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.

Is Ethics Subjective or Objective?

Neither and both.

Morality means the individual’s leap to meaning in life, it is an ideology that in theory can be non-violent if the individual decides martyrdom for that meaning is part of the meaning of their life. Ethics is essentially a group’s morality, it is the social construct by which a social group arbitrates morality conflicts among members of its group so that the conflicts do not disrupt and destroy the group’s ability to exist and maintain its social construct meaning and power. By necessity, ethics must involve an element of violence though this is not obvious since usually most members are not involved in the enforcement aspect of the ethics. Even an ethics of non-violence will be enforced by violence. If an ethics has no violence element, it is simply a social construct ideology that makes nice parlor conversation but is meaningless in the struggles of life and eventually will achieve social suicide by disappearing from history. All social groups have a code of ethics including such as the mafia, the Russian mob, and the lowest street gang on the West Side of Chicago. In my experience, these latter are more honest, consistent, and loyal to their ethics than the vast majority of moral busy bodies that enforce “legal” codes of ethics that are in denial of their violence. However, complying with the code of ethics of the mafia for example does not make you a moral person.

Morality and ethics are not the same.

Law is simply an ethics with a monopoly on violence.

Language is “objective” when it describes by means of hypotheses subject to Ockham’s Razor and makes quantifiable predictions that can be tested and falsified in repeatable parameter controlled experiments. Objective truth is pragmatic: its truth is ontologically real as long as the words of its truth work to solve the described problem. “To be is to be the value of a bound variable”. Willard Van Orman Quine. “Subjective” misses one or all of these attributes.

Thus, an ethics that works or is successful in having a social group survive its struggles with the universe and other social groups is objectively good; one that does not work but leads to the group’s destruction or loss of power is objectively bad. However, for any given individual in the group who disagrees with the ethics but is forced either by violence or threat of violence to comply with it, it is subjective and a basis to struggle against it regardless of whether or not the ethics is objectively good in terms of survival for the group. Existentially, social history is the struggle between these two objective and subjective meanings.

 

On the Nature of “Deconstruction”

Anyone trying to argue these days on the concepts of race and class will inevitably run into practitioners of deconstruction as a means to analyze the text of arguments. It is a pseudo-philosophical fad that has taken over much of academia and the work of much of the humanities intelligentsia. It was developed by the French so-called philosopher Jacques Derrida. However, unless you have a lot of time on your hands, it is not worthwhile to read him for purposes of getting an understanding of deconstruction either as a methodology or a philosophy. Like many in continental philosophy, especially French existential and post-existential philosophy, Derrida has mastered the art of writing in a dense, convoluted, and nonsensical manner that allows uncritical readers to assume his writing must be profound and intelligent instead of nonsense (though, to be fair, the same can be said of some of present analytic philosophy such as much of its philosophy of mind and philosophy of language). The best way to understand deconstruction is to see it in action. As an example, I will deconstruct the first line of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

 
From an analytic or logic-centric or logocentric perspective as it is derisively called by post-modernists, the first aspect that strikes me about this line is that it is false — it does not state what factually is or was. Our nation was not conceived in liberty nor dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Quite the opposite, the founders conceived our nation on violence upon others with the foundation belief that some are better or more capable to govern than others and they created a government based upon and designed to survive such a perspective on factual reality. Based on these conclusions, using the classical rules of logic and historical analysis, we can go on to discuss why the founders so conceived it and the ramifications of their reasons — that is what worked and what did not work to create a functioning nation. Further, unless we assume Lincoln was an idiot, we can contemplate why he would use an assertion he must have known to be false as a starting premise? This is a profound epistemic question. Is it the case — as many analytic philosophers in epistemology argue — that a false belief can be used to reach true knowledge? Of course, all of this contemplation requires an understanding of the extent to which a reader can give meaning to this text — which itself involves contemplation of the extent to which readers give meaning to text instead of those who wrote it and are no longer around such as Lincoln.

 
For deconstruction of this text however, the text is immaterial. It is not important to read or to try to understand the present of the text or what is present in the text in order to understand its true meaning but to see the contradictions created by what is the absence of text or what is absent in the text. It is here that a critical reader runs into the first problem with deconstruction: there are an infinite amount of actual and possible worlds, words, and concepts missing from the text, which do we pick from this infinity of absence or transcendental nothingness to give the text its supposedly true meaning? That is obvious: what is missing from the text are women, gays, blacks, transsexuals, and other oppressed who are omitted by the white male Lincoln as a result of the structural patriarchy of his logocentric whiteness reality. Why is this obvious? It is obvious because the humanities professor who teaches deconstruction says it is obvious.

 
This leads to other problems if you are corrupted by logocentric thinking. If the text is immaterial, then why even bother to read it? The first line might as well be Lincoln’s laundry list or say “our nation was founded upon apples and oranges” because what is absent from the text — or its transcendental nothingness as many of the worshipers of deconstruction call it — will be the same infinite set of possible world nothingness that must be transcended. Does not this mean that the truth of any text can mean whatever the person doing the deconstruction wants it to mean? Now you are getting it! No matter what you write, the truth of any given text will be same: whatever the person doing the deconstruction decides ought to be the truth of the text.

 
Contemplate how powerful the methodology of deconstruction is. It requires no logical thinking nor any rational skill other than being able to imagine what is not present in text — you do not even need to be able to read the text in any way but in a primitive or introductory sense. It is not limited by any reality that you can sense — not even by the sense reality of the words being deconstructed. Its infinity of options is limited only by the normative values of those doing the deconstruction.

 
It is based simply on argument by authority analogous to religious dogma: upon the authority of the intellectual teaching it in the same way divine law would be defined by God. If one professor indoctrinates deconstruction into a class of twenty students, we have twenty worshipers of deconstruction. If each teaches it to another twenty students and this goes on for years, you see how deconstruction has taken over the humanities academia and the intelligentsia. Its most powerful aspect is that it cannot be argued against logically or rationally: rejection of logic-centric or logocentric reasoning is its initial premise. It is argument from authority that can only be opposed by other authority. This is one reason why present political argument in the United States and much of the Western world has been reduced to virtue signaling and attacks on personal morality and ethics through the methodology of deconstruction. For example, it is irrelevant what the immigration policies of the United States should be pragmatically; what is important is how good or evil those advocating the policies are. Thus, any immigration policy proposed by President Trump is evil because he is evil, and any immigration policy proposed by President Obama was good because he is good even though the immigration policies are factually the same. Every written fact can be deconstructed down to an ethical or moral analysis of the writer of the decision or of those designating something to be a fact — the conclusion on the virtue of the writer decides the virtue of the decision.

 
What can workers do about this struggle for power among the elite and their intelligentsia? As usual, nothing much. As I wrote earlier, ethics is simply ruling class ideology. The efficiency of modern Technological Society allows the ruling class to argue among themselves for power regardless of whether their arguments pragmatically serve any purpose other than power. The founders of our nation at least had to win their war to found a nation. Such is no longer required of a ruling class. They can simply deconstruct our nation down to a constant struggle among hoi polloi in which it exists with no essence but the will to power of the ruling class. As I have written before and as Orwell wrote in 1984, “God is Power”. As the song goes:

I’ll move myself and my family aside If we happen to be left half alive

And the party on the left
Is now the party on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight


I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around

Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again, no no

The Who, “Won’t Get Fooled Again”

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Can God Love? Part I

Our consciousness and perception of reality reveals that God hates the poor. Can He love them instead? Can God love? All Western religion including secular religions such as humanism state either and usually both that God is love ot that love is the greatest virtue. Do either of these popular statements withstand critical analytical examination? Not really. This hype about love, especially by religion, serves to keep the poor happy and the working class in their place.

 
In my reading of history — for that matter in any reading of history — love such as love of country, power, money, tribe, and even love of family and love of justice have caused much more evil and suffering in the world than hate. Hate has rational limits. Few, if anyone, would risk their life for hate. Almost all who have or who can love would risk their life and that of others and outright kill others for the love of whatever it is they love. Hate may make you a serial killer of 30 to 40 people but love will make you a patriot willing to kill three to four million. Love is not necessarily a good. That conclusion seems to depend on what you love. Love of power is supposedly bad. It is considered bad for the poor. The Powers love the poor and oppressed but only if they are willing to stay poor and oppressed. The Powers worship love of power as a good despite sometimes pretending otherwise. Regardless, love of power is what drives human culture because history is class struggle, so pragmatically love of power may be called the ultimate good in terms of human culture surviving the power of the natural world always trying to kill us. Capitalism at least admits it considers love of power a good — as long as there are equal opportunity and struggle among the Powers which there never is.

 
Loving your neighbor — now called “the Other” by secular religion that wants to hijack Christianity without the Christ — as you love yourself is supposedly a good but what about the first necessary premise of that command: love yourself? In order to love your neighbor, you must first love yourself since your existence is your only certainty. However, self-love seems to be one of the most harmful evils that has caused just as many atrocities as love of power if not more. Then again without self-love, humans would have died out millennia ago. The ability to love oneself blindly regardless of any faults and thus to have hope for a better life is what allows the poor and working class to survive its miseries and the ridicule of the Powers around them constantly trying to demean their life. Supposedly, according to women at least, love and sexual love are distinct and being addicted to the first is good but being addicted to the latter is bad. You will have to ask a female philosopher to explain that difference.

 
What a mess this love issue is. In order to determine if God can love, we must first define love. We must first see if we can ontologically define love especially insofar as that word is used in respect to God. Self-love just as consciousness and my existence is one of the few items in the fabric of knowledge that are ontologically certain; we either have it or do not. Thus, we can ontologically — not just pragmatically — rationally contemplate self-love. As long as we exist and are conscious, regardless of what skeptical reason may say, we know and perceive self-love otherwise we would commit suicide. The Commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is more of an attempt to get humans to reduce their self-love than to raise their love of others. There is no doubt as to the existence and strength of self-love, so I will start by contemplating and defining self-love to see through the cultural and social smokescreens created to make self-love a vice for the working class and to replace it with all sorts of hype such as God is love or love is life in order to keep the poor and working class in their place.

 
The most basic element and requirement of a person having a use and of the usefulness for the word love and thus its meaning in self-love are that the person wants to exist and wants to continue existing. Love is an act of will saying I want to exist and want to continue existing. This does not seem to do it though. If I want to exist living as a heroin addict on the streets of New York earning money by being a prostitute, the conclusion would not be that I love myself but the exact opposite: that I have self hate and am trying to destroy myself. Just wanting to exist would not give much meaning to the expression “love your neighbor as yourself”. If I want to live as a prisoner in North Korea and want the same for my fellow humans, again, the implication is that I neither love myself nor my neighbor. Love seems to demand more than just existence.

 
Our present United States culture would say that the additional element that self-love demands in order to be love is individual happiness: that we want or will a happy life for ourselves — we have hope. And, thus, when we love others, it also means that we want a happy life for them. This emphasis on happiness seems to be nonsense and a modern cultural phenomena. For much of the world, individual happiness is not a possibility. Never was and never will be. That is why we are asking the question that we are asking. Yet all these people that really have no hope for happiness in life are still able to love themselves and love others. There is more to life than happiness. My favorite example of this need that goes beyond happiness in life is expressed by the eight points of the Maltese Cross establishing the required moral standards for the Knights Templar: faith, repentance, humility, fairness, mercy, forthrightness, honesty, and suffering. Happiness is not in the list of elements for self-love by these warrior monks. Of course, these eight virtues only have power and meaning because the knights expected happiness in the afterlife after giving up on happiness in this life. So we are back to the point that perhaps this additional element is happiness or a want or hope for happiness.

 
Some philosophers, such as for example Thomas Aquinas, have in fact concluded happiness as a required element for love: love consists of a desire to exist, to continue existing, and to want happiness. Happiness for Aquinas consisted of an afterlife with God. So as to the elements that define self-love, can it be be defined as a desire to exist and to continue existing plus a hope for happiness?

 
I do not think so. The greatest love is the love of one who sacrifices their life for another such as the soldier who falls on the hand grenade to suffer the entire blast then dies so that others may live. This act of love most certainly did not demand a desire or hope for happiness in this life. It is not clear it demands or requires a hope or belief for a happy afterlife. In the ancient world, the Greeks believed in an afterlife that consisted not of an eternity of happiness with a loving God but with Hades — the word from which we get our word hell. A life after death for the Ancients was simply to exist in a peaceful sleep with one’s ancestors unaware of any past or future but just peace after a life of struggle and war. Despite such a dismal view (from out modern perspective) of the afterlife, this view did not stop the Greek warriors at the battle of Thermopylae from sacrificing their lives to try to save their neighbors. Actually, those so called pagans with their belief in a Hades apparently had more love for their neighbors than modern Christians have either for their God or for fellow Christians. The Ancients fought to save their neighbors. Modern Christians with barely a whimper allow the modern warrior religion of Islam to tramp around killing Christians so as to trample out Christianity.

 
So maybe the third element that defines love is not a desire for individual happiness but a desire for the happiness of others. This would make some sense and explain a lot because as rational beings we know that the individual dies and always will die. Any hope for humanity to continue must be for humanity to continue not for any individual to continue which is impossible. But, now we are reversing ourselves on the logic. Love of neighbor cannot come first and cannot define self-love. As even the Christian Commandment admits, in order to love your neighbor, you must first love yourself. Ontologically, we know this must be the case. We have to stay focused on the ontological nature of the knowledge we are seeking. I only have true knowledge of my own existence. Everything else could be a figment of God’s imagination as idealists argue.

 
Love of neighbor must start with love of self. In order to define love, we first have to define and understand what love of self is. So back to square one. Love of self we know involves at least wanting to exist and to continue existing — the desire to continue existing plus a desire for something more. The something more is the open issue. The something more is not only the final element that defines love but is also the element that from the social perspective makes it a good or an evil; and, in the case of self sacrifice love, it is able to negate the first two existential requirements of existing and to continue existing. The only characteristic that I can contemplate that would satisfy these purposes is meaning. Self-love is: 1) the will to exist; 2) the will to continue existing; 3) plus the hope that my existence has meaning. If I find a meaning for my existence, that hope becomes real instead of just being hope thus the first two elements can be negated and I can fall on the hand grenade to save my comrades as an act of love. To love our neighbor as ourselves is to want them to exist, to continue existing, and for their lives to have meaning. If we decide on what that meaning is, it can negate the first two existential requirements for love.

 
Further, just as finding a meaning for life will allow for our self sacrifice of our own life for that meaning, love will allow us to want to kill and actually to kill our neighbors as an act of love to maintain that meaning. Thus, ontologically, love is: 1) the will to exist; 2) the will to continue existing; 3) plus the will that our existence has meaning. Love of neighbor or love of money is all the same ontologically regardless of whether ethics or morality calls one good or the other evil. This definition may not be very romantic or live up to the hype that love seems to have in popular culture, but that does not make it any the less true or less powerful. It is powerful enough for a person to sacrifice their own life for others. It is also powerful enough for a person to sacrifice others for that love.

 
What about hate? What is hate? Before we decide whether God can love the poor, I want to go on to define hate and then also see if there is a third option just as there is with morality: can God be amoral? Is there an option between or outside of love and hate?