the world as it is: a slave can accept being a slave and make do, a king can just as easily and most likely even more easily accept being a king and make do, and so forth. This would be an optimistic nihilist. An existential nihilist would take the next step consisting of an act of will wanting more to life than just mere existence — a will to power. With this act of will, a slave would demand to be a king and a king would demand to be a god and all can demand love from a god or even from God, and so forth. It is this act of will that creates and leads to the struggle between the nihilist and existential reality which results in a life of absurdity and an existential choice that life either is worth living or is not worth living and what to do about that worth or lack thereof. As Orwell wrote in 1984, “[t]he choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better”. In summary, all you really know is that you do not know; ultimately, freedom may be just an illusion anyway, so the choice of being a technical slave is as viable, sound, and valid as choosing not to be one.

 
The first freedom of choice allowed a technical slave if they want it: choose to be one knowingly, intentionally, and holistically in the context of the indifference to the universe to your choice. Do not do it because it is the moral choice to make; because it is the ethical choice to make; because Divine Law requires it; because Natural Law requires it; because the law requires it; or for any other reason pretending your choice has ultimate normative value to anyone other than yourself. In the end, no one not even God cares, only you care — if you care. If the Room 101 prepared for you by Technological Society (TS) makes you happy and you want it, then live it and love it. Like Winston, look up and love Big Brother with a tear in your eye and be happy until the bullet enters your brain — it awaits all of us as would be made clear on this Easter Sunday by true believers if they were not too scared of Big Brother to go to church. If those who “truly” believe in a Resurrection can cowardly hide in the corner, the rest of us certainly can.

 
The second category of freedom allowed a technical slave if they want it: it is not to reject technical slavery because this is not allowed anyone in TS, but to hate it even to hate it with your whole heart, mind, and soul. You are a slave but that does not mean you have to like it and especially you do not have to love it. “To the end I grapple with thee; from Hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.” You owe a duty to yourself to do what you have to do to survive as a slave if you want to survive and even to prosper as a slave if you want to prosper. You even have a legal duty to act as a slave so as to avoid going to jail. You even have an ethical duty to act as a slave because ethics is ruling class ideology and all present TS ruling class ideology requires you be a slave. However, you have no duty to be honest, skilled, happy, or anything “good” in your slavery; you have no moral duty, Divine Law duty; Natural Law duty; or any type of ultimate normative value duty to be a slave. You are one because you want to survive, prosper, and not go to jail. If something better comes along or you can get away with dishonesty, negligence, cheating, breaking the law, or anything in your duties as a slave, all without getting caught and punished by the Powers and gods of TS, then do it. In the end, it does not matter to anyone other than yourself. Even if there is a Resurrection, remember Christ died for all sinners as a criminal and outcaste Himself who only gave to Caesar the minimum the law required and no more, so you are still all set — except unlike Him hopefully you will be smart enough not to get caught. You have the ultimate freedom: to reject God or to accept God as He, She, or It is and not how They ought to be.

 
These two categories of freedom of choice and are the power that slaves have to continue class struggle and thus to continue history. They are not available to the Powers and gods of TS because their meaning in life is a purely self-served need for power: they must have a morality to force upon others; they must have an ethics to force upon others; they must have Divine Law, Natural Law, and all the other laws to force upon others. If in fact all authority comes from God, then in addition to their socially constructed gods, rules, and laws, they must also have God despite their aesthetically pleasing protests of the opposite. They cannot think holistically because the world and the universe revolves around them and their self-served need for the power of gods or of God. This is their only weakness. Not much of one but slaves must take what they can get and run with it.

 
Some will object that such nihilist morality is really just anarchy that will result in another world of Nazi and Communist extermination camps and global political and economic collapse. This nonsense admits to both a lack of understanding as to the nature of TS and a delusion as to the Heart of Darkness that is the substance of our nature. If history repeats itself and the conditions are ripe for Governor Cuomo and the law or some other political pyschopath rule of law Inner and Outer Party Powers and gods to wake up one day and decide that extermination camps are needed to stop a virus pandemic in the same way their predecessor godly creators of moralities and ethics decided to stop what they considered to be a people pandemic, the reality is that what present moralities and ethics will do is the same as what Ellul, Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucault, and 95% of people did last time: nothing. Slaves do not control the Powers and gods of TS, they control us; there will always be morality and ethics in TS or in any society to control its slaves be they chattel, wage, or the slaves of technology. The extermination camps of the past will not occur because those techniques failed and were grossly inefficient. TS has morally and ethically grown beyond them.

 
Armed force is too efficient and dirty. Creating moralities and ethics that march people into self-imprisonment, self-isolation, and even self genocide (i.e., abortion for Blacks;  wars in the Mideast for Christians; feminism for women) is much more efficient and the easier means to victory for the Powers and their gods. Again, do not forget the beauty of the last few weeks: not just one nation’s culture but the entirety of world culture has changed drastically and substantively without any bloating bodies laying in the streets or blood running in the gutters — no armies and navies fighting, no extermination camps, no mass rallies of armed crowds roaming the streets, no cities covered in volcanic ash, no cities swallowed by earthquakes, and none of the other natural or historical events that usually are the foundation for such cultural revolution. This cultural revolution was accomplished even without martyrs or human sacrifice. (Well, without explicit martyrs and human sacrifice that make the headlines, so they do not matter.)

 
This finally leads me to the big question at issue in these multi-part essays: Why does God hate the poor? Why did God defined as the reason there is something instead of nothing create a reality with a necessary hierarchy? Why will there always be a small powerful ruling class (Powers, Outer Party, Inner Party, and so forth) who can positively control reality so as to create a world and gods in their image and then there will be the rest of us who are stuck only with the negative power to oppose whatever they are doing? Why must there always be a class struggle in order for history to continue and so we can go on to discover, explore, and conquer the universe?

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Virus Supplemental Part II

The individual is in a dilemma: either he decides to safeguard his freedom of choice, chooses to use traditional, personal, moral, or empirical means, thereby entering into competition with a power against which there is no efficacious defense and before which he must suffer defeat; or he decides to accept technical necessity, in which case he will himself be the victor, but only by submitting irreparably to technical slavery. In effect he has no freedom of choice. — Ellul, Jacques. “The Technological Society”. Vintage Books: N.Y., N.Y. (1963) p. 84.

From a will to power perspective, the last few weeks of mass hysteria have been Technological Society (“TS”) at its best and one of its finest works of art. Not just one nation’s culture but the entirety of world culture has changed drastically and substantively without any bloating bodies strewn about the streets or blood running in the gutters — no armies and navies fighting, no extermination camps, no mass rallies of armed crowds roaming the streets, no cities covered in volcanic ash, no cities swallowed by earthquakes, and none of the other natural or historical events that usually are the foundation for cultural revolution. Complain about it all you want and call the Powers of TS names such as corporatism, capitalism, communism, neo-liberalism, socialism, or whatever, but the factual reality is that the Powers of TS ordered everyone to imprison and isolate themselves and everyone followed orders — cleanly, easily, antiseptically, and without any fuss or protest. In fact, any protest would seem monumentally evil because the orders get their validity based on the innocent deaths of some elderly and other sick who most likely would have died of something else instead of the virus anyway; since they would have died anyway, TS does not even need martyrs or human sacrifice to achieve cultural revolution. The Powers of the past must be rolling in their graves admiring the beauty of this exhibition of power for the sake of power.

Of course, the bodies and blood are still there. Just the higher suicide fatalities resulting from the forced isolation will most likely cancel out any lives saved by this pandemic cure. Even before the collapse of the world economy, on average 15,000 5-year-old and younger children died each day from malnutrition, under nutrition, or starvation; no doubt, these deaths will now go up by thousands more daily with global economic collapse. The educational system was barely educating the working classes as it was; now that they have lost a whole semester isolated at home while the upper classes afford on-line education and tutors for their children, I doubt they will ever catch up and will be permanently under-educated. The massive destruction and loss of life caused by the pandemic cures will far exceed the number of lives of the elderly and others it supposedly saved but this destruction and death will be hidden and not in the mass propaganda describing and explaining its history and thus they do not matter.

 
As always in TS, it is tough to make conceptual sense of what is going on because there is so much going on, no one knows what is going on, and no one knows what they are doing. Yet, not only does everyone go about pretending they know and talking about how much they know, but then from their tower of ignorance they pass judgment on the lives of others and decide what others ought to be doing as a matter of ultimate normative value — define the morality and ethics of the state of affairs. Most of the time it does not matter and is just yalking with no value other than perhaps as aesthetics in some form, but when those doing the yalking have the power actually to enforce their value judgments upon others, it does matter and it matters big time. At that big time moment, in just a few weeks, even without any natural catastrophe or war but peacefully through the monopoly on violence that is the rule of law, world culture arbitrarily and randomly changes drastically, substantively, and forever. This is the will to power freedom TS grants its gods.

What about the rest of us? Unless one is suicidal, as Ellul eloquently wrote, acceptance of TS is required because it is “a power against which there is no efficacious defense and before which [we] must suffer defeat”. But, does the acceptance of technical slavery allow for any substantive freedom of choice for the will to power of the technical slave? How does the technical slave continue their will to power struggle and thus continue class struggle so history may continue?

 
In terms of being naturalized to reality, TS on the surface appears to deny the rest of us freedom of choice as we become bound to technical slavery. However, as I have argued elsewhere in more detail (Such as at Existential Meta-Ethics ), the acceptance of material technical slavery in order to be a victor in life through the material prosperity it gives does not necessarily negate substantive freedom of choice for the human mind and the will to power of the individual soul. Technical slavery is not unnatural or an anomaly, it is the natural flow of history. This recent Wuhan Virus events and the associated mass hysteria further elucidate my arguments that nihilism allows for nihilist Acceptance: we can knowingly and intentionally accept our fate in life but without loving it and without making it our life’s meaning in order to give meaning to our life and our lives. This new school freedom of choice is founded upon what was once old school theological agnosia; it is the freedom nihilism grants us even while physically imprisoned and most definitely while technically imprisoned by the will to power given to the Powers of TS by its godless Fates or even by God. This nihilist freedom of Acceptance is a freedom not even granted the Powers. Ultimately they need godly power over us and, if God is in fact the source of all authority, they need the God who grants this will to power so as to give meaning to their lives. We however do not need godly power over them nor any godly power over anyone including over ourselves to give meaning to our lives. Ultimately, the Powers need us but we do not need them. This is their one weakness that must be exploited so as to struggle and to overcome them and ourselves to defeat out technical slavery. This Acceptance gives nihilists the power not only to reject the Powers but also to reject God or to accept God: the ultimate freedom of choice and the ultimate godly power.

 
Pragmatically, we must first see that Acceptance of technical slavery in TS is not something that we should see as a weakness or as an existential bad faith surrender to lack of authenticity or whatever other phrases about which the some hypocritically pontificate to ignore their own status as technical slaves. As a matter of practical reality, in addition to being conceptually necessary, to be a victor in TS for anyone who is not one of its gods regardless if one is a simple proletariat or an intellectual proletariat requires one accept technical slavery. There were never any “good old days” nor any “noble savage” who had a greater freedom than anyone living in TS including any wage slave workers in TS. In the past, workers may have had a different kind of freedom but it was not any better. If one’s hunter-gatherer tribe or ancient classical tribe became too tyrannical, for millennia workers including slaves — if smart and lucky enough — had the freedom to run away one day and to start another tribe in the next valley, hill, or wherever they could survive. This type of freedom however requires the knowledge of how to survive in reality as-it-is and does not allow for the freedom of creating reality as it ought to be. This old school freedom is missing in TS and gone forever. It is a different type of freedom but not any better or worse than we have now consisting of the freedom to decide how reality ought to be — to declare “God is dead” and pretend we mean it.

 
The last century or so of human history despite all its problems has been the most materially prosperous and peaceful time in human history in which while growing from one billion in 1900 to more than six billion population in 2000, workers have for the first time in human history enjoyed freedom from: chattel slavery; world famine; true plagues of truly pandemic proportions such small pox, polio, measles, the Black Death, the Antonine Plague, and many more deaths that lacked any cure or any concept of a cure; unsanitary water; unsanitary living conditions; world pestilence; locusts causing mass suffering; mass sufferings due to the vagaries of weather and nature; and much more. The freedom to change one’s tribe at will simply by physically leaving one’s social constructs allows one to look and admire the heavens from any place on earth but it cannot give one the power to actually discover, explore, and conquer the heavens. TS gives us freedom from material imprisonment so that we are free to confront the reality of imprisonment of the soul and its mind in this meaningless life if we have the courage to do so.

 
This confrontation is a necessary aspect of TS that cannot be eliminated because it flows naturally from the nature of its technique though it can be ignored if one lacks the courage to confront it. One can see this necessary aspect of its nature working in the simplest of techniques in which pragmatics provide a foundation for a will to power leap to creation of morality and ethics. For example, if one pragmatically needs a bridge for the purpose of carrying 5000 tons of vehicles, one does not engineer a bridge capable of carrying 5000 tons of vehicles. I am not sure what the engineering standards are these days, but most likely the technique for the technology of building a 5000-ton load bridge is to engineer at least a 10,000 ton load bridge and mostly likely a 40,000 or more ton load bridge depending on one’s arbitrary and random choice of the morality and ethics of such risk decisions. Likewise, if with certain conjectures or assumptions, medical technicians build a modeling of the Wuhan Virus in which millions of persons die, this leaves open the option for calling it a pandemic and for the Powers of TS to use their power to define morality and ethics so as to force self-imprisonment and social isolation and so forth for all. Why would they do it for this model instead of for the 15,000 five-year-olds actually dying per day model or for any other modeling for problems that have equivalent or worse scenarios? Again, respective to the godly exercise of power as an end in itself, asking for such an explanation is a meaningless question and misses the point of godly power just as it does respectively for the power of God. God is power; the gods of TS are power. The gods of TS just as with God can do whatever they want when they want to do it — power is an end in itself. The fact they can arbitrarily and randomly exercise their power of creating morality and ethics purely as a will to power is a necessary aspect or attribute of their power; by definition, morality and ethics is in their power to define.

 
The spiritual questions of freedom of the soul and mind for meaning in life are the same in TS as they always have been. In fact, TS allows for the existence of the intellectual proletariat and their freedom — which is based not on knowledge but on ignorance and verbiage to hide ignorance — to work on these questions. The intellectual proletariat technical slaves appear to be above slavery because it is their technical task to sit in the stands and criticize the techniques of those slaves struggling in the blood and sand of the arena, but in the end they are just as expendable to TS as those struggling below. These questions of freedom in TS, instead of being expressed by shamans in religious or mystical expressions or even by the Platonic contemplations of philosophers as expressed in the past, are now expressed in popular media and aesthetics by post-modern shamans through aesthetically pleasing phrases that are in denial as to their equally religious, mystical, and Platonic nature: such phrases as authenticity, inauthenticity, angst, bad faith, despair, slave morality, master morality, the self, the other, self-identity, whiteness, blackness, and all the other post-modernist favorites complaining about the weaknesses of the “herd” as they like to call wage slaves among themselves as they look down on us from the stands while pretending to empathize with us. Again, the concepts are different but not any better nor worse. What there is now is the freedom to be purely aesthetic about these concepts and to ignore their pragmatics.

In prior cultures before TS, when exercising the freedom to leave and to create a new culture, one had actually to know how to physically survive; if one did not pragmatically know how to survive in reality, one did not survive reality. This was true as much of the tribal shaman as it was for the tribal hunters and gatherers; even the tribal shaman needed to know how to hunt, farm, gather food, and so forth and needed a record of success or the tribe would find another and the shaman would starve. Such is no longer true. The power of aesthetics in TS allows for survival independently of having any pragmatic knowledge of survival or of reality other than the ability aesthetically to create delusion more real than reality or to create what reality ought to be through fictions and verbiage. It no longer matters if our TS tribal shamans have any record of success or any record other than being able to convince through propaganda that they ought to have a record of success. Even failure can become a successful basis for power in TS if one controls the successful propaganda techniques available in TS.

 
If you look at how most of the proponents of the above aesthetically pleasing terms actually lived their lives instead of how they preach others ought live their lives, the practical reality of their necessary conceptual Acceptance of technical slavery in their own lives so as to have the freedom to complain about it is easily seen. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for the rest of us to accept and to go on to the bigger questions of freedom of the will to power of the individual mind and soul. For example, even for Jacques Ellul, he had his chance explicitly to fight the last explicit imposition of technical slavery upon the world during World War II; he instead spent it making a good living as a potato farmer in Vichy France selling his product into the high demand created by TS and its World War II so he could survive to be critical of TS once liberated. Vichy France provided post-modernist hero Foucault with the formal education and the freedom to engage in his sexual escapades so that after liberation he could go on to complain about the West that liberated him and their supposedly destructive and oppressive power over the individual — though apparently he was not really seeking liberation nor needed liberation and could have continued living the life he wanted just as well under the tyranny of fascism or under the tyranny of communism as long as they left him alone to satisfy his sexual desires including sexual needs involving minors. The greats like Sartre, Beauvoir, and even my working class hero Camus and many more preachers of authenticity spent those World War II years — again, the last great opportunity for explicitly struggling against explicit technical slavery — enjoying the cafes of Paris and Marseilles and the critical adulation of both Vichy and German literary critics. These examples are countless. Intellectual proletarians are technical slaves as much as the rest of us but are simply in denial as to their status. Those who were or are not able to accept their technical slave status usually died fighting it either at the hands of others or by their own hand in physical or spiritual suicide.

 
Camus at least during his war years developed the idea of his book The Plague which is being rediscovered in this recent mass hysteria by the intellectual proletarians of the New York Times, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and some others while completely ignoring — or not realizing — that the plague in The Plague was an allegory for fascism and Stalinist communism. They have also ignored the relevance to the recent mass hysteria of such books as Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World. Most definitely, they have not rediscovered Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom (“‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”).

 
It is the success of TS in creating freedom from material imprisonment that is its most powerful technique for creating spiritual and mental imprisonment through technical slavery for those who either lack the courage to face this new school type of imprisonment or who enjoy their technical slavery as acceptable mental and spiritual meaning in life. One of the reasons the recent Wuhan Virus has resulted in mass hysteria is because a large proportion of the world population especially in the West has gone their whole life without ever experiencing death or unbearable physical or even deep tragic emotional pain or emotional isolation from society and most definitely without experiencing actual plague, pestilence, famine, war, or anything approaching catastrophic social collapse. This is good; as I have said before, given a choice between my child growing up in a world of violence in which by necessity only the strong and the fittest survive accustomed to the traumatic misery of life or of their growing up in a peaceful world in which all survive and the strongest must by choice work at being fit and strong to the traumatic misery of life, I will always prefer the latter peaceful option. In the latter, the pragmatic reality is that the weak as well as the strong will survive thus perhaps weakening the chances of survival for all and the chances of our exploring, discovering, and conquering the universe; but, since one never knows whether you or your children will be among the weak or the strong, if possible, my love for myself and for them would prefer the latter option. T.S. makes the latter option more practically possible, acceptable, and workable than in any prior time in history.

 
So, given that acceptance of technical slavery is necessary to be a victor in TS and thus in life, it is not something of which workers should be ashamed or be ridiculed as bad faith lack of authenticity or whatever ridicule elitists have of those who are not their gods. The important question is what freedom of choice does nihilist Acceptance of this new school slavery give to those who have the courage to confront the mental and spiritual aspects of this technical slavery? The answer is that there is a will to power freedom of mind and soul possible for the technical slave. It is founded on a new school nihilist version of the old school concept once know as theological agnosia from the philosophy of Pseudo-Dionysius or Dionysius the Areopagite: “unknowing” or agnosia is not ignorance or absence of knowledge as ordinarily understood but rather the knowledge that no language can express that which is beyond and above language.  TS will always have gods who know what ought to have ultimate value and how others ought to live their lives. For the rest of us, the power of our will to power is to live without knowing either. The gods of TS will always convert their knowledge of good and evil into morality and ethics with its final attribute of violence. For the rest of us, the power of our will to power is to live without this knowledge and without this attribute.

Water As A Person, Huh?

I recently inadvertently came across an article in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law arguing for treatment of water as a person under the law in order to give it many if not all of the protections granted persons under the law. I skimmed it and had a good laugh but it then occurred to me how this article is a good exemplification or microcosm of the nature of modern language and of various topics in the philosophy of language such as the absence of any “meaning” for words other than their use and usefulness in any given context.

 
For the moment, water most definitely does not fall into any meaning of “person” except in an aesthetic sense created by poets or rhetoric. However, the same could have been said at one time for entities, concepts, attributes, or things such as corporations, unincorporated companies and associations, trusts, municipalities, states, and even the European Union which is now considered a “person” under much of European law. Hell, even rivers are recognized as persons in some African national legal systems and in tribal legal systems in other countries — even New Zealand does it for one of their rivers in respect of Maori tribal law worshiping a specific river as an ancestor. So, why not add water to the list of human and non-human entities recognized as persons by the law? Why stop at water? Why not treat fire, mountains, the sky, or anything else needing legal protection as a person? The Maori culture historically also worships ritual warfare, slavery, cannibalism, sexual abuse of women, killing of female children, and revenge killings, why does not New Zealand recognize any of these as persons needing respect under the law? Obviously, the cultural process by which words change meaning is convoluted yet it is amazing and impressive how smoothly and quickly such changes can occur when those in power want to change the meaning of words — even when the changes encompass or assume radical changes both in the background and in the foundation metaphysics and physics of reality. An obvious example of such radical changes in both metaphysics and physical conceptualizations of reality is the recent popular and very powerful adoption of radical changes in both metaphysical and physical meanings of the words “gender” and “sex” over a period of only the last few years. Despite this convoluted process, there can be described two universal aspects to this process of meaning change brought out by this simple example of water beginning its path to becoming a person: 1) it results from an teleological act of a will to power not from logical reasoning nor is it derived from sense experience; 2) the resulting change in meaning though it relies upon physical and metaphysical assumptions does not embody either physical or metaphysical foreknowledge — that is regardless of how ethically and thus aesthetically pleasing the change in meaning may be, the change in meaning will not necessarily change reality to meet the teleological motivations for the change so as to be pragmatically or even naturally true.

 
Reasoning does not care what specific premises, axioms, or whatever assumptions are used to begin one’s reasoning. Reasoning is at best a process or methodology for preserving truth however one defines truth not for gaining knowledge of truth. If one starts with true premises, axioms, or assumption, sound reasoning will preserve that truth and valid reasoning will assure it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. However, reasoning cannot guarantee one is starting the reasoning process with truth.

 
Nothing in reality or sense experience requires an axiom, premise, or assumption treating water as a person. If one believes water needs to be treated as a person, for whatever reasons one believes this, this set or context of beliefs gives one the teleological or normative goal of having the use and usefulness of the word “water” be the same as the use or usefulness of the word “person” within that context or set of beliefs. The ultimate goal is to give water the same power as a person in our reasoning. If this act of will has the power of violence upon others, especially a monopoly on violence such as the law, this act of will can be compelled upon others to force them to have the same belief in water as a person in order to achieve the teleological or normative goals for the change in meaning. For example, the argument for treating water as a person usually begins with the premises that water is necessary for all persons to live and to enjoy life and that the abundance and purity of water is being threatened by technological pollution of water thus threatening human life. These premises can be derived directly from sense experience. There are then an uncountable number of conceptual options for dealing with these empirical problems. One option is the teleological or normative goal of treating water as a person legally, ethically, or even pragmatically. This is a creative option that is both aesthetically and normative pleasing but is not derived from sense experience but derived existentially and conceptually in the same holistic way we derive “I am therefore I think” and “I think therefore I want more than just thinking” as I have contemplated in other essays. Acceptance of this creative option creates the law and ethics and even the facts to justify itself and not the other way around: the conclusion and supporting facts are created by the act of will wanting water to be a person in the same way any act of will is created. It is not the case that facts lead to the teleological normative goal but the facts are created to justify that goal. An explanation of the creation of this act of will is not something of which we can speak within any language wordgame other than that of intention and will because this existential act of will precedes language as I have contemplated in other essays

 

Even the simple act of will of raising my left arm at this precise moment cannot be explained empirically or conceptually in any way but as an act of will or intentional act. Science can talk all it wants about neurons in the brain being activated that then activate electrical and chemical signals in nerves that extend into my arm but none of these explanations describe why or how “I” activated the neurons to begin this process of raising my left arm nor the nature of this “I” that started this process of raising my hand.

 
Once our act of will successfully leads to a change in meaning, the change will not necessarily change reality so as to achieve the teleological or normative goal for making the change — though it might. Reality is still what it is and we cannot lose sight of this fact. Conceptually, at present “person” has more power than “water”. By making water a person, though this raises the power of water to equality with a person in our conceptualization of reality, because all power is relative this equality means reducing the power of person to the same as that of water in our conceptualization of reality. What effect this will to power for water at the expense of person will have on the pragmatics of our conceptualization of reality is an unknown. Just as when the Supremes in their wisdom made corporations “persons” for many constitutional purposes, this change in meaning strengthened the power of corporations but weakened that of persons in the sense that persons were no longer more powerful than corporations. Perhaps the best example of such distinction is abortion. Making a “fetus” mean the same as “choice” is a result of the teleological normative goal of giving a pregnant woman the power of life or death over a certain form of life. The reality of that form of life and its death have not changed by this change in meaning and the final effect of such a change in meaning upon a society that allows and enforces it by violence is unknown. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel said about evolutionary explanations for morality:

Even if we took the most optimistic view possible, and assumed that in general men’s consciences have been approximately molded by evolutionary forces, the best we could hope for is that they should lay down principles which have been useful. Unlike the God it has replaced, natural selection cannot be supposed to possess or to embody foreknowledge.

If the human race perishes in a nuclear war, it may well be (although there will be no one alive to say it) that scientific beliefs did not, in a sufficiently long time scale, promote “survival”. Yet that will not have been because the scientific theories were not rationally acceptable, but because our use of them was irrational. In fact, if rationality were measured by survival-value, then the proto-beliefs of the cockroach, who has been around for tens of millions of years longer than we, would have a far higher claim to rationality than the sum total of human knowledge.

 

We can see these two aspects present and being ignored in the recent and ongoing arguments for the meaning of “sex” and “gender”. Empirically, the word gender was taken from linguistics and incorporated into problems dealing with differences among the male and female sexes by psychiatrists dealing with individuals who were hermaphrodites, androgynous, or had other unusual sexual characteristics such as bodies that appear female but have XY chromosomes. As with all words, even the word “sex” commonly used to mean a distinct biological male/female distinction has some vagueness and ambiguity as is true of all words because language is a social construct whose meaning is dependent on the context of its use and usefulness. Empirically and scientifically, defining sex involves many factors of physical attributes, chemicals in the body, and even conceptual genetic combinations that are not as clear and distinct as is commonly assumed. We could have more than two biological sexes: 1) male; 2) female; 3) hermaphrodites; 4) intersex (androgynous); 5) gonadal dysgenesis (women with xy chromosomes); 6) infertile persons; and probably some more if we really wanted them.

 
No one wanted more than two and there was no reason to do so until the 1970’s when feminists picked up on this sex/gender distinction to try to break the association of what they considered to be socially constructed male behaviourial characteristics with the male sex and of what they considered to be socially constructed female behaviourial characteristics with the female sex. As with the water/person meaning change, this feminist theory had a teleological normative goal of empowering the female sex by eliminating what they considered to be an unequal power balance in favor of the male sex so as to supposedly equalize power between the sexes. Regardless of whether one disputes the soundness or validity of their arguments, in the last few years these arguments and their teleological normative goals have been accepted by the law, academia, and ethics along with the assumed metaphysics and physics that justifies the change in meaning of gender for now but eventually also for sex. As I wrote in my previous essay Not Utopian But Heavenly, the ultimate goal of this assumed dogmatic metaphysics and physics appears to be not a utopia but a heaven on earth socially constructed consisting of angelic humans equal sexually because there will be no sex. Thanks to this teleological process taking over the monopoly on violence called the law, such a genderless and sexless society in which everyone is their own gender creating their own sex seems to be our future for the foreseeable future absence some catastrophe or revolution.

 
What effect will these changes in meaning for sex and gender have upon reality? Despite everyone involved pretending to know, just as no one knows what the result of making water a person will be, no one really knows what the result will be of  changing the meanings of sex and gender will be. Despite our inability unambiguously to define “sex” empirically as is true for all definitions because all words are vague social constructs, in all known sense experience there are two and only two sexes for purposes of reproduction which is a fairly important aspect of reality. These two — male and female sexes — are necessary for persons to reproduce and thus for societies to continue living. Heaven may be sexless but heaven does not need physically to reproduce. Even for test tube babies we need a male and a female contribution to the tube. Of course, life was not always divided into male and female. For hundreds of millions of years and perhaps billions of years, life consisting of single cell and even multiple cell individual lives reproduced and prospered without two sexes or any sex, there was only individuals. This seems to be the future desired by those who presently control our social will to power to change meaning in the wordgame language of sex and gender: a world of individuals defining their own sex and gender. The Powers have the will to power to achieve this just as they soon will be doing with the wordgame language of water and person, but will this change in language succeed in changing reality? If reality does not go along with our language telling it what to do, what then? Maybe the proto-beliefs of the cockroach will give them the last laugh on all of us.

Charity Not Love

The word love is everywhere these days. From the actual and seriously taken presidential campaign of Marianne Williamson to all popular secular and religious philosophies. (Personally, I loved Williamson’s campaign — for great comic relief if for nothing else. She seem to be the only real person in the whole bunch.) Love is seen as the answer to all problems involving human relations in almost any form. So, why is not “love” listed in any of the classical virtues going back to Plato’s Republic nor in the list of Western theological virtues? These two sets of virtues total seven and consist of prudence, justice, temperance, courage (or fortitude), faith, hope, and charity. It is with good reason love is excluded and I am getting tried of hearing about love as if it is a cure-all. When everyone seems to agree on a concept, one should immediately be suspicious of it as either a delusion or a con.

 
As I contemplated in my essay asking Why Does God Hate the Poor: Can God Love? Part III , love is a self-centered act and one side of a two sided coin in which hate is the other side. One cannot know love if one does not know hate and the reverse. Love is the relationship we have to that which gives meaning to our life; hate is the relationship we have to that which denies meaning to our life. Love is the answer? To what? What is the question? So, love of money, power, sex, rape, child molestation, your tribe, or the almost uncountable number of acts most people would call evil and which the evil love are answers to evil? If you love your neighbor must you not hate if not the evil person who hurts them but the evil acts that hurt them? Must you not hate evil acts? According to those who preach love is the answer, you must hate and punish racism, sexism, fascism, and much more in order to be a truly loving person. Love is not the answer but only an answer to certain specific problems. Even assuming it is somehow possible to love your enemies, loving their evil acts only helps your enemies do evil to you and to others and to spread their evil acts — however you define evil. By definition, to love truly, you must hate the evil acts of those you love to help them see the Good.

 
As is often true, the Ancients and the Medieval Scholastics were wiser than much of modern philosophy in their contemplations and so they intelligently left “love” out of their list of virtues to instead include Charity. Charity is considered a theological virtue because supposedly it cannot occur naturally, it is a gift from God in which a person sees God and other persons not as a means to an end — such as achieving meaning in one’s life — but simply as an end-in-itself. It is not a two-sided coin as is love and hate. Its absence is not uncharity or the state of being uncharitable but is simply its negation or absence — just as nothingness does not replace being as an state of existence but is simply nothing regardless of what Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, or their worshipers otherwise preach in their aesthetics.

 
Is Charity a meaningful concept existentially or in any pragmatic form or is it itself simply aesthetics? Is it used and useful only in the same way as the words “Pegasus”, “the Self”, “the Other”, or any of the other uncountable amount of words available for preachers of certain ethics and moralities to use to promote their self-centered images of how the world ought to be? Does it have pragmatic value for nihilism? Maybe. At a minimum, it gives us a word to use and is useful for pointing out the absurdity and the shallowness of the omnipresence of “love” in present society as another false god. Nihilists can do better than love.

Abraham And Isaac

The Old Testament Abraham and Isaac story is a favorite among both Judeo and Christian believers accepting it as a story describing and venerating the virtue of Faith as a theological virtue with a capital “F”. It is a simple but an effective authoritative story: God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac in worship to God; Abraham takes Isaac to a sacrificial altar ready for the killing; but, just as the fatal blow is about to be struck, a messenger from God stops Abraham saying “now I know you fear God”; in his son’s place, Abraham sacrifices a ram instead of Isaac — lucky ram. Abraham and his children go on to be the founding family of the Jewish religion and nation directly and eventually Christianity indirectly. Even the Christian existentialist Kierkegaard considered Abraham a “Knight of Faith”. It is a very aesthetically pleasing story but morality has the moral backwards. Blindly following authority, especially the authority of a god or even the voice of God that by definition can kill you if you disobey is not Faith but rational self-interest. The true test of Faith and even of faith in the integrity of a godless authority is the ability and option to reject its commands and yet trust that in the end the authority will still be fair and mercifully good.

 
I do not want to deconstruct the story of Abraham and Isaac. As sophisticated as deconstruction sounds, the result is always predictable: deconstructive interpretation is used to argue all authority uses storytelling to justify and demand blind allegiance to those who control the story telling warranting social justice struggle to overcome this authority with the new authority and the new storytelling called ethics of those doing the deconstruction — however this new storytelling is somehow exempt from this same critique. No, rather the nihilist option is to take the story at face value as the words of this story would be used and are useful in present culture — or really in any post-Enlightenment culture: a dude hears the voice of God telling him to kill his son and does it. Or, almost does it but is stopped by the voice of an angel. Would anyone see this dude as a Knight of Faith venerating God? Doubt it. Regardless of whether or not the dude actually heard these voices, except among religious fanatics, we would see him as a murderer or attempted murderer warranting either criminal punishment or civil commitment to a psychiatric institution. Gradually, our enlightened society has created a more benevolent version of God who does not need sacrificial rams to stroke Their ego — or at least no more than One. So, why is the Abraham/Isaac story still a significant storytelling tradition in present culture?

It is so not only for Christian existentialist writers such as Kierkegaard but even for the post-modern atheist likes of a Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas who wrote considerable contemplations on its meaning — though as usual, I cannot make any sense of what they wrote but also as usual it always ends up with the usual pontificating on the need to see the Self in the Other and a conclusion requiring ethics to overcome ontology; that is, they repeat the simple poetic aesthetics of the Beatitudes in multiple pages of convoluted verbiage apparently advocating having Christian virtues without the Christ all of which avoid at all cost mentioning the Beatitudes. Of course, Kierkegaard was not a connoisseur of clarity either. Both Derrida and Levinas and the like ignore the fact that the ontology of ethics is simply the morality of the powerful which they must ignore in order to achieve the desired poetic aesthetics — something which Kierkegaard at least has the consistency not to do. In their storytelling, Abraham is replaced by the Self, Issac by the Other, and God becomes the Good as they define it in any particular situation. In short they love the grossly out-of-date story of Abraham and Isaac because Abraham does what is expected of him by authority: say yes to its demands. Regardless of how much verbiage they write to hide it, unlike Kierkegaard who honestly admitted his goal, ultimately their goal is to preach and achieve the same blind allegiance to their voices as Abraham gave to his voices.

 
Let us take the story of Abraham and Isaac at face value as a nihilist would and not as it can be deconstructed and not through some hero/knight or other leadership or ethical worshiping story because as nihilists we need no leaders nor do we need ethics. From the perspective of nihilism as a morality, what does this story mean in the present and in any foreseeable future for post-modern humanity? Nihilism as a morality opposes and struggles against any delusions of meaning for life. It means that if you hear God demanding you kill your son or daughter or even a fricken ram purely as a sign of faith in God as life’s meaning, tell God to go screw Themselves. Do not do it. Do not try to rationalize doing it or not doing it. Rationality can provide a reason to do anything or not do anything depending on whether you want to do it or not do it and on whether you are looking hard enough for a rationalization. Except for gods, everyone really wants God to exist. If you hear the voice of God, you really want it to be the voice of God. If the voice of God tells you to kill your child, you will want to kill your child and rationally the thing to do is to kill your child. After all, it is the voice of God! It would be irrational perhaps insane to rebel against the voice of an infinite omnipotent Power. So, you must be irrational and say no. By obeying God’s command you would be justifying this arbitrary and random demand as a Leap to Faith (as Kierkegaard argued) and give it meaning. Life has no meaning. Nothing you do will change that. As Dostoevsky asked, does the salvation of millions give meaning to the suffering of an innocent child? No. Say no to a voice that wants to create such meaning: this no is the Leap to Faith of a true nihilist and their God.

Faith as a virtue with a capital “F” for a nihilist is based not on the ethics of authority nor on any ethics but on Acceptance of authority as it is: an arbitrary and random power with no meaning other than power as an end-in-itself. As a nihilist, you have a moral obligation to oppose any delusion of meaning in life because such opposition is what gives your life the only meaning it has and thus morally you must oppose the voice of authority even if it is authority with a capital “A”.

 
Is it imaginable for God arbitrarily and randomly to ask a believer to kill their own child for no reason other than a show of power? Sure, why not? God is God, can do whatever He, She, It wants to do — if you do not kill the child, God might do it on Their own. Whatever. There are infinite possibilities as to what may be in the mind of God or of the gods and Fates. However, is it also imaginable for you to say “no”? Sure, it is. A Leap to Faith is to say no, not yes. Killing for a reason is not Faith, it is reason. Not killing for a reason is also not Faith, it is reason. There is virtue in being reasonable and there is virtue in being faithful to an authority we believe has pragmatically sound intentions or good intentions, however this is not Faith. If there is a God, Their intentions are Their existential acts. With God, logic by necessity goes from the universal to the existential without being an Existential Fallacy. Virtue based beliefs of good intentions by God ignore the reality that God’s intentions are by necessity also acts; such beliefs are a denial of the nature of God not a Leap to Faith in the nature of God. If there is a God, there will be knowledge and acceptance of your nature as you are and were destined to be and not judgment of your life based on how the likes of Kierkegaard, Derrida, Levinas, or anyone else say you ought to be. You must give God the same respect as you expect from God — thus, just as you expect God to say “no” to any arbitrary and random demands for the death of an innocent, you must expect of yourself to say “no” to the death of an innocent when arbitrarily and randomly demanded by God. What happens next, is a matter of Faith.

 
How does this story apply to the faith demanded by the earthly gods of authority — varying from the power of law to the power of ethics superseding ontology as demanded by Derrida, Levinas, and the Other worshipers of Rule Following either liberal or conservative, Marxist or libertarian, and so forth? It does not. The Abraham/Isaac story deals with theological Faith in God not with faith toward earthly gods regardless of how much contemplation is wasted on pretending it has something to do with either ontology or ethics. F–k them. Faith in an earthly god is purely a small “f” and pragmatic. If these gods demand you kill your child thus by definition making this killing ethical and you believe there is good reason warranting such killing, do it as your moral choice and suffer the consequences; if not, do not do it as your moral choice and suffer the consequences. There is no moral obligation to comply with the authority of ethics or with any authority. Acceptance of authority with a small “a” is a matter of pragmatics. Obviously, if the authority has the power to imprison or kill you unless you comply with their authority, the moral balance is in their favor; but this does not mean you have to like it and give such balance moral acceptance — wait for the opportunity to struggle and defeat their authority. If you have the moral power to say “no” to any ethics or morality and by doing so create your own morality — what happens next is in the hands of the Fates and is a matter of Faith.

Not Utopian But Heavenly

For when they rise from the dead, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. … He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
— Mark 12:25, 27

One of the funnier aspects — or sad depending on your perspective — of the secular religions now running Western Civilization is their assumption — or hijacking depending on your perspective — of Christian dogma upon which to build the foundation for their social engineering. All presently popular Western social justice theory is Christianity without the Christ and usually without even the God aspect; one’s conclusions as to whether conceptually or pragmatically this makes sense is the perspective from which you would find this fact either funny, sad, assumption, or hijacking. One problem however is indisputable, it allows for the criticism that all present popular Western social justice theory is “utopian”, meaning it aims to achieve an idealistic, cosmically just perfect state that is really unattainable. This criticism is not entirely accurate, however, more importantly, it is not fair to Thomas Moore and his book Utopia. Neither Thomas Moore nor Utopia were idealistic moralists living in an academic or other ivory tower of power. Moore lived in a very practical world in which he was eventually martyred for his beliefs when he opposed Henry VIII’s creation of his own secular religion in opposition to Moore’s beloved Catholic Church. Utopia was actually a satirical but pragmatic critique of many Romantic notions of the 15th and 16th Century seeking to create societies we would now call utopian in which Moore proposed practical alternatives. For example, Utopia still had slavery but it was limited to criminals who had committed serious crimes who would forfeit the right to freedom protected by society. A better description of modern social justice theory would be “heavenly”; not only does it depend on Christian dogma for its foundation, it seeks to create a heaven on earth. A good example of this heavenly conceptualization at work is the present omnipresent disputes regarding “gender”.

 
The present argument for allowing all individuals to define their own gender is premised on “gender” being a social construct. Unfortunately, as much as opponents try to argue against this premise, the reality of language is that it is a social construct; what the disputes leave out however is the fact that all language and all words are social constructs. The meaning of all words is their use and usefulness. Saying gender is a social construct is in itself and should be seen as a fairly worthless statement; one can say the same thing for almost every word or sentence including numbers and mathematics. “2+2=4″ may be a social construct; this does not change the fact that if you are going to decide one day to mean “3″ by your first use of any “2″ in a sentence and thus make sense of “2+2=5″, you should probably check with others and get their approval before doing so or you will have a hard time surviving in even the most primitive of society.

 
Though it follows from modern philosophy of language that “gender” is a social construct, no one making the currently popular argument that gender is a social construct relies or, I doubt, has even read any philosophy of language to make this argument. Philosophy of language is very dense and difficult to read for the simple reason it is using language to contemplate language. What has actually happened is that feminists, secular humanists, and many others whose normative goal is elimination of what they see as a male dominated society have jumped on the concept of “social construct” as a means to that end: if we eliminate male and female and make all individuals equal genders there will be no supposed domination of the female gender by the male gender thus giving all individuals the freedom to be all they can be — except for the freedom of choosing a society with just two genders male and female which will be denied as a given. As always, the purveyors of an ethics and morality want to create a world in their image and use the necessary attribute of violence in all ethics and morality to achieve that creation. The end justifies the reasoning and not the other way around.

 
Conceptually, one must admit, it makes sense. Given the foreseeable power of Technological Society, if the creators of this image can harness that power, they might be able to get away with it: test tube babies, hormone drug therapies, surgery, psychiatric drugs, educational propaganda techniques, and so forth. A world of androgynous individuals living without any battles between the sexes and perhaps even without sex and thus without all of the trouble and misery such activity has caused past societies may be our future of peace? What would such a society look like?

 
Well, we actually have an image of what it would look like: heaven. Though angels — and even demons — can take either masculine or feminine form while doing whatever it is they are doing on earth, in the Christian biblical concept of angels (ignoring the Book of Mormon), they are sexless and genderless. If it is good enough for heaven, why not for this earth? A society made up of genderless happy angels not engaging in competitive battles between the sexes working for the common good in which each gives to society going to their ability and gets according to their need, sounds good in words. We should check the reality of heaven to see how it works out though.

 
According to biblical scholars and theologians, though genderless, heaven is not classless. It turns out the angels are divided into three spheres: the First Sphere made up of the famous and well-known Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; the Second Sphere made up of Dominions, Virtues, and Powers; and the Third Sphere containing the famous Archangels and just regular Angels. What do all these angels do? Worship God’s Will of course as God deems necessary with each having responsibility for various aspects of Creation; the higher the responsibility, the higher the Sphere. The job of the highest class of angels, the Seraphim, until ordered to do some task directly by God, is to circle God’s Throne continuously shouting: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!” — Isaiah 6:1-7. (Sounds kinda like a CEO surrounded by an ass-kissing board of directors.) As I have always argued, there is no such thing as a classless society. Unfortunately, there is not much one can do to rebel against classes created by God — though I hear some angels gave it a shot anyway; good for them.

 
So, in addition to foundational dogma, the goals of post-modern social justice theory has assumed — or hijacked depending on your perspective — the Christian concept of heaven. Utopia was still on this earth though its ideas not of it in the classical Christian sense. Any verbiage that seeks a heaven on earth is not on this earth nor of it. We should respect the martyr Moore and stop using “utopian” to describe something that is really not satirical nor pragmatical but normative with a goal of creating a heaven on earth — something Moore wrote against in Utopia.

 
The goals of modern popular social justice theory especially in its post-modern form which lacks the sense of humor required for satire are not utopian but heavenly; they seek to make us all angels doing … ah … what? It cannot be to worship God’s Will, that is a big heresy in the dogma of this secular heaven. So, what is it? Is it perhaps to worship the wills of the gods of this secular heaven? As Orwell calls them, the will of the High of his 1984? I will leave the reader to contemplate this question with the guidance of Orwell.

The “Other”

The “problem of the mind” is a major divide between analytic and continental philosophy. Right off, as an example of the divide, I have committed an insult to post-modern social justice theory based on continental philosophy by referring to this contemplation as a “problem”.  It is not a problem for them, supposedly, instead it is a mystery to be enjoyed — or else be punished for not enjoying it.

For analytic philosophy, the mind is something one rationally and even logically contemplates. “I think, therefore I am” allows me to conclude I absolutely in all possible worlds in which I think, I also am. In such analysis, my mind or “I” or my subjective me Subject, whatever words one wants to use to give this concept meaning, is a rational conclusion to be rationally contemplated. It deductively follows the same is true of other minds; there are others out there who I experience as acting, talking, and behaving as I do so it is rational to conclude they and others have a mind also — the Other. From these basics, the nature of this concept mind for analytic philosophy generates libraries of analytical verbiage of the mind as a subject and object of reasoning, logic, and epistemology speaking of that for which they should be silent.

For continental philosophy, first perhaps with Kant but most definitely by Hegel, the mind is an a priori category; “I am, therefore I think”. For continental phislosophy including existentialism, I must exist and be conscious of my existence as a prerequisite for thought and not the other way around. It is my self-consciousness as a Subject that makes me an Object of my contemplation. It is my self-consciousness that makes me contemplate whether there are others — the Other — out there who are conscious of me in the same way I am or differently. This generates the question of whether these Other are self-conscious? Am I the Object of their Subject? So on and so forth into the convoluted aesthetics of phenomenological verbiage distinguishing between the “Self” and the “Other” of which I am already confused. In the hands of a Husserl, Sartre, Derrida, and many more speaking of that for which they should be silent, the potential of such verbiage reaches aesthetic perfection.

 
There should be no objection to the basic concept of the Other. All reasoning and logic begin with the recursive base case of “I am therefore I think” and then the recursive step “I want more than just thinking”. Analytic philosophy starts with the wrong base and misunderstands the significance of this a priori knowledge even to the point of denying it is a priori. However, continental philosophy is just as bad by getting the recursive step wrong and by misunderstanding the rational implications of these premises to the point of denying the very will to power of which they constantly pontificate. Both use the Other — just as they use the Self — as words with benign, neutral, or similar harmless meanings for their aesthetic use. For all academic philosophies including for ethics and morality, these are lifeless concepts not reflections of our Heart of Darkness.

 
The Self does not exist in a timeless, spaceless, or any type of vacuum awaiting the power of aesthetics to give it life. I exist in a meaningless universe trying to kill me — be it by disease, catastrophe, hunger, thirst, cold, heat, age, or whatever. If I want to exist and to continue existing, I must be ready to fight to exist and to kill or be killed when the situation warrants such acts. I must be ready to fight and to kill anything trying to kill me, including killing the Other, unless I am willing to die myself. Most of my life, I am willing to live and let live assuming I am lucky enough to live in a world prosperous and materially successful enough to allow for such an attitude. However, if luck runs out, the Self’s Heart of Darkness will destroy the Other or they will destroy me — I have no way of knowing which.

 
The Other is also not timeless, spaceless, or simply aesthetic verbiage allowing me to pretend I care and love others as I do myself. The Other if they want to exist and to continue existing must also be willing to fight and to kill or be killed when the situation warrants such acts. The Other must be ready to fight and to kill anything trying to kill the Other, including my Self, unless the Other is willing to die themselves. Most of the Other — not all but most — may be willing to live and let live assuming they are lucky enough to live in a world prosperous and materially successful enough to allow for such an attitude. However, if luck runs out, the Other’s Heart of Darkness will destroy me or it will destroy the Other — the Other also has no way of knowing which it will be.

 
We all share this Heart of Darkness known only by struggle not by reasoning, logic, or aesthetics. We can ignore it. Many do ignore it and live long and happy lives ignoring it. Some of the Other acknowledge it and use it as a means to assure their existence by using it as justification for their ethics and morality achieving or trying to achieve a monopoly on violence to protect their Self’s Heart of Darkness from the Darkness of the Other Heart — perfect exemplification of the truth of this Heart of Darkness. The true existential struggle is to acknowledge it and to live with it honestly as a nihilist demanding no ethics or morality nor their necessary need for a monopoly on violence but at best with only a leap to faith to the will to power of nihilism denying all ethics and morality.

The Fading Out of Objective Truth / Part IV

The major problem of our time is the decay of the belief in personal immortality, and it cannot be dealt with while the average human being is either drudging like an ox or shivering in fear of the secret police. How right the working classes are in their “materialism”!
— George Orwell, “Looking Back on the Spanish War”, p. 164 of Facing Unpleasant Facts, a collection of Orwell’s essays compiled by George Packer. Mariner Books: N.Y., N.Y. (2008).

The theme of all my writings is that nihilism is not a problem. Maybe it was in other times but no longer, it is now the only sound solution to the individual struggle for meaningful spiritual survival in Technological Society that is itself at least for the foreseeable future the only sound solution to the absurdity of the human struggle against the universe to survive. Humanity survived the Stone Age that lasted millions of years, the Bronze Age that lasted thousands of years, and the Iron Age that lasted hundreds of years to reach our present Technological Society. Through lack of historical perspective, we describe our present as various Ages measured in hundreds of years at best and often just in decades such as the Industrial Age and the Age of Science — the first lasted approximately a couple of hundred years and the latter can be probably measured in decades. Our present Age is the Language Age and it will go back to the pattern of lasting millennia. Language and its control is the ultimate material for making power for all Powers in all forms of life in Technological Society.

 

In the West, the Age of Language has given us material power allowing the average person no longer physically to “drudge like an ox” nor shiver “in fear of the secret police”. Thanks to the power of the language of science and now of technology, the average person in the West is free from material drudgery in the sense of living a life of physical travail but the spiritual drudgery of seeking meaning in life has gotten worse. Further, there is no need for secret police to limit thought and freedom of thought any longer, the nature of language and the masters of the use and usefulness of language through the power of technology create normative rules that limit them opening, clearly, and as a natural acceptable attribute of Technological Society — physical threats and fear control the speaking of individual words but technology allows the Powers to control the words of individual thought directly. All my writings advocate a return to old school existentialism concerned with the survival of the individual soul in such an Age and Society. I am not concerned with promoting new school existentialism and its social engineering of the individual soul to create and maintain a world, gods, and a God in their image. I argue nihilism as the only sound morality that allows the individual soul to survive as more than a solipsist without being negated as nothing more than a social construct.

 
Indirectly, the individual nihilist who has made a leap to morality must accept and deal with materialism in their life. As bad as spiritual drudgery is, it is much worse if you are at the same time drudging like an ox uncertain of your next meal, of having a home, or of physical survival beyond the moment unless you are fully aware of what you are missing. Admittedly, many times, physical drudgery is a successful means of avoiding spiritual drudgery. When working like an ox, just as with an actual ox, one’s meaning in life is physical survival so there is no opportunity to engage in spiritual drudgery. As a human ox, one could find peace by an instinctive faith in a god but it may be only the nearest available social construct god and not God freely derived from one’s individual existential choice. I have no problem with someone who has known wealth or at least material prosperity to then reject materialism and its present successful economic subsidiaries consisting of capitalism and technology to take a vow of poverty or to see asceticism as meaning in life. I do have a problem with social justice theorists varying from Catholic priests to Earth worshipers lecturing to the poor and the working class that they most abandon their materialist consumerism to find peace in life by living as ascetics in harmony with the universe. The poor and much of the working class may find peace in life in such a way but it will be in the same way prisoners find peace in life through poverty: simply because they have no other choice. F–k the universe; it will eventually kill me but that does not require that I have to like it and accept its indifference to my existence. Nihilism is about the individual knowing reality as it is, not as it ought to be, and doing something with this knowledge. A nihilist who based on life experience rejects wealth, economic materialism, consumerism, or even the hedonism of Brave New World and then preaches rejection of them to workers who have not experienced them is a secular religious fanatic not a nihilist.

 

For nihilism, the truth and morality of the struggle with physical drudgery is pragmatic: if it works to physically make my life healthier, wealthier, and free of physically working like an ox, then it is true including morally true. If an individual who accepts such pragmatic moral truth wants to use that truth existentially to reject it, fine, but this does not negate the pragmatic nature of truth.

 
It is struggle with spiritual drudgery in the Age of Language that is the most difficult challenge for nihilism. All others who conceptually struggle with this spiritual drudgery — varying from agnostics onto true believers of both secular and theist religions and onto the most mathematical and rationalist scientists — knowingly agree only on their joint opposition to nihilism with all considering it a problem and an evil to be opposed and beaten. They are also all knowingly or unknowingly in denial as to the consequences of their opposition to nihilism:

Love of truth is one of the strongest motives for replacing what really happens by a streamlined account, or, to express it in a less polite matter, love of truth is one of the strongest motives for lying to oneself and to others. Besides, the quantum theory seems to show, in the precise manner so much beloved by the admirers of science, that reality is either one, which means there are no observers and no things observed, or it is many, in which case what is found does not exist in itself but depends on the approach chosen.
— Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method. Verso: N.Y., N.Y. (4th New Edition, 2010) p. 259.

Because language is a social construct, the existential individual described in language ultimately becomes either a social construct with no individuality in reality outside of language or a solipsist whose individuality is the only reality in language — both of which are nonsense but either work to allow Technological Society to survive and continue: the individual becomes either a worker bee lost in the many or a solitary lonely individual outcaste from the many, either way they are no threat to the Powers. This is true regardless of whether it is the aesthetic and instrumentalist language of science or the aesthetic and normative language of new school existentialism and its post-modern social justice social engineering. Only nihilism avoids both of these two resulting attributes of any language by accepting reality as it is: other than pragmatic truth, the only truth is the knowledge that there is no truth. The individual nihilist knows the universe as it is in the same way science knows reality by accepting not truth but falsification.

 
Once the individual is free of physical drudgery, it is nihilism that creates freedom from spiritual drudgery in the Age of Language. What will the individual do with the freedom provided by nihilism? For some who do not make the leap to morality, it may be a will to death instead of a will to life; for some it will be a will to power to become one of the Powers or a god using the aesthetics of scientific or mathematical language to bind even God; for others who make a leap to morality, it will be finding the companionship and love of other souls; for others it will be the hate of other souls; for some it will be one of the three absurd heros described by Camus: an actor who lives in the delusion of the moment, a conqueror who lives in history not outside of it, a Don Juan who achieves eternity through the timelessness of living in the moment; for some it will be a pragmatic acceptance of life as a wage slave as a means for happiness in this life with hope for a next; for others it will be a will to power as a Knight of Faith among the Powers; the options are uncountable.

 
What will be true of all these nihilist leaps to morality is that the Powers will not be able to count on any of these individual souls as a means for maintaining power based on prescriptive or evaluative normative obligation — that is as ethical obligations. The power of the Powers will derive from these nihilist choices only if they satisfy the pragmatic truth of these choices — they will not be able to justify power solely as an end in itself. If they fail in such satisfaction, the individual nihilist soul’s acceptance of the Powers — be it as wage slave, another Power, or whatever — may be taken away and the Powers fought and struggle begins. There is no moral obligation to believe in anything nor to trust anyone other than oneself or the authority one accepts as meaning in life — be it God, a god, or rebellion against all gods. That choice may be pre-destined or determined but only in language, existentially one’s soul is what it is and can never be anything else. Ultimately, existentially outside the delusion of language, freedom may consist only of knowing that one is not free but in nihilism this truth is enough and can be accepted or be rejected as a basis for meaning in life.

Ethics Is The Problem Not The Solution

The political writer Charles Krauthammer once said, “conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.” I guess my problem is that I think both are stupid and they both think I am evil. Funny word this “evil”. Except for suicidal or masochistic martyrs, it is a word individuals only apply to others. Even the worse persons I have met — such as murderers — always see themselves as good whereas everyone else is evil. According to the Dunning-Kruger Effect in statistics, the same may be true of stupidity: it is always the Other that is stupid, whereas I am smart. I have had it with both of them. They, conservatives and liberals, are both stupid and both evil. They are both because they are completely out of touch with reality due to their concern for what the world ought to be — the ruling class ideology of ethics — instead of what it is. Here are basic examples.

I.           Stop arguing and whining for or against socialism. The United States is a socialist state for a significant part of its population and will continue into socialism just as the rest of the world is doing unavoidably because Technological Society demands and needs it to take care of its wage slaves. Those over 65 years old in the United States live in the socialist world of Medicare, Social Security, subsidized elderly housing, and other government programs fiercely protected by their AARP lobbying. I remember a world before these socialist programs for the elderly; it sucked for the elderly. Those elderly without families that could afford to take care of them in their old age lived in miserable conditions both physically and mentally or died shortly after retiring. The poor in the United States live in a socialist world of Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, and many other welfare programs. Again, I remember a world before welfare; it sucked for the poor also. They lived in miserable conditions both physically and mentally. A significant part of our population — more than any country in the world — lives in the socialist utopia called prison.

 
The only ones left out of this socialist world are the middle class and much of the working class. Both these groups now are made up of educated people working what were once called white collar jobs as distinct from blue collar jobs. The proletariat now includes teachers, middle management, educated professionals, and even intellectuals. Both of these groups now have children who expect a better life than what the poor or what their parents have or had. As wage slaves, this better future is not going to happen unless they unite and fight to take it from the Powers in the same way the working class and middle class unionized and fought and succeeded in fighting for a better life in the 20th Century. Those days are gone. There will be no unionizing, no unification of workers, and no rebellion. “Physical rebellion, or any preliminary move towards rebellion, is at present not possible”. — Orwell, George. 1984. Signet Classics Penguin Group: NY, NY (1977) at p. 210. The only option is to join the poor and the elderly in socialism; if you cannot fight them, join them is a rational strategy.

 

We need to find a way to preserve individual freedom in a socialist state to avoid an Orwellian 1984 future. Being in denial as to this reality or wasting energy on building something that will occur naturally by necessity in reality anyway is a waste and delusional. Doing either of these is both stupid and evil — viewed from my good. My good is as free and open a society as Technological Society can be. Unfortunately, that may not be that free or open. If so, we need to admit to it and start the historical material and spiritual struggle necessary for historical progress to continue into the next step — whatever that may be: anarchy or tyranny.

 

II.            Stop with the “correlation is not causation” nonsense. Causation is correlation with a correlation coefficient that approaches or is 1. Conservatives preach about the beauty and power of Western Civilization. Fine, then pull out a philosophy history book and read David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature and all that has been written since including modern instrumentalist philosophy of science from Bertrand Russell to Bastiaan Cornelis van Fraassen on their being no logical relationship of truth or false in science or even an empirical relationship of cause and effect other than experience of frequent association between objects. The political liberal battle cry that all is a social construct cannot be limited solely to their dis-favored social constructs; it includes all social constructs including cause and effect and especially including their secular religion of evolution that they use to explain everything from the smallest cell to the largest social and cultural entities when it is to their benefit. Evolution is a tautology; as a tautology, it cannot be falsified and thus it is not a science but a religion that can be used to explain anything as is true of all tautologies. Forget causation and explanation. Go to real religion if you want life explained for you, do not turn my beloved science into a religion for you secular needs.

 
In the modern world of massive amounts of data that no human being is capable of synthesizing, “correlation supersedes causation”. — Anderson, C. (2008). “The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete”. Wired, June. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/ ; and Grey, Jim. “Jim Grey on eScience: A Transformed Scientific Method”. The Fourth Paradigm. Ed. Tony Hey, Stewart Tansley, Kristin Tolle. Microsoft Research: Remond, Wash. (2009). All we can do is build models that have predictive value through algorithms that can be falsified. “Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a ‘correct’ one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary, following William of Occam he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity” Box, G.E.P. (1976). “Science and statistics”. Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 71 (No. 356), pp. 791-799.

 

If you cannot deal with this reality, you have no business being conservative or liberal nor be anywhere near holding or running a political office regardless of how good and ethical you may be. Since ethics is ruling class ideology, if you are so delusional that you cannot deal with the above, you are as much a danger to your ruling class as you are to me and everyone else. (Maybe that is a good thing?) With this expectation, now I am being stupid though not evil.