Grounding

I have recently come across several references to grounding. This is a subject that every engineer is interested in, and very few philosophers(note 1) seem to care about. Another term for grounding is referencing. Hold on for a little background.

In electrical circuits, ground is the point of reference for the voltages of the rest of the nodes in the circuit. It is the one point in the circuit which has a known, established voltage: zero volts. The absolute voltage of any circuit node is determined by measuring its voltage with respect to ground. For different circuit stages to work deterministically with each other, they need a common ground, a conductor with low impedance so that the physical voltage on the ground conductor remains as close to zero as possible. With a good common ground, circuits can be made to interface with each other.

If the grounds between stages of circuitry (systems) are not common, i.e. the voltages between the grounds for each stage is not zero, then it is not possible to know how one circuit relates to the next, and failure is guaranteed.

Any electrical designer who ignores his grounds is in for a heap o’learning.

Now let’s consider philosophers. Many philosophers like to say that philosophy is the rational analysis of arguments. Or some variation on that. Supposedly an argument is made, say that,

“If P is true, then Q is true;
P is in fact true;
therefore Q is true”.

So far so good… except is P really, in fact, true?

In order to know if P is true (to support the contention that Q is true), we need another argument:

”If N is true, then P is true;
N is in fact true;
therefore P is true”.

But is N really, in fact true? We must find yet another argument to support N, and so it goes. It could go on forever, in an infinite regression of arguments which never reaches a known “true” by self-evidence, or by definition, or by some other form of unquestionable authority.

Or perhaps the argument chain actually turns around and refers to the original argument as a source of support. This is self-referential, and it, too, never terminates in a known “true” by self-evidence, or by definition, or by some other form of unquestionable authority.

The third possibility is that the chain of arguments does in fact terminate in a statement which is a known Truth. This terminating statement is a “ground”, or an absolute axiom which supports the argument which refers to it. So if the chain of arguments which terminates in such a ground is valid at all points, i.e. the logical format is correct, then the original argument can be known to be correct. And this is the only option of the three possibilities which contains that knowledge; the infinite regress and the circular arguments cannot produce knowledge.

Interestingly, Philosophers in general reject the existence of grounding Truths. So where does that leave the truth value of their declarations? Without some sort of inflexible guiding principle, some veridical axiom, some inviolable, incorrigible, external ground, all thoughts become relative, floating in a tide of unknown and unknowable, non-existent truth.

The result is an attempt to create a truth out of nothing, ex nihilo, just by thinking really hard about it.

DESTRUCTION of REALITY

Bertrand Russell concluded that there is no way to refute hard Skepticism, that which denies that reality exists. (Brain in a vat, etc.) He also said that he wished that all those who deny reality would get into their automobiles, drive straight into a tree, and then defend their Skepticism.

But the intellectual attempt to destroy reality is based on the need to eliminate the concept of grounding. Hence the theories that consciousness doesn’t exist, that “self” doesn’t exist, that agency doesn’t exist, etc. Materialist reductionism is absolutely necessary if the physical limit on existence is to be maintained. And the physical limit is to be maintained at all cost – no non-physical existence can be allowed a foot in the door. That would destroy the ideology.

So the ground for Philosophical Materialism is just this:

” There is NO non-physical existence, period”.

How does this statement stand up as an absolute ground for every and all arguments? Is there evidence for this statement? Is it incorrigibly self-evident? How about its corollary:

All things are physical and therefore are subject to Cause and Effect.

Is there evidence for this statement? Is it incorrigibly self-evident?

These are not observed facts, they are desired outcomes which are desired in order to protect an ideology which requires them to be true. Under these “principles” it is necessary to declare and somehow prove that certain non-physical things are, in fact, physical. Or failing proof, to claim that they do not even exist, being illusions or delusions.

Here we have the case where the grounds of Philosophers do not match the grounds of logicians: the First Principles. (While philosophers might claim to be logicians, they abandon logic immediately when it contradicts their ideologies).

Taking the first Materialist ground, ” There is NO non-physical existence, period”, this statement is a proposed principle, a supposed axiom. Principles do not physically exist in nature; they are intellectual constructs, created to demonstrate a proposed universal truth. So the statement itself is not physical. And its meaning is not physical. If the statement has any meaning at all, then it contradicts itself, and thereby runs afoul of the First Principles of Logic and Rational Thought, specifically the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

So at this point one must choose (or walk away befuddled) between the Materialist ground or the Logician’s ground.

Or try desperately to prove that a principle is either a physical object or doesn’t exist at all, that meaning is either a physical object or doesn’t exist at all, or some other obfuscation to try to eliminate the obvious conflict.

The gulf is even wider between those who declare ethical standards for us, and those who want grounded moral standards. As the great Arthur A. Leff pointed out, an impeccable ethical standard requires an ethical standard giver who is beyond reproach, beyond question, perfectly ethically impeccable in every way. When a philosopher declares an ethic, Leff points out that the proper response is, “Sez Who? Who sez so, and who are you to say so? What exactly gives you the right to determine any ‘standards’ for me?”

If there is no human who can be shown to be unquestionably morally impeccable, then there is no Ground for any human-declared ethic. What we must have for an impeccable, unquestionable ethic is a “Grand Sez Who”. Otherwise, ethical posturings are merely the ungrounded opinions of certain humans regarding how they think the rest of us should behave.

It is the lack of grounding in philosophical and ethical thought which destroys the value of philosopher’s maunderings. If all philosophical arguments are infinite regresses or circular, or in the case of ethics - just opinions, then they are totally without truth value. But because of the perceived eliteness of these “thinkers”, their output is given far too much value in the popular culture. Untethered thinking leads to nihilism and hedonism, a fact demonstrable in our current culture. Lacking grounding is dangerous.

I remember the first television attack on moral grounding, the sit-com “All in the Family”. Liberal notions were given logical, loving overtones while grounded ethical notions were depicted as hateful, bigoted and stupid. The first ungrounded movie was “Water Hole #3”, a western comedy which had no good guys, only bad guys and worse guys. It was funny in a guiltless, amoral sort of way. (note 2) After that movie, the white hats were portrayed as stupid bigots or not at all.

During the ‘70’s, the boomers became the Me Generation, grounded only in themselves and nothing else. The national currency was completely ungrounded by the final removal of reference to gold by Nixon (started under FDR). Easy credit was the ungrounding of spending based on income and actual net worth. The "dot.com" bubble was the ungrounding of value based on actual profit. The housing bubble was the ungrounding of mortgage approval based on income and ability to repay. The list of ungroundings goes on and on, and it is not positive.

The final ungrounding is the loss of rational thought, which is replaced by rationalized thinking. Untethered thought leads straight to Nietzsche’s Anti-rationality, whether it is recognized or not. Anti-rationality leads to emotionalism, the “I want” which is displayed in Materialist and Leftist mantras. And that’s where we are now. “I want this to be true, so it is true… for me”.

Addendum
The ungrounding of the meanings of words is a recent phenomenon, useful in defending irrational ideology. Or is it new:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Lewis Carroll

Notes
1. Or evolutionary biologists or some cosmologists.

2. For example, a farm girl is raped and likes it so much that she follows her rapist around for the rest of the movie, begging for more.

Letter To A Friend

I have a question for you. Can you think of anything which is True? I don't mean "true" in the sense that a statement reflects the actuality of the fact it represents, for example, "There is a truck parked in the driveway", when in fact there really is a truck parked in the driveway. That is called the Correspondence Theory of Truth". That is not what I mean.

The Truth to which I refer is a truth that is constant, unchanging, and universal. This truth is outside the power of humans to change, to modify, or to deny rationally. I can give some examples.

First is the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. If this seems too simplistic, consider this: these symbols represent a relationship that is universal; constant; unchanging. In fact they are trans-universal, because they would be true in any rational universe. Mathematics is the discovery of such universal truths. And no amount of arguing will change their truth value, so they are absolute: absolute Truths.

Another one is the existence of life. Now this might seem to be self-evident, but within Atheism, it no longer is a given. Under Atheism and its progeny, Philosophical Materialism, nothing exists except material reality, and those material things all behave by responding to Cause and Effect. Humans are no exception. So when Atheists are pushed to the limit, they must take the position that humans are deterministic and their behaviors are controlled by a chain
of preceding physical events going clear back to the origin of the universe. So there can be no free will, if Materialism is valid; and if Materialism is valid, then Atheism is valid.

In order to protect Materialism and Atheism, free will cannot be allowed to exist; free will would mean that man is an "uncaused causer", able to defy prior causation and able to make rocks go uphill merely by exercising his will to create the conditions for it to happen. Humans would be "uncaused causers", because they cause events merely by will, rather than by previous history of accumulated events causing the next event.

An uncaused causer is a defeat for materialism.

But these Truths do exist, to the mind unencumbered with prohibitive ideologies. And because Truths exist which are universal, constant and unchanging, Truths which are absolute, then the idea of the existence of absolutes is also True.

But Atheists must deny absolutes in any form, because under Cause and Effect (Materialism), absolutes must also have a cause. And the cause of an absolute would be an absolute, too. An absolute creator of absolutes is denied outright.

As you observed, Atheists have to think themselves into corners of irrational concepts in order to preserve their ideology.

One of the outcomes of the atheist denial of absolutes is that logic, without an absolute basis in First Principles or axioms, is totally relative. Logic can slip and slide around and be made to fit the non-absolutist's opinion. And everything produced by Atheists and Materialists is therefore just non-logical opinion, based on no absolutes and no experimental science.

The entire subject of a non-material existence which is outside and beyond physical existence falls outside the purview of Materialism. Materialism merely denies such existence; denial is not a proof, neither experimental nor logical.

Observation of the existence of mathematics, logic, and life is a view into something which is outside of Materialism, yet something which is absolute. The deniers deny it at their own hazard: an irrational worldview.

Ask your deniers what their absolute basis for denial might be. If there is none, then why do they think it is True?

I hope this helps at least some. Please continue to ask any questions
you might have,
Stan

Can An Atheist Be “Good”?

Atheists are now advertising on buses and billboards how ethical they are and how “Good” they are. This always brings this question straight to my mind: ethical and good by what standard?

Most Atheists, when asked, will claim to have thought through all the intricacies of human behavior, and then come up with a humanist variant of behavior for themselves. This sounds very logical. But it is not humanism that they actually pattern their behavior against (and that is well and good). What they actually do is to co-opt the Judeo-Christian ethic for their behavior, because that is the dominant ethic and legal structure of the culture in which we live… so far.

Atheists, when they reject the deity upon which the cultural ethic is based, also reject the ethic, de facto, since the ethic was decreed by that deity and is not based on evolved pragmatics, it is based solely on the opinion of the deity. On the other hand, they can claim to be “Good” according to Judeo-Christian standards merely because they are law-abiding out of convenience. One need not believe in the ethic behind a law in order to abide by the law; it is merely cheaper in time and money to obey the law. Most people are law abiding because it is possible to lead productive, fulfilling lives without the hassle of fines or jail time just by observing the behavioral limits that are set legally.

The term Good for Atheism is a term without meaning. Although some Atheists might deny it, Nietzsche settled the issue logically nearly a century and a half ago. And most Atheists do agree with Nietzsche that there is no such thing as an absolute, much less Truth. So if there is no absolute, then “Good” must not be absolute; it is relative.

Therefore, within this simple framework of their own creation, no Atheist can be “Good”, unless it - Good - is relative.

And it follows of course, that being relative, any action an Atheist takes is “Good” by the definition of that Atheist, a convenient tautology that is generally left out of the conversation regarding just how Good Atheists really are. They are Good by definition, law-abiding by convenience, intellectually dishonest by virtue of logical failure.

If an Atheist claims to be Good according to a Judeo-Christian standard, as opposed to Consequentialism or it’s subset, Humanism, the first legitimate question for him is, “how do you justify using this set of behaviors as your ethic?” In fact, the deception of claiming to be “Good” even though not believing in Good or Evil as absolutes is an exercise in Consequentialist relativity; and by having performed in this manner the Atheist no doubt does “feel” Good, even while denying the existence of Good.

Consequentialism is not an ethic, it is a political strategy. Its most recent adherents are the Leftist politicians in power in the USA at the moment; Its most infamous recent advocate was Saul Alinsky. But Consequentialism also was the operating procedure for the horrific Humanist “new man” political experiments and bloodbaths of the 20th century. Regardless of the claims of being “Good”, Atheism has a history of amorality that is a bloody “Will to Power”, not a Judeo-Christian ethic of submission to a moral law that is outside of human construction and manipulation.

It is the relative manipulation of its ethics and logic to which Atheism is prone that makes Atheism a moral and intellectual hazard.

The Mathematics of Reason: The First Principles According To Boole.

In 1853, George Boole published his treatise, ”An Investigation of the Laws of Thought”, and gave the world “Boolean Algebra”, the mathematics of logic that ultimately made digital electronics and digital computing possible. To me, the most remarkable aspect of Boole’s work is his ability to resolve rational processes into simple equation form, even into tables for determining propositional truths.

His algebra varies only slightly from classical (numeric) algebra. It is necessary to envision sets, their intersection or non- intersection, rather than multiplication or division. For example, xy is the set that contains both x’s and y’s; this might not include all x’s or all y’s... but it could.

While there are other considerations, that one principle leads off to a remarkable conclusion. Here’s how it works:

If two entities are equal sets (identical), where y = x, then,
xy = x. (The intersection of the sets x and y are identical to the set x.)

This is the Principle of Identity.

And if y = x, then,

xx = x,

or
x² = x.

next,

0 = x – x²,
0 = x ( 1 – x).

The sole solutions are x = 1 and 0, where 1 is a full set, and 0 is an empty or null set. Also, (1 – x) is the contrary set to x, where x is not a universal set.

This equation demonstrates several important things.

First, it represents the conjunction of both x and “not x”, making it a universal description. For example it could mean “truth” and “not truth”, covering the entire universe of possible validities. So it is a “universal” equation.

Second, it has only two solutions, 0 and 1. So in the case of “truth” and “not truth”, there is no intermediate value, meaning that only “true” and “not true” exist. This is the Principle of Excluded Middle. (Also called the Law of Duality, the principle of dichotomy in analytical thought.)

Third, it can be seen that x cannot be both 0 and 1 at the same time. This is the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

From just one equation, Boole demonstrates mathematically the axioms that underlie all rational thought.

Further, in order to demonstrate that dichotomy is the limit of human comprehension, Boole writes a trichotomy:

x = y = z (identical sets);

xyz = x;

then,

x³ = x ;

This factors into

x ( 1 – x )(1 + x) = 0;

The solutions are 0, 1, and –1. To illustrate the cognitive disconnect: If x = “all men”, and (1 – x) = everything that is not “all men”, then what does (1 + x) represent? Boole points out that this is surely beyond the comprehension of human minds. So trichotomies are outside the realm of rational thought, at least in this universe, and for human faculties.

As beautiful and remarkable as this is, it occupies only the first three chapters of Boole’s work. He goes on to analyze propositions, including if/then, and then it’s off into probability theory.

Is There Wisdom?

Wisdom is not a new concept. But it is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition, especially in a culture awash with both relativism and cultism. It is not even easy to decide if it actually exists, especially in a culture where leaders are consumed with lust for money, power and sex, the journalism media is corrupt, and TV is saturated with garbage. But let’s explore the concept anyway, especially its relationship with empiricism.

A child learns not to touch when Mom says, “hot!”, by touching it anyway. This is a personal empirical experience, a data point.

When a child repeatedly touches it anyway, it would be called foolish: repeatedly doing the same thing expecting different results. But is it wisdom to expect the same result each time? Or is that merely a bottom-up result of empiricism?

Or is wisdom something more? Or maybe something less?

Wisdom is widely referred to by religions and cults of all stripes. They claim a path beyond the temporal to a way of knowing that is overarching the physical world. The wise learn and apply this, and call it wisdom, they teach.

But there are so many religions and so many paths; do they all wind up at a common super-reality called “wisdom” ? Clearly this is not the case. So the commonality of all supernaturals called “religions” is not a provider of a common object which we can refer to as wisdom. Maybe then one subgroup of religions provides such a path to “wisdom”? If it did, how would we know, if we don’t know what wisdom is?

Let’s assume that wisdom does not exist; perhaps it is a myth, a story, an improper interpretation of another state of knowing. Perhaps it is really just an accumulation of empirical data points, placed in a contiguity that provides a coherent reference for temporal reality. If that were the case, then wisdom could be acquired by memorization of piles of scientific tomes. In fact computers, having vast memories, would be very wise. The internet would be the wisest of all. This is clearly not the case either.

And what about emotional responses, are they factors in wisdom? Do love and altruism have wisdom attributes? Do hate and lust have folly components? Let’s presume for now that they do.

If wisdom includes both rational components and positive emotional components, and folly includes both irrational components and negative emotional components, then what can we say then about wisdom? Since there is a decision to be made between wisdom and folly, can we declare wisdom to be a choice? Or is it a discipline? Or is it both of these and more?

In previous posts the nature of subjective reality has been probed. It is commonplace now for empiricists and forensicists alike to claim that there is no subjective reality, that such an internal experience is totally physical as is shown by MRI scans of blood flow to certain brain locations during certain experiences. However, brain plasticity has shown that these scans change, even within a single person, when the scans are repeated over time: locations in the brain are not absolute, they change. One might conclude that the experiences are not fixed, material chunks in the grey matter. Nor are they “brain states” in the normal computer sense. The brain is not a serial, clocked mechanism, it is massively parallel without timing for the creation of clocked “states”.

So the denial of a separate “subjective reality” is without empirical basis. And this relates to “wisdom”, how?

If one does any self-contemplation – introspection – at all, the realization will very likely occur that decisions are not always performed on a rational basis. By non-rational basis we shall say that the consequences of the decision are not always considered before the decision is made. Example: purchasing on credit without the ability to pay back the loan.

So if decisions can be both rational and irrational, what separates them other than randomness? My position here is that it is discipline, based on the perceived benefits of making decisions based on both valid situational input and projected consequences, compared to the hazards of making decisions based on whim and noncontemplation of consequences.

There is no question that for the material world, this is one way to talk about empiricism. Even if there is no other reality, the commitment to making proper empirical decisions is a function outside the dataset; the commitment says “I should”. Shoulds are imperatives, not declaratives. Shoulds are perhaps emergent from datasets, but they are not contained within datasets. Decisions emerge from datasets, but they are not contained within the datasets. The dataset contains a picture of an existing environment; a decision includes an estimation of impact and consequence of acting on the dataset. Decisions emerge in a state transcending the dataset. And how do they emerge?

The manner of thought that integrates datasets into imperatives guiding actions, is, in my opinion, wisdom. Datasets contain contingent factoids, added to previous data, and thus expanding the contingent knowledge of the factoid set surrounding a certain physical phenomenon. But why should there be a commitment to such a dataset, or even to the pursuit of the acquisition such a dataset in the first place?

It might be that, as knowledge increases, matures and becomes coherent, a perceived benefit exists, emerging beyond the boundaries of the data. That this knowledge proceeds from, but is not a part of the dataset, is a significant human creation: it is a creation of meaning. It is here that the empirical world of datasets is transcended.

Commitment to empiricism is actually a commitment to meaning. For objective reality, the meaning is objective, and is physically realized. But for subjective reality, meaning is subjective and beyond the auspices of empirical interpretation. This becomes the point of contention: for the philosophical materialists who claim that science - empirical science - can and will produce the hidden physical realities behind all phenomena including subjective phenomena and will then test them empirically.

Of course, empiricism cannot even physically test its own philosophy, nor can it produce anything other than contingent factoids as opposed to truth. Even the axioms at the base of scientific inquiry cannot be proven empirically, so empiricism actually could be false should these axioms not be true, as they are presumed to be. The limits of empiricism are mechanical in nature; philosophical materialism ignores these very real limits.

So functionally, mechanically and physically, empiricism is limited. But meanings are unlimited in their range of interpretation, with an infinite number of non-valid meanings being available to choose from, and only a few or even just one valid meaning. So meanings derived from empirical pursuits are limited only by the commitment to rational analysis, based on First Principle truths (axiomatic) that are outside the purview of empiricism.

And the commitment is a decision to be rigorous in rational methodology.

The decision to be rigorous in rational methodology is an exercise in wisdom, a learned response created within and despite an irrational culture, and as a meaning, it is not a feature of physical, natural matter.

The refutation of this definition or other attempts to describe the transcendent state of wisdom will always be couched in scientism and philosophical materialism. Perhaps such a decision to be rigorous will be called an intellectual “ethic”, and the source of ethics is just memes instantiated as brain states. But this is not only unproven, it is unprovable and is actually absurd and trivial, for the reasons given above.

It is not possible to refute the idea of “ideas”, or of “decisions”, or of “ethics”, or of any non-physical entity using physical, material tests and techniques. Yet this is the position of philosophical materialists who refuse to admit to the obvious.

So it is possible to conclude that transcendents do exist, that wisdom is a transcendent, that such transcendents cannot rationally be refuted using empiricism the tool for refutation, and that wisdom – as defined and explored above – can exist, does exist, and is the supervisory state required for empiricism to be valid. In fact wisdom is also the supervisory state required for all valid decisions, including the case of filtering emotional issues to raise the core rational consequences, which wisdom has chosen to pursue in a disciplined manner.

If you choose to attempt a refutation of this, don’t bother with empirical arguments, and certainly don’t bother with Just So Stories about how X evolved. This is not a discussion about an objective material entity; it is subjective reality. Got a rational, logical refutation for the existence and nature of wisdom? Then let’s talk, I look forward to it.

Basic Reality, Part 4: Fundamentals of Rational Thought

Skeptics, Atheists and Curmudgeons talk a lot about Rational thought and being rational. But try to find one who defines exactly what that means. These folks give the very strong impression that rational thinking is whatever pops out of their mind/mouth at that moment... so long as it is, at bottom, materialistic.

Rational thought is not the exclusive property of someone who up and claims it. So What is it? We must be clear on this before continuing a journey into the realm of our subjective reality space: this is of the utmost importance in being able to filter out the chaff.

Fortunately there is a series of nine articles on this site that addresses exactly that: Reason and rational thinking. This series is located under the article category label "Reason". Click on that, and those articles will be presented (backwards, in blog fashion). There are a couple of other things in there too.

If you are not clear on the constitution of rational thinking and logic, feel free to go through those articles; if you have questions, let them fly, I'll get the answers back to you.

Then we'll wrap up the Basic Reality series.

Basic Reality, Part 3: Objects in Subjective Space

Before launching into the topic of what it is that exists in subjective space, there is still a little more to discuss yet.

Is introspection rational, or is it irrational?

Introspection is necessary for certain functions such as understanding ones own motives for doing a certain thing. Or for understanding emotional baggage carried from earlier times.

But is there a subjective region where it is dangerous to tread, where a pit of delusion and irrationality awaits from which there is no escape? This seems to be a major obstacle to some, who refuse to venture beyond the material world (or do they?) Is it possible to differentiate the rational from the emotional, the irrational, the fraudulent delusion? To answer this we must know the source of our rationality and its full capability.

The rules for rational thought can be thought of as hierarchical, with the most fundamental being the First Principles. These principles, along with the other rules, as well as logic, mathematics, language all exist purely in the subjective range. While their essence can be coded into written material symbols which convey a (mostly) common meaning, the principles themselves remain outside the material domain. These principles have no mass, occupy no space, have no length width or height, exhibit no reflectivity, refractivity, conductivity, resistivity, nor do they degrade with time, or change phase or form. They are completely non-material.

While we easily show that material, contingent factoids are never "truth", we can also show that the First Principles are true. We can also show that if they were not true, rational thought, mathematics and language could not exist in an ordered fashion; life would be chaotic if it could exist at all. Truth then, exists only in the non-material realm, in subjective space, if it exists at all.

How is this shown? Given that empirical and forensic scientific approaches cannot apply to subjective space, how can we prove anything at all about it? Well it is done intellectually, using the innate human faculty of discernment... just the same as scientific judgments are made on material entities.

Along with a subjective space, every individual is endowed a priori with the faculty of discernment. Whether this faculty is hard wired or is transcendent is not the issue; the issue is that it exists, and it can be used by each individual in an orderly assessment of his environment, whether the environment is either objective or subjective. Science is the orderly use of discernment faculties to evaluate the objective, material environment. Introspection is the orderly use of discernment faculties to evaluate the subjective environment.

Discernment can be described as having the following elements: apprehension, memory, comparison, discrimination, judgment, comprehension. By using these, one can evaluate any entity for its rational or irrational content. If an entity fails the First Principle of Non-Contradiction, then it is non-coherent: paradoxical. This applies to the subjective realm just as it does the objective, material realm.

So we each have an innate tool with which to analyze the entities we encounter in the subjective realm. There is no reason to fall victim to irrationality there, any more than to fall victim to a pseudo-scientific claim in the objective, material realm. The weapon against being the prey of irrationality is the same for both spaces: the internal, innate faculty of rational discernment. The validity of the analysis is also the same for subjective entities as for objective entities: rationalization is fatal to rational belief in either space.

And now (finally) for the possible objects – let’s call them entities – that might be encountered in subjective space. At this point I’ll just list a few, to start the search; after all, your search will be your very own subjective search, won’t it?

I think that for the sake of understanding what the meaning of rational thinking is, one should comprehend the First Principles… first. After all, everyone has the right to reject any and/or all subjective entities as fallacious constructs of the human imagination. The validity of the First Principles, and their use, is of paramount importance to a rational search. So one must understand their validity.

After that is accomplished, the following questions (out of myriads) seem to surface rapidly. First, is there really Truth in the subjective domain? Next, is there a subjective complement to the objective principle of “cause and effect” in the subjective domain? Can “absolutes” be avoided in rational thought? Does subjective space extend outside or beyond the human nervous system? From where did our subjective space and rational discernment faculties come to exist?

There are many more questions for the individual introspecteur to pursue, the questions above are possibly common to most people, but then again maybe not. Possibly the most fractious question will be, is there a non-material mind? And one more: is there wisdom?

Next: Addressing the rationality of subjective issues.

Basic Reality, Part 2: Subjective Space

In the prior post we discussed the difference between the material reality that we experience as “objective” space, and the non-material reality that might exist in our individual “subjective” space.

What is the nature of “subjective space”? What could it possibly contain? And what is the evidence of such things that could be believed to be valid?

First, let’s examine “evidence”. Evidence is that which is “evident”, not necessarily that which is purely material. Material evidence is a subcategory of evidence, which includes such non-physical information as witness testimony. For purposes of our journey into subjective space, witness testimony might well be held off until later; personal investigation should not be biased by others' experience in advance.

Also, it is important to remember that just like for empirical science, material evidence is not absolute, it is contingent. Material findings are never absolute, they are probabilistic, being contingent on the limits of observation and the possibility of new, refuting inputs. Empiricist David Hume even doubted the validity of “cause and effect”, declaring that a constant conjunction of two events, one occurring always before the other, does not guarantee that it will always occur thus. But the probability of being drawn toward the Earth due to gravity existing tomorrow morning is very, very high; not = 1.0, but very close to it. Hume reluctantly admitted that "cause and effect" is useful as a construct.

Although transparently a Philosophical Materialist and virulent Atheist, Hume advertised his belief system as “skepticism”, which is a predisposition toward disbelief in any evidence that is not material; it is an attempt to limit knowledge to the contingent and to eliminate absolutes (God). Skepticism is closed to certain evidentiary inputs by definition, due to a need to force all experience, all reality into a material context. Failing the ability to do so, all non-conforming experience is denied as delusion, illusion, or hoax.

But given that Philosophical Materialism of the Hume kind is contra-rational, we must continue to explore beyond such roadblocks anyway, despite Hume’s attempt to halt such inquiry.

Now let’s examine “Truth”, capital T. Since all material evidence and empirical factoids are contingent and not absolute, there can be no Truth in the material realm of reality. This position is evident not just in our current relativistic society, but also in Lenin’s Scientific Socialism, and Hitler’s National Socialism, where truth was created, not found. As with Nietzsche, who specifically rejected the First Principles, the existence of absolute truth was rejected, and the Darwinian fight for survival with the resulting domination of the most powerful was accepted as incontrovertible scientific “fact”. There is little doubt that residual Marxists are still of this opinion.

But is there really no Truth, absolute and beyond doubt? What of the First Principles that Nietzsche summarily waived (as with Hume, to eliminate considerations of absolutes such as God)? If the First Principles are not true, then rational thought itself is not valid, because it is based on the assumption that the First Principles are, in fact, not just valid, but are "incorrigibly" True. Since it is rationally acceptable to base assumptions on unprovable axioms (which the First Principles are), we shall declare them – for now – axiomatic so that we might continue to use rational thought in our investigation. But we will return to this issue at an appropriate juncture.

Let’s now return to the issue of the nature of subjective space; if we cannot accept its existence then we cannot probe its limits. If we are to describe the nature of subjective space as internal experience, what would it include? If we are physically hurt, the event causes a chain of physical responses via nerve channels, culminating in a mental experience and possibly an “automatic” physical response such as a jerking motion, for example. But nothing in this description relates the discomfiture of the personal “experience” of pain. Even if the pain signal is captured en route and sent simultaneously to another individual by wire, what the second individual experiences is not necessarily the same experience as the first individual experiences. This is true even if the same portions of their brains “light up” on MRI scans, because no two brains are wired alike. So certain experiences are confined to subjective, personal internal experience.

If we reach further into personal experiences, we can see that a person’s creative moments are confined to that person. The fruits of the creativity can be coded, transcribed using language skills – or music or math or whatever – and shared with others, only well after the creative fact. But we cannot share the impulses of creativity that the creative person experienced.

The space in which such subjective experiences occur is personal; internal; mental. It is also transient, volatile, and ephemeral. Objects such as creativity do not last long in such a space. (And they do not necessarily occur on command).

Does such a space really exist? I have known people who seemingly had no conscious power of creativity, whose total conscious energy was absorbed by repetition, replication of previously acquired thoughts and modes, and directed solely by unquestioned dogma. For them the deeper subjective space appeared not accessible or at least long dormant.

The existence of subjective space is thus a subjective topic. Only the individual can decide.

Next: What sort of objects fit into a “subjective space”?

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Warily Approaching Reality

Should man define the limits of reality? Or should man discover the limits of reality? These questions, in a sense, encapsulate the issue of Philosophical Materialism.

If the limits of reality are arbitrarily placed, is there any reason to believe that they are accurately defined? For example is it true that reality ends with physical entities that we can see, touch, hear, taste, smell? Perhaps we say that this is true; how do we defend that declaration with data? As I have said elsewhere, if the set of material entities (M) is searched thoroughly, can proof be found that (!M) does not exist? The exercise is futile and the idea itself is absurd. Yet that is precisely what Philosophical Materialism does.

But what exactly is “!M”? If it is not tangible, how am I able to know anything at all about it? This concern is the underlying motivation – intellectual motivation, anyway – for Philosophical Materialism. If I cannot define it in material terms, it seems obvious that I cannot know anything about it. The rash conclusion is that it just does not exist.

But looking at the raw idea of “!M”, or outside and beyond the material, what do we have? Objective reality is no longer the issue; there is no way to test, repeat the test, and demonstrate the testing to others. Objectivity is out. The non-material reality, “!M”, is purely subjective. It is found through introspection, a concept which disgusts, even enrages some materialists. For them, if it is not physically demonstrable, it is imaginary, delusional, or a hoax.

For this reason, Materialists endeavor mightily to redefine certain non-material realities into their material context.

I will be writing about the idea of subjective reality in the next days, as a response to a question asked by a reader a few weeks back. To restate it in my own terms: if there is a non-material reality, what is there? What do I have to do to explore it? What can I expect? How do I avoid delusion, imagination, and error? Notice that these questions apply to material reality as well.

I have another question. What are the reasons NOT to investigate such things? Some possible answers: fear; dogma; apathy; rebellion; intellectual arrogance. I think there is no intellectually justifiable reason not to explore non-material reality.

This will be an interesting exercise, at least from my perspective.

But here is a cautionary note, as much to myself as to anyone: Openness in intellectual investigation requires a deep intellectual humility. Arrogance is unteachable, unreachable, hermetically sealed from new input. Intellectual humility is demonstrated by a self-awareness of one's own finiteness, contingent existence, and proclivity to err on the side of existing dogma. Intellectual humility is possessed of an openness, but with analytical judgement at hand.

Moreover, willful rejection of actual experience, including subjective experience, is merely rebellion - emotional blockage. Defense of prior dogma in the face of actual contradictory reality spawns false worldviews.

It also should be noted here that reality experience doesn't always happen on a human time frame: "today I will relate gravity to Maxwell's equations". Reality experiences frequently occur in "flashes of insight": epiphanies. For obvious reasons these are called "realizations", when a reality is finally grasped. Epiphanies are not to be feared, they are to be analyzed.

More to come...