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.

The Fading Out Of Objective Truth / Part II

Even a creature that is weak, ugly, cowardly, smelly, and in no way justifiable still wants to stay alive and be happy after its own passion.
— George Orwell, “Such, Such Were the Joys”, p. 284 of “Facing Unpleasant Facts”, a collection of Orwell’s essays compiled by George Packer. Mariner Books: N.Y., N.Y. (2008).

John Rawls is one of the gods of 20th Century moralism and political liberalism. Having supposedly lost his Christian faith during World War II, he preceded to spend his whole life after the War recreating the Christian God in an image in which he could have faith through political liberalism. Born a Patrician, he worked his whole life after the War as a professor at Harvard. Rawls’ arguments for principles of “social justice as fairness” use a thought experiment consisting of a hypothetical veil of ignorance. Citizens making choices about what the attributes of a society are supposed to be ought to do so from an “original position” of a “veil of ignorance” in which they will not know such things as what gender, race, abilities, tastes, wealth, position, and so forth they will have in that society. Rawls claims this will cause them to choose “fair” policies. Nice idea, problem is he did not go far enough nor did he see that for this hypothetical to work it must actually consist of two veils: one veil for the society we create and one veil for the reality that created us. He did not continue this veil of ignorance into ignorance of who if anyone would be altruistically willing to engage in such reasoning or who if anyone would even care about fairness for anyone but themselves. He did not continue it into ignorance of truth overall or of knowledge of anything except our ignorance, including ignorance of such things as fairness, the nature of language, justice, supposed natural rights for all, and most definitely ignorance of whether there even are such things as equal rights for all and much else that moralists assume as the Good despite claiming subjectivity of values as the Good. He did not continue it into now knowing the meaning of life. If he had done so, he might have been on to something. Instead of just being a hypothetical game, this veil or more accurately these two veils of ignorance would be a really rational means for normative especially for nihilist normative decision making: decision making by which the individual person seeks power over reality, over society, and over the Other in order viably to give life meaning.

Rawls did not go further to assume a veil of complete ignorance and thus nihilism because though he pretended and doubtless meant to be talking to all participants in society regardless of their particular characteristics such as ethnicity, social status, gender, race, physical and mental abilities, conception of the Good, and so forth so as to enforce a universal standard of normative values, he was not really talking to all. In reality, such talk is meant for and has meaning only for the few in a given society who have the power to control its normative values as I have been arguing in all my writings. Most of humanity, regardless of poverty or wealth, is just trying to survive in their personal struggle against reality both existentially and socially created. Requiring or assuming that any significant portion or even a small portion of humanity will go through their daily lives making decisions by forcing themselves to think they are what they are not or to assume they might never be what they are is a serious delusion blind to our Heart of Darkness. Rawls was preaching to the few Powers with the time and power in life to concentrate on creating a world in their image hoping they will ignore their Heart of Darkness to create a Christian world without the Christ. Nice try but just as delusional. In the end, as with all delusional moralists varying from Aquinas to Nietzsche, he created simply another wordgame of techniques for social engineering to keep the Powers in power creating a world in their image.

Going further with Rawls’ hypothetical as required by Acceptance of Nihilism, the veil of ignorance must actually be two veils of ignorance: one over the reality that created us and one over the reality society creates. Further, for our nihilism, this technique cannot be said to deal with good, evil, fairness, justice, the Good, nor the other usual aesthetic dogmatic language of morality and ethics but with the only attribute and state of affairs that matters: power — how to achieve it and how to control it.

We have no idea why there is something instead of nothing. Life has no meaning other than existence and it exists for no particular or general purpose other than existence. The “No Miracles” argument for scientific realism is unsound and fallacious. It only works because the advocates and worshipers of science as religion use words such as “approximately”, “essentially”, “closely”, “most accurately”, and so forth to argue it. In practice, there are multiple contradictory assumptions and conclusions among scientific theories in those few sciences that are still trying to derive holistic explanations for reality. Contradictory assumptions can prove any argument true; contradictory conclusions disprove all arguments. Further, saying that scientific reality must be true because miracles cannot be true is begging the question. It is accurate to say that scientific realism offers the simplest explanation of why the laws of physics are the same in Tokyo as in London or on Mars and as to why certain theories “approximately”, “essentially”, “closely”, or “most accurately” align with certain experiments, but as to the life of an individual which is all that matters to individual life, no science can prove to the individual that we will see tomorrow, see the sun rise tomorrow, give life, or take life.  The undisputed universal fact is that for those that will die during the night, the sun will not rise tomorrow. Seeing the sun tomorrow is as much a miracle for any individual waking in Technological Society as it was in the Stone Age regardless of whether we are the product of evolutionary genetic physical forces or by the design of an omniscient and omnipotent being. A miracle explanation of why science works is just as sound and valid as a “No Miracles” explanation. Regardless of the actual existence of the universe, we are ignorant as to whether this existence is necessary or contingent. We also most definitely know that my, our, and any individual’s existence are contingent — other than maybe taxes, death is the one certainty in reality. The individual life is a miracle to the individual and no one including science, science as religion, or religion has any rational basis to deny this existential miracle.

Thanks to science, we have probabilistic and statistical methodology that allows us to create predictive value out of some of our theories about reality but that is it. And, that is enough. We want power over reality: power to live and to give life meaning. Looking through our veil of ignorance to this reality, regardless of whether we are “weak, ugly, cowardly, smelly, and in no way justifiable” or the most distinguished of academic elites creating wordgames that bind even God, we are entitled to choose and ought to choose that which gives us the most power over the reality from which we came and to which it is trying to get us to return: be it the Big Bang, evolution, physical matter, dirt, God, or whatever. The veil of ignorance by which we see this reality allows us and if we have made the leap to wanting to live even requires us to force or at least to try to force upon the reality that created us choices that give us the most power to control this reality so as to live and prosper in it. This is the first “original position” by which the nihilist makes normative decisions of ultimate evaluation and perspective value.

However, the veil of ignorance by which most of us view the reality created by society — most notably by its language — does not allow us to know the power by which we can control social reality; the opposite is the case, at any given time except for a small minority in society, we are at its control and under its power. For that small minority of Powers-that-be, during the time they are Powers, they create the normative wordgame that controls social reality and thus by definition they are not in an original position of ignorance but one of knowledge because they are the ones that define both and thus are irrelevant to this contemplation. Unless we become one of these few, our only control of social reality is by struggling against it. Thus, if we make a leap to life as a nihilist, the “original position” of our veil of ignorance rationally requires beliefs that would give us social power but then acts or doing the opposite required by those beliefs: the veil of ignorance by which we see social reality, again if we have made the leap to wanting to live, requires us to act upon this social reality, upon the Other, and upon ourselves not on the belief that gives us power to control it but less power so as to live and prosper in it. It is only by believing in what will achieve power and by then taking the opposite action can we control the few that seek and have power as an end-in-itself endangering my individual meaning and power for life.

Let me exemplify this technique using examples from my prior essay. Assume James Watson — a Nobel laureate who in 1953 co-created the double-helix structure of DNA thus giving us a lot of power over the reality of birth, physical health, forensic investigation, and much more — has offered to give you a seminar regarding molecular biology. Also, assume he is a fanatic racist advocating segregation of a supposed Aryan race from other races. Regardless of whether DNA may simply be an instrumental “Central Dogma of Molecular Biology”, from our original position of ignorance of natural reality, the nihilist choice is to accept his offer and actually to allow the seminar to try to gain some power over natural reality. Now, assume you are a fanatic racist nihilist yourself. In which case, to empower your racism you need to act upon and to empower his racism so all of you can act upon it. However, as a nihilist, you know that in the end regardless of racism or no racism, the end result will be the same with the Powers using your normative choices and acts to empower themselves over your individual life; so, despite your belief in the language of racism, you oppose giving yourself, Watson, or anyone any power affirmatively to act upon the language of racism. Assume you are not a racist; in which case, you will believe in the power to act against racism. However, again, as a nihilist, you know that in the end racism or no racism, the end result will be the same with the Powers using your normative choices and acts upon them to empower themselves over your individual life; so, despite your belief in language against racism, you oppose giving yourself or any others who are against racism any power affirmatively to act upon your language against racism. In the choices available, the end result is the same: Watson gives the seminar but is not allowed to act upon any racism (he can only speak about his beliefs) just as those against his racism cannot act upon it.

Another example is my CAT problem of the previous essay. At a certain point in our original position of ignorance of natural reality, CATs were the most powerful solution over the natural reality of smog and the nihilist rational choice through this veil of ignorance would be empower CATs and thus to empower our individual life over nature. However, through the veil of ignorance covering social reality, regardless of whether the nihilist supports CATs to thus believe in empowering them or opposed them so as not to believe in empowering, the required nihilist action is not to give anyone a monopoly on violence to enforce CATs.

Obviously, this “two veil” nihilist reasoning is at a very basic level and needs the details to be worked out. Rawls’ two books A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism working out his one veil of ignorance total about 1500 pages depending on the editions. I have to start somewhere. One more exemplification that may help to jump-start the working out is a contemplation of how these two veils may work out in a democracy.

 

The Fading Out Of Objective Truth / Part I

This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.
— George Orwell, “Looking Back on the Spanish War”, p. 154        of “Facing Unpleasant Facts”, a collection of Orwell’s essays compiled by George Packer. Mariner Books: N.Y., N.Y. (2008).

 

What Orwell feared has occurred, the concept of objective truth has faded out of Technological Society. This disappearance does not result nor is it explained by any metaphysical “social construct” explanations but results solely from the practical reality that there is simply too much of it. Because of the power of Technological Society to measure, experience, and describe reality, our senses and minds are inundated with so much objective truth that it exceeds our individual ability to understand it either holistically or atomistically — irrespective of how one defines “truth’. For most working persons, we know the objective truth of only a small part of the reality with which we work but that is it. This is true of the work and life of everyone from the least educated service worker forced by the needs of reality to specialize in provision of detailed services to a specific clientele to the most educated of scientists forced by the vastness of their studies to specialize in either its theoretical, mathematical/theoretical, experimental, observational, forensic, or some other specific aspect of their science. To function in Technological Society, we must at some point reach Acceptance (acceptance of a statement as true) of the Storytelling stated to us by others about their esoteric corner of reality and weave it into our individual Storytelling and Acceptance of life so as to create a viable social interaction and society. The universal consolation of such fading away of objective truth is that the Other is just as ignorant of objective truth as we are.  So, why should we accept anything the Other says as true; why should they accept anything we say as true? In this cloud of ignorance, vagueness, and indeterminacy, how is Acceptance even possible except through propaganda and by the force of authority of those who control propaganda to seek the power of conning us into Acceptance of their truth as an end in itself? The first step in answering these questions is Acceptance without fear of this fading away of objective truth; unfortunately, we must reject Orwell on this issue. The next steps are not conceptual. This fading is a practical problem that requires practical solutions not more idealism nor conceptualization.

 
This new world lacking in objective truth can be contemplated even in the simplest of technical problems without getting anywhere close to any of the complicated and convoluted technical, philosophical, social, and even individual emotional happiness issues facing society. For example, this week I was faced with the question of replacing my car’s catalytic converter (CAT). This seems to be a straightforward question with a necessarily required answer: CAT gone back, so replace with new one at great expense. These are truths that demand Acceptance. Unfortunately, I am personally knowledgeable about the historical and technical process that lead to this Acceptance and thus am able to question it. Back in the day when most cars had carburetors, unless carburetors were well tuned and well tuned on a regular basis (such as weekly which no one except a few motorheads ever did), they were only fuel efficient in a narrow operating band thus there was always some excess fuel dumped into the exhaust system resulting in the smog you can see in photographs of most US cities in the 1960’s and 70’s. The catalytic converter was designed to chemically burn off that excess fuel and thus reduce smog: the carbon monoxide (CO) is converted to carbon dioxide (CO2); nitrogen oxides (NOx) are broken down into nitrogen gas (N2) and oxygen gas (O2); and hydrocarbons (HC) are converted into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). Sounds good and worked great with those smog filled photos of US cities disappearing by the late 80’s. However, at the same time there was technical progress occurring so that by the start of the 21st Century carburetors are rare even in the cheapest of cars and motorcycles most of which now have fuel injectors instead of carburetors. Fuel injectors controlled by computers can change the fuel/air mixture as often as 1/100th of second and are now the norm. In this type of reality, I and many knowledgeable engineers and scientists argue catalytic converters are a waste and do more harm than good in many ways including by the need for mining and refining of rare metals such as platinum for their manufacture. Now, not only can all the benefits of a CAT be achieved by proper tuning of fuel injected engines, such tuning would provide more power, more fuel efficiency, and more reliable engines with resulting cleaner air at far less expense for these better results. A humorous anecdote on this issue is the fact that at one point during this historical process fuel injection would not create the excess fuel and heat necessary to bring CATs up to their necessary operating temperatures, so “smog pumps” were added to engines to create higher temperature exhausts; that is, smog was created so that the CAT could remove it. As far as I am concerned, anyone who is truly morally concerned about clean air, the environment, supposed global warming, fuel efficiency, the reduction of overall pollution both air and land and so forth should remove their CAT from their fuel injected cars and do some cheap re-tuning so as to run without it. Problem is, such removal would be a criminal violation of the federal Clean Air Act and many state laws.

 
How do you know any of my statements about CATs are true? You do not. It took me years of experience working on cars and the necessary background education to reach these conclusions — or did it? Maybe I am just full of shit and bull-shitting you? Maybe all I care about is getting an extra 5% in horsepower by removing the CAT and could not care less about fuel efficiency or clean air? How would you resolve these questions? Spend the days if not weeks necessary to get the foundation education and experience that would allow you to personally inspect the detailed, convoluted, and complicated objective reality of CATs so as to make your own individual conclusion? Spend hours viewing the conflicting articles, blogs, opinions, and so-called expert analysis available on the internet for and against CATs to find some opinion you trust and can accept? Since CATs are required by law, maybe you should have the government resolve this dispute by holding hearings, examining and cross-examining all sides of the issue, and making objective findings? So, do you have the lobbying money necessary for spending on professional lobbyists to contact government officials to get them to question the Acceptance of CATS and begin the process for such hearings? Do you have the lobbying money necessary to cancel out the lobbying money that would be spent by those who profit off CATs to oppose you? Do you have the time and resources to do such lobbying yourself instead of hiring a professional? Even if your lobbying is successful and you get a hearing, who will make the final decision? A politician? A qualified engineer or scientist? Who will decide whether the engineer or scientist is qualified? Who will decide the politician is qualified to make the final decision on such a technical issue?

 
Most likely, unless you are a motorhead for whom the joy of engine horsepower cancels out the threat of violence from the monopoly on violence called the law, what you will do is just bite the bullet, accept the Acceptance of CAT, comply with the law, and spend money installing a new CAT. By default, the law is the final arbiter on this issue. As you should do; most people have more important problems to deal with in their lives than the morality of their CAT. As Camus complained, “[n]obody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal.” Being normal and surviving life by being normal is not a sin, it is usually the only option allowed for survival in Technological Society as anything close to being a free individual.

 
Now translate this CAT contemplation into the voluminous amount of bigger objective truth problems faced by Technological Society varying from questions of what the age requirements for voting in a democracy ought to be to the whether the use of zoos is a social good or an unethical treatment of animals and all the problems in between. How would you come to understand and epistemically synthesize the objective truths of reality available to you in all these questions to reach true answers? Will you spend the days, weeks, months, perhaps years necessary to get the foundation education and experience that would allow you to personally inspect the detailed, convoluted, and complicated objective reality of all of them so as to reach your own individual conclusions? Spend an similar amount of time viewing the conflicting articles, blogs, opinions, and so-called expert analysis available on the internet for and against all of them to find some opinion you trust and rely on it? Rely on the law and its Inner and Outer Party elites to decide for you? Trust a qualified politician? Trust a qualified engineer or scientist? Trust a qualified something else? Who will decide whether the politician, engineer, scientist, or whatever is qualified? If science cannot accurately predict the weather 10 days from now, why should you trust them to predict the weather 100 years from now for purpose of making “global warming” decisions? Perhaps, the best option is just to flip a coin and take your chances? Perhaps, just trust those you like and thus award charisma and supposed niceness as a person with Acceptance of their truth. “[F]or while every one well knows himself to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility or admit the supposition that any opinion of which they feel very certain may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable.” — John Stuart Mill, On Liberty at Chapter II “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion” (1859).

 
This issue of trusting experts and of determining qualifications of experts for purposes of Acceptance is an especially important and pertinent issue in Technological Society because the objective reality for resolving of this issue involves the same complicated and convoluted mess of facts and states of affairs that results in the fading away of objective truth from the other aspects of objective reality. The problem gets worse when ruling class ideology — ethics that is — and morality get involved. Because “moral character and ethics matter more than science”, the University of Illinois disqualified James Watson, a Nobel laureate who in 1953 created the double-helix structure conceptualization of DNA, from speaking at the University of Illinois on DNA which is something about which he is undisputedly a qualified expert; according to University of Illinois associate professor Kate Clancy, Watson is or may be a racist and thus is disqualified from opining on any aspect of objective reality and anything he says is by definition not objective reality. Many including myself have ridiculed the University for this action but admittedly they do have a point though it is not the point they are making. Expertise, even undisputed expertise, in one aspect of objectively true reality does not make objectively true one’s other opinions in other areas nor one’s general opinions on reality and especially not one’s normative evaluative or perspective opinions on objective reality. Quite the opposite, usually expertise in one area because of the time and resources spend concentrating and specializing one’s knowledge in that one area leads to unfounded and outright delusional conclusions in other areas for which one lacks time to study. Historically, Martin Heidegger and even Adolf Hitler were well qualified geniuses in some areas of thought such as continental philosophy for the former and political and military strategy for the latter but they were racist Nazis much of whose other thought despite their intelligence was and is totally delusional and incompetent as any basis for Acceptance.

 
A more recent exemplification of this point is the power of genius intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault, and even a Jacques Derrida who arguably should be disqualified from giving any expert social and political commentary and opinion that results in discretionary power outside their specialties. These three truly are gods in their respective fields of linguistics and continental philosophy of language but this god complex makes them want to create a world in their image regardless of whether that image has anything to do with what reality is or may be — they are completely delusional once they leave the wordgame world they created to seek power over reality. Chomsky single-handedly created the wordgame of modern analytic linguistics with its generative and transformational grammar changing a simple sentence such as “the dog ate the bone” into something such as “[S [NP [D The ] [N dog ] ] [VP [V ate ] [NP [D the ] [N bone ] ] ] ]”; the complexity of these grammars when applied to any analysis of anything even remotely more complicated in language than a simple object/predicate sentence would confound even the most genius of physicists and mathematicians and their equally complicated grammars and syntax for the language of mathematics. Foucault and Derrida ingeniously created wordgames that treat the language for describing reality as if it were reality. As Wittgenstein pointed out in his writings on mathematics, the power of wordgames is that their rules bind even God: even for an omnipotent and omniscient being to understand what we mean for example by a simple phrase such as “the seventh digit of π”, this being would have to know the semantic and syntax rules of English and the mathematical rules for calculating π to seven digits and then would actually have to do the calculation — that is God would have to follow the rules of our social construct wordgames to understand them. No one can just know “the seventh digit of π”, it must be calculated; perhaps calculated outside of time and space by God but it must be calculated. In essence, God would have to become a Man to understand our social construct language — no doubt this conclusion makes Christians happy at least. Having the power to bind God through one’s wordgame creation understandably makes one a god. This is why persons such as Chomsky, Foucault, and Derrida and all worshipers of social construct language as reality are dangerous if given the power through a monopoly on violence to create a world in their image — think intellectual power joined with political power such as with a Lenin, Bukharin, Mao, or any of the many others whose thoughts were the foundation of the numerous communist genocides of the 20th Century responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions.

 
Luckily, the former three unlike the latter three are purely academic intellectuals and cowards who do not have the stomach to do their own killing. They prefer to act as prophets for those who are willing to do the killing; they are only competent outside of their created wordgames as preachers pontificating delusions to their worshipers — this is why I find them scary and would disqualify them from pontificating if I had the power to do so. Which is why I do not seek nor should be given such power; unlike them and their worshipers, I admit my temptations and act to avoid acting upon them.

 
For practical reasons based on the limited ability of the human mind to understand the vast quantity of objective truths available in reality through the sense experience provided by Technological Society, the concept of objective truth along with the hope of maintaining this concept through Acceptance of those in authority as qualified to provide us with objective reality have already or will soon fade away and rightly so. This fading away is the one objective truth remaining. Now what? The first step is the doing away of the fear felt by Orwell so as to gain Acceptance of this fading away in order to provide not conceptual replacement but practical solutions for this practical problem. Throughout history, practical inventions very often have preceded conceptual explanations for those inventions: from the ancient Greek aeolipile to Michael Faraday’s inventions of the transformer, the electric motor, and the electric dynamo or generator. It was Watt’s invention of the steam engine that led to the science of thermodynamics and not the other way around; it was Faraday’s inventions that created the need for the science of electromagnetism and not the around way around.

 

Because of the complexity of Technological Society, lone inventions by lone inventors may be a thing of the past but the realization and rejection of the fear of having lost objective truth is a something that requires Acceptance by the individual before it can proceed to social Acceptance. By such Acceptance, I do not mean the hypocritical and inconsistent acceptance preached by social justice theory and by most worshipers of science and law as religions by which they ridicule as subjective anything with which they disagree but accept and require everyone to accept under threat of violence their agreed truth as objectively true. Before we can leap to the next practical steps, there must be a nihilist Acceptance without fear not only “that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world” but also that this fading is a good thing allowing humanity to proceed to the next leap of faith in life.

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.

 

Why does God hate the Poor: Does the Answer matter?

Does it really matter why God hates the poor? No one else seems to care. The vast majority of people have and always will spend their lives trying to survive and gain as much power as they can during their life — as they should do. So, why does the answer as to why God hates the poor matter to me and to some others?

In deciding whether God or I should do anything about this hatred of the poor by God, the answer to the first part of the question is easy. Because God gave me this life I never asked for, does God owe me any duty to do anything about how messed up this life is? Given our contemplation so far, the answer should be obvious: No. He is God and does whatever He wants to do consisting of acting by necessity. According to Christians, God did do something. He became human through His Son Jesus Christ. I will leave that response between you and Søren Kierkegaard and go on to the question of what my response or duty ought to be regarding God’s hate for the poor.

Why does the answer bother me so much? What, if anything should I do about this ontological truth that there were, are, and always will be the poor in life who will be the object of God’s hate? The answer does not matter to those God loves nor should it. Unfortunately, it does not matter to most of the poor. As worker’s rebellions varying from Spartacus to the French, Haitian, Russian, and many other revolutions have shown and as most of history in general has established, poor people given the chance are just as greedy, homicidal, hateful, power-hungry, and generally what we call evil as any rich and powerful person can be or are.

As Camus said: “The slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown.” The undisputed fact of reality is that the poor, if given the chance, will seek the same power over me as the few powers-that-be already have over me. Christian saints claim to love others as an end in itself but that is bullshit. Take away the promise of the power of the Resurrection and they would be no different than anyone else.

So, why should I care about these poor as I defined them previously physically, materially, or spiritually? “F__k them,” should be my answer. I should just worry about myself and my own search for power so that I become a power-that-be; so that I become among the few beloved by God. This is the reality ignored by even the existentialist writers, from Camus to Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Herman Melville, and so on. They see the reality of what is but ignore the potential for much worse when reaching their conclusions of absurdity and hopelessness. They go to the edge of the abyss, look over, and then step back. That is why, in the end, despite their claims of despair, hopelessness, and absurdity, they always end with hope and avoid nihilism.

They start with phrases such as by Camus, “Everything is permitted. It is not an outburst of relief or of joy, but rather a bitter acknowledgement of a fact.” Or by Dostoevsky, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” But after saying this, they back off. All of a sudden, they start writing about good and evil as if those terms have meaning outside of whatever random meaning an individual or the powers-that-be arbitrarily give to them. Why do they back off of it? Are they cowards? Is this all part of God’s playing with His hatred of the poor, to create false hope to hide His hatred of many of us?

The dead are dead. There is nothing that I can do to help them. Even if they were alive, they should really not mean much to me. Based on my life experience and reading of history, at any given time, considering both the reality and potential of human nature, 90% to 95% of humanity is divided into four kinds of humans: 1) those who would walk into gas chambers to die when ordered; 2) those who would do the ordering; 3) those who would do the killing; and 4) those who would clean up afterwards. The remaining 5% to 10% of humanity, at any given time might refuse all four.

Are those remaining the ones that are troubling me? Am I in that 5% to 10%? The problem with this percentile division or categorizing of humanity is that those who make up any of these categories at any given time are completely random. It varies from time to time, depending on the circumstances. So, today’s gas chamber victim may be tomorrow’s executioner. Today’s hero may be tomorrow’s coward. The same is true for me. This is all part of God’s hatred for the poor. Any one of us, depending on the circumstances, could fall into any one of these categories.

In some ways, being poor is a great excuse for going through life, once you reach maturity. Many advocates for the materially poor complain about the loss of opportunity. Among the poor, there may be a wasted Albert Einstein, Nelson Mandela, or whoever might exist, and we are wasting their potential. Well, also among the poor might exist a future Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, or whoever. If these two, for example, had stayed poor and in poverty and died young, it might have been the best thing that ever happened to them and to the world. At least if you died as a victim of the gas chambers, you will be remembered with pity and kindness. That might not have been true if you had actually had a chance to live.

One’s status in life as hero or villain is purely random for the vast majority of humans. So, the poor themselves are not a reason to care about them. In his book, The Confessions, the so-called Church Father St. Augustine stated, argued, and essentially realized that even babies are either evil or have the potential for it. He exclaims to God, “No one is free from sin in Your sight, not even an infant, who’s span of early life is but a single day.” As St. Augustine explained, “What, then, was my sin at that age? Was it perhaps that I cried so greedily for those breasts?” That is, of his mother, for milk. “Certainly, if I behave like that now, greedy not for breasts, of course, but for food suitable to my age, I should provoke derision and be very properly rebuked. My behavior then was equally deserving of rebuke.” He complains that once he saw a mother with two babies, who, while trying to feed one, the other cried out of envy and jealousy for his turn at the trough. This is a tough view on life in a tough era in which some theologians, including St. Augustine, even argued and believed in the damnation of unbaptized babies. As a true power of this world and apparently of the next, St. Augustine accepted this condemnation of even babies as the price that he had to pay for eternal happiness for God. What a great human being he was.

It never occurred to him to rebel against such happiness and to rather accept damnation and hell with those babies. So, why should it bother a sinner such a me? And why does that rebellion occur to me as a viable option? In terms of the potential evil of humanity, of even babies, his contemplation was right. Why should he reject his happiness simply because some — maybe as little as 5% of those dead babies — could have been true saints of humanity if given the chance? The differentiation between the lives of those who fit into the 90% – 95% of humanity that I describe as random poor and those in the remaining 5% to 1% that are the powers-that-be are just as random.

The chosen few that have the power to decide for themselves into what percentile they will be, and furthermore, to what percentile the remainder of humanity will be, are chosen randomly. It is a random choice by God. As a random choice, it could have been me placed into any one of the four categories. It could have been me — depending on luck deciding whether I was a gas chamber victim, operator, rebel, or a St. Augustine — deciding into what category the remainder of humanity will be.

So, do I care and have empathy for the poor and hate the powerful as purely a selfish act — as an act of envy — because I am not among the powerful as St. Augustine was; if I had that power, would I not care in the same way that he did not care? Probably. Unlike the existentialists who in the end pretend their concerns are not based on their own self-love but are based on empathy and a concern for humanity, the truth is that their concern and my concern is mostly a selfish act of envy and jealousy as described or as alleged in the Parable of the Workers.

Well, so what if that’s the true motive of my concern? God’s power includes the ability to randomly decide whether He would give me life and what kind of life. He has randomly decided to allow his chosen few to control my life and most of human life. Why should I accept his randomness? He wants me to work all day for the same amount of money as those whom He chose to work in His vineyard for only an hour. Why should I accept that? There is no reason why I should accept it, just as there is no reason why not. By randomly rejecting God and His random choices, I am getting as close to being a god as a human can become. Without that, the only other option for being a god is making a choice to randomly make nothing out of something: killing life. Killing life, the only random act that is even more God-like but for some reason that I cannot choose.

 
I can try to do better than God’s random power. I cannot do better since I am not God but I can at least try to do it. I do not want to accept happiness based on the suffering of babies because by doing such — I say to myself — I would be accepting His arbitrary power over me. I reject His power. Tough talk. But, as we used to say in the Navy, I can talk the talk, but can I walk the walk?