Gravity and Levity

Our subject is both -- or "both" -- oneness and the One, i.e., the unity of the cosmos. As alluded to in the previous post, not everything that counts can be counted:

The Pythagorean numbers prove that number in itself is not synonymous with quantity pure and simple, for they are essentially qualitative; they are so to the degree that they are close to Unity, their point of departure (Schuon).

This p. of d. is the Principle, don't you know, and this same pattern is fractally present in any ordinary principle, i.e., that from which something else proceeds, and those things it entails. We are always chasing our entailments, i.e., arguing to or from principles, otherwise argument would be impossible -- as it is when arguing with an unprincipled leftist. 

Not to descend immediately into insultainment, but this absence of principles -- or constantly shifting ones, which amounts to the same thing -- is precisely why debating a leftist is like playing chess with a pigeon. 

Again, this is not mere hypocrisy, because hypocrisy requires a principle to violate, when the left's only consistent principle is power; if one's ontology begins with diversity instead of unity, there is no principle with which to arbitrate between diverse truth claims: relativism in, tenure out. Hence,

Engaging in dialogue with those who do not share our assumptions is nothing more than a stupid way to kill time.

You will have noticed that this post-philosophical (and therefore post-reality) absence of principles is both convenient and effective in getting what they want. They run circles around those of us with principles, because they possess an absurcular "freedom" entirely lacking in someone whose intellect is ordered to the One. 

Of course, this is but an inverted caricature of actual freedom, but those have been Famous Last Words ever since Socrates gulped the hemlock. We have Aphoristic confirmation:

As long as they do not take him seriously, the man who speaks the truth can live for a while in a democracy. Then, the hemlock.

Or cross, gulag, firing squad and other methods of Power.

Truthlessness is at once another word for nihilism, but it is implicitly in service to the power and self-interest that is its downward telos. Which is why leftists are always so fired up with pseudo-meaning -- i.e., the Drama of Activism -- because it is a frantic defense mechanism against the unconscious (but necessary) absence of meaning. 

In other words, no one gets excited about 2 + 2 = 4, or supply and demand, or men aren't women. But people are insanely passionate about Math is an oppressive tool of white patriarchy!, or Printing more money will cure inflation!, or Cutting off my johnson makes me a woman! (whatever that is).

Arguing will get you nowhere, because

A few lines are enough to demonstrate a truth. Not even a library is enough to refute an error.

Yesterday I read a horrible story about a young Mexican psychologist who is getting his license yanked and his PhD revoked for merely defending the traditional values that all sane human beings held until about five minutes ago. 

I can sympathize, because there is simply no way I could pass the oral exam today. Or, I could, but I would have to lie through me teeth. Think about that: you can only be granted a license to treat souls in California if you take a pledge to deny reality!

You're probably thinking Bob is exaggerating to make a point or a joke, but Bob never exaggerates, nor does he have a point (truth being its own point). I just checked the website of the California Psychological Association, which would require a library to refute, but this gives a flavor of the evil and insanity:

We believe that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, where the therapist's intent is to direct, redirect, or influence an individual's sexual orientation, are potentially harmful and have no place as a part of legitimate psychological practice. 

In other words, they want it to be against the law to help some lost soul figure out why he thinks he's a she. But once you've ditched the principle of identity -- AKA non-contradiction -- then all things are possible. No biology, no problem!

Damn. This post is slipping away from me. UNITY. According to Schuon,

Unity is the first principle that penetrates and regulates universal Manifestation, in the sense that on the one hand it projects its reflections everywhere, and on the other hand brings phenomena back to Unity.

How does this Unity get so messed up? That's actually a good question, and I think you'll agree that there is only one conceivable being in all of creation who could possibly mess it up. I want to say that only a disordered will could fracture the unity of things, and maybe that's what it means to be "fallen."

I promise to maintain my focus in the next post, and not fall for the low-hanging fruitcakes.