Sunday, February 21, 2021

Triple-Secret Detention in the Principle's Office

Must something first be in order to become? Or rather, become in order to be?

We always go back to the Trinity -- which, if it doesn't provide us with a whole new angle on metaphysics, what's the point? In other words, why go to all the trouble of showing us that the ultimate principle is an intersubjective threeness if it doesn't revolutionize our understanding of things? 

Natural reason can only take us so far in these matters: again, assuming average IQ and rudimentary intellectual honesty, we are inevitably led to the Ultimate Principle of intelligence and intelligibility. Hello, noumena!

But if we want to know something about what goes on inside the principle's office -- about his interior life -- then what? 

Among other things, God is free. Indeed, he is freedom itself -- the sufficient reason thereof -- so it's not as if we can bribe or compel him to open up and share. The freedom of God is not analogous to academic freedom, the latter being a compulsory belief in tenured fairy tales and a race-obsessed race to the bottom of the gene pool.   

So, we need to be called into the principle's office and meet with him. Yes, he'll probably assign you a period of detention, but this isn't punishment, rather, it's for your own good. You need to start thinking before you act, mister! 

Back to our pseudo-conundrum: if the ultimate principle is a trinity of persons, then its being is grounded in the perpetual becoming of each, so to speak. To be clear, the persons do not become something "more" or "better," because they are already perfect, and this perfection is indeed revealed in the perpetual giving and receiving between persons, precisely. 

I suppose we could look at it this way: what is better than perfection? Giving perfection away! If this is the case, then "perfect being" is its perfect becoming in eternal giving and receiving, AKA love.

I think this must be the point, because it tells us something we can't know with mere natural reason, but, at the same time, not only isn't repugnant to reason, but clearly illuminates and perfects it.  

Think about that one: on the purely natural plane, we can know with certainty that reason has its limits, and that to believe otherwise is very much other than wise. We can know that reason, no matter how much we widen its circle, will ultimately be tautologous, only able to "prove" what is furnished by reason. 

This is obvious to everyone except Gödel, which is why he went to all that trouble of proving beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with airtight logic and geometric irony, that reason itself hides the key to its own lockbox. Ah, but there is a triplicate copy, and that's where I had them!

Which really just means that man is not a computer program, and that he is programed to exit his programming. This is what man is, and forms the basis of our perpetual transcendental becoming, which continues until. Period. Unlike progressives, we are condemned to progress. Up to a point, that point being another name for God.

We are intelligent, and freedom is a consequence of intelligence. If you wonder why the left never stops its assault on freedom, now you know. The stupid, the indoctrinated, the mentally ill, may look free, but they are obviously the opposite. Is Joe Biden free? No, he is locked in the basement, and with good reason. 

And why can the godless progressive never truly be free, even if he isn't demented? Well, just as there is no becoming without being, there is no progress without a subject of progress, which is to say, an actual existing thing with a real essence. 

Examples abound. Marriage, for example is an actual thing, which is why it cannot encompass whatever it is that goes on between two men. Likewise, biology is an actual thing, which is why it is delusional to say that Bruce Jenner is the greatest female athlete of all-time. The first amendment is a thing, which is why the left is un- and anti-American.

Now, this is going to sound either obvious or abstruse, but there are only things because there is God. For what is a thing, anyway? It is something that 1) is, and 2) is what it is. Things are, which is miracle enough. To rub it in, they are always something, and something intelligible to boot. To us, of all persons!

Speaking of triplicate keys, it's almost as if we participate in an ever-expanding circular dance between truth, being, and intelligence. 

So, you can learn a lot by doing time in the principle's office. Everything you need to know, anyway.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Speaking of going to the principles office...

I once suggested that the reason the Trinity is three forms on the same guy, is that this is what God looks like from our limited spacetime perspective. But nobody cared to explore further. And if I remember correctly, I even got slammed for daring to suggest such a thing. It’s not easy being anonymous. It was straight to the principles office for me.

So it’s been said here that conservatism involves conserving moral principles (besides conserving all the other conservative principles) because while human conditions continuously change, human nature never changes.

I say these are good things. That’s right. This form of the trinity of anonymii routinely visiting this place says that conserving moral principles is a good thing.

Now I don’t necessarily believe in all of these good things, but I do believe that debating honestly from such a position is the best way to keep the other side honest, in our grand quest to get our representative rulers to achieve the most bang for the mandate buck for the rest of us. So ya know, we don’t think them con artists in league with blood drinking satanics and then we impulsively storm the Capitol.

Yet Jim Hoft is still cool with conservatives. Milo had his day and now Dave Rubin gets his. Funder of Breitbart, Rebeka Mercer, is said to have told Steve Bannon that “our side needs more like him” when she referred to the obviously gay chief data consultant for her new online political influencer company, and nobody pushed back. Most Log Cabin Republicans voted for Trump.

My story sours a bit with lifelong Republican Bruce Jenner, who suddenly turned against Trump in 2020 while wearing a designer dress, just because Trump didn’t seem to like trannies. Had you told me this was gonna happen back when I was a kid admiring his heroic Wheaties box picture, I would’ve called you demonically possessed. President Trump inciting an insurrection after Jenner renaming himself Caitlin? You’re mentally ill. And you're scaring me. No successful American hero ever wants to ever sin in such publicly grotesque ways.

I bet there are reasons for these behaviors. Psychological reasons. Real reasons which the non-demonically possessed might actually agree on, which go well beyond the typical psychologist telling you that you've been diagnosed a sinner and now you owe him 150 bucks.

Anonymous said...

Hello All, this is Genevieve.

I really liked this thoughtful post, Dr. Bob.

In it you wrote: "For what is a thing, anyway? It is something that 1) is, and 2) is what it is. Things are, which is miracle enough. To rub it in, they are always something, and something intelligible to boot."

I presume by "things" you include other people. I was born a boy. How does that grab you? Am I 'miracle enough; for you know?"

Do you love me? Because you said in the post, "perfect being" is its perfect becoming in eternal giving and receiving, AKA love."

Love is all you need, is it not?

Are some people not worthy of love? That is the question on the table.

And anonymous, you're well-written comment flowed nicely but I could not really tell where you were going with your observations. It seemed like satire and I liked it for that reason.

-Love from Genevieve, so guilty, craving punishment

julie said...

So, we need to be called into the principle's office and meet with him. Yes, he'll probably assign you a period of detention, but this isn't punishment, rather, it's for your own good. You need to start thinking before you act, mister!

I was thinking last week, for perhaps the first time ever since Lent is so... penancy... that really this should be a time not of long-suffering, but of quiet celebration. Sure, we have 40 days or so where we work out our repentance before Easter, but what is the reward? In repenting, we may again turn our faces toward the source of all that is good, make straight the way, and set our feet in the proper direction. We are granted time to set down the burden of our sins and lighten the load, so that we might even run, not walk, into that office with joy in our hearts.

Praying more, giving more, and letting go of something that comes between ourselves and God: none of that sounds like cause for suffering, but for gladness.

Anonymous said...

anon @2/21/2021 12:42:00 PM,

I know too many conservatives who say they care very much if you're gay, but don't act like they actually care very much if you're gay. This seems like a waste of energy to me.

I believe that Bruce/Caitlin Jenner is just letting his/her free flag fly. And now's the time to do it, since economic patriots have been crushed by the powers that be who want to let their own free flags fly, in places like anti-freedom China.

This is confusing to me. I'm sure that Bob would diagnose me as "confused" before charging me his 150 bucks. But maybe he'd instead diagnose me as "demonically possessed" before slapping me on the head and then charging me 200 bucks? So how does Jim Hoft get diagnosed? He's told everybody who'll listen that he's queer as a 150 dollar bill, yet no conservative psychologist seems to want to slap him on the head.

Why is this so?

Daisy said...

Because unlike leftists, we generally consider it enough to tell another adult they are wrong without also feeling the need to try to run their lives for them.

Anonymous said...

Daisy,

I completely agree Daisy. That part where I impulsively run and tattle to Nancy Pelosi every time somebody here does something I deem inappropriate... I'll certainly be working on that. Thanks.
---------------

Anonymous @2/21/2021 12:42:00, this is between me and you.

I’ve been a little worried about our friend Daisy lately. I'm beginning to suspect that she's actually Bob. My worry isn’t about any sockpuppetry since we’ve all done that sort of thing around here. Heck, I’ve even posed as you from time to time. I’m worried about Bob-Daisy the way I worry about Bruce-Caitlin. I’m starting to fear that we’ll all show up here for another day as usual, full of the usual mirth and body slams, except that he won’t be Gagdad Bob anymore. She’ll be Gagdad Daisy. I'll admit that I do sometimes worry too much.

Anonymous said...

Hello Anonymous 4:23 PM.

Gagdad sparingly uses avatars Petey, Cousin Dupree, and Nicolas in order to bring Socratic method to the comments. This is plain good strategy and maximizes the teaching he is able to perform here at this site.

Daisy is either a distinct contributor, or an avatar of regular contributor Julie. Daisy has a harsher tongue than Julie but seems of like mind.

Julie may not want to be associated with the full-hot spicy brand of her own commentary. A wise choice.

Julie and Daisy use a shared diction and vocabulary; both seldom resort to curse words which says they are both polite folk.

For instance: Daisy writes "because unlike leftists, we generally consider it enough to tell another adult they are wrong without also feeling the need to try to run their lives for them."

Julie has said like-wise using similar verbiage. Sweet Julie, spicy Daisy good-cop and bad-cop the trolls and it works.

And: Gagdad Bob would never present himself as someone of another gender as this would violate his strict code of conforming to reality. You will also note Gagdad Bob has never penned a work of fiction which we know of. This is totally in keeping with how seriously he takes his philosophy; i.e, hard-core reality is his thang and he doesn't have time for no steenking fiction.

Does he watch/enjoy movies? That would be interesting to find out. Probably he would prefer documentaries or news programs.

Bob seldom quotes out of a work of fiction that I know of. His side-bar is heavy on the non-fiction.

But you, Anonymous, are a piece of work. Some of your comments have risen to the level of brilliancy. You really should have your own blog.

Furthermore, Anonymous, you have reliably pounded the neo-cons; for this reason I decorate you today with the coveted Rampant Troll with Lion's Mane medal. This medal is only awarded for valor in flame-war combat. Wear it proudly.

Sincerely, Commanding Officer X

Carry on soldier!

Daisy said...

This matters? I only use a name because there are enough anons already. Anyway, I'm just a dumb sheep. On the internet, nobody knows if you've been sheared.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @2/21/2021 05:14:00 PM,

Thanks for the information. I did have a brief spasm of worry that Bob had given up on us and abandoned the blog long ago, and that Julie was sockpuppeting these posts as Bob. Or maybe Darleen (the one with hippy-phobia). I liked her. But then I came to and realized this silly and now I'm back to being satisfied with the current way of things once again.

Daisy, I met a family that needed shearing. They had a nice comfortable home with Catholic accoutrements decorating the place. On the mantle sat three framed photos of their attractive children, taken during their junior high years I guessed. I met two of them when they came home, now college age. The girl sported fanciful dreadlocks and a nose ring. The boy was wearing his hoodie tied so tight I could only see his eyes. I asked their mother if he was sick or something, and she curtly replied: "No. He's stoned." I hid my surprise and carried on with my labors.

What does this have to do with triple secret detention in the principles office? Maybe everything. I'm guessing their public school teachers may have never paid them much attention.

Luke said...

The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.'

Andrew MacDonald said...

I liked that marriage is a thing that's different than what two men do. I'm still recovering from verticular pockets of my long-term leftist political correctness, things I knew for sure that may not be.

As to whether Julie is Daisy or who the hell anyone is around here, I do not know. I seem to be one of the few who has an unabashed straightforward handle. Maybe I need and will choose some mystery moniker going forward. I don't know how many anonymous' there be. And Bob, whether or not he watches movies,seems to surround himself with a cast of characters like in the Star Wars bar.

There may be a tendency for commentsr's writing wiles to resonate a bit so we all get pulled a little together, hearing a similar drum.

julie said...

Andrew, there was a span, years and years back, where Bob tried to manage the trolls by only allowing verified accounts to post comments. We ended up losing a couple of our best commenters, because they didn't want a Google account (and who can blame them?). Sadly, the troll(s) stuck around.

Anon, your comments about the Bad Catholic family (and every other Bad Christian you seem to know) amount to a sort of prurient attempt at denunciation. All that comes across is a mean-spirited distaste for anyone who falls short of whatever idealized Christian identity you have in your head. Nobody wants to hear it, and I doubt very much that anyone is willing to join in the denunciation.

God said...

This is God speaking. Just wanted to let you know that I'm getting really tired of being claimed as the exclusive property of one particular political faction. I don't belong to right or left, democrats or republicans, and I don't like being employed as a hammer for one group to beat up on another.

To quote myself: Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. – Matthew 7:1-5

And here's another good one: If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. – 1 John 4:20

Nicolás said...

The progressive Christian’s error lies in believing that Christianity’s perennial polemic against the rich is an implicit defense of socialist programs.

Anonymous said...

Careful Nicolás, God owns your ass, and he's a tough love kinda guy. I wouldn't be mis-dissin his only son if I was you. But I agree, socialist programs are a far more complex issue than you welfare queens seem to know. Just sayin.

Julie, I wasn't denunciating. I was freaked out. I liked that family. The parents were very nice. When I was in public school everybody wore hoodies, but never like that kid. And only the rastafarian clique members wore dreads. I'm still getting used to this modern age stuff.

Nicolás said...

I believe more in God’s smile than in His wrath.

Anonymous said...

Hello Andrew McDondald:

It is good to see a new, reasonable commenter here. I hope you stick around.

There are a cast of regular characters who read the blog and comment and I think you could provide some balance to the polarized factions here.

We here have people who tend to agree with every word Bob writes and then some others who seem to disagree vehemently.

One commenter thought there were 'bots' dropping verbiage here but this I doubt.

Now, there may be moles, FBI or otherwise. Therefore, it is advisable to reveal as little about yourself as possible while out the same time offering opinions.

Regards, Interlocutor X

julie said...

Julie, I wasn't denunciating. I was freaked out. I liked that family.

Oh? My apologies then. It really doesn't come across, mostly you just seem to be dumping on people with no context.

In my experience, that sort of thing is almost the norm anymore. A lot of nice Christian kids find that their faith doesn't survive contact with going forth into the world. There are many reasons for this: in some cases, the family's faith was more show than substance, and the rest of the week God doesn't enter into their hearts. In others, the family's faith is almost smothering, and when they go out in the world they feel like outcasts, and they resent their families. In yet others, something terrible has happened and there is a brokenness that is expressed in the broken behavior of the children. Really, there are as many reasons as there are families.

Young adulthood is hard, and many kids follow the path of the Prodigal. But that's reason for hope, as many who follow that path do return, hearts broken and mended, having benefitted from their time of separation.

The surprise isn't that young people turn away from the faith of their parents just as they separate themselves from the confines of their childhood home. The surprise is that they so often make it past all that and manage to eventually become functional adults. Though vanishingly fewer seem to be managing that these days.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Andrew can be our ref?

In a better run society, the polarized factions (or maybe those just pretending to be polarized while they rake in that K-Street cash) would have a ref. Works for the NFL. I haven't worked out the part where refs get slipped twenties in secret to look the other way though.

Julie, it's parental connections and the child's temperament too. Very generally speaking, kids coming from money and with large parental-connected support systems and a commonplace temperament (like guardian) can flow quite nicely from protected child to functional adult.

My own parents made extensive use of shaming, with disastrous results. Kids usually figure out the "Do as I say not as I do" schtick. We kids lost respect for our parents and we went our own ways. To this day I can't imagine going to dad for practical advice. Far wiser would've been to thoughtfully place themselves into our shoes, and keeping the doors of communication open, while in secret reading child rearing books like the dickens for any ideas which might work.

julie said...

Apropos nothing, my kids talking to each other just now while working on copywriting & spelling:

"Still working on my TPS report. How about you?"

Anonymous said...

To expand on how young people develop and what they do:

There is a wild card in the mix which cannot be predicted; agency and mission.

People slip out of the birth canal or C-section incision already in possession of a planned life itinerary.

It seems whack, but this is how it things work. Nobody as a rule is consciously aware of it.


If the life plans calls for heavy sorrow, or great triumph and delight, so shall these come to pass.

One can scramble to find causative factors related to happenstance for any occurrence and so they shall be there.

Food for thought: the child chooses their parents prior to conception. Looking down from Heaven with special vision, the unborn one percieves illuminated sparks moving upon the earth and selects two with the needed qualities. The unborn one points them out: "She will bear me, he will be my sire."

And so it shall come to pass.

Trying to pin outcome on a parent is fruitless. The child is in control at all times including prior to birth.

So how do I know these things? The same way you know them. And you do know them well.

Van Harvey said...

Andrew MacDonald said "... I seem to be one of the few who has an unabashed straightforward handle."

Some of us are still around daily, though, but as the trolls, uhm, 'commentary', has thinned out to the substance of.0002% spilled milk, and have assumed a suitably uniform aninnymouse moniker, they are no longer worth either taunting or slaying.

Trannies For Trump said...

Van is one of the good guys. He's very close with Jim Hoft.

Anonymous said...

Dear Trannies for Trump:

It is very difficult to get attention from Van. If you have daddy issues he is the ideal conservative. An insult coming from Van is worth any three from another source. They are "trophy" insults.

The anonymous here are getting watered down. What else do they have to say? Can they say anything useful?

Of course we don't want a uniform mass of bobble-head "yes sir" syncophants surrounding Dr. Bob. That would not be healthy. What then would be the difference between him and Jim Jones?

Therefore a leavening of Troll keeps it real around here and the kool-aid stays non-lethal.

Anonymous said...

I looked up Jim Hoft, by all appearances a popular conservative pundit. The question is whether Jim is a tool or a decent guy. Does anyone have the skinny on Jimmie?



Trannies For Trump said...

Well I am no anonymous. I am a proud Tranny For Trump. But I'm able to look at both sides of an issue to come to very sound rational decisions. To wit:

According to Conservapedia: The Gateway Pundit -- "Where hope made a comeback" -- is a conservative media news blog created by Jim Hoft. Gateway Pundit provides breaking news, commentary and hard-hitting conservative analysis. They rank well into the Top 100 conservative blogs and they are constant target of the liberal hacks at Media Matters.

According to Wikipedia: The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.

All I care is that Jim cares about the transexual, such as our heroic Oathkeeper Jessica Watkins, since our sexual freedom is all that matters anyways.

Andrew MacDonald said...

Nice to see personal notes, makes me feel welcome in the gang of the good-willed. Glad I clicked the "get follow-up emails" box a while back. Good to be on the thread with God too.

Anonymous said...

Personally Andrew, I’m getting the feeling that with you as our ref, there wouldn’t be anything like:

“(*TWEET*) Irrationality foul caused by Dunning Kruger on Daisy! Ten yards!”

or

“(*TWEET*) Demonic possession on Anonymous #2! Anonymous #2 is ejected from this game!”

I think maybe your style of reffing would more along the lines of The Rulebook of Logical Fallacies.

Anonymous said...

Well now, Anonymous, I don't know as to whether Andrew wants to be referee here. I'm not sure who suggested that but I can tell it is not a polite gesture.

Let's be civil here, please. Now, the Rulebook of Logical Fallacies sounds darn good. Can you share more about that?

Pointing out logical fallacies does sound very constructive and acceptable between good folk.

Now I've written reasonably here but I am indeed a troll of the most foul stipe. There is no cure for what has crawled up my "nether eyen" (read much Chaucer?) and died.

God save my benighted soul.




Anonymous said...

Speaking of Chaucer, I read somewhere that the English of old spoke with accents closer to a cross between modern American and modern Irish (but without the broguey lilt or southern ya’lls). Somewhere along the way a lieutenant became a left tenant. I think this is because there were no accent refs back then. So the English used this change to feel more important than their rebellious America and Ireland. They could've done so many other things, like conquer India or invent the steam engine. Something to think about.

Today we have a similar dynamic going on. Young ladies everywhere are speaking in vocal fry, which means they’re unconsciously trying to become Kim Kardashian. We cannot allow this to happen, lest millions of otherwise intelligent and personally responsible women turn into anti-Christian gold digger bimbos who yearn to be rich and famous for nothing.