Monday, September 15, 2014

A Fearless Search for the Ultimate Cause of Our Nausea

Very little time this AM -- so little that I had to abbreviate morning as "AM."

Continuing with Friday's post, it seems axiomatic to me that if humans did not have free will, then they couldn't possibly know it, for there would be nothing separate from necessity, i.e., no space across which to view it.

If we are in the land of necessity, then so too is every thought necessary; and if necessary, then unable to be anything other than it is. Therefore, statements are not true or false, only necessary.

Thus, in a very real way, to say necessity is to say freedom; I believe someone once made the crack that freedom is awareness of necessity. That is the least one can say of freedom: that it is something other than necessity.

But what is it actually? In other words, that minimum definition is like saying that light is awareness of darkness. It lets you know light exists, but doesn't tell you anything about it. Moreover, it is misleading, for it implies that darkness is the substantial reality, light a kind of nebulous absence or privation.

Now, in a certain way, truth is parasitic on error for the same reason that freedom is awareness of necessity. Certainly science proceeds strictly on this basis: it is a continuous exercise in trying to disprove one's current beliefs. It is very much as if science cannot know truth, only chip away at presumed error. Which is not nothing!

But it is not, and cannot be, truth. Nevertheless, as we've been insisting over the past I-don't-know-how-long, man has a RIGHT to truth.

In other words, all men and any man have always had a right to know what the hell is basically going on, i.e., what is the metacosmic truth and how to order ourselves to it. I would say this is definitional of man qua man: that man is the being who is entitled to truth, dammit, thank you very much.

But because he is so entitled, it means that he is entitled to the cosmic conditions that render truth possible.

Thus, first and foremost, man is entitled to freedom, since, as alluded to above, no freedom, no truth: the two are inseparable; it is not possible to think the one without the other. Or, you might say that we "think freedom" so as to "act truth" (and vice versa). Right? Right.

It seems to me that this goes to the Science Before Science; I would say that we are entitled to the science before science, but that we have to work for the science after science, i.e., ordineveryday worker bee type science.

Again, consider the Muslim world, where people aren't entitled to freedom. Therefore, they aren't entitled to truth. Therefore, science cannot develop.

To what then are Muslims entitled? The Koran. What is the Koran? The direct, unmediated, infallible, inerrant word of Allah. Unlike the Bible, it is not to be interpreted, because for one thing, that implies some sort of human freedom engaging with the text.

I guess I don't have to remind the reader that certain strands of modern Christianity are indeed more similar to Islam than to a Christian worldview. Islam means "submission," and that is what it is: submitting to absolute necessity, i.e., cashing in one's freedom.

The whole thing is rather confused, for how is submission possible if everything is necessary? Submission either implies freedom to submit, or else it cannot be meritorious. But let's let them sort out their own incoherence. We're more worried about our own Muslims in Christian clothing.

A mirror image of this pneumapathology is seen in the left's so-called "tolerance," in that it is an indefinable nothing. It is related to the negative definition of freedom in paragraph 2 above: tolerance is just the absence of intolerance, which, if you think it through to the next step, is the active acceptance and embrace of EVERYTHING.

In short, it is the complete abandonment of discrimination, taste, propriety, decency, judgment, maturity, and good breeding. In them it induces pleasant feeling of sanctimony. In us it induces vomiting. So that's the main difference between left and right.

It is not a question of intellectual differences per se, but a question of the gastrointestinal tract. Embodiment, don't you know; to paraphrase Don Colacho, it is an investigation of the causes of what disgusts us. For I don't doubt that we disgust Obama, just as he disgusts us.

9 Comments:

Blogger mushroom said...

Again, consider the Muslim world, where people aren't entitled to freedom.

That's a thought. Some people can't handle the truth; some can't handle freedom. I always think of Brooksie in Shawshank.


For I don't doubt that we disgust Obama, just as he disgusts us.

That is a happy thought.

Remember, kids, every time you empty a high-capacity magazine, a leftist shits a brick.

9/15/2014 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

:D

9/15/2014 11:22:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Certainly science proceeds strictly on this basis: it is a continuous exercise in trying to disprove one's current beliefs. It is very much as if science cannot know truth, only chip away at presumed error. Which is not nothing!

I'm reminded of the continuing hunt for bigfoot, or ghosts, or anything else that some people are convinced is real. Scientific study can't prove that they don't exist. It can only weigh the scanty evidence, and talk of possibilities. The only way to know the truth with absolute certainty would be to contain the mystery in such a way that it can be held for rigorous scrutiny.

9/15/2014 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

"A mirror image of this pneumapathology is seen in the left's so-called "tolerance," in that it is an indefinable nothing. It is related to the negative definition of freedom in paragraph 2 above: tolerance is just the absence of intolerance, which, if you think it through to the next step, is the active acceptance and embrace of EVERYTHING."

There is a flip-side (or a flipped-off side) to the image that the Pro-Regressive left likes to present as 'Toleration', and that is a very passive aggressive assertion of Total-Intoleration.

To say that you will, or that others should (read: must), tolerate certain behavior, means that that particular behavior has been granted an exception being made in what is to be allowed... which also means that what people will be allowed to say or do is up to them to tolerate it - or not.

As it suits ye who has the ultimate all encompassing power to tolerate or not to tolerate such things.

So... whenever I hear the tolerant Pro-Regressive leftist talk about 'toleration', I hear only the aggressive side of what they try to paint with a passive face, which is why I'm completely unsurprised by the so-called exceptions they exhibit towards conservative positions, and which is why far from seeing happy faces when the leftist speaks of 'toleration', I see the grinning visage of the deaths-head SS.

But, you know, don't worry, be happy.

9/15/2014 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Brazentide said...

To what then are Muslims entitled?

Our heads, apparently?


To borrow from GB:

When Ought becomes Isis, reach for your necks.

9/15/2014 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Thus, first and foremost, man is entitled to freedom, since, as alluded to above, no freedom, no truth: the two are inseparable; it is not possible to think the one without the other. Or, you might say that we "think freedom" so as to "act truth" (and vice versa). Right? Right."

Ergo thosewho choose to go back to Egypt (slavery) prevent themselves from knowing truth.
Or those who choose security of the tyrant state (or a tyrant god) over liberty.

Ironically, those in spiritual chains often believe they are more free than those who actually are since perception is reality to them.

9/16/2014 03:09:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Funny, for all their claims of tolerance, the left is intolerant of conservatives, and I lost track how many zero tolerance campaigns the left imposes on children in public schools or children voters.

9/16/2014 04:28:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Brazentide said...
To what then are Muslims entitled?

Our heads, apparently?


To borrow from GB:

When Ought becomes Isis, reach for your necks."

In Islam, when then say "heads will roll" they mean it.

9/16/2014 04:31:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Oops, I see Van made the same comment only better, irt toleRants of the left.

9/16/2014 04:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home