« No Stable Rights without Intrinsic Human Value | Main | Is Being Homosexual No More Morally Significant Than Being Left Handed? (Video) »

July 26, 2013

Comments

[Actuality] is but the Perfect-1. There is not, are not, 1.0000009 Actualities. There is One. 1. The Everlasting. The Uncreated. The Immutable. The Non-Contingent. Man's Mind perceives this within the Self-Evident, though his finger cannot touch it. Mind, Logic, outreaches finger. Mind, Logic, touches the end of ad infinitum though not omniscient. Man's Mind perceives the Unyielding, Immutable, Truth of the matter, the Self-Evident, when his daughter's violation is assigned to Atheism's regress of necessary indifference. Love here stands, remains the unyielding, the immutable, in total contradiction to what is found to be a falsehood in that regress to indifference. Man's Mind, his Love, perceives this within the Self-Evident, though his finger cannot touch it. Mind, Love, outreaches finger. Mind, Love, touches the end of ad infinitum though not omniscient. The Perfect Exemplar in all these things is not only witnessed but is the obvious, self-evident, Guarantor of Mind's Perceiv-ing. If the atheist thinks he can just assert that Mind is perceiving non-actualities inside of delusion he had better present his defeater of sufficient power that Mind is but the Con here within our contextual experiences inside this obviously contingent observational Matrix. He never has, for he cannot present this little green man, this magician. He thus has no right, no claim, on the term "descriptive" in his philosophy. The Atheist thinks the move of suicide by self-proclaimed psychosis is a clever way to salvage his incoherence, and, the Atheist thinks that such a fatal move permits him to take all of Mind with him. Alas, it is all too Self-Evident, he finds only groundless assertion void of evidence and the death of his philosophy. Logic and Love easily traverse the ad infinitum and touch the finger of Actuality’s Immutable Exemplar.

So long as humanity has anything higher than indifference bubbling up into whatever varied streams we wish to merge and seperate with or without overlap, we have a necessary ought and ought-not, a necessary better-than and worse than. Short of atheism's magician, its little green man, we need not think its suicide of self-proclaimed psychosis is the truth of the matter. The Exemplar has His witness.

The atheist will express anger at what he thinks to be non-truth. As if Man ought value Truth for its own sake. Then, in the next breath, he will employ the Noble Lie, and he will tell us that our entire psychosis is part of that telling of the Noble Lie, which allows man to believe in non-real things like right and wrong. The passion of all of Man's shouts with clenched fist, and all these appeals to Truth amid the psycotic Noble Lie are all evidence of that which is burred deep within Mankind, that ominous, foreboding and deeply marred witness of Logic and Love's Immutable Exemplar.

How we come to know a truth (epistemology) does not have a bearing on whether the truth exists (ontology). The truth may be objectively real even if there are disagreements on how to discover such a truth.

This isn't a very difficult objection to refute in my opinion.

Darth Dutch

Moral Perfection is an Actuality. That is to say, God is. The assertion by the atheist that our comprehension of such must be either complete or else the (clearly apparent) Exemplar cannot exist (or is an illusion) is a false dichotomy in simple logic. It is also an incoherent line of approach given what Mind's Perceiving of the Perfect Exemplar will be on the grounds found within generic logic in the arenas of Finite/Infinite and more concretely on the grounds of the whole story Love is showing us in Scripture's specifically stated start/end points. But this is a non-issue really because the self-evident breaks through and clearly Mind, Logic, and Love, though not omniscient, traverse the ad infinitum and touch our Perfect Exemplar, though our fingers cannot so touch. Innocence, Guilt, Moral Perfection, Moral Blindness, and Omniscience are pure category errors in this objection by Atheism. Atheism first forfeits every possibility of a Guarantor of Mind and then it proceeds to appeal to the psychosis of “Mind within illusion” in order to argue that something is an illusion. As if illusions can argue what is and is not illusion.

Atheism shouts in anger at miss-used truth, or at falsehoods asserted as truth, as if Truth ought be valued, and for its own sake, even should such perceived ought-value push against our own particular inclinations, as if there is an ought which stands in spite of us, and thus the Atheist too here appeals to our Exemplar. Yet: all the while it tells us this same sense of Ought-Value is itself illusion and not a real thing for Mind's Perceiving is but a Con buried deep within our contextual experiences inside this contingent observational Matrix. Then (as if it is still has feet to stand on) it will appeal to Truth, or rather the illusions which it calls Truth, in the employment of the Noble Lie as it asserts that such illusions permit us to believe that non-real things are real, like Ought, like Ought-Not, like Should and Should Not, for such delusions help us thrive, and all the while this appeal to Truth is, it tells us, itself being driven by the psychosis of illusion that is itself part of the telling of that very same Noble Lie. On all these grounds built atop illusion it claims Mind has no Guarantor of any kind for Mind is but the Con. Whether the cause of the Con or the automaton of the Con we are never told, but that –tis all a Con we do know.

If the atheist thinks he can just assert that Mind is perceiving non-actualities inside of delusion he had better present his defeater of sufficient power that Mind is but the Con here within our contextual experiences inside this obviously contingent observational Matrix. He never has, for he cannot present this little green man, this magician. He thus has no right, no claim, on the term "descriptive" in his philosophy. The Atheist thinks the move of suicide by self-proclaimed psychosis is a clever way to salvage his incoherence, and, the Atheist thinks that such a fatal move permits him to take all of Mind with him. Alas, it is all too Self-Evident, he finds only groundless assertion void of evidence and thus the death of his philosophy. As described earlier, until Atheism presents its little green man, its magician, we not think its suicide of self-proclaimed psychosis is the truth of the matter here in our observational Matrix in which all these nuances are, quite apparently, grounded in the Perfect-1 that is our Exemplar. Logic and Love easily traverse the ad infinitum and touch the finger of Actuality’s Immutable Exemplar.



Basic Logic

“.........if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm........” (WLC)


“..........The fact that four people could not agree on the objective truth related to the suspect in this case did not refute the objective nature of the suspect, and their disagreement was not evidence against his existence. All were certain a suspect existed, and all would readily admit his existence was not a matter of personal opinion. In spite of this, none of them could agree entirely on his description (his nature)……” (Wallace / this OP)


“Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can’t really get rid of it.”


“If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all.”


“The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary color in the spectrum…”


“All the human beings that history has heard of acknowledge some kind of morality; that is, they feel towards certain proposed actions the experiences expressed by the words 'I ought' or 'I ought not'. These experiences resemble awe in one respect, namely that they cannot be logically deduced from the environment and physical experiences of the man who undergoes them. You can shuffle 'I want' and 'I am forced' and 'I shall be well advised' and 'I dare not' as long as you please without getting out of them the slightest hint of 'ought' and 'ought not'. And, once again, attempts to resolve the moral experience into something else always presuppose the very thing they are trying to explain —as when a famous psychoanalyst deduces it from prehistoric parricide. If the parricide produced a sense of guilt, that was because men felt that they ought not to have committed it: if they did not so feel, it could produce no sense of guilt. Morality, like numinous awe, is a jump; in it, man goes beyond anything that can be ‘given’ in the facts of experience. And it has one characteristic too remarkable to be ignored. The moralities accepted among men may differ, though not, at bottom, so widely as is often claimed, but they all agree in prescribing a behavior which their adherents fail to practice. All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt.”


“The second element....is the consciousness not merely of a moral law, but of a moral law at once approved and disobeyed. This consciousness is neither a logical, nor an illogical, inference from the facts of experience; if we did not bring it to our experience we could not find it there. It is either inexplicable illusion, or else revelation.” (CS Lewis)

Illustrations of the universal Tao within Humanity:


“The moralities accepted among men may differ, though not, at bottom, so widely as is often claimed…….”

“The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.” (CS Lewis)


"You note, "But not everyone desires specifically Christian morality". Well, that is of course my point. As for your question about moral intuitions, I think I clarified earlier in the comments that I do think we do have moral intuitions, but that we suppress them at points-particularly points that cause common inconveniences to us (as is the case with universal intrinsic human value). Some are easier to suppress (and reveal) than others. The more basic the idea (cheating, murder, etc.), the harder it is to suppress. So there is agreement that murdering a person is wrong, but there's disagreement about what it means to be a person and what it means to be innocent. But of course our moral intuition--our conscience, depending on how it has been twisted, has led to many different societies getting many things right. Human value is not one of those." (Amy Hall / STR)


“The following illustrations of the Natural Law are collected from such sources as come readily to the hand of one who is not a professional historian. The list makes no pretence of completeness. It will be noticed that writers such as Locke and Hooker, who wrote within the Christian tradition, are quoted side by side with the New Testament. This would, of course, be absurd if I were trying to collect independent testimonies to the Tao. But (1) I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it. (2) The idea of collecting independent testimonies presupposes that 'civilizations' have arisen in the world independently of one another; or even that humanity has had several independent emergences on this planet. The biology and anthropology involved in such an assumption are extremely doubtful. It is by no means certain that there has ever (in the sense required) been more than one civilization in all history. It is at least arguable that every civilization we find has been derived from another civilization and, in the last resort, from a single centre—'carried' like an infectious disease or like the Apostolical succession.” (CS Lewis)

Following this last quote is, in the appendix of The Abolition of Man, a list of 16 pages of cross-cultural sayings, proverbs, principles, tenets, and codes from a planet-wide, trans-history compilation. Its word count is 3000. Not only is Atheism’s objection here based on its own self-proclaimed psychosis of illusion that is the Con atheism calls Mind, but, also, it is, in generic terms, illogical given what real discovery actually looks like, and, further, it is even contrary to the evidence given the universal numinous awe that is humanity’s foreboding witness of the Tao saturating Mankind’s experience from A to Z all the way from atop his ivory tower armchairs down to all his fields of carnage.

The Perfect Exemplar has His witness: Mankind.


His Name is Love.

Scbrownlhrm, I sincerely hope that you begin attempting to reign in what has become an excruciating habit of polluting threads with rather inane drivel. Have a suitable conversation with people, please. Your response to topics are vomitus, and require the reader the arduous task of gathering together broken pieces of a kaleidoscope.

Steve I think we agree--- in that such would be "self evident" & thus such a thing (self evident) exists ;)

Steve,


As dialogue is a good thing, I’ll unpack my first post in this thread a bit as it may shed light on my approach.


It starts with this: “[Actuality] is but the Perfect-1. There is not, are not, 1.0000009 Actualities. There is One. 1. The Everlasting. The Uncreated. The Immutable. The Non-Contingent. Man's Mind perceives this within the Self-Evident, though his finger cannot touch it. Mind, Logic, outreaches finger. Mind, Logic, touches the end of ad infinitum though it is not omniscient.”


The OP is about Mind’s ability to perceive an objective truth. Now, this is different than an objective “object” as in a rock. Of course, that an object “exists” bridges into “truth” vs “falsehood” but only indirectly. Well, that truth itself exists is itself a contention and is not “a given”. With Mind’s Perceiving as our reference, we enter with the abstract, (the number 1) as such is not an “thing” but a description of a real thing, which we “perceive” as the “truth of the matter”. It has been argued that “1” tells us no true thing about the real world, for “1 mountain” can be sliced ever thinner on geographical terms and thus it is wholly dependent on definition.


Well, that is wrong. Actuality, whatever it is, whether multi-verse or not, is but one everlasting something. If twenty multi-verses are out there, then Actuality is “that” singular composite. Now, Mind perceives this, it is “self evident”, yet our fingers cannot go out there and touch it. Logic out-reaches the physical finger, and so on. One, everlasting, non-contingent, immutable, and so on…………

This is critical to this notion of Mind perceiving objective truth as these discussions typically go into those corners.



Now, on this we just “see it” though we cannot “touch it” and though Mind (ours) is not omniscient. We “see” this truth “in general” even though we cannot touch or see “all of it”. Like Food. Sure, there is more “out there” to the reality that is food, but that does not mean that “this slice of cheese” is not proof positive that the category exists. So too with God. We need not see all of Him to know He exists. One unchanging anything is all it takes. Well, we have that in Actuality (1, etc), and, in the Guarantor of Man’s Mind (truth perception rather than illusion) itself in God’s Mind, and, in that ever-present value system recognizable inside/beneath all of man’s twisted fragments thereof. And, on it goes. There are such fingerprints everywhere.

The next example is love’s perceived truth of the matter when naked evil rips apart our daughter. In that experience, Mind perceives a truth and makes a statement about something that is always the case.
Once again here, as in the first example, we have a perceived truth, in love and in logic, which our finger cannot touch. It’s all our perceiving of things “out there” “in here”.



Then I state this: “The Perfect Exemplar in all these things is not only witnessed but is the obvious, self-evident, Guarantor of Mind's Perceiv-ing. If the atheist thinks he can just assert that Mind is perceiving non-actualities inside of delusion he had better present his defeater of sufficient power that Mind is but the Con here within our contextual experiences inside this obviously contingent observational Matrix.”

This is atheism’s final regress as it asserts that evolution has tricked us into believing (perceiving) that non-real things are in fact the truth of the matter. This brings Mind’s Perceiving itself into question, which is fine, but one needs to show that all these abstract some-things which Mind perceives are in fact non-truths. We need a proof that Actuality is not exactly 1, but 1.000009, or some other “number”. And so on. These sorts of tightly held beliefs are called “properly basic beliefs” (I have a head, is such a belief). Now, to defeat these (I have a head, for I perceive such via Mind) the agnostic and the atheist will assert (have asserted) that we could be a brain in some scientist’s vat and all our Perceiving is, though vividly real to us, not the truth of the matter after all. Well, it may be the case. And thus we are perceiving non-truths inside of delusion.

This line of attack is to make a self-proclaimed diagnosis of psychosis on all of humanity, of pan-world, pan-mind delusion, and then: hard stop.

Well that just won’t do. If you mean to tell us our properly basic beliefs are delusion, one needs to prove that Mind is in fact a Con.
And so on……. The point is to just touch on it and move on…….not to dwell.

Then I write this: “The Atheist thinks the move of suicide by self-proclaimed psychosis is a clever way to salvage his incoherence, and, the Atheist thinks that such a fatal move permits him to take all of Mind with him. Alas, it is all too self-evident, he finds only groundless assertion void of evidence and the death of his philosophy. Logic and Love easily traverse the ad infinitum and touch the finger of Actuality's Immutable Exemplar.”

Actuality’s immutable exemplar comes in many forms, one of which is Immutable Mind as the guarantor of all our perceive-ings i.e. in atheism reason and mind itself are selected for survival, not truth, thus we may very well believe (perceive) non-real things as real. Thus we arrive once again at “self evident” truths and start all over.

That was my first post…..again just to touch and move on…. not to dwell, but offer that objective truths (as opposed to objects) are in fact perceived by Mind and we can rely on these exactly because there is the Immutable Exemplar (transcendent standard which assures our own definitions….. i.e. God, Immutable Mind….. Immutable Ought and so on).

It seems pretty straightforward, all these pieces. I mean it seems pretty obvious that these pieces are part of what goes into this sort of topic.

The next two posts deal with the Noble Lie and how that undermines atheism’s very attempt at any truth-statement about reality for it commits him to defining Mind’s Perceiving as nothing but delusion.

The next posts begins with: “Moral Perfection is an Actuality. That is to say, God is. The assertion by the atheist that our comprehension of such must be either complete or else the (clearly apparent) Exemplar cannot exist (or is an illusion) is a false dichotomy in simple logic.”

This is just to point out the obvious: Finite cannot grasp Infinite on all terms. Man’s moral condition, being both finite and twisted (fallen) will have exactly what we see in our experience, the good and evil and we will not grasp Moral Law’s Exemplar (God, Love) but in pieces and fragments.

Which later moves into C.S. Lewis’ “Tao” as a very accurate (precise) description of humanity’s universal foreboding experience within morality here in this wasteland that just is the knowing of good and evil; good being both in Self and in Other (my own self and in other persons) and evil too being both in my Self and in Other (other persons). His anthropological comment is helpful as well. The other posts I’ll leave un-addressed here. It’s a brief start.

It all seems pretty straightforward.

Steve,

I'm going to post another comment, not to anyone in particular, but just to make some observations. I'll not unpack it paragraph by paragraph, but, if dialogue is offered......


“Real, or, Objective” morality is not a false dichotomy. The reason that Atheism cannot assert “real morality” and then ground it in man’s nature, short of the immutable, is because that descriptive tenet just does not encompass reality as it is actually experienced inside our contextual experience here in this clearly contingent observational Matrix. As in:

Bees: Kill the brother and kill the daughter. Man: Kill the brother and kill the daughter. Child Sacrifice. Hard stop.

Evolution (more specifically, Naturalism) can bring Mankind through various places like this, and in fact, if no god, then evolution (more specifically, Naturalism) has nurtured the trend and the tendencies which brought about Child Sacrifice. Evolution invested generations fine-tuning the sets of interior trends and interior tendencies needed to get that plane up in the air.



Naturalism (less specifically, evolution) in all those places will program into man’s mind various “intuitions” and to the degree that there was no perceived aversion to the Child Sacrifice (which evolution brought about) then such, being grounded in man’s mutable nature, was “Good”, and “Okay”, and “Right”, and “Moral”, and so on.

That is as far as the word “real” can go if no god.

But “Real” does not mean this when we speak of Ought. This sort of “real” does not encompass our contextual experience.



“Real” means this in our experience with good and evil: Those whose Minds thus perceived Child Sacrifices were blind to the truth of the matter simply because Man is not the end-point of Definitions. That’s the beauty of the revelation of the truth of Man’s fallen condition. It (that duality) accounts for reality as it is actually experienced. It accounts for both the actuality of moral blindness which permits such horrors and for the reality of the actuality that such things actually were just that: moral horrors and not “Good” or “Okay” or “Right” or “Moral”.


Every time an atheist looks at past evils, like child sacrifice, and intuits the ought-not therein he is testifying in favor of God (Immutable Moral Law of Love) and making a truth-claim about reality which atheism cannot provide him the grounds of. He is there perceiving either illusion or revelation.


The living organism that is Mankind is immersed within a contextual experience that just is the experience of the Wasteland that is the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is not an experience of one continual plane of some passionless a-moral experience. The most average of anthropologists has the inescapable omnipresent numinous awe buried within her own foreboding of witness which enables her to never need worrying about failing her doctorate due to her mishap of stumbling upon the imaginary value system that is “so alien as to be incomprehensible”. The singular Whole that is the Tao lies beneath mankind’s singular and brutal moral psyche, and though he makes gods out of lines of the Tao which he pulls out in isolation and then swells to the point of madness, she, our young anthropologist, can track it all through the thickest of forests. That is exactly because the Singular Tao is available to Mind, is perceivable therein.


All the wars ever fought have been justified on some isolated fragment of that immutable foreboding. The Self in isolation (Pride) is itself also but a part of Love in privatization. (Love is Self, and, Other, and, those two in union within what they necessarily beget in union: the singular We, E Pluribus Unum) Thus this too is but a slice of Love (Immutable Moral Law) pulled out of the Tao and driven to isolation, which gives the net result of evil (privatized good). Evil itself is a non-word, a non-definition but for the larger context that is Love’s “I-You-We”, or, to describe love’s triune another way: Self, Other, and the necessarily begotten E Pluribus Unum that just is the Singular-We. What is Evil? It is the Self wrenched out of Love and swollen to madness. The Tao stands intact inside every last bit of Mankind’s moral frameworks.

Evolution can never get us to that place of child sacrifice “back then” being wrong “back then” even though they “preferred it that way”, for there is no Transcendent Moral Law which stands in opposition to Mankind’s Mindset should Man affront it, whatever his temporary condition here within Time may be. Yet atheists opine on past “evils” in man’s “history” and even perceive “angry” and such “evil” as they shake their fist at God for such things. This is either illusion or revelation, as C.S. Lewis notes.


But God does get us to that very place which fully accounts for this duality.


When it is my daughter thus violated, Atheism had better not tell me that the Truth of the Matter that my Mind is therein perceiving [which is that this slaughter of my daughter, of all such daughters in all times and in all places, was ought-not, and is ought-not, and always will be ought-not] is pure illusion, delusion, and the self-proclaimed psychosis of the Con that atheism calls Mind. And if Atheism does posit this, it had better present a defeater of sufficient power that gives the proof that Mind is but the Con here in our contextual experiences within our clearly contingent observational Matrix. And if it cannot produce this Magician, this little green man, then it is not science. Mind must be given the proof that it is but an illusion and a Con being played on itself. How does an automaton of illusion prove to itself what is and is not illusion? Good luck finding that little green man. Properly basic beliefs must be given weighty defeaters if we are to allow reason to rule.

Bridge to the Tao:

As for that pervasive and numinous awe within Mind’s omnipresent and foreboding witness of the Tao and of all the fragments thereof which mankind has arbitrarily wrenched out of that Whole and then swollen into madness via isolation, such brings to light mankind’s brutally repeatable experience laying beneath all of his moral psyche here inside this clearly contingent Matrix. The tired and unsophisticated attempt to speak of “different” value systems strangely incomprehensible to the most average of anthropologists just does not hold, for the reasons stated earlier. The most contiguous, most existentially coherent, most intellectually satisfying, most logically articulate, most plausible, and most all encompassing descriptive-prescriptive aligning in perfect symmetry to reality as Mankind experiences it in all contexts within this clearly contingent observational Matrix is this: Immutable Love.

It’s fun watching atheists change descriptive language midstream.

First they assert that evolution has programmed enough pan-world common some-thing in man’s moral psyche for such has been selected for as this common “village” thing has allowed/promoted survival. Then, when this “pan-world common some-thing” is noted as being “pan-world” by the theist, the atheist will then say, “Oh no! Not at all! There is NO common moral psyche in mankind or in any pan-world way that we can see, so what are you talking about with this “Tao” and so forth? Can’t you see we are all radically different and thus there is no pan-moral-any-thing here!”


Well, that’s comical .......

The comments to this entry are closed.