Two More features of Non-Duality
Every would-be philosopher wants to do philosophy in a new way. For absolute Idealism the imperative is to restart philosophy with real logic.
Two features stemming from logic are: the unassailable nature of existential dichotomies and the command of reality gained from reasoning with dimension.
Unassailable dichotomies
In my ontology essay I introduced these existential dichotomies: male—female, capitalism—socialism, Individual Mind—National Mind, Absolute Mind—logos and fruit—seed.
All these generative dichotomies are without antitheses. For example, what is the opposite of male—female, capitalism—socialism, etc. [Do not offer male—male and female—female and expect to be taken seriously. The qualifier is “existential”.] There are no antitheses to the above and this is why existential dichotomies are absolute and unassailable.
Idealism presents a closed system. A closed system is not exposed to reductio ad absurdum. The ‘reductio’ is a method of disproving a proposition by showing inevitable consequences are absurd. Dialectic is an open-ended system, prone to reductio ad absurdum. An example is belief in equality. It is necessary for liberals to believe in equality as an absolute because their version of democracy is based on equality. What is the end of equality? Are we in fact equal?
Dimension
Logic employs two dichotomies, simultaneously. Thus, Truths begin with two dimensions, enlarge to three dimensions to explain society and individuals, then with the addition of teleology, build to four-dimensions to provide the theory of culture.
As the physical world has dimension, so too the intellectual world. Perception of reality as interconnected and faceted dispenses with need of proof. You don’t need proof to know Truth is superior to objectivity.
If you were the great architect of creation, would you use dialectic to make it all happen? Would you work with a linear, one-dimensional system to create the archetypal individual? What would you use to animate your being? Or would you give your archetype at least three-dimensions and make each parameter a reciprocal so each facet of behaviour was dynamic? Check out how I reckon the Reasoning and design behind creation works.
Next time. The devaluing of duality begins with problems inherent to objective truth.
Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
Re: Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
Problems with objective truth
To go straight to the point, the key question for philosophy’s evolution is, “Can dialectic detect its relativity?” – No. It takes logic and Truth to demonstrate truth is relative. The relativity of truth is suspected these days, but truth trying to find consummate truth about itself is hopeless. Relief from relativity can only be achieved by the transcendence of truth, and transcendence required time, dialectical movement, teleology and ontology.
As previously explained, absolute Truth is totally divorced from truth. Truth rests on reciprocals, so relative truths are not of interest to Idealism. Also, as said, Idealism is not bothered by proof for Truth, so proving truth is relative has no priority. The relativity of truth is implicit to Truth establishing it stands four-square in its command of reality. In particular, the relativity of truth is implicit to the relativity of ideology, [as some Readers may have discovered from Figure 1.1 in the freely available part of my ebook], and hence truth is not worth the candle.
This would be a short essay if I ended here with my principle criticism, so more commentary follows.
People appreciate a bit of scepticism, but I am not doing scepticism. I do real damage to convention because I have something with which to replace it. F. Nietzsche is appreciated for his criticisms of ethics, but he changed nothing because he did not get to the root of the problem and he had no alternative to offer. While I share his disenchantment with ethics, this essay is about hopeless, humble truth. I cannot eradicate it, and nor should I, but I can reduce its status.
Has anyone tried to assemble an absolute Truth out of truths? With truth there is always the prospect of an unexpected, inconvenient truth coming along to wreck the endeavour, because truth is not obviously connected to other truths of its kind. The ‘independence’ of truth causes oversight. “Oh, I did not see that consequence”, is a refrain that follows single-minded-ness.
Unanticipated consequences arise from truth’s open-ended-ness. One-dimensional, single minded-ness advances along a line of reasoning, going therefore … therefore … therefore. Injudicious, one-track minds minds are apt to see advantages and be blinkered about hindrances, because their stepping-stone thought pattern is beguiling.
Communism was an attempt to be politically and intellectually absolute. Fascism was straight-out absolutism. Catholicism and Islam consider themselves absolute. These ideologies and religions would not / will not entertain contrary viewpoints. Their faith in the ‘truth and righteousness’ of their cause realised history as we know it. There are two fatal flaws in having absolute convictions about truth and righteousness. “No cause is a true cause” – there is more to reality than its truths. Secondly, righteousness is based on ethical conviction and ethics are illusions because goodness does not exist. Goodness and truth are an unholy mix of an illusion and a relativity.
When truths are assembled, they ‘mill-around’ because coherence and connection are not attributes of truth. Assembled truths are no more than “a case / an argument / a contention”. They lack existential conclusiveness. This point is illustrated by the question, “What is civil society?” There is no objective answer. The answer involves relationships and connections, the wholeness of which are removed from objective perception.
Returning to the errors inherent to being one-dimensional, truth as a one dimensional “underlings” cannot access absolute Ideas and their dimension. Since culture is 4-dimensional it is entirely understandable that 1-dimensional truth cannot grasp this reality. When truth fails to serve, dualists employ something more objectionable: ethics.
Since duality is only 1-dimensional, this fact affirms the popular conviction that truth is relative, which begs the question, “Relative in what?” “What are the parameters to which truth is a shuttlecock?” Objectivity cannot grasp the parameters of existence because it cannot access immanence. Existential parameters are reciprocals, not truths, and thus there is no connection, no point of contact, nothing in common. This means that civilised discussion between earnest participants finishes up going around and around. Objective truths will be strewn through-out the conversation and then eventually someone will ask, “Are we missing something here?” – Yes, a metaphysical overview.
Knowledge is gained by contrast, so the nature of objective truth is comprehended by knowledge of metaphysical Truth. Consciousness then takes two lessons: Truth does not have to be proven for knowledge to be gained about the nature of objectivity; and Truth does not have to be proven for Idealism to take logic off dialectic.
The bulwarks of truth are proof and meaning. They affirm truth and make truth appear substantial. Then along comes Truth and the news that truth is not synonymous with reality. It is only a part of reality and not important to Truth. Here is truth and its attributes that, with ethics, built a civilisation, and now those ideas are wrecking the planet, just as philosophy gains new relevance.
Next. I begin a four-part denial of ethics. I have destroyed ethics. I may add a fifth part.
To go straight to the point, the key question for philosophy’s evolution is, “Can dialectic detect its relativity?” – No. It takes logic and Truth to demonstrate truth is relative. The relativity of truth is suspected these days, but truth trying to find consummate truth about itself is hopeless. Relief from relativity can only be achieved by the transcendence of truth, and transcendence required time, dialectical movement, teleology and ontology.
As previously explained, absolute Truth is totally divorced from truth. Truth rests on reciprocals, so relative truths are not of interest to Idealism. Also, as said, Idealism is not bothered by proof for Truth, so proving truth is relative has no priority. The relativity of truth is implicit to Truth establishing it stands four-square in its command of reality. In particular, the relativity of truth is implicit to the relativity of ideology, [as some Readers may have discovered from Figure 1.1 in the freely available part of my ebook], and hence truth is not worth the candle.
This would be a short essay if I ended here with my principle criticism, so more commentary follows.
People appreciate a bit of scepticism, but I am not doing scepticism. I do real damage to convention because I have something with which to replace it. F. Nietzsche is appreciated for his criticisms of ethics, but he changed nothing because he did not get to the root of the problem and he had no alternative to offer. While I share his disenchantment with ethics, this essay is about hopeless, humble truth. I cannot eradicate it, and nor should I, but I can reduce its status.
Has anyone tried to assemble an absolute Truth out of truths? With truth there is always the prospect of an unexpected, inconvenient truth coming along to wreck the endeavour, because truth is not obviously connected to other truths of its kind. The ‘independence’ of truth causes oversight. “Oh, I did not see that consequence”, is a refrain that follows single-minded-ness.
Unanticipated consequences arise from truth’s open-ended-ness. One-dimensional, single minded-ness advances along a line of reasoning, going therefore … therefore … therefore. Injudicious, one-track minds minds are apt to see advantages and be blinkered about hindrances, because their stepping-stone thought pattern is beguiling.
Communism was an attempt to be politically and intellectually absolute. Fascism was straight-out absolutism. Catholicism and Islam consider themselves absolute. These ideologies and religions would not / will not entertain contrary viewpoints. Their faith in the ‘truth and righteousness’ of their cause realised history as we know it. There are two fatal flaws in having absolute convictions about truth and righteousness. “No cause is a true cause” – there is more to reality than its truths. Secondly, righteousness is based on ethical conviction and ethics are illusions because goodness does not exist. Goodness and truth are an unholy mix of an illusion and a relativity.
When truths are assembled, they ‘mill-around’ because coherence and connection are not attributes of truth. Assembled truths are no more than “a case / an argument / a contention”. They lack existential conclusiveness. This point is illustrated by the question, “What is civil society?” There is no objective answer. The answer involves relationships and connections, the wholeness of which are removed from objective perception.
Returning to the errors inherent to being one-dimensional, truth as a one dimensional “underlings” cannot access absolute Ideas and their dimension. Since culture is 4-dimensional it is entirely understandable that 1-dimensional truth cannot grasp this reality. When truth fails to serve, dualists employ something more objectionable: ethics.
Since duality is only 1-dimensional, this fact affirms the popular conviction that truth is relative, which begs the question, “Relative in what?” “What are the parameters to which truth is a shuttlecock?” Objectivity cannot grasp the parameters of existence because it cannot access immanence. Existential parameters are reciprocals, not truths, and thus there is no connection, no point of contact, nothing in common. This means that civilised discussion between earnest participants finishes up going around and around. Objective truths will be strewn through-out the conversation and then eventually someone will ask, “Are we missing something here?” – Yes, a metaphysical overview.
Knowledge is gained by contrast, so the nature of objective truth is comprehended by knowledge of metaphysical Truth. Consciousness then takes two lessons: Truth does not have to be proven for knowledge to be gained about the nature of objectivity; and Truth does not have to be proven for Idealism to take logic off dialectic.
The bulwarks of truth are proof and meaning. They affirm truth and make truth appear substantial. Then along comes Truth and the news that truth is not synonymous with reality. It is only a part of reality and not important to Truth. Here is truth and its attributes that, with ethics, built a civilisation, and now those ideas are wrecking the planet, just as philosophy gains new relevance.
Next. I begin a four-part denial of ethics. I have destroyed ethics. I may add a fifth part.
Re: Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
This is Part One of a five Part study of ethics that outlines the destruction of ethics. In this instalment, the point of interest is ethical relativity.
The Great Hoax
The great hoax is of course ethics. Without an a priori and without epistemic value, many cultures invent this lie to regulate behaviour.
Our acceptance of ethics is due to the shortcomings of truth. Objective truth is only a tiger in matters-empirical. In human affairs, especially politics where relativity is the norm, truth is a limp-thing that acquiesces to ethics.
At an individual level ethics performs quite well. It fails to be helpful in matters like abortion and recreational drugs, where the individual’s interests may collide with what moralistic politicians decree is socially acceptable. In politics, ethics is intolerable because its flaws are amplified. One grievous fault is ethical-relativity. Ethical-relativity became fully expressed in ideology. The great socialism versus capitalism divide and the lesser ideologies represent the full-flowering of ethics.
In contradiction to its monist origins which decree there is only one, true ethical path, the range of ideologies indicts ethics as untrue. Still, ethics is without a rival code of conduct, so it has ‘system justification’ by default. Here I will add F. Nietzsche’s condemnation. Ethics survived Nietzsche’s broadsides because he had no metaphysics to support his polemic.
Ethics is condemned by Idealism as fraudulent, but it is necessary to be even-handed about ethics rather than entirely condemnatory. Ethics are crucial to the growth of consciousness. When Truth and logic are unknown, it is necessary to have a formal body of lies, i.e. ethics. To get a grasp of the knot that is necessary lies, we need G. W. F. Hegel’s “Cunning of Reason. This Reason is absolute Reason. It is coextensive with Truth.
The doctrine of the Cunning of Reason is quite simple: We do not know the natural order, i.e. Reason, so we do our own ‘thing’. The natural order prevails and we find ourselves in a mess. There is the chance that we will learn from our mistakes and Reason will be found. Cunning of Reason introduces history as significant to our condition; we live in an intellectually active culture and teleology will deliver us from our errors. Living with error means ‘Tragedy’ is unavoidable. Hegel has some serious things to say about tragedy, i.e. the slaughter bench of history, so Idealism is realist [to use a shaky word].
Ethics has accidentally helped us find what is real. This unintentional role is best observed in ideology. Ethics is foundation-less, [a whore of an idea in fact], so any contention can use it. Every faction in a dualistic culture makes an ethical point in combination with the aspect of political economy the faction wishes to support. In this manner, we have factions presenting a mix of ethics, truths and facts. Every ideology gets something right, even fascism. It is Idealism’s role to find and synthesise authentic parts, and discard the ideals. The ideals ‘flag’ authentic parts and that is an aid.
The existence of political factions is due to metaphysical reciprocals. Reciprocals underpin different ways of seeing appearances. Ethics adhere to points of view to give the reciprocals “expression”. Expression consists of the ethics, truths and facts that constitute an ideology. They are apparent “accretions” on the concealed reciprocals. Metaphysical instincts are required to find the reciprocals and one clue is the fact that ethics are relative. If ethics are relative:
“What are they giving expression to which is more substantial than the ideology? Also, if ethics are relative:
“What immanent relationship causes ideals to forsake their monist pledge?” “What natural condition is causing ethical hypocrisy?”
Another clue is the cardinal virtue that ethics and ideologies give expression to:
“What virtue is the essence of capitalism and the essence of socialism?”
The immanent answer to these three questions lies in the same degree of abstraction as the logic of Special Relativity with which I began this thread, which implies it is beyond empirical investigation.
In political economic, the hypocrisy of ethics is helpful; only in ideology do ethics express relativity in a metaphysically useful manner. In other situations, ethics are unhelpful.
From the 1960’s forward, an Idealist could delve into ideology to find the Truth. I found Figure 1.1. The logic of political economy, in about 1976. That was the easy bit.
One-dimensional thought, that reckons knowing the difference between right and wrong is what matters, is a denial of philosophy. Existential philosophy begins with the ability to get beyond ethics into metaphysics. The elicitation of one Truth from a political scenario that churned with agitated values spells the end for ethics.
Ethics is due some credit. It is a shifty lie, but it serves as the surrogate you have, when you don’t have a clue. When the goal is transcendent Ideas, one needs ideas to be ‘in-the-game’. With ideas substituting for Ideas, tragedy is inevitable, yet the possibility of transcendence is present. When you reflect on the arrogance of the authorities who exercised their power to implement good outcomes, history is grim, and yet transcendence is realised via this nastiness.
Part Two: To accompany this theoretical piece, I will next present Teleology. It illustrates ethical relativity in history and much more because teleology is a major doctrine of Idealism.
The Great Hoax
The great hoax is of course ethics. Without an a priori and without epistemic value, many cultures invent this lie to regulate behaviour.
Our acceptance of ethics is due to the shortcomings of truth. Objective truth is only a tiger in matters-empirical. In human affairs, especially politics where relativity is the norm, truth is a limp-thing that acquiesces to ethics.
At an individual level ethics performs quite well. It fails to be helpful in matters like abortion and recreational drugs, where the individual’s interests may collide with what moralistic politicians decree is socially acceptable. In politics, ethics is intolerable because its flaws are amplified. One grievous fault is ethical-relativity. Ethical-relativity became fully expressed in ideology. The great socialism versus capitalism divide and the lesser ideologies represent the full-flowering of ethics.
In contradiction to its monist origins which decree there is only one, true ethical path, the range of ideologies indicts ethics as untrue. Still, ethics is without a rival code of conduct, so it has ‘system justification’ by default. Here I will add F. Nietzsche’s condemnation. Ethics survived Nietzsche’s broadsides because he had no metaphysics to support his polemic.
Ethics is condemned by Idealism as fraudulent, but it is necessary to be even-handed about ethics rather than entirely condemnatory. Ethics are crucial to the growth of consciousness. When Truth and logic are unknown, it is necessary to have a formal body of lies, i.e. ethics. To get a grasp of the knot that is necessary lies, we need G. W. F. Hegel’s “Cunning of Reason. This Reason is absolute Reason. It is coextensive with Truth.
The doctrine of the Cunning of Reason is quite simple: We do not know the natural order, i.e. Reason, so we do our own ‘thing’. The natural order prevails and we find ourselves in a mess. There is the chance that we will learn from our mistakes and Reason will be found. Cunning of Reason introduces history as significant to our condition; we live in an intellectually active culture and teleology will deliver us from our errors. Living with error means ‘Tragedy’ is unavoidable. Hegel has some serious things to say about tragedy, i.e. the slaughter bench of history, so Idealism is realist [to use a shaky word].
Ethics has accidentally helped us find what is real. This unintentional role is best observed in ideology. Ethics is foundation-less, [a whore of an idea in fact], so any contention can use it. Every faction in a dualistic culture makes an ethical point in combination with the aspect of political economy the faction wishes to support. In this manner, we have factions presenting a mix of ethics, truths and facts. Every ideology gets something right, even fascism. It is Idealism’s role to find and synthesise authentic parts, and discard the ideals. The ideals ‘flag’ authentic parts and that is an aid.
The existence of political factions is due to metaphysical reciprocals. Reciprocals underpin different ways of seeing appearances. Ethics adhere to points of view to give the reciprocals “expression”. Expression consists of the ethics, truths and facts that constitute an ideology. They are apparent “accretions” on the concealed reciprocals. Metaphysical instincts are required to find the reciprocals and one clue is the fact that ethics are relative. If ethics are relative:
“What are they giving expression to which is more substantial than the ideology? Also, if ethics are relative:
“What immanent relationship causes ideals to forsake their monist pledge?” “What natural condition is causing ethical hypocrisy?”
Another clue is the cardinal virtue that ethics and ideologies give expression to:
“What virtue is the essence of capitalism and the essence of socialism?”
The immanent answer to these three questions lies in the same degree of abstraction as the logic of Special Relativity with which I began this thread, which implies it is beyond empirical investigation.
In political economic, the hypocrisy of ethics is helpful; only in ideology do ethics express relativity in a metaphysically useful manner. In other situations, ethics are unhelpful.
From the 1960’s forward, an Idealist could delve into ideology to find the Truth. I found Figure 1.1. The logic of political economy, in about 1976. That was the easy bit.
One-dimensional thought, that reckons knowing the difference between right and wrong is what matters, is a denial of philosophy. Existential philosophy begins with the ability to get beyond ethics into metaphysics. The elicitation of one Truth from a political scenario that churned with agitated values spells the end for ethics.
Ethics is due some credit. It is a shifty lie, but it serves as the surrogate you have, when you don’t have a clue. When the goal is transcendent Ideas, one needs ideas to be ‘in-the-game’. With ideas substituting for Ideas, tragedy is inevitable, yet the possibility of transcendence is present. When you reflect on the arrogance of the authorities who exercised their power to implement good outcomes, history is grim, and yet transcendence is realised via this nastiness.
Part Two: To accompany this theoretical piece, I will next present Teleology. It illustrates ethical relativity in history and much more because teleology is a major doctrine of Idealism.
Re: Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
This essay is an abridgment of my teleology. It makes G. W. F. Hegel’s dialectical movement applicable to specific moments in Western history and delineates what is climactic in this progression. As the second essay on the destruction of ethics, it accompanies Part One with examples of ethical relativity in history.
Teleology
Detailed teleology establishes the following related aspects:
1. Determinism has made the transcendence of duality possible.
2. History is about the evolution of consciousness.
3. Repetition of one political theme effects perception of a Truth.
4. Teleology relies on ontology for their joint success.
5. The partnership of ontology and teleology affirms the Absolute is dichotomies.
6. The relativity of ethics is transparent in dialectical movements.
7. Dialectical movement affirms history has deep, metaphysical import.
8. Deep history transcends historical truth.
9. Dialectical movement manifests only once in history.
Absolute consciousness can only be realised in a liberal nation. Liberalism possess processes that articulate logic. Once its Truths are gleaned, liberalism dies, ethics dies, duality dies.
Dialectical Movement
Western consciousness has evolved through politics. Dialectical movement is political replication of dialectical discourse. At a personal level, dialectic is discussion and disputation. In politics, disputation has pivotal moments of unyielding antagonism. Unyielding antagonism is inherent in duality and a special class of antagonism: theory-based conflict, advances consciousness. The transcendence of duality is effected by duality arriving at an historical compromise, wherein antagonisms acquiesce. Philosophy’s advancement depends on an Idealist recognising the said acquiescence and discerning the metaphysical depths of that truce.
The last millennium has seen various forms of [moral] idealism take arms against authority. The key conflicts are disputes over money that are principled. The individuals involved were oblivious to the world-historical nature of their actions. Across these conflicts, a Truth was progressively becoming more evident.
The vital teleological moments in Western history are the Reformation, the revolt against absolute monarchy [the English Civil War and the Dutch Revolt] and the modern age of industry and ideology. Each event involved a dialectic. Chronologically the dialectics were: Catholics versus Protestants, monarchists versus merchants and nonconformists, and capitalists versus socialists. While the participants were in different guises, metaphysically the argument / dialectic / fight is the same one. The monetary grievances were indulgences, taxation without representation and the exploitation of labour, respectively.
The recurring fight was moral idealism versus intransigent authority. Moral idealism versus authority is not the insight of significance. Sapience lies in the transcendence of the third dialectic. In the third dialectic the modern marketplace has fully-formed, economic participants. Capitalism and socialism separately account for the participants. These antagonistic ideologies needed to be reconciled by liberalism for Idealism to start its bid for philosophical supremacy.
In the above dialectics, ethics are persistently relative, but that is not apparent to single-minded partisans. Catholics do not recognise their stance as relative because they are the parent church, i.e. primogeniture is their argument. Protestants held Catholicism to be wrong, hence the behaviour of Catholics was wrong, but ethics per se were not wrong. Absolute monarchs did not recognise the legitimacy of their opposition because they had a divine mandate to be absolutist. Revolutionaries saw the issue as monarchical failure – not ethical failure. Communists did not recognise opposition because their ideology is absolutist. Capitalists argue for their right to be acquisitive and judge communists / socialists to be idealists without realistic ethics. Western consciousness has evolved via violence over these ethics-based convictions.
It is comprehendible to objectivists that ethics and money are at the heart of each controversy and ethics are relative, yet for objectivists each argument is unique – they do not see evidence of metaphysical influences. Conversely, knowing the teleological end, an Idealist sees successive conflicts that transition into a détente. Two points germane to that last sentence: the teleological end is Idealist insight into liberalism and the mechanism that achieved détente between capitalism and socialism was trade unionism.
Without a philosophy of history and without belief in metaphysics, liberalism reconciled capitalism and socialism. Ironically, that makes liberalism ripe for an Idealist to take it apart and find what liberals do not believe. The plundering of liberalism initiated definitive Idealism. The extraction of metaphysical Truths ends liberalism, ethics and duality.
The Ontology—Teleology Partnership
If there was an argument over the selection of deterministic moments, teleology is not the hook on which Idealism hangs its case. The weight of the Idealist case is borne by ontology. Ontology ascertains transcendence. [The lessons here are that reciprocals are not equals and though dialectical movement is distinctive, one must start Idealism with ontology.] The Truths extracted from liberalism are ontological insights. Ontological constructs ensue, then the metaphysic moves to teleology.
‘Ontology tells teleology’ [excuse the personifications] what to look for in history. Teleology is a retrospective exercise that provides ontology with a narrative. Knowledge of immanence cannot spring from a primitive economy. The emergence of Truth must be traced to progenitors of liberalism for ontology to have context. With conflict inherent in perfidious ethics and partisan truth, the development of consciousness is violent. While ethics pretends that Progress is ‘user-friendly’, dialectical movement makes no pretence about determinism being violent.
Deep History
Beyond ethics and empirical studies of history lies teleology. The eliciting of teleology leads to a doctrine on the evolution of consciousness. This theory is the mainstay to which other events that contribute to the evolution of consciousness can be joined.
Teleology follows ontology in seeing past right and wrong. It is not concerned for who won, the balance of truth, the best opinions, finest scruples, nor is it deterred by conflict. Theory-based conflict is sought as the events deserving of investigation.
Historical truths are metaphysically-naïve / clueless about metaphysics. This vacuum allows ethics to impose its judgments on history. The privilege is ended by dialectical movement being empowered as a Truth. Teleology concludes ethical assertions about history. Thus the notion of Progress, and the presumption that ethics may judge history, are replaced by history as the evolution of consciousness. Once historical analysis is orientated around ‘the evolution of consciousness’, and tragedy is accepted as a consequence of dualistic consciousness, ethics dies yet another death.
Human Potential
Humans have an amazing capacity for abstract thought, though one would not credit this of the average medieval mind. For most of history there were no opportunities for individuals to realise their mental capacities. Religion had a firm fix on most minds. Add outrage over the manipulation of fear of damnation to extract indulgencies, and consciousness is aroused to the prospect of a new religious organisation. Protestantism allowed the individual to think for themselves. That has to feature in teleology.
In successive disputes, polemics are more aspirational. Consult the Putney Debates of the Roundheads of the English Civil War for proto-democrats, proto-socialists and proto-conservatives. Very clearly, the third dialectic was nascent in the second. The second dialectic took precedence from the first challenge to authority, especially since religious elements were prominent in the Parliamentary cause. Through dialectics, great and small, consciousness grows till the dialectical process transcends duality.
Summary
The above sketches an historical progression in which ethics is a vainglorious actor, contradicting its absolute pretensions as it serves rival parties in the West’s foremost controversies. Successive conflicts over authority and economics elaborated the poles of difference until a Truth was expressed and consciousness could advance from idealism to Idealism.
Ethics cannot see or admit that intellectual growth is due to violence it generates.
Ethics and truth are relative and that was all that the West had to comprehend appearances. With these perfidious and inadequate means, dialectical movement allowed elements to mature and relativities to connect. Finding what makes relativities substantial and interact transforms a key dualism into a dichotomy.
Dialectical movement proclaims history is about the evolution of consciousness. The absolute nature of its scrutiny removes ethics and Progress from historical theorising.
These essays circumnavigate a black hole called ontology. I will not be doing ontology in an essay because I cannot “pop it into an essay”. I have gone to some trouble to make this truncated essay readable. Much is missing and I have to skate over key points. On the subject of teleology, I cannot avoid encroaching on ontology. Ontology is fully explicated in my ebook. I have about 30+ regular readers. Let me guess that 10 know what “personification” means and are equipped to take on the task of reading and reviewing my book. Changing logic is the purpose and be aware I am destroying your intellectual world. This threat emerges from liberalism. It is evolutionary and entertaining if you like intellectual drama.
I need the better minds to check out my metaphysic to see whether I’m telling fabulous fibs or there is an ontological system behind my statements. I would like the readers of my book to be able to offer a consensus and 10 evaluations would be sufficient. Kindly do your part for the growth of consciousness. Get hold of the ebook or POD and offer your review. Criticise, praise, damn, rave … it is needed for this show is to continue.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/648015
Another agent of determinism has been left out of this overview, along with comments on Hegel and other history-related matters. I am not thrilled about truncating the teleology, but I need to include teleology in my five-part condemnation of ethics.
Part Three: Ethics denied in the course of my systematising.
Teleology
Detailed teleology establishes the following related aspects:
1. Determinism has made the transcendence of duality possible.
2. History is about the evolution of consciousness.
3. Repetition of one political theme effects perception of a Truth.
4. Teleology relies on ontology for their joint success.
5. The partnership of ontology and teleology affirms the Absolute is dichotomies.
6. The relativity of ethics is transparent in dialectical movements.
7. Dialectical movement affirms history has deep, metaphysical import.
8. Deep history transcends historical truth.
9. Dialectical movement manifests only once in history.
Absolute consciousness can only be realised in a liberal nation. Liberalism possess processes that articulate logic. Once its Truths are gleaned, liberalism dies, ethics dies, duality dies.
Dialectical Movement
Western consciousness has evolved through politics. Dialectical movement is political replication of dialectical discourse. At a personal level, dialectic is discussion and disputation. In politics, disputation has pivotal moments of unyielding antagonism. Unyielding antagonism is inherent in duality and a special class of antagonism: theory-based conflict, advances consciousness. The transcendence of duality is effected by duality arriving at an historical compromise, wherein antagonisms acquiesce. Philosophy’s advancement depends on an Idealist recognising the said acquiescence and discerning the metaphysical depths of that truce.
The last millennium has seen various forms of [moral] idealism take arms against authority. The key conflicts are disputes over money that are principled. The individuals involved were oblivious to the world-historical nature of their actions. Across these conflicts, a Truth was progressively becoming more evident.
The vital teleological moments in Western history are the Reformation, the revolt against absolute monarchy [the English Civil War and the Dutch Revolt] and the modern age of industry and ideology. Each event involved a dialectic. Chronologically the dialectics were: Catholics versus Protestants, monarchists versus merchants and nonconformists, and capitalists versus socialists. While the participants were in different guises, metaphysically the argument / dialectic / fight is the same one. The monetary grievances were indulgences, taxation without representation and the exploitation of labour, respectively.
The recurring fight was moral idealism versus intransigent authority. Moral idealism versus authority is not the insight of significance. Sapience lies in the transcendence of the third dialectic. In the third dialectic the modern marketplace has fully-formed, economic participants. Capitalism and socialism separately account for the participants. These antagonistic ideologies needed to be reconciled by liberalism for Idealism to start its bid for philosophical supremacy.
In the above dialectics, ethics are persistently relative, but that is not apparent to single-minded partisans. Catholics do not recognise their stance as relative because they are the parent church, i.e. primogeniture is their argument. Protestants held Catholicism to be wrong, hence the behaviour of Catholics was wrong, but ethics per se were not wrong. Absolute monarchs did not recognise the legitimacy of their opposition because they had a divine mandate to be absolutist. Revolutionaries saw the issue as monarchical failure – not ethical failure. Communists did not recognise opposition because their ideology is absolutist. Capitalists argue for their right to be acquisitive and judge communists / socialists to be idealists without realistic ethics. Western consciousness has evolved via violence over these ethics-based convictions.
It is comprehendible to objectivists that ethics and money are at the heart of each controversy and ethics are relative, yet for objectivists each argument is unique – they do not see evidence of metaphysical influences. Conversely, knowing the teleological end, an Idealist sees successive conflicts that transition into a détente. Two points germane to that last sentence: the teleological end is Idealist insight into liberalism and the mechanism that achieved détente between capitalism and socialism was trade unionism.
Without a philosophy of history and without belief in metaphysics, liberalism reconciled capitalism and socialism. Ironically, that makes liberalism ripe for an Idealist to take it apart and find what liberals do not believe. The plundering of liberalism initiated definitive Idealism. The extraction of metaphysical Truths ends liberalism, ethics and duality.
The Ontology—Teleology Partnership
If there was an argument over the selection of deterministic moments, teleology is not the hook on which Idealism hangs its case. The weight of the Idealist case is borne by ontology. Ontology ascertains transcendence. [The lessons here are that reciprocals are not equals and though dialectical movement is distinctive, one must start Idealism with ontology.] The Truths extracted from liberalism are ontological insights. Ontological constructs ensue, then the metaphysic moves to teleology.
‘Ontology tells teleology’ [excuse the personifications] what to look for in history. Teleology is a retrospective exercise that provides ontology with a narrative. Knowledge of immanence cannot spring from a primitive economy. The emergence of Truth must be traced to progenitors of liberalism for ontology to have context. With conflict inherent in perfidious ethics and partisan truth, the development of consciousness is violent. While ethics pretends that Progress is ‘user-friendly’, dialectical movement makes no pretence about determinism being violent.
Deep History
Beyond ethics and empirical studies of history lies teleology. The eliciting of teleology leads to a doctrine on the evolution of consciousness. This theory is the mainstay to which other events that contribute to the evolution of consciousness can be joined.
Teleology follows ontology in seeing past right and wrong. It is not concerned for who won, the balance of truth, the best opinions, finest scruples, nor is it deterred by conflict. Theory-based conflict is sought as the events deserving of investigation.
Historical truths are metaphysically-naïve / clueless about metaphysics. This vacuum allows ethics to impose its judgments on history. The privilege is ended by dialectical movement being empowered as a Truth. Teleology concludes ethical assertions about history. Thus the notion of Progress, and the presumption that ethics may judge history, are replaced by history as the evolution of consciousness. Once historical analysis is orientated around ‘the evolution of consciousness’, and tragedy is accepted as a consequence of dualistic consciousness, ethics dies yet another death.
Human Potential
Humans have an amazing capacity for abstract thought, though one would not credit this of the average medieval mind. For most of history there were no opportunities for individuals to realise their mental capacities. Religion had a firm fix on most minds. Add outrage over the manipulation of fear of damnation to extract indulgencies, and consciousness is aroused to the prospect of a new religious organisation. Protestantism allowed the individual to think for themselves. That has to feature in teleology.
In successive disputes, polemics are more aspirational. Consult the Putney Debates of the Roundheads of the English Civil War for proto-democrats, proto-socialists and proto-conservatives. Very clearly, the third dialectic was nascent in the second. The second dialectic took precedence from the first challenge to authority, especially since religious elements were prominent in the Parliamentary cause. Through dialectics, great and small, consciousness grows till the dialectical process transcends duality.
Summary
The above sketches an historical progression in which ethics is a vainglorious actor, contradicting its absolute pretensions as it serves rival parties in the West’s foremost controversies. Successive conflicts over authority and economics elaborated the poles of difference until a Truth was expressed and consciousness could advance from idealism to Idealism.
Ethics cannot see or admit that intellectual growth is due to violence it generates.
Ethics and truth are relative and that was all that the West had to comprehend appearances. With these perfidious and inadequate means, dialectical movement allowed elements to mature and relativities to connect. Finding what makes relativities substantial and interact transforms a key dualism into a dichotomy.
Dialectical movement proclaims history is about the evolution of consciousness. The absolute nature of its scrutiny removes ethics and Progress from historical theorising.
These essays circumnavigate a black hole called ontology. I will not be doing ontology in an essay because I cannot “pop it into an essay”. I have gone to some trouble to make this truncated essay readable. Much is missing and I have to skate over key points. On the subject of teleology, I cannot avoid encroaching on ontology. Ontology is fully explicated in my ebook. I have about 30+ regular readers. Let me guess that 10 know what “personification” means and are equipped to take on the task of reading and reviewing my book. Changing logic is the purpose and be aware I am destroying your intellectual world. This threat emerges from liberalism. It is evolutionary and entertaining if you like intellectual drama.
I need the better minds to check out my metaphysic to see whether I’m telling fabulous fibs or there is an ontological system behind my statements. I would like the readers of my book to be able to offer a consensus and 10 evaluations would be sufficient. Kindly do your part for the growth of consciousness. Get hold of the ebook or POD and offer your review. Criticise, praise, damn, rave … it is needed for this show is to continue.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/648015
Another agent of determinism has been left out of this overview, along with comments on Hegel and other history-related matters. I am not thrilled about truncating the teleology, but I need to include teleology in my five-part condemnation of ethics.
Part Three: Ethics denied in the course of my systematising.
Re: Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
Ending Ethics Case by Case
Ethics does not possess an axiom, core precept, actuality, a priori or perfect form that can be interrogated – it is a free but nasty spirit. The previous Teleology essay recognised ethics functions with great versatility and its perfidy has helped elicit metaphysical Truth. But now that its usefulness is exhausted, ethics has to be eliminated because its perfidy in politics is intolerable. How then, is this mercurial, faux idea cornered and finished?
Ethics dies of exhaustion. Its pretensions come in many forms and consistent rebuff breaks it. Since it has no root, each tendril that interferes with Truth is terminated. This, the third essay in the destruction of ethics is a list of ethics and values that have been terminated in the course of the systematising of Idealism:
1. Liberal values associated with political economy are irrelevant to the logic of political economy. There is no need of freedom and justice when political economy is defined by a Truth;
2. Liberal values are missing from the logic of democracy. There is no need of equality or freedom of speech when democracy is defined as a Truth;
3. An absolute study of sexuality found ethics to be narrow, a hindrance to Truth and judgmental without knowing the Truth of various types of sexual relationships;
4. Ethics has no presence in immanence or creation, i.e. there is no sign of the supposed forces of good and evil amidst what is existential;
5. Ethical relativity plays a big role in history. It supports both sides in the major disputes of Western civilisation. It is a hypocrite;
6. Abortion is resolved without reference to ethics;
7. The primacy of right and wrong obscures existential concerns such as care for the environment.
Case by case, reality is more than ethics can embrace.
The need to damn ethics is a consequence of the absence of metaphysical aptitude in truth. Because truth does not harmonise with Truth, we should not be surprised that dualistic philosophy does not engender metaphysics. Dualistic philosophy can only offer speculative metaphysics because truth is restricted to relativity / appearances. This predicament is aggravated by the inability of truth [to do metaphysics], eluding truth.
Dualistic philosophy has no knowledge of absolutes, hence philosophy with absolute answers is metaphysical. The absence of definitive Idealism meant a vacuum that truth could not fill and ethics was only too happy to fill. Intimations that ethics were incompetent included the nature of the relationship between truth and ethics [there is no relationship], the inability of ethics to contribute to epistemology and the matter of God’s failure to impose goodness. When truth is transcended, ethics ends and the limitations of truth are exposed.
To put duality in a nutshell: ethics is pure illusion and truth is delusion [in regards to its ability to contribute].
Environmental issues should not be caste as value concerns, since values are not existential. Clean water is an existential. Tolerance for same sex relationships involve values. To liberals, clean water and homosexual relationships are both value-related issues. Duality does not serve existential needs.
On Monday 21/11/16, Pope Francis extended to all Roman Catholic priests the power to forgive abortion. Thanks for nothing. Ethics has nothing to do with the existential question that hangs over abortion.
Part Four: In my book the final blow for ethics is the denial of anti-racism. Ethics is in poor shape before that denouement, but Idealism must take each ethic as it comes. Failure to dispatch anti-racism would be intolerable. It could derail my whole venture, because as said, Idealism cannot tolerate an antithesis; an ideal cannot persist in opposition to Idealism.
If you think you know how anti-racism is dispatched, please contribute an opinion. When I give the answer, there is a strong possibility that it will not surprise. The answer is subtle and involved, but not amazing. You do the ‘subtle’ bit and I will do the ‘involved’. Then we will see if the answer is ‘normal’. I cannot ramp-up the drama, because even though this is an impossible task from a dualistic point of view, it is not difficult from an Idealist position.
Ethics does not possess an axiom, core precept, actuality, a priori or perfect form that can be interrogated – it is a free but nasty spirit. The previous Teleology essay recognised ethics functions with great versatility and its perfidy has helped elicit metaphysical Truth. But now that its usefulness is exhausted, ethics has to be eliminated because its perfidy in politics is intolerable. How then, is this mercurial, faux idea cornered and finished?
Ethics dies of exhaustion. Its pretensions come in many forms and consistent rebuff breaks it. Since it has no root, each tendril that interferes with Truth is terminated. This, the third essay in the destruction of ethics is a list of ethics and values that have been terminated in the course of the systematising of Idealism:
1. Liberal values associated with political economy are irrelevant to the logic of political economy. There is no need of freedom and justice when political economy is defined by a Truth;
2. Liberal values are missing from the logic of democracy. There is no need of equality or freedom of speech when democracy is defined as a Truth;
3. An absolute study of sexuality found ethics to be narrow, a hindrance to Truth and judgmental without knowing the Truth of various types of sexual relationships;
4. Ethics has no presence in immanence or creation, i.e. there is no sign of the supposed forces of good and evil amidst what is existential;
5. Ethical relativity plays a big role in history. It supports both sides in the major disputes of Western civilisation. It is a hypocrite;
6. Abortion is resolved without reference to ethics;
7. The primacy of right and wrong obscures existential concerns such as care for the environment.
Case by case, reality is more than ethics can embrace.
The need to damn ethics is a consequence of the absence of metaphysical aptitude in truth. Because truth does not harmonise with Truth, we should not be surprised that dualistic philosophy does not engender metaphysics. Dualistic philosophy can only offer speculative metaphysics because truth is restricted to relativity / appearances. This predicament is aggravated by the inability of truth [to do metaphysics], eluding truth.
Dualistic philosophy has no knowledge of absolutes, hence philosophy with absolute answers is metaphysical. The absence of definitive Idealism meant a vacuum that truth could not fill and ethics was only too happy to fill. Intimations that ethics were incompetent included the nature of the relationship between truth and ethics [there is no relationship], the inability of ethics to contribute to epistemology and the matter of God’s failure to impose goodness. When truth is transcended, ethics ends and the limitations of truth are exposed.
To put duality in a nutshell: ethics is pure illusion and truth is delusion [in regards to its ability to contribute].
Environmental issues should not be caste as value concerns, since values are not existential. Clean water is an existential. Tolerance for same sex relationships involve values. To liberals, clean water and homosexual relationships are both value-related issues. Duality does not serve existential needs.
On Monday 21/11/16, Pope Francis extended to all Roman Catholic priests the power to forgive abortion. Thanks for nothing. Ethics has nothing to do with the existential question that hangs over abortion.
Part Four: In my book the final blow for ethics is the denial of anti-racism. Ethics is in poor shape before that denouement, but Idealism must take each ethic as it comes. Failure to dispatch anti-racism would be intolerable. It could derail my whole venture, because as said, Idealism cannot tolerate an antithesis; an ideal cannot persist in opposition to Idealism.
If you think you know how anti-racism is dispatched, please contribute an opinion. When I give the answer, there is a strong possibility that it will not surprise. The answer is subtle and involved, but not amazing. You do the ‘subtle’ bit and I will do the ‘involved’. Then we will see if the answer is ‘normal’. I cannot ramp-up the drama, because even though this is an impossible task from a dualistic point of view, it is not difficult from an Idealist position.
Re: Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
The Termination of Anti-Racism
Idealism has to destroy ethics to establish its command of reality. Part One recognised ethics inadvertent contribution to Idealist insight. Part Two supported Part One with a teleology. Part Three overviewed the various moments in my systematising when Truth denies ethics. The climax to this process is the termination of anti-racism. The following is an overview of the termination of anti-racism, with related comment.
To dualistic consciousness, anti-racism is insuperable. It is the appropriate stance in response to the holocaust, Civil Rights and apartheid. It is an ethical absolute. If an ethic was ever a truth, anti-racism is your candidate. Its intellectual demise is so unimaginable to liberals, liberalism is invalidated when anti-racism is repudiated, for ideals no longer have legitimacy.
The unimaginable occurs under the aegis of an authentic absolute. For Idealism, this is another issue where Idealist reality over-rules moral perception. The reality that dismisses anti-racism is ‘culture’. Devoid of detail, this is the verdict: You belong by race to a culture. You do not belong if your race is not synonymous with the indigenous culture.
Culture in non-specific abstraction is: ontology + teleology. More simply:
culture = ontology—teleology.
The coup de grace for anti-racism and liberalism lies in particularity; cultures are racial:
culture = ontology—teleology—race
Race is synonymous with culture. Culture is the Truths of ontology and teleology, joined by race. Thus, race is embedded with systematised absolute Truths. In the company of ontology—teleology, race is no longer an exposed, lame-duck target.
To particularise the above abstraction, factor-in a race, [select “European” because they have completed their cultural development]. Examine that race’s ontology and appreciate the history [teleology] that produced the particular ontology. Now choose another race, and repeat. Thereby you appreciate why cultures and races are different, and certainly not equal.
Culture = race is a reality that duality cannot see because it cannot grasp any Truth, let alone the combined Truths that explicate culture. In recent times, liberal ignorant of this complex Truth has meant race-mixing that has produced racial problems stemming from other races not belonging. Further back in history, the importation of slaves has caused a race-mixing problem which is not addressed by liberal reliance on equality.
In their simplistic way, liberals rely on ethics and the law to address a social problem. Ethics attributes the cause of racism to evil attitudes. The list of attitudes includes non-values such as; intolerance, hate, inequality, prejudice, superiority. Here, ethics validates ethics with non-values. Since there is no rival creed, ethics does not have to be sophisticated. Vis-à-vis not belonging to the indigenous culture, the attitudes ethics denounces are accusations of no lasting consequence. Antipathies actually make sense in the light of a substantial cause.
Liberals betray habitual zealotry when they castigate the far-Right. Hegemonic self-righteousness does not age when ethics prevails. The long history of ethical-certainty: the burning of heretics and witches, civil wars to insist on absolutism and ideologues that deal to enemies of the people, is resurrected in the denunciation of ‘racists’. Ethics affords the Establishment moral certainty and liberals are dyed-in-the-wool heirs of an infamous history.
Looming over this issue is the holocaust. My book includes Idealism’s explanation for the holocaust. Please avail yourselves of the ebook to be fully acquainted with Idealist thinking on the holocaust and thus be in an informed position to comment. The reader will not credit the reversal of received wisdom that Idealism effects until they read the book.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/648015
The closed system ontology—teleology provides taxonomy for race. Neither science nor sociology respect race. Least of all do they suspect race has a ‘home’ and the home is amidst mighty metaphysical muscle. With pronouncements about ‘close biological similarities between races’ and sociology’s lame, “Race is a social construct”, dismissal of race, science failed along with ethics and truth.
One theorist who knew race has ‘grounds’ beyond empiricism, was C. G. Jung with ‘racial memory’. Jungian psychology is beyond-the-empirical-pale, but now securely arrayed on the same immanent ground as Idealism.
Anti-racism is slave-morality; the emasculation of the strong and the elevation of the inferior. The reader will need to understand my metaphysic to appreciate what Nietzsche needed to terminate ethics.
Anti-racism subverts culture. This is a truth derived from culture = race. It is a criticism racial nationalists have made. As a mere truth, it is under-powered and, irrespective of where it comes from, it is ignored. Ethics cannot be tackled with truth. To repeat from a previous essay, Nietzsche established that penetrating criticism is insufficient to dislodge ethics.
The subversion of culture is the ultimate perfidy. Duality has put Western civilisation in this dilemma and duality cannot extract the West from the impasse of having to forego ethics to save itself. This predicament is the consequence of an illusion [ethics] that is absolutist in aspiration, yet functions as a relative, and a delusion [truth] that is relative and hopeless in human affairs. This is a fuck-up of World-historical proportions. Intellectually it is the biggest fuck-up imaginable. A bigger fuck-up would be nuclear warfare and you can be certain that duality will be behind that.
In my last Post I invited you to guess the basis for dismissing anti-racism. Previous generations would have no problem linking race to culture. In this age, Progressives have deracinated us. They want you to think you are more progressive than your parents and you are ethically superior to them. While previous generations intimately knew that race was synonymous with culture, it is now necessary to intellectually know this to avoid racial issues, because open-ended ethics certainly does not know to pull-back from disaster.
In an earlier Post I said, “Ethics is not normality”. Racism is the issue where ethics is diametrically opposed to normality and destroyed for a final time.
Next: I will add an addendum to this essay. It is non-ethical and offers another view of the metaphysics of race.
Idealism has to destroy ethics to establish its command of reality. Part One recognised ethics inadvertent contribution to Idealist insight. Part Two supported Part One with a teleology. Part Three overviewed the various moments in my systematising when Truth denies ethics. The climax to this process is the termination of anti-racism. The following is an overview of the termination of anti-racism, with related comment.
To dualistic consciousness, anti-racism is insuperable. It is the appropriate stance in response to the holocaust, Civil Rights and apartheid. It is an ethical absolute. If an ethic was ever a truth, anti-racism is your candidate. Its intellectual demise is so unimaginable to liberals, liberalism is invalidated when anti-racism is repudiated, for ideals no longer have legitimacy.
The unimaginable occurs under the aegis of an authentic absolute. For Idealism, this is another issue where Idealist reality over-rules moral perception. The reality that dismisses anti-racism is ‘culture’. Devoid of detail, this is the verdict: You belong by race to a culture. You do not belong if your race is not synonymous with the indigenous culture.
Culture in non-specific abstraction is: ontology + teleology. More simply:
culture = ontology—teleology.
The coup de grace for anti-racism and liberalism lies in particularity; cultures are racial:
culture = ontology—teleology—race
Race is synonymous with culture. Culture is the Truths of ontology and teleology, joined by race. Thus, race is embedded with systematised absolute Truths. In the company of ontology—teleology, race is no longer an exposed, lame-duck target.
To particularise the above abstraction, factor-in a race, [select “European” because they have completed their cultural development]. Examine that race’s ontology and appreciate the history [teleology] that produced the particular ontology. Now choose another race, and repeat. Thereby you appreciate why cultures and races are different, and certainly not equal.
Culture = race is a reality that duality cannot see because it cannot grasp any Truth, let alone the combined Truths that explicate culture. In recent times, liberal ignorant of this complex Truth has meant race-mixing that has produced racial problems stemming from other races not belonging. Further back in history, the importation of slaves has caused a race-mixing problem which is not addressed by liberal reliance on equality.
In their simplistic way, liberals rely on ethics and the law to address a social problem. Ethics attributes the cause of racism to evil attitudes. The list of attitudes includes non-values such as; intolerance, hate, inequality, prejudice, superiority. Here, ethics validates ethics with non-values. Since there is no rival creed, ethics does not have to be sophisticated. Vis-à-vis not belonging to the indigenous culture, the attitudes ethics denounces are accusations of no lasting consequence. Antipathies actually make sense in the light of a substantial cause.
Liberals betray habitual zealotry when they castigate the far-Right. Hegemonic self-righteousness does not age when ethics prevails. The long history of ethical-certainty: the burning of heretics and witches, civil wars to insist on absolutism and ideologues that deal to enemies of the people, is resurrected in the denunciation of ‘racists’. Ethics affords the Establishment moral certainty and liberals are dyed-in-the-wool heirs of an infamous history.
Looming over this issue is the holocaust. My book includes Idealism’s explanation for the holocaust. Please avail yourselves of the ebook to be fully acquainted with Idealist thinking on the holocaust and thus be in an informed position to comment. The reader will not credit the reversal of received wisdom that Idealism effects until they read the book.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/648015
The closed system ontology—teleology provides taxonomy for race. Neither science nor sociology respect race. Least of all do they suspect race has a ‘home’ and the home is amidst mighty metaphysical muscle. With pronouncements about ‘close biological similarities between races’ and sociology’s lame, “Race is a social construct”, dismissal of race, science failed along with ethics and truth.
One theorist who knew race has ‘grounds’ beyond empiricism, was C. G. Jung with ‘racial memory’. Jungian psychology is beyond-the-empirical-pale, but now securely arrayed on the same immanent ground as Idealism.
Anti-racism is slave-morality; the emasculation of the strong and the elevation of the inferior. The reader will need to understand my metaphysic to appreciate what Nietzsche needed to terminate ethics.
Anti-racism subverts culture. This is a truth derived from culture = race. It is a criticism racial nationalists have made. As a mere truth, it is under-powered and, irrespective of where it comes from, it is ignored. Ethics cannot be tackled with truth. To repeat from a previous essay, Nietzsche established that penetrating criticism is insufficient to dislodge ethics.
The subversion of culture is the ultimate perfidy. Duality has put Western civilisation in this dilemma and duality cannot extract the West from the impasse of having to forego ethics to save itself. This predicament is the consequence of an illusion [ethics] that is absolutist in aspiration, yet functions as a relative, and a delusion [truth] that is relative and hopeless in human affairs. This is a fuck-up of World-historical proportions. Intellectually it is the biggest fuck-up imaginable. A bigger fuck-up would be nuclear warfare and you can be certain that duality will be behind that.
In my last Post I invited you to guess the basis for dismissing anti-racism. Previous generations would have no problem linking race to culture. In this age, Progressives have deracinated us. They want you to think you are more progressive than your parents and you are ethically superior to them. While previous generations intimately knew that race was synonymous with culture, it is now necessary to intellectually know this to avoid racial issues, because open-ended ethics certainly does not know to pull-back from disaster.
In an earlier Post I said, “Ethics is not normality”. Racism is the issue where ethics is diametrically opposed to normality and destroyed for a final time.
Next: I will add an addendum to this essay. It is non-ethical and offers another view of the metaphysics of race.
Re: Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
Addendum to Part Four.
The following are loose ends from the previous essay.
I will make my point about race and metaphysics joining at a level beyond empiricism in a non-ethical manner. I add a criticism of anti-racism that an astute sceptic should be capable of, and then finish with comments on liberalism.
In the Talk section of Wikipedia: Genetic Memory (psychology) there is this comment that points to a contradiction and the taxonomy problem with science and race:
Culture is to us, what the ocean is, to a fish. Both are existential matrixes. A fish has no idea about what an ocean is and we have to transcend empiricism to appreciate what culture is. Empiricism sees everything separately, but we instinctively know, culture is connected. An African looking at Europe does not see it as discrete parts, as our much-lauded empiricism, values and truth insists we see it. He sees a whole package and generally wants to be a part of it. Intellectually, the whole package is ontology—teleology. That is philosophy in an absolute nutshell and philosophy’s last frontier.
Science cannot relate to race, so when an idea seems worthy of being categorised, as per racial memory, it becomes genetic memory. I suspect, there is a bit of p. c. about this categorising, because “Racial Memory” says it all and any empirical interest will aim to tone that down. As the above observer notes, it is a contradiction to link race to genes. Science can never account for race and thus the taxonomy problem turns to psychology.
Jungian psychology is reliant on Idealism to substantiate its claim to being “depth psychology”; only Idealism can find logic and hence affirm immanence. My need of Jungian psychology to systematise logic affirmed Jungian claims to being depth psychology. Dependence on Idealism would have confounded Jung because he had a low opinion of Hegel, based on his turgid prose. Nothing Hegelian [from Hegel forwards] suggested Idealism was in need of a psychology and Jung was far from systematic. Also, no Jungian appears to have had an intuition that metaphysics needed archetypes. Jungians are inclined to wish for empirical endorsement. Core Jungian doctrines are endorsed by Idealism when Idealism defines culture and acknowledges culture’s racial complexion.
An Absurdity
A genuine absolute is generative. Crudely, for the benefit of dualistic thinking, one could say an absolute was ‘positive’.
Anti-racism is an ethical absolute. It is also a negative edict. Can an absolute be negative? Whereas absolutes are creative, anti-racism is a prohibition and there is nothing creative about prohibitions. A negative absolute is an absurdity.
Were scepticism capable of being the guardian it pretends to be, it would cast doubt on anti-racism in regards to the possibility of a negative absolute. But it is too much like “sacrilege to the memory of the victims of racism” to cast doubt on anti-racism. Sceptics are liberal toadies. They do not have the intellectual fortitude to challenge contemporary ethics. Beyond liberalism they envisage monsters, so they remain white-water sailors.
Liberal Incredulity
Perturbed liberals will ask, “Why should the Absolute favour the far-Right?” – This question reflects a liberal-centric world-view and it reflects the conviction that liberalism is balanced and removed from the possibility of being extremist. Never mind that liberals are ignorant of all-things existential / absolute, liberals simply “have the faith” in their creed. To answer the question with a question, “Which of these is existential: race or equality?”
For liberals, it is inordinately difficult to understand that race has greater philosophical credentials than their creed conceives. That ‘race’ is existential, while ‘equality’ is false, is a possibility they do not accept.
Liberalism has ossified. It is no longer an ideology – it is a creed, and a creed is a dogma. The liberal dogma is: “Individual freedom is the only and highest political good”. If a reader has a greater estimation of contemporary liberalism I would be delighted to learn of it. There is one concession: liberalism has a duty to equality and equality can overrule freedom. Hence liberal joy at equality and freedom sanctioning gay rights.
Incredulity at Liberalism
Liberals have to recognise liberalism is not the perfect ideology. The world has stopped becoming liberal. Citizens of liberal countries have issues with how they are represented, re. Brexit and the American Presidential elections. Liberalism is an umbrella for a variety of single-issue, dissenting views, a number of which contradict. The common cause of dissent is differing ideals. Liberalism is built on ideals, the central ideal being democracy.
Liberalism’s enduring merit is to provide insight for a genuine absolute. Ipso facto that absolute will not / cannot be ideal-based. But liberalism is ideals, and thus liberalism was eviscerated by when Idealism found non-duality in liberalism.
Next: Abortion. Idealism’s answer demonstrates ethics cannot get any existential issue right. Catholicism has invested enormous authority in its stance and it is not in touch with reality.
The following are loose ends from the previous essay.
I will make my point about race and metaphysics joining at a level beyond empiricism in a non-ethical manner. I add a criticism of anti-racism that an astute sceptic should be capable of, and then finish with comments on liberalism.
In the Talk section of Wikipedia: Genetic Memory (psychology) there is this comment that points to a contradiction and the taxonomy problem with science and race:
Swap “Racial memory is an intrinsically Lamarckian idea”, for, “Racial memory is an intrinsically Jungian idea.” Jung is far more coherent than Lamarck. Note, “… the only mechanism is culture, either written or the oral tradition.” The writer of the comment is not aware that culture is an embracing, metaphysical reality, rather than a museum cupboard.Gee, um, the article might note that the whole idea of racial memory or genetic memory is bunk. That is, not true. If something is genetic, it's not a form of memory of things that happened to our ancestors. The idea of memory - the recording of an impression of experience - is entirely different from genes. Racial memory is an intrinsically Lamarckian idea. Culture is transmitted and learned by children; genes are inherited from parents. There is no mechanism by which a memory of ancestors becomes a genetic or racial property of their progeny. Or rather, the only mechanism is culture, either written or the oral tradition. And both of those are cultural. This is a seriously misleading article. You can call a false idea false, but still be informative about it.
Culture is to us, what the ocean is, to a fish. Both are existential matrixes. A fish has no idea about what an ocean is and we have to transcend empiricism to appreciate what culture is. Empiricism sees everything separately, but we instinctively know, culture is connected. An African looking at Europe does not see it as discrete parts, as our much-lauded empiricism, values and truth insists we see it. He sees a whole package and generally wants to be a part of it. Intellectually, the whole package is ontology—teleology. That is philosophy in an absolute nutshell and philosophy’s last frontier.
Science cannot relate to race, so when an idea seems worthy of being categorised, as per racial memory, it becomes genetic memory. I suspect, there is a bit of p. c. about this categorising, because “Racial Memory” says it all and any empirical interest will aim to tone that down. As the above observer notes, it is a contradiction to link race to genes. Science can never account for race and thus the taxonomy problem turns to psychology.
Jungian psychology is reliant on Idealism to substantiate its claim to being “depth psychology”; only Idealism can find logic and hence affirm immanence. My need of Jungian psychology to systematise logic affirmed Jungian claims to being depth psychology. Dependence on Idealism would have confounded Jung because he had a low opinion of Hegel, based on his turgid prose. Nothing Hegelian [from Hegel forwards] suggested Idealism was in need of a psychology and Jung was far from systematic. Also, no Jungian appears to have had an intuition that metaphysics needed archetypes. Jungians are inclined to wish for empirical endorsement. Core Jungian doctrines are endorsed by Idealism when Idealism defines culture and acknowledges culture’s racial complexion.
An Absurdity
A genuine absolute is generative. Crudely, for the benefit of dualistic thinking, one could say an absolute was ‘positive’.
Anti-racism is an ethical absolute. It is also a negative edict. Can an absolute be negative? Whereas absolutes are creative, anti-racism is a prohibition and there is nothing creative about prohibitions. A negative absolute is an absurdity.
Were scepticism capable of being the guardian it pretends to be, it would cast doubt on anti-racism in regards to the possibility of a negative absolute. But it is too much like “sacrilege to the memory of the victims of racism” to cast doubt on anti-racism. Sceptics are liberal toadies. They do not have the intellectual fortitude to challenge contemporary ethics. Beyond liberalism they envisage monsters, so they remain white-water sailors.
Liberal Incredulity
Perturbed liberals will ask, “Why should the Absolute favour the far-Right?” – This question reflects a liberal-centric world-view and it reflects the conviction that liberalism is balanced and removed from the possibility of being extremist. Never mind that liberals are ignorant of all-things existential / absolute, liberals simply “have the faith” in their creed. To answer the question with a question, “Which of these is existential: race or equality?”
For liberals, it is inordinately difficult to understand that race has greater philosophical credentials than their creed conceives. That ‘race’ is existential, while ‘equality’ is false, is a possibility they do not accept.
Liberalism has ossified. It is no longer an ideology – it is a creed, and a creed is a dogma. The liberal dogma is: “Individual freedom is the only and highest political good”. If a reader has a greater estimation of contemporary liberalism I would be delighted to learn of it. There is one concession: liberalism has a duty to equality and equality can overrule freedom. Hence liberal joy at equality and freedom sanctioning gay rights.
Incredulity at Liberalism
Liberals have to recognise liberalism is not the perfect ideology. The world has stopped becoming liberal. Citizens of liberal countries have issues with how they are represented, re. Brexit and the American Presidential elections. Liberalism is an umbrella for a variety of single-issue, dissenting views, a number of which contradict. The common cause of dissent is differing ideals. Liberalism is built on ideals, the central ideal being democracy.
Liberalism’s enduring merit is to provide insight for a genuine absolute. Ipso facto that absolute will not / cannot be ideal-based. But liberalism is ideals, and thus liberalism was eviscerated by when Idealism found non-duality in liberalism.
Next: Abortion. Idealism’s answer demonstrates ethics cannot get any existential issue right. Catholicism has invested enormous authority in its stance and it is not in touch with reality.
Re: Finally, Absolute Idealism delivers Absolute Truth
Idealism’s Resolution of Abortion
The following is copied from my book.
Abortion is an existential issue for foetuses but abortion is not existential for the mother. Most critically, mother and foetus are not a dichotomy. Were they a dichotomy, abortion would be opposed to nature and abortion would be wrong, but a foetus is part of the mother and it is her business to decide its fate. There is a dichotomy in this issue: existence—non-existence for the foetus. It is not the crux of the issue but it is the crux of the decision.
A baby is the attribute of its parents, but this does not change the foetus being a part of the mother. A human foetus is not an individual.
Ethics has no business with this decision because it is inauthentic and relative. With ethics disqualified the essence of the dilemma is able to emerge: contemplation of loss. If a baby is not wanted the mother contemplates an abortion. This situation is a denial of her biological potential as a woman so she is contemplating biological loss set against loss of opportunity.
Moral opinion holds abortion to be murder. It is usually reinforced by the religious assertion that the foetus has a soul, but everything possesses the four natural virtues which comprise the soul, so the lost soul argument is irrelevant. The soul concerns immanence upon which ethics may never pass judgment, and the soul is immortal, so abortion does not extinguish a soul.
The liberal viewpoint posits that abortion is an issue about freedom to choose and the right to one’s own body. Here we have persons whose pole star is freedom, attempting to address abortion with their inauthentic values. Those persons who hold to values are not entitled to arbitrate on existence. The liberal position is also rejected.
An unwanted child creates a dilemma because whichever way it is decided, it results in loss. Choosing birth or abortion is about choosing between inseparables. Neither is a winning option. There appears to be freedom of choice, but in Truth there is no freedom. If a child is wanted that is called good, but it is also normal. Moralists make abortion serve their conviction about sin, guilt and murder. The Truth is about choosing between reciprocals, which is no choice.
[The lift-out ends here.]
Existential dichotomies are the crux of existence. These relationships should not be disrupted. Mother and foetus are not a dichotomy, so abortion does not transgress nature.
Ethics produced anti-abortion. Typically, an argument ensued because goodness = imprecision x vagueness. The issue is based on ethics’ righteous premises that ‘God is good’, ‘life is good’ and the prevention of life is evil. Ethics has been around for 2500+ years, and nothing connects to anti-abortion, except the allegation of murder. The allegation of murder is consistent with ethics supporting an ethic with accusations of non-ethical behaviour. Ethics has eminence to the point where it can interfere in people’s lives without systemic substantiation. Anti-abortion has no precedent because ethics does not enhance epistemology. After 2500+ years there should be a corpus of precedents, but nothing builds on contentions that come and go as moral standards change.
Idealism’s stance is an extension of an existential system to an existential question. It comes with knowledge grounded in logic, connected Truths and consistency. Whereas ethics cannot connect God, goodness and anti-abortion, Idealism’s point is that causation, including the creative cause, is dichotomies and abortion does not transgress a dichotomous relationship, thus a substantiated, existential premise is not contravened.
The rebuffing of anti-abortion exposes the dualistic Establishment to censure. Anti-abortion imitates vital, dualistic thinking. It is comparable to anti-racism in its absolutism. Similarly it is a second instance where ethics are fully committed and it cannot extricate itself. Anti-abortion epitomises ethics and duality, and the end of ethics, is the end of dualistic faiths: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The Pope’s stance on abortion reflects his knowledge of the Absolute. He knows nothing about the Absolute, along with his dualistic brethren in other faiths.
The remaining five essays, or there-abouts, I will post at weekly intervals.
Next week: “Christianity and absolute Truth” for Xmas.
The following is copied from my book.
Abortion is an existential issue for foetuses but abortion is not existential for the mother. Most critically, mother and foetus are not a dichotomy. Were they a dichotomy, abortion would be opposed to nature and abortion would be wrong, but a foetus is part of the mother and it is her business to decide its fate. There is a dichotomy in this issue: existence—non-existence for the foetus. It is not the crux of the issue but it is the crux of the decision.
A baby is the attribute of its parents, but this does not change the foetus being a part of the mother. A human foetus is not an individual.
Ethics has no business with this decision because it is inauthentic and relative. With ethics disqualified the essence of the dilemma is able to emerge: contemplation of loss. If a baby is not wanted the mother contemplates an abortion. This situation is a denial of her biological potential as a woman so she is contemplating biological loss set against loss of opportunity.
Moral opinion holds abortion to be murder. It is usually reinforced by the religious assertion that the foetus has a soul, but everything possesses the four natural virtues which comprise the soul, so the lost soul argument is irrelevant. The soul concerns immanence upon which ethics may never pass judgment, and the soul is immortal, so abortion does not extinguish a soul.
The liberal viewpoint posits that abortion is an issue about freedom to choose and the right to one’s own body. Here we have persons whose pole star is freedom, attempting to address abortion with their inauthentic values. Those persons who hold to values are not entitled to arbitrate on existence. The liberal position is also rejected.
An unwanted child creates a dilemma because whichever way it is decided, it results in loss. Choosing birth or abortion is about choosing between inseparables. Neither is a winning option. There appears to be freedom of choice, but in Truth there is no freedom. If a child is wanted that is called good, but it is also normal. Moralists make abortion serve their conviction about sin, guilt and murder. The Truth is about choosing between reciprocals, which is no choice.
[The lift-out ends here.]
Existential dichotomies are the crux of existence. These relationships should not be disrupted. Mother and foetus are not a dichotomy, so abortion does not transgress nature.
Ethics produced anti-abortion. Typically, an argument ensued because goodness = imprecision x vagueness. The issue is based on ethics’ righteous premises that ‘God is good’, ‘life is good’ and the prevention of life is evil. Ethics has been around for 2500+ years, and nothing connects to anti-abortion, except the allegation of murder. The allegation of murder is consistent with ethics supporting an ethic with accusations of non-ethical behaviour. Ethics has eminence to the point where it can interfere in people’s lives without systemic substantiation. Anti-abortion has no precedent because ethics does not enhance epistemology. After 2500+ years there should be a corpus of precedents, but nothing builds on contentions that come and go as moral standards change.
Idealism’s stance is an extension of an existential system to an existential question. It comes with knowledge grounded in logic, connected Truths and consistency. Whereas ethics cannot connect God, goodness and anti-abortion, Idealism’s point is that causation, including the creative cause, is dichotomies and abortion does not transgress a dichotomous relationship, thus a substantiated, existential premise is not contravened.
The rebuffing of anti-abortion exposes the dualistic Establishment to censure. Anti-abortion imitates vital, dualistic thinking. It is comparable to anti-racism in its absolutism. Similarly it is a second instance where ethics are fully committed and it cannot extricate itself. Anti-abortion epitomises ethics and duality, and the end of ethics, is the end of dualistic faiths: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The Pope’s stance on abortion reflects his knowledge of the Absolute. He knows nothing about the Absolute, along with his dualistic brethren in other faiths.
The remaining five essays, or there-abouts, I will post at weekly intervals.
Next week: “Christianity and absolute Truth” for Xmas.