An Amendment

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Amendment

Post by Pam Seeback » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:30 pm

Rod: I do not believe you have tried to find my Truths so that you can work with them, i.e. you do not do homework.
As I see it Rod, you push logic but don't do logic. This is the difference between the academic or 'head' approach to the absolute (you/Absolute Idealism) and the being or existential approach (me/the living Absolute). You say my communication is not easy to understand, I would say this is a serious case of the kettle calling the pot black. Anywho, as always, your words got my spirit stirred up, better than a strong cuppa any day!

User avatar
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: An Amendment

Post by jupiviv » Sat Dec 03, 2016 4:18 am

Rod wrote:Jup. Kindly elaborate on this:
... I won't trade in wisdom.
What makes wisdom different as a commodity? My need of wisdom knows no financial barriers and the 'product' on offer here is an ultimate. I would like to understand your "purism".
I've nothing against selling books, but I have to draw the line at using discussions about wisdom as PR for a book about it! And quite apart from that, I dislike being told that I should read this or that book (free or not) before my interlocutor recognises the validity and relevance of what I'm actually saying to them. As if buying your book is some sort of diploma certifying me as qualified to discern the meaning of anything you write on this forum? With all undue respect, I disagree with your second sentence.

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:31 am

Pam, here is my advice.
Blow your budget and get a copy of my book. In respect to your mystical experience, you need to know about Truth in light. You will find that in the second part of Chapter Two. That will give you a metaphysical basis for your theorising.
My book will make you familiar with coherent metaphysics. Since it is based largely on politics and history you might find you can do metaphysics with your feet on the ground.
The worst thing that can happen is you might become an Idealist, in which case I won't have to suffer your sniping.

jup. You are not in the game. What you think is 'valid and relevant' is idle. If anything, I am indulging you. Stay in touch. I'll reply again on Monday.

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:09 am

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.


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 indulgencies, 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.

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.

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.

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:13 am

Note to jup. The above essay explains the intimate connection between the evolution of consciousness and money. I have exorcised your phobia about “trading in wisdom” and you are free to critique my wisdom. If you want to do serious philosophy, don't set limits on your commitment.

User avatar
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: An Amendment

Post by jupiviv » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:06 am

Rod wrote:The recurring fight was moral idealism versus intransigent authority.
Actually it was between different instances of authority, each rationalised under an ethic which just happened to be diametrically opposed to one/all of the other ethics. Trying to seek an *ethical* reconciliation between historical ethical worldviews is like plundering a cuckoo's nest, but that is exactly what you are trying to do. Liberalism as pinnacle of dialectical consciousness, finally tipping over into non-duality.

You're trying to "transcend" duality by letting go of the rope of reality. A rope isn't very liberal, certainly not as much as an elevator, but it's all you or anyone has. That's right, Absolute Truth is a rope made up of dried up rat turds.
Note to jup. The above essay explains the intimate connection between the evolution of consciousness and money. I have exorcised your phobia about “trading in wisdom” and you are free to critique my wisdom. If you want to do serious philosophy, don't set limits on your commitment.
To summarise your position: Liberalism in western nations has created more economic equality, which in turn has placated the capitalist-socialist dialogue. However, it hasn't superseded the other dialogue(s?), which is what Idealism will do by removing duality itself. Besides the fact that I don't agree with much of this, I don't see how this resolves my objection to wisdom peddling.

Let me explain my objection as simply as I can - if you refuse to give wisdom (which you believe your book contains) to people who don't wish to pay for it, then you value money more than wisdom. If you use a discussion about wisdom to advertise a book about wisdom, then you place a greater value upon the money that people might pay for the book after being made aware of it through the discussion than upon the discussion itself. If you withhold some of the views and arguments contained in your book from people who participate in the discussion which you are using to advertise it, and tell them that they aren't qualified to address the views and arguments you do present in the discussion unless they read your book, then you value the money people might pay to read your views more than the views themselves.

You are far from alone in this. Nevertheless, wisdom is *not* a commodity, even though *books* about wisdom are. Any number of ethics can rationalise the acquirement of entertainment and/or education in literary form, because such things can never become ends in themselves. But the ethic of wisdom answers to wisdom alone.

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Tue Dec 06, 2016 3:19 am

jup. Reading through your post I got this picture of a cow chewing on its cud.

Now for your thoughts on "No free lunch".

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:44 am

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.

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:35 am

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.

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.

Pam Seeback
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Amendment

Post by Pam Seeback » Tue Dec 13, 2016 3:37 am

Rod wrote:Pam, here is my advice.
Blow your budget and get a copy of my book.

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:28 am

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:
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.
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.

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.

Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 6:58 am

Re: An Amendment

Post by Rod » Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:33 am

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.

Post Reply