True Happiness

If I told you that one plus one equals two, will you ask me that on what authority to I base my conclusion on? Or, will you decide the truth of ‘two’ from the structure and content of the argument itself? Before anyone can find hope in understanding others, and in doing so understanding the reasons why certain people find happiness in what THEY do, one must suspend all bias of illusory authority and suspend judgement on all things.

We, the learned and modern class of students, know that all knowledge is a production of culture rather than a progressive system that develops its methods for finding greater truths. Students of both Anthropology and Philosophy know that all systems of knowledge can be correlated to the history which gave rise to its existence, and so no ‘truth’ is eternally recognized. Because we understand knowledge to be both contingent and relative, as in through the study of production of knowledge through history, we now see knowledge or pure truth as that which is independent of true authority. If we base all knowledge on authority, we accept that our culture – which is the very one that produces this knowledge – is superior over others.

Have you ever asked? If some person during some time period can claim his culture to be most superior over others, that if in every epoch of history some one person can do that seemingly truthfully, then why in history are there the rise and fall of Great Empires? As History has proven continuously, the conflict between the varying and ever-changing forces of production of knowledge waivers between nations like a vicious nightmare that never ceases but takes newer and newer forms all the time. That is, technology and form of corporations, regulation and order, media and political propaganda, scientific and psychiatric-medical knowledge are all mere products of historic conflicts between the forces of production of knowledge and its means of strength of one over the other. What one deems to be superior in the Roman times in religious or social ideals are considered ancient in the 21st century. We can neither determine the truth of any political or social or economic ideal without already having some bias which itself is never well-formed in proof of the rise and fall of Civilizations. We can only determine knowledge from and through itself. If we base anything on authority than on pure reason, history plainly shows otherwise.

The learned of the past assume that there is so-called social equilibrium when people of different classes come together. But why are there even classes? If we understand that each culture is equal, and that each culture has its own particular mode of production of knowledge, and that the knowledge thus produced is unique in itself and not inferior in source and produce, then classes of knowledge do not exist. Modes and forms of technology and political formation, social and economic modes of stratification and even idealized knowledge are all mere products of the social arrangements of the culture of interest. If, that culture is inferior at all, how can it persist till today? How can then there be the rise and fall of Empires throughout time? If Empires can fall and the weak become strong, no class of knowledge or authority actually exists. Social class becomes an illusion of the culture. We too know that all and each of us are naturally ethnocentric. But we never recognize the fall of empires in history. When we are ignorant, we cannot understand and comprehend pure truth. Once we understand that the social arrangements are particular to one culture, and that theirs are as superior as ours – as in the history of fall and rise of civilizations and empires – then when people of different cultures come together there can never be so-called equilibrium. Instead, there is only a blend of the modes of production of knowledge between two entities.

Also, ideas of social progression are illusory. That is because if we assume some universal social ladder exists, then we are imposing our mode of production of knowledge (or productive technology) upon other modes of productive technologies. Yet, how can one say democracy exists as the best of any worse political structure if we nonetheless persist to impose illusory authority on one mode of productive technology over the other? This is being plainly hypocritical.

If we accept democracy, that cultures are unique, that history creates and manoeuvres authority between modes of productive technologies of knowledge, that history too contains the rise and fall of total civilizations and empires, then we must be able to be relative about the true productive technologies.

To be happy, then, is to eliminate of thought of absolutism and embrace historical relativism. Also, one too must base the truth of knowledge because of what it contains rather than on the authority which insists on its truth.

Read more!

Irrationalism and its Respective Practices

Why do children know how to talk like normal adults before even knowing all the alphabets from A to Z and the formal rules of the language? Why is it that some people flourish without the aid of the educational system rather than the other way around? Why do some ‘liberal’ states thrive over other liberal ones? There are things and issues which we many a time refuse to face and answers we dare not acknowledge in light, ironically, of the so-called information age. Marketing a system of bureaucratic and deeply senseless practices to all fields of life seems so prevalent and absorbed into society that none see the light of reason. It seems that modernity is not enlightened at all.

The reality of the mind of the child is that, like any other living thing, it is always in constant need to adapt to its environment in order to suit its own needs. If they need water, they learn methods for showing others that they need it. Other times they attempt other kinds of techniques to request for food or attention. Do we need to teach the child what crying means by crying in front of it so that it remembers how to cry? No! If you were a parent, and you agreed that you have to cry many times in front of the child so that your child remembers how to cry, you are a complete idiot! If you can remember at all, your child cries probably because noise is the only thing which can wake you or anything up. In fact, it knows that when your face is facing hers, and she makes any noise, your facial expression automatically changes ever so slightly or greatly – a sign of response. So, when it is in its own room, and no one is there, it understands that its loud cry will correlate to high response rate from the parent. Again, do parents have to repeatedly act in front of the baby, one being parent and the other as the baby, to show it that crying loudly will bring the parents’ attention to it? Obviously not! These are small examples that relate to human nature, and that is the act of autonomous learning. You don’t need to repeat things in front of them before they puke all that that they see from you. They learn by their own means because they want things done to suit their own needs! And that is a fact of all living things!

Yet, despite this blatant example of real life experience of parents all around the world, the educational system advocates the act of repetition as the means of learning rather than the constant motion of intellectual inquiry as the true form of learning.

Have you ever thought how children learn to swim? The reality is that throughout the whole process, small mistakes are corrected and showed why other techniques don’t work. The child learns not by repetition, but by learning that closing the gaps between the fingers and pushing that hand backwards in the water creates greater force for stronger propelling. The child need not learn the full vocabulary of what I said, but simply the feel of it. The child automatically correlates closed fingers with swimming faster to beat his peers. It’s as simple as that.

If the educational system were so perfect, and we all know children learn to talk before learning the written version or its official rules, then all children will excel because it uses the natural method of learning. In reality, this is not the case. Humans, like all other living things, remember certain things because it serves them a certain purpose. It is precisely not the case with constant, meaningless, and senseless repetition.

The market of irrationalism seems closely bound to the by-products of a capitalist society. People are aiming to cut costs. So they have senseless programs which promote repetition as a theme of learning – like a robot doing the same task over and over again. They identify this to be a certain system of discipline, so that the child can be taught obedience through discipline and be good as such. It reduces manpower and effort or stress from teachers having to handle certain mischief as the computer keeps children stuck to the screens. The child is only amused by the cartoons and inserts whatever answers because some cute cartoon senselessly appears in correspondence to the ‘right’ answer. Again, it is interesting that children already know how to speak sentences when in school they are told to fill-in-the-blank. This all sounds ridiculous to me.

It is ironic that the polity of modernity is full with political ideals which structure themselves in so deformed a manner that it resembles only differing disciplinary polities aimed to structure all forms of oppression into the public so that a new kind of hidden mental-monarchy is formed. Some might argue that the Enlightenment has its effects still running in modern society. Yet, the forms of economic and social classism, racial comedies, isolated ethnic groups, and special laws on security, are all part of an implicit design of hidden oppression cloaked under the word ‘democracy’. It is interesting that where ‘democracy’ holds, we nevertheless witness all the mentioned horrific acts which come never close to their polity’s idealized spoken form of freedom of the people. There may be human rights, but there are also special internal security laws against them which give the government special privileges over individual freedoms.

It seems that people are so accustomed to being lied to by their own sovereign power that they are misguided on many issues which are, in fact, most closely to the heart.

Read more!

Failure and on the Improvement of the Disciplinary Society

Thanks to Michael Foucault, who is my current idol in revolutionizing the main framework of philosophy both in theory and practise, I have realized this. Perfect societies, following from other philosophers like Marx, necessarily evolve the function of discipline from a source of centralization to a naturally diffused but individualized form. Discipline in the end multiples forces but individualizes them by the specific calculation, definition, and concentration of individuals. While each individual is unique to certain tasks by virtue of natural capacity, the aggregation of finely calculated talents forms an efficient society so that discipline becomes both diffused into society and finely tuned to each different individual. It must be absorbed systematically. The irony, however, is that many Asian societies have not the natural capacity to formulate an agenda of systemic reform for the utter absorption of discipline into society.

Current Asian frameworks stereotypes without the full use of modern tools of psychiatry and scientific knowledge and implements otherwise harsh but useless tactics against defaulters of the system. The system, however, is designed not to multiply forces, but instead to homogenize it, such that no greater use of special or differing element within can become improved and multiplied for the whole. It produces good results, but not systemic improvements. What is the point of claiming the success of some schools when the system cannot make attempts to individualize the academic curriculum of individuals to cater to their special needs? Or what is the point of claiming to advocate free speech when individuals are silenced by the presence of a system of hierarchy? Or what is the point of claiming political fairness when all unpleasant events encountered by opposing parties coincidentally coincide with major reform to the system decided upon by the main controllers of the government? Or what is the point of claiming national status in improving financial grades in the economy when the poverty index has not changed significantly? There is systemic failure in any case.

Foucault talks of a system which individualizes for the purpose of multiplication. Every individual must be subject to the psychiatric and scientific system of analysis so that after being observed, defined, calculated, differentiated, and improved, the individual becomes useful and each and all combined together multiplies into a force which is stronger than a force of homogeny.

Suppose we talk of the educational system. If we are to implement a disciplinary educational system, a perfect one, these are to be its characteristics. Students must be bilaterally subject to both knowledge-acquiring and constant surveillance. The constant surveillance has bilateral functions and may exist in different forms. While it creates space for constant analysis, rationalization and experimentation, it also preserves the authority of surveillance over the individual. Surveillance however need not be personal, but instead architectural and social. Consider that of the prison. Compare the initial forms wherein individuals are tucked into nicely fitting spaces such that these spaces do not allow for unnecessary movements to the modern asylum where prisons face a central space. While a guard may stand and observe individuals existing in the older version of prison, he may not get to see all things at once and so considerable movement is needed always. However, when the gates of prisons face a central region and space within the prison is given for the prison to move around, a guard can at one glance observe not simply the presence of prisoners. One can observe the movements of individuals, their speech, and their tendencies. The body becomes a tool for observation rather than a mere spec in a pile of sand. And in noticing their mind through their bodily movements and behaviour, the observer can individualize punishments so that each individual becomes fearful for the system knows and acts upon their mind and body. This is where psychiatric analysis comes in. We may speak to them in certain ways, or infiltrate their favourite spaces or hobbies – depending on the uniqueness of each individual – so as to instil a kind of discipline which is both individualized but multiplied. It is multiplied because since all can be seen in a glance, surveillance does not become physical but represented in the very structure and design of prisons. If the educational, political and social system implements this newly defined system of the disciplinary prison, forces shall be multiplied indefinitely. That is, going back to the topic of the disciplinary educational system, the individual’s studies and social behaviour forms a portfolio to work with so that one may systematically determine a form and structure for him or her. Each individual is studied psychiatrically so that punishments and rewards are individualized in accordance to the psychological tendencies and flaws of the individuals. Also, each individual’s capacities in differing fields are individualized so that while in certain subjects he studies at a higher level when proven capable of doing so, others he remains at the previous level or lower also when proven so. In addition, each student is subject to random surveillance so that the collective studies of qualified professionals can formulate a more likely-to-be suitable agenda to work with each individual specifically. Everything is subject to human rationalization – even the human mind itself.

The light side of all this is this. Freedom comes not from being un-disciplinary, but instead from knowing that everything is formulated in accordance to your own circumstances. There is no frustration since everything is being calculated and defined for you. Freedom is felt when one is allowed to pursue that which is personally performing and suited well to the individual. The disciplinary structure uses a systemic autonomy to form a society of multiplied forces. Asian societies are useless in this area unfortunately.

Read more!

Losing Hope in the Operation of Systematic Power by the Armed Forces

Currently, the law of the Armed Forces has not yet gone through a process of ‘humanization’ of its regime – or by Michel Foucault’s definition, a system of calculated, defined, refined and reformed discipline. The regime assumes that the arbitration of punishment and discipline can effectively deter prospective military crime and thereby improve obedience. When we investigate this ‘divine’ law of the military, we find arbitration everywhere implicit in all its directives and operations. This is all so much so that the operation of power of the armed forces has only become a mere display of amusement for the public rather than an effective systematic force against external forces.

Any soldier can only plainly see a culture of internal conflict. Thus, he understands that when an operation of power is divided against itself through itself, the whole force becomes weak and ceases to be any kind of operation at all. He observes and is aware of the Act put in place, and that it permits arbitration of punishment at all levels, such that no systematic operation of power is in place. So, when punitive operations are not properly reflected in the level of severity to its crime, even the condemned cannot see the relevance of the discipline involved. And since discipline has not evolved an implicit but calculated reflection against the purported crime, the condemned and the public both ultimately see the law as illegitimate. However, since the Armed Forces are directly involved with society via conscription, the Law of the Forces becomes a law useless and ineffective.

There seems to be no calculation, no consideration, of a proper systemization of the law and its power over soldiers. So implementation becomes arbitrary and deterrence becomes meaningless and of no value at all. What of the Armed Forces do we have if its people do not respect it? It becomes a norm through society, through conscripting soldiers, but by also the normality of despising the law, the norm of conscriptions forms an empty pact between society and the sovereign power. Arbitration sets the foundation of the Armed Forces, and so with the law of conscription imposed by the Sovereign power, arbitration and normality become associated and are as one. And since it is meaningless, the law being also arbitrary, the Sovereign power too becomes arbitrary and meaningless.

If I were not wrong, Jean Jacque once commented that the power of the Sovereign diminishes to a mere display of operation of power only when society sees the sovereign to be useless. A matured society can only observe the relentless perseverance of the useless power over its people and, by its mere perseverance, is amused by the existence of it at all. Rather than the role of government, sovereignty is like a sidekick, spontaneously acting and improvising upon itself without apparent goals and ideals, like a shadow behind the individual who beholds it.

Propaganda of its effectiveness thus only assumes the stupidity of its people. Yet, they ask why people of talent usually become unpatriotic and leave the nation for another, without realizing that society has matured beyond its undertaking. So here we see a prime example of the Sovereign pursuing an effective means under its principle of arbitration, only to pursue empty dreams. Improvisation becomes arbitrary in itself and no meaning can ever become attached to itself. It was as if anarchy was the best solution t this all…

Read more!

On Biblical Interpretation – an explanation from Spinoza

I find the strangest of things how people may assert different statements but belief blindly them to be connected in some way. Perhaps it is a psychological need for them to think they know something when, in fact, they know nothing of anything at all. Perhaps, again, they are too accustomed to superficial observation and plain memory that they become deprived of pure thought and systematic analysis. As Spinoza argue in “The Ethics”, human nature is naturally prone to this irresolute being of emotions – that the preservation of the intellect is the hardest of all. But my goal today is not to prove why human nature is like that. Instead, I would like to talk only of biblical interpretation and how the common view is opposed to reason.

I may have shown elsewhere some of these arguments within my blog, but would like to elucidate them here once more. I shall attempt to explain them as simply as possible.

Spinoza argues that all things have an object, an idea, an essence, and a substance in itself. The object is that which we plainly see or perceive with our senses. The idea of a thing is our imagining or recalling the image of the object in our mind, or rather, the proximate characteristics we attribute to the object of interest – a mental conception. The essence of a thing is that which is perceived and is without any qualification. Substance is that which is composed within all things.

We start off by stating that all things have a ‘telos’, which is the purpose of all things. However, as opposed to a knife which is designed to cut, I am here talking of things that grow and develop without the aid of an external agent. So, a seed’s ‘purpose’ is to grow into a tree, and so a child’s telos is to develop into a mature adult.

Our first axiom is first that reality has a telos, of which since we exist within it, it then too necessarily exists. This is self-evident. We can simply say that reality is a thing composed of many things, or a thing in itself. Our second axiom is that a thing must necessarily be caused or be a cause of itself, that is, to have necessary existence in relation to another existing thing or a necessary existence of utmost necessity that is not in relation to any existing thing. A logical argument, of which starts from axioms which are universal and self-evident, are the very building blocks of an argument which necessarily lead to some conclusion. So, the argument has a telos. And so, which is also self-evident, since all things must start from axiom(s), we say reality must ‘start’ from an axiom, or that it must be composed within a thing which is self-caused or self-preserved. This is God. We shall here re-define our axioms to make the previous explications clearer.

A substance is necessarily caused or self-caused, that is, to have necessary existence in relation to another existing thing or a necessary existence of utmost necessity that is not in relation to any existing thing. This latter substance we call God. And so if that be God, he must be self-evident and perfect in it-self. Perfection only means to contain the infinite necessary existence. God must only have this definition as he must be as simple as possible in order to encompass all things universally. However, if we say something exists outside of God which does not contain infinite necessary existence, we are also saying that God does not have this infinite necessary existence since God can and is limited by this thing which is imperfect. Therefore, since nothing can exist outside of God, nature necessarily is implicit of God’s definition or existence. The analogy is how the human body is implicit of the meaning of a human being. That is, without the human body, there is no human being. Therefore, the telos of God is the telos of nature. God’s will is most explicitly the very action potential of nature’s phenomena. Thus, in God we say his intellect and his will and his action is not actuality differentiated at all. For since he is that which has infinite necessary existence, and only this definition alone, anything which is in him is directly translated into nature itself. Therefore, whatever he wills or he intellectually perceives or desires are what we see in nature. Nature contains a divine decree or order. So, if anything can contravene nature’s divine order, or natural order, it is also opposed to God, which is also opposed to infinite necessary existence, which is absurd. Therefore miracles cannot actually occur since all things in nature must be caused following from God’s divine decree and order of all things in nature. In layman terms, God is nature itself.

So when we observe biblical scholars, theologians, and others of faith claim the many occurrences of so-called miracles, they are simply revealing their ignorance of their natural causes. Also, in saying that miracles occur, they do not realize that are also being heretical to nature’s divine order, which is God’s will and thus contrary to reason as they deny the truth or self-evidence of infinite necessary existence!

Read more!

On the Struggle of Power

It has been a common fallacy to assume that government alone plays politics amongst themselves. If however, we put the definition of ‘politics’ in its broadest sense, it is the struggle for power in any socioeconomic climate. We say ‘power’ in terms ranging from first impressions, respect and honour, family rules and family taboos, to others like corporate acquisition and mergers, political and international diplomacy and invasions, and political elections. We also say ‘socioeconomic’ in meaning of any social interaction acted through the use finite or infinite resources. So here, we see that all living things engage in the direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious politics, the very struggle for power.

Let me illustrate my point properly here. When I say that I am in the struggle for power, I do not mean the barbaric acquisition or stealing of moneys through the harming or lost of lives, being politically motivated and thus attaining political authority over the people, or finding ways to make friends afraid of me. Rather, as in not in the purest sense of the examples just mentioned, I am referring to the very mere interaction between two beings or more in order for acquisition of certain satisfaction or mutual satisfaction, and in doing so, creating the acknowledgement in the other this already acquired satisfaction – the acquisition of power itself.

Let me put forth my idea more clearly. A talks to B about Issue C, of which A discusses C(A) and B discusses C(B). While A may in fact be confiding with B about his her problems, A does so because for either or some, if not all, in the following instances:



(1) A feels disturbed about the problem and seeks advice, in doing so A unconsciously gives authority to B because A feels uncomfortable and lacks initially the confidence and esteem to face the situation. By B receiving the sense of importance from A, B gives A the necessary comforting and words A needs to acquire confidence once more. As in this case B respects A because B feels important to A, A feels that he is being acknowledged. And, if B sympathizes with A, A feels that somehow A is in the right. B indirectly reinforces A’s morals and circumstance. A thus feels that he is fighting a moral game in which he is the moral one and the 3rd party is the immoral one. A acquires a psychological backing, which in turn acquires power of confidence over B as B acts as a backing for A.

(2) B requires the cooperation of A to realize B’s own interests but realizes that A will cooperate only if A stands to gain. If A helps because he is the friend of B, A looks like as if he were the best friend of B, and in so doing acquires future support, if necessary, from B and thus attains his power through the backing of B.

(3) A requires the cooperation of B to realize A’s own interests but realizes that B will cooperate only if B stands to gain. If B is not the friend of A, or B is not close to A, or B has difficulties pertaining to A’s interest, A realizes that to reach his own goal he has to show B that by helping him, B stands to gain something substantial. That is, reaching A’s goal means to do so via the realization of certain or some own desire or interest of B. By empowering B with what he wants, A acquires power in the form of being a benefactor over B, receiving respect from B.



Of course, however, the above three situations may happen unconsciously or indirectly or both. For example:



(4) A wants B to help A realize A’s interest, and A does not explicitly show how B can help A via realizing B’s certain or some desire or interest of B, but B is aware that in helping A he can simultaneously certain or some of his own desires or interests, B willingly helps A. So, on superficial observation, it seems that B is helping A altruistically, but in fact wants to realize his own desire(s) or interest(s) through A – using A to realize B’s own desire or interest. Or, another scenario is possible. B understands that he is acquiring power quietly over A, or knows that he, after the incident, is comfortable with quietly using A to attain his means. A, however, thinks he holds some form of arbitrary authority over B in the form of friendship, and thus believes that if A needs help in the future, A has B for backing and aid.

(5) A needs B’s help to attain A’s means. B, aware that according to history and past observations, A always makes sure that A reaches his own goal by helping B in certain ways. Thus, B helps A anyway but, in this case, is unsure what benefits he may acquire through A’s attainment of A’s goal. Here is a possible source of abuse from A, as B is providing his services without question of A’s means of attainment, and A might in fact use B’s gullibility to destroy B as A finally has arbitrary power over B and has the potential and capacity to utterly destroy B if A has always hated B from the beginning but keeps quiet about it, or finds B’s presence utterly useless. A therefore obviously here acquires arbitrary discretionary power over B.



As we has seen for all the five scenarios (although there may be many other situations that are here not yet accounted for), the power for struggle does not simply belong to the government alone. We can, in fact, see how all these instance are so very much prevalent in our personal (civilian) lives, happening directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. I believe the reader is capable of coming up with his/her own examples as they must be quite obvious anyway.

By understanding the generality of the instances of the struggle for power, one must also acknowledge that this is so natural phenomena that it would be quite irrational to not extend this idea to all living things; that this principle of the struggle for power is one of the leading forces of evolutionary design.

I must therefore here discuss the nature of the struggle for power in relation to the freedom of humankind. For since every interaction happens out of these instances, out of necessity (as in Spinoza’s philosophy of determinism), and so we say all human interaction is directed towards the acquisition of power. And, so, if a human is to be free in so far as to acquire self-determination, he is to be rational and aware about the nature of all interactions, and treat all with a pinch of scepticism as all interactions are not in themselves genuine as all things require in themselves some direct or indirect, conscious or unconscious benefit from the interaction.


Note: If need be, I shall discuss my last paragraph with more detail and reason.

Read more!

The natural right to social revolution

The antidote to the mere and insignificant human existence is the natural right to social revolution. Observe we must the very fact that rather than social forces, divinity organizations – especially those of churches – often assert that our puny human existence can be resolved and be improved upon by the filling of the Holy Spirit. What those who promote this do no realize is that since this Spirit is ever so infinite in all things conceivable, then so when it attempts to fill human bodies it has to encompass itself in a shell infinitely smaller than its actual form. So this phenomenon begs the natural question as to how something infinite in size can fill a space which, compared to that something’s infiniteness, so infinitely small. Therefore, the human mind cannot be emancipated by the mere acceptance of some Holy Spirit.

In fact, realize must we the strength of social forces. This impulse is the cause for how we behave, the social customs and culture which we inhabit, the values or beliefs we tend to have. Thus, it is with acknowledging the evolution of social behavior, social customs, culture, values systems and beliefs – the momentum of history itself – and seeing that I, a mere individual living in a complex ecosystem of human relations, thus being very unimportant and puny in its view, that I must necessarily rise above the social phenomenon to become greater than man by and through the act of social revolution.

The plain madness of the masses in attempting to follow those who know and act as if she is aware of her own puny human existence and to thus engage in social revolution is very apparent in mass culture. Be it from fans of teenage pop concerts to mass gatherings in advocating minority opposition political parties, in the long run, this is the very force for the greatness of human evolution.

In conceiving of history in light of the natural right, we find that there is a grandeur in knowing that all ruling nations, groups, and peoples necessarily fall in defeat by the fact of social revolution as all other infringed peoples must assert their own existence. In essence, history reflects a fluctuation of kinds of peoples’ domination over others.

We also find that it is not divine forces which are the invisible forces that lead the human social revolution and the very momentum of history. History has shown that secularism will come to dominate religion in the long run despite the short-term terrorist attacks and slight fluctuation in religious demographics. That is, secularism came in spite and due to the rise of religion in the past. Notice how the change from religious society to church-state separation is also evidence of the social revolution!

Read more!

On Army and Conscription

Nothing else but the civic liberty is forced upon a nation for the purposes of supposedly forming a force of deterrence shall give of the modern and current generation the feeling that such coercion by law is none other but a nuisance and liability. Such feelings of dissent is only apparent when each individual finds the enforcement of this law or pertaining laws be abused by those directly employed by contract by the association in regard. Also, that the so-called enforcers of the law or laws pertaining only pretend to be loyal enforcers but do, in fact, so only because the law says it necessitates so causes irritation to those unwillingly bound by that law or laws pertaining. This law or laws pertaining is that of conscription. Let us first look at arguments of support for and dissent against conscription in smaller nations before deciding on a compromise or solution to the issue of conscription, starting from the most fundamental level.

Countries of a smaller geographical size has its limits in natural resources and land space for economic and population growth. As such, the issue of limited natural resources for the purposes of either boosting the economy of its country or creating a self-sustaining export-based economy of such resources or both and the like is countered by the increase of incentive for foreign investments. The economy, rather than depending on natural resources, is transformed into a port or base for global or international investment – a global business hub. Of such countries this is what they solely depend on. Its government, then, cannot expect that all business people become permanent residents – let alone citizens – of the country since most come for business trips. However, in having limited space, and therefore limited number of people wanting to give birth and contribute to a relatively dense land, the government would give incentives to those of business to stay as it would increase its human resources. This in turn provides greater service to the business hub as more services and goods are available for trade and, in turn, creates more jobs for the economy and the people within. In doing so, making a whole economy dependent upon foreign talent and investment, the government necessitates conscription as the nation is too vulnerable to global unrests or crises and the like. That is, if such things were to arise, the nation’s economy shall be severely jeopardized and create a diminution in the national morale. Then, if war breaks out ever so coincidentally, the nations shall become mostly mentally prepared and sound for deterring prospective threats to the country itself. Therefore conscription is necessary. This is the support for the law or laws associated with conscription.

Yet, it is argued that the act of greater international diplomacy and association shall bring the necessity for conscription to a halt, such that a small privatized, but well-trained, army shall suffice to deter international threats. While this may be sound, that is to have the economy attached to all strategic but major business hubs of the world and have political association with strong nations, we learn from history that even nations cannot fully trust a simple political association of mutual contentment. This is because in times of war, the livelihoods of its own people are put as first priority, and so unless the small nation has a major or significant enough financial places in the foreign nation’s economy, political association by mutual contentment can be regarded as miscommunication or untrustworthy. Therefore, the argument from strategic financial globalization stands better against the need for conscription.

One must still recognize, however, that financial international relations are predicated of political manipulation and decision. Which is to say, if a foreign nation’s government decides that dependency on a nation which is at the brink or already engaging of war is unsustainable, that government will implement such policies to deter such relations from a nation at war? This condition of abandonment depends on if the foreign government of interest finds an alternate direction for its local economy to travel on, such that the lives of the nation are not affected but simply altered. Such still also relies on the condition that such changes do not affect its political votes for the next election, since the people of that foreign nation may want to stay financially related for moral, ethical, or financial reasons – that of internal acts of diplomacy and electoral management. For if the government, in acting for the interests of the people, the people may believe there is government indecision or worsening in financial management relations. This affects the outcome of future elections in funding for campaigns and advertising.

Therefore, the un-necessity of conscription stands if the following conditions are met. The local economy, whether significantly or somewhat managed by the local government, must have strong financial hold in a foreign economy which has that nation as a prime contributor to its economy. People within the foreign economy must also necessarily want to stay friendly to the local economy mentioned on the above so that even if there were no strong hold from one to the other in financial relation, there is social coercion to cause government not to break the relationship. Finally, that whether there is support within the foreign nation or not, that the economy cannot ever so easily change its dependency unto another nation of their interest.

Let us now get to the more personal level.

When people are forced to sacrifice their civic liberty and enforce a coerced sense of civic aggregation and are still met with pretenders for the laws pertaining to the army, they become unsatisfied as they see uncivil people having authority over them and abusing a relatively lawful and fair system. How could such people derive morale from abusers of the law? For if there was conscription, of which conscription is forcefully engaging the people in the national defence, and conscription enacted for national defence of the nation and its people, and since those conscripted are the people themselves, then anyone hired by contract under the army must necessarily act in accordance to the interests of those forcefully conscripted. Yet, if these regulars do not do so, but act in accordance to each of their own interests, then conscripted personnel have no morale to defend the nation at all, as they see the army as a self-determining entity that is ever so engrossed with narcissism – disregarding its primary purpose of its existence. That is, to men of the ground, if those employed by the army cannot even interpret the law as a function of serving its people and therefore all conscripted people, then conscripted soldiers too do not see primary purpose in developing their self’s sense of fairness or respecting the laws pertaining to that of the army and conscription. Thus, the condition to be met here is the reduction of pretension within the army and to enforcement of laws or directives to deter internal corruption.

If pretension was to occur vividly in front of those conscripted, and the local is unsustainable if unrest were to arise if war at its brink, conscripted soldiers find no meaning in fighting anyway. It would be fighting a losing battle in the end, so the soldiers (or inclusive of his/her family) only concentrate on methods to escape the country’s legal liabilities and conscription. If the above were not met, let us not talk even of nationalism and patriotism.

Read more!

Establishment and its relation to the Appreciation of Intellect

Tradition is some system which, by some principle or principles, perpetuates acts and or notions as derived from those very principle or principles throughout the passageway of time. Establishment, or having been established, is the instance or fact of having been proved by some reason into such a secure and unconditional state of affairs. Established tradition, however, is not necessarily self-sufficient, fundamental, and self-determining, as this all-accepting condition is secure to the extent that there is the need for social trust and corroboration in the numbers. Only then is the tradition safe from external destruction and internal chaos. And so, established tradition is established only to the extent that there is social integration on the matters of principle or principles of some tradition. Tradition, led by the masses or some individuals, is preserved by the common will of its followers, binding as if it were a social contract in itself. That is, since established traditions have to be secure and unconditional, the common will must be found. And, in order to maintain this will common to all followers, a social contract is found to suspend the adherent’s natural liberty to found criticisms of the sort which dismisses the very security that some established tradition so needs. A kind of civil liberty is then arisen as all adherents are bound to some common interests and rules so that all are equal in being subject to the principle or principles of some established tradition. However, since tradition needs security to perpetuate acts and or notions derived by this very principle or principles, all traditions are naturally established by the definition on the above. In any case, so any act or notion found to be against the principle or principles of tradition is also against the civil and collective liberty of all followers, and so is defined as heresy to their common will too. In order, then, for the civil liberty of adherents be supported and freedom of the tradition to perpetuate, such heresy must be denied continued action or persistence. Punishment must be incurred to anything deemed heretical to the tradition henceforth. So, revolution in the interest of the principle or principles of the tradition is treated positively than that kind of revolution which deems some principle or principles of the tradition false. This includes physical punishments to absolute rebuttals of the sort mentioned in the name of heresy and insult. Therefore, tradition is dogmatic and intolerant to rebellions.

Anything which is established, as mentioned above, “... is the instance or fact of having been proved... into such a secure and unconditional state of affairs.” And so for anything to be established, it must also necessarily be a tradition, as the repeated acts and notions derived from some principle or principles of that which is deemed established protects the principle or principles from intellectual depreciation and falsification. Thus anything which is established is intolerant to any kind of defiance against the established principle or principles.

If we are here to talk of freedom of speech and belief in regard to the pursuit of intellectual honesty, we must be anti-establishment. Let me here first justify to the fullest of extents freedom of speech in view of perfecting the individual’s intellectual honesty – and also as applied to society as a whole. For since all things seem to aim towards the ultimate good, so humans necessarily aim towards the ultimate good. Then, if we take all human behaviour and possessions, and in fact all human life, to be part of the process of acquiring philosophic truth, freedom of speech must be guaranteed in so far that that this right of humankind is found for intellectual honesty, resulting in the pursuit of philosophic truth itself. Any kind of establishment, then, would interfere with the process of human development of its intellect, and so should be considered a crime against humanity – this includes established tradition. Let individual minds be in the pursuit of its own excellence so as to be intellectually honest of philosophic truth itself in the absence of established things – this is the ultimate good which should be achieved.

My previous paragraph, however, deems establishment, let alone established tradition, to be evil to the ultimate good of the human intellect in so far that anything established does not tolerate heresy – as in the social contract theory. However, if there were polities so dialectical as to inform the need for freedom of mind with established laws, I do not see a problem arising. Forget not how my argument above resulted with a resounding triumph of human nature engaged in chance or unrepeated actions or notions by the support of anti-establishment. For if some establishment, which tolerates nothing else than itself or anything derived from the established principle or principle, tolerates what it should not tolerate, it simply re-affirms and protects individual freedom by the form of government.

That is, by affirming the ultimate good to humankind by humans themselves, and in being intolerant to those whom are against the ultimate good of humankind, the established ‘tradition’, or law, thus becomes dogmatic only in the natural light. For since all aim towards developing one’s own intellect in some way or another, then the common will is in fact by every single body. The intolerance of the establishment for human excellence shall be against those whom are intolerant of the establishment which goes against our freedoms and rights (derived from the principle of intellectual honesty). I here say our freedoms and rights are derived from intellectual honesty because it means we may be honest in respect of the development of the intellect, and so in engaging in civil debates we must also necessarily guarantee freedoms and rights.

In conclusion, a social contract which aims for an intellectually honest society is viable since the principle aims towards to ultimate good – which seems to be the natural direction for all things – and so is definitely unconditionally and securely adhered to by all citizens of the state. The principles derived from intellectual honesty of and for society to achieve, so the intolerance is against the ultimate evil. Even if anything which is established may seem to be for intellectual degradation, the very fact that established law, or ‘tradition’, insists on the ultimate human good thus removes of this very problem itself by undoing itself.

Read more!

A Simplistic and Summarized View of the Unlearned - politically

Drama, is the evolution of human civilization, so obscene in the history of humankind to have committed such crimes against humanity as that of massacres, genocides, civil and uncivil wars, but yet be so inspiring in this history to have seen such bravery, virtue, and honour, which cannot fully be appreciated at the time, committed in the pursuit of certain freedoms and rights for humankind itself. Funny how after all the struggle and pain, humans, in surrounding their own natural liberties to the whole, in the end still prefer that some be preserved under the civic liberty of that whole. The tragedies, sacrifices, disappointments, nay accomplishments, form the very drama of human civilization which attempted in all time to construe meaning to its own existence, resulting in the many conflicts it has had among itself. Humans, in the common will to construe meaning to itself, have formulated different kinds of liberties which many are ignorant of. The irony of this absurdity is perhaps one of the greatest mishaps and paralysis of purely civil society. I am not surprised if any of the learned in history come to believe that society is a detriment in itself in its current times even after having conceived the drama of human civilization.

Natural liberty is the liberty to act in accordance to one’s own will without being bound by some social contract or common will. Civic liberty, then, is the condition wherein the natural liberties of the individual are surrendered to the common will, so that when the common will pursues common interests, civic liberty for both the people and individual is acquired. The social contract is the means transferred from the natural liberty to the civic liberty, willed by the common will by mutual consensus. And so, social contracts bind those who decide to belong to this will of that people – the contract thus represent the common will itself. And since contracts involves a giving party and a receiving party, and so the giving is the common will of the people, and the receiving a government chose to represent the common will itself. However, since the people chooses its government by the common will, they retain their collective freedom in being able to have their interests safeguarded and protected by some few beings, of whom these few beings have to fulfil as they too are bound by the social contract. We may even say that so long as the people have this power, the government is the common will itself, and so, then, the people is said to have surrendered their natural liberty to the government so as to attain civic liberty. That is, natural liberty is the liberty to act in accordance to the will of the self without being bound to some common will or be represented by some few people. While, civic liberty is liberty in essence of the collective will of the people, of which the natural liberty is elevated to achieve some common interests. These are the notions of political formalisms.

As long as the social contract is not fulfilled such that the government acts not in accordance to the common will, only then is the right of revolution and civic disobedience justified, for the very function of the government is to for the common good of the people by fulfilling the common will. As such, even if the people have surrendered their natural liberty, the government must do its best to best take into account the common will and to their interests – if the social contract is to be continually validated and un-breached.

Liberty is here used as a political theorem. The official title to such liberties is freedom, which includes freedom of speech, religion and assembly. These freedoms are guaranteed through the social contract, the legislation of the common will. These are specific titles given in respect to either or both of the natural liberty and the civic liberty.

So when a learned man says we have lost our liberty, he means the very essence of freedom itself. However, when a learned man says he has lost his freedom, he means some freedom is not respected and fulfilled for him in view of some liberty guaranteed by the law. That is, when no freedom is found, his liberty still exists but the certain freedoms derived are not respected. So while a lack of liberty equates the degradation of the form or structure of government, a lack of freedom equates the corruption of government despite the standing infrastructure of itself. Let us use elections as an example. If liberty is lost for him, it is in his view that the method of government elections is not coherent in view of the common will as there are loopholes which work against his interests – and the interests of the common will. If freedom if lost for him, the method of elections of government is coherent with the common will and his interests but the agenda of the majority of parliamentary members elected do not respect some freedom – say an infringed version of freedom of assembly – which he believes to be against the common will and his interests.

Also, the learned understand that a different kind of liberty informs different states of freedoms and rights, which are all solely determined by the natural economy of the nation. That is, the amount of natural and human resources solely determine the livelihood of the people, and in so doing their liberties and freedoms are arranged around their limits and excesses – unless the people wish to die and perish, which is an outrageous notion in itself. Crudely put, humans need basic things, and in consuming or utilizing them they formulate customs that best economize what they have in order to survive. More abstractly, material or substantial things or notions are needed for humans to sustain themselves and construe meaning for their existence and in doing so they must formulate principles via such philosophizing – which create customs – so that they may continue their pursuits of purpose and sustenance.

The laymen and or unlearned, however, are incapable of understanding this distinction of liberty and freedom and so end up with mixed feelings of what the government is or is not. They can never can have critical views, as such, as they can never, from such a foundation, determine right from wrong in retrospect to the liberties determined by the law, and what such liberties reveal about the kind of polity the nation is of. They cannot, in knowing the various relations of the laws, understand if the country is a, for example, pure democracy, civic republicanism, or one-party state, let alone if the government currently is corrupt or not. And to corruption they cannot reason as they either refuse to or are ignorant of knowledge of their own nation’s natural economy – limits and excesses of its natural and human resources. The learned, however, know at least that the problem of national polity and natural economy is more complex than what I have explained on the above.

Therefore, in order for some level of intellectually and philosophically sound minds within a learned society, for to have at least some trust in the sustenance of civil society into the future after having seen the drama of human civilization, we must teach individuals how to reason from basic knowledge, and teach them without intimidation the flaws so identified as if they were wrong, all learn, and they turn out to be right, revolution has come. We cannot let reason be infringed by mere psychological intimidation, but instead by forced and aggressive reason in the form of coherent premises so that reason, when only critically evaluated, creates civil discussion without the fear of irrational feelings.

So let the dramas of human civilization continue, but let society improve itself so that the common good is looked at. Let not the natural economy be looked upon, but instead the ability to look from all sides so that society may engage in civil discussion. Let no one ever come to believe that there will be future de-intellectualizations of the kind characterized by the current manufacturing of minds catered towards the specialization of some one task like a machine of the natural economy. Let civil society become dynamic rather than mechanic, and let all the drama come back to the common good that all humans can look forward for. Perhaps, an interest in the controversies of Political Philosophy should be, ideally, embedded into the minds of society – so that discussions are informed and therefore sound.

Read more!

Human Rights Day, A Call to All!

It is the 10th of December 2008. And in my birth country, no celebrations are held. A day symbolic of the very dignity the human mind must hold to itself, that is of self dignity. A day representing that of the values of humanity, such as that of fairness and equality. Today it is Human Rights Day.

On the streets, facial expressions and movements were as ordinary as ever. The buildings as before. People were only interested in the coming Christmas season, the shopping, and its forthcoming slight market hike - a good sign for short-term investors, or traders. All in for the money, but all carrying the weight of their unforgivable attitude towards showing no appreciation to those rights they privilege from today. They think it is some entitlement, even if it can be infringed upon even by MY own government (on which I am very much against…), when in fact in history speaking of such notions could make you an outcast that easy and fast. They think that whatever happened in history has happened, and so like any other event, no commemoration is needed. Wherein, they believe that if we were to commemorate every event in history, there will be a seamless stream of celebrations that will not give leeway to work, and so this day is of no utilitarian difference. To them, celebrating this day has no monetary value in it, and so not worth acting upon this day any differently. To the people, this month, Christmas is coming, and that’s it!

Perhaps they just do not realize the vast sacrifices of deaths and heavy injuries of its proponents, and the collective and accumulative hurt their families felt. The passing day had no guarantee for themselves and for the loved ones, life was purposeless and in utter despair. I will attempt to document just a few here:


(1381) Wat Tyler’s Bloody Rebellion
The people rebelled against the British Monarchy for imposing an unpopular poll tax, restrictive wage laws and the like - number of 70,000 to 100,000 - headed by Wat Tyler and a few others. They marched to London. Accidents ignored, Wat was killed while negotiating with the king, and 15,000 peasants executed without trial to stop the rebellion.

(1524-1525) Peasant’s War in Germany
The German peasants of the time resented the class system’s inequities. They had issued demands of their own to the government, them inclusive of taxes and slavery. With the peasants’ wildfire of excitement, the peasant were killing all the noblemen who resisted and plundering castles. Soldiers used, and a bloodbath of 5000 of them were killed.

(1830) The July Revolution in France
Charles X, the French king, removed of the freedom of the press, dissolved a newly elected government, and restructured the election system to give maximal power to his ministers. Lives of noblemen and peasants lost as the peasants fought against the soldiers during the rebellion against the King’s unaccepted act of change. In the end, the fight life 2000 wounded and 1000 peasants dead.


These rebellions may be local at heart. Yet, each such act of civil disobedience against corruption for their own right to life is an act of defiance and courage that will resonate internationally and throughout time. As when people of knowledge rebel, they look to these for inspiration, and perhaps for solutions or strategies. For when people know that others have fought so valiantly with their very lives for their right to life and happiness, generations to come cannot let any of their bold efforts ever go to waste. In essence, they must ensure the quality of anti-corruption within the government to uphold the dignity of those dead and for themselves, their happiness.

Many other events could be recounted for the history regarding that of Human Rights. But this is not the point of the essay. The point is to re-state my disappointment in what I have observed today and to perhaps say here to spread the good word of Human Rights to all when they read this every year which is to come.

Read more!

Human Happiness

Here, I would like to write of a philosophy of eternal happiness and joy of and for humans. A world of a human brotherhood, a world not of nations nor of races or classes but, simply, of men. A love divine in its own right, and a brotherhood free in itself. As we ode to joy unto such a bond of men, we realize that joy can only be realized through this, and liberty achieved.

Any person, I believe, who realizes his existence through some aggregation of men which perpetrates crimes against humanity obviously deems himself to be unfree. This, I think to a highly certain degree, an intuition of sane beings. Human nature knows that even if it knows no thorough understanding why this intuition exists, they nevertheless, individually, follow this as much as possible. But we are aware that in history certain tyrants want to realize their own imperialistic ideals, and have therefore created just this types of aggregations of men. Then, when men find himself stuck to necessitating the existence of such aggregations as others have also created such things, they find themselves searching for what the truth to life is. And it is this.

The happier man is the person who so persistently develops his rational inquiry into what constitutes moral truth and civic virtue. Even if he were to acquire such great wealth and indulge in pleasures, that as long as his sense of morality which he has so criticized to the most rational degree justifies what he does or wishes to do, he is happy. He knows that as long as he may decline those temptations that degradades his higher morality, he is joyful to the extent that he knows what he does is right. As long as he does something which is true to his nature, he realizes that he needs nothing else in order to be happy, to becomes self-fulfilling. And when he finds out that his independence of critical scrutiny of morality is a right in itself, he becomes free. He who fufils his own nature by scritinizing his very nature knows that he is capable of engaging in critical introspection. He becomes happy as he needs no other to become fulfilled. No religion, nor the material world, becomes necessary as his self-determination of morality results in his own happiness.

The happier man, in recognizing that the opinions of others are as important as his own, becomes happier when he wishes to be true to himself and asks who actually is in the right. In this sense, the happier man, through the acquisition of higher morality, also empathizes. He becomes an ethical and compassionate being. In dong so, he also becomes more prone to objective person in the quest of objective and unbiased reason. And so the happier man, through the attaintment of higher morality through critical scrutiny, becomes compassionate, and from being empathizing he then becomes rational and objective. That is, he realizes reason though compassion and unbiased reasoning, and this through higher morality. All he needs to do, then, is to perfect his morality - to attempt a philosophy of morality that is lacking in logical fallacies and loopholes.

If a whole society, nay a whole human brotherhood of men on earth, were as moral, unbiased, and rational as the happier man, there is nothing else to be improved on than his reasoning. Then, a rational society that is in the pursuit of human happiness will make the study of Philosophy as the framework for the educational system.

But in reality, no such societies exist. Humans seem to be so distracted by their immediate needs that they forget those values of humanity, of reason, morality, and compassion. No society in the modern world treats the study of Philosophy as a striving need for human virtue. Men have created such systems that are the very opposite of rational societies, making material things seem more valuable than human happinness, and physical pleasure than constant critical introspection.

Humans may be social beings, and he may forget his reason of human virtue as he is constantly distracted by his socio-economic need to socialize for the indirect and unconscious expectation of reciprocation. This does not, however, give greater excuse for them to avoid self-examination and critical thinking. Only with this, will the modern man become the happier man living with meaning.

Read more!

On Divine and Natural Contingency and Divine Existence

From the coinage of the notion of rational numbers, to Einstein’s theory of Relativity, it has been put forth throughout history that contingency is necessary to conceptualize any thing at all. But, do contingent things necessarily exist? Or are these notions of contingency and dependency an illusion of what seems actually bluntly obvious? And what nature does God partake?

We know of too many who have advocated that contingency is vital for all conception of things. From the dependency of finiteness on the existence of infiniteness, to the relationship between absolute variables, it seems that one cannot conceive fully of one without having put it in relation to another of similar, but not identical, properties. Therefore, if things can be conceived in relation unto one another, they are considered rational only to the extent that their relationship holds true. To materialize something in no relation to any other would thus make things arbitrary or even irrational.

God is perfect. Since God is said to be the creator or designer or guider or mirror of all things existent, God is good in the sense that there is existence rather than non-existence. Which is to say, that whatever that which we say that causes something to exist rather than not is thus good. Thus, one associates goodness to coherence only to the extend that whatever that seems coherent only pertains to that of humans’ rationality – this sense of rationality being that of or from God himself. God must be coherent in his nature, and thus rational in the sense of being contingent. We may now attempt to define God through rationality and begin to argue so.

That first we must say that if God is coherent, and therefore rational, God’s nature is thus necessarily contingent upon some other – and in this case, it would be the universe or reality itself. Such a nature thus runs into direct conflict with the notion that God is innately coherent, needing no other to explain its own existence, thus being non-contingent. So, we suppose that if God is coherent in his existence, then his existence depends upon the very fact of the universe. God is dependent upon the very fact of reality, and the existence of reality depends solely on God’s existence. The simpler example is that we cannot call a woman a mother unless she has a child. Thus, the notion of a mother is dependent upon the existence of her child while the child’s having this title of a child is dependent upon having a mother.

The failure of the analogy as given above is that the former being and exist independent of the latter one. However, if we take that the primary function of the former – not in terms of identity status but by object of existence – then for the former is indeed dependent upon the latter’s existence. Perhaps the better analogy is that of anti-virus programs and computer viruses. In this example, the very existence of the former is to serve its primary function, which is to destroy or inactivate the activity of the computer’s viruses. The problem in this analogy, however, the latter came into existence before the former. Of course there are errors in all analogies. So just try to understand what I intend to say here.

Perhaps the clearest inquiry that follows would be that if God’s primary function of its existence is for the very fact of the universe. Which is to say, is it possible for there to be a justification for God’s existence other than that of the existence of the universe? I see no other explanation as yet other than that of through the very existence of our universe. If my current knowledge holds true, then it has to be that God’s existence hinges upon the very fact of the universe. Thus, God is not unexplained, but rather conceived only thorough the universe, and therefore is explained only through reality.

Read more!

Utter Chaos

What greater beauty can be found then in the principles of non-linear dynamics as applied to nature itself? Chaos theory supposes that all natural systems are chaotic by nature, and that this chaos is characterized by the determination of some phenomena by a multitude of known variables and seemingly redundant factors. Such is the complexity of nature, thus the very essence of deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

All things within nature are matter that follow chaotic laws, for their state or condition is dependent upon specific and non-specific factors. All phenomena of matter are thus the ultimate exemplification of directly known causes and indirect or seemingly insufficiently-causable factors. We can derive from some specific phenomenon its taxonomy of causation, wherein each level of causations are, or may be, related unto each other. And so then, as we go down the levels of causation, by level of significance or directness, we find nothing else but natural law itself. And so by looking at direct causes we may find for each of such obvious causes that there is a coherent taxonomy of indirect or uneasily observed factors playing a role in the respective phenomenon. Thus nature, in this sense of total complexity, is observed to have a chaotic-like behavior.

From here we must then understand that chaos theory disallows room for randomness. This is because pure randomness allows for no preceding casual factors – let alone some taxonomy of causal agents. Seeming randomness is observed only whenever some phenomenon is not accounted for by all actual taxonomic causal agents. Thus, from the view of chaos theory, observed randomness is an illusion.

From here we then see that the term ‘error’ is actually fallacious on grounds that if all natural systems be complexly deterministic, then errors necessarily cannot occur. This is only if we define error as some abnormality that is not clearly defined from the currently known taxonomy or causal factors. Thus things are seen as ‘errors’ only when no full comprehension of the phenomenon exists.

To go even further with this, I must assert that all predictions of natural phenomena are nothing but probabilistic not because they are fundamentally random, but that there currently exists no total understanding of the phenomenon at hand. Unless scientists and researchers have stopped their research as they have finally exhausted all known possible causal agents – even those that seem insignificant or redundant – we cannot proclaim that nature is fundamentally random. Fact is, however, research continues – and there is so much more to learn about and understand of.

The non-assertion of a random nature validates Chaos Theory. For to claim that nature if innately random – not chaotic – is to then say that all mathematical physics and natural law are arbitrary, and that such rules of nature are bound to non-definable change. We can then only ask what we can we measure at all or mathematically rationalize about. The answer is nothing. If nature is random, no axiom of nature or mathematics holds any truth throughout eternity. Therefore, nothing is coherent and taxonomical in causal hierarchy conception. Then, logic itself can refute its own validity, and thus nothing makes sense at all. And so, by argumentation via contradiction, Chaos Theory is necessarily true – that nature is fundamentally utterly chaotic.

Read more!

The Natural Right to Liberty

What human argument is not resolved via the sifting through the various solutions? What science does not work on differing variables to determine ultimate or inherent to causes to phenomena? What reason in confiding to the systematic search for the truth is not grounded upon the notion of free inquiry? None, I say. Thus, in the realm of reason and the search for the truth, there exists the right to liberty – and this is natural to all axioms.

For while the intellectual understands that the natural right to freedom is an entitlement to all humanity, the masses assume to their own reason that this right is nothing but a privilege. There in presence is some flaw made by the masses, to which is understood.

The masses believe the right is of a privilege in the sense that their basic needs have been met; this being of food, water, and shelter. While it remains true that the majority of such people do live in relative poverty, there nevertheless exists people who are well financed and in good living conditions who succumb to such thought. I believe that this is what they call as being utilitarian – that is, how some known object of interest is of use. That is to say, they believe that abstract thing is not of use while food, water, and shelter are of use. In this sense, then, they infringe upon their own capacity for complex, abstract, and intellectual thought. To put it into simpler terms, whatever that which are to of their immediate and dad-to-day need that is of use. Others considered are thus useless.

I shall put quite straightforwardly their flaw. Who controls the amount of food as distributed to the people? Who or what controls the flow of money throughout the people? Who controls the filtering of water for people-wide consumption? Is it not either the government or private/public corporations? For if the people disallow themselves the freedom to liberty, they shall then have no say in how such materialistic fundamentals are spread around. And thus, in losing control of basic necessities, again their basic needs are not meant. Thus, they are left poor and desolate once again.

Of course they may claim that if good one-party governments are human welfare based, and thus continuously assure that fundamental needs of the people are met, then no such right is necessary. On the contrary, I say that they enslave themselves to a very vulnerable system at hand. For if such a government was to go through some financial downturn, financial recession, political hostility or conflict or revolution, or some revolutionary social change in thought, then it is bound to hold no firm ground, and collapse. The people are bound to a long-term investment that gives them no assurance of stability, thus investing in a bleak future.

The masses may then continue to claim that if the country’s political diplomacy and polity’s agenda is stable, then their investment for the future is kept under safe hands. Here I can only say that if we do not ever try alternative agendas, we can never know if they are any better to that of the current agenda. In this sense they, or all of the people, are at a lost. While chaos and security is temporarily foreseeable, we are in fact investing in the welfare of all the future generations to come. Through only our relatively short term crises, we may find out which system of polities is the best, and to that we benefit future generations by voting for the best of polities. And that if, on the other hand, the best polity is found in being able to best manage the distribution of basic necessities, but remains evidently authoritarian, I of course would rather prefer a good king to anything else. Even then, with the wanting to the right to liberty, the government shows no compassion and appreciation to the human mind’s capacity to reason. Ultimately, the government only seeks to produce unwarranted propaganda and infringe upon the individual’s right to think independently and freely. Such is what I believe to be one of the greatest crimes against humanity.

The intellectual believes the natural right to liberty as an entitlement due to such reasons as maintaining intellectual honesty, developing rational and critical thought, and capacitating the systematic determination of truth itself. The intellectual, in many respects, understands the complex yet simple relations between abstract thought and materialistic utility. She understands how such freedom leads to societal advancement and technological improvement. He is aware of how all things are related to each other. Ultimately, the intellectual comprehends the importance of all things, as if to the point where all things were equally of high regard.

Let me discuss an example that is a matter of great controversy and sensitivity that shall come to prove my point here. My example is of the diversity of religions. While it may be asked why compare and analyze individual religions, the intellectual can only say for many reasons. He understands that they are all equally important, since all are related in some direct or innate manner. The individual must first understand that intellectual honesty is of the utmost significance. For if we do not try to remain honest in matters to which we do not wholly understand, we can never actually know the truth – whatever it may be. In the example of the diversity of religions, that if we do not continuously attempt to determine the truth or falsity of single religions or all religion, we can never know how to organize our lives. That is, the way we formulate future financial investments, gather information and predict trends in the market, judge people and act towards such judgments, understand natural processes and their corresponding applications, the actual primary and secondary causes of various issues, react to family or other social problems, plan our life in terms of financial stability for whatever term or time period etc. All these are dependent upon our system of belief, and more importantly, which religion each of us believes in.

A sub-example would be that of Christianity and the supposed Apocalypse. The Apocalypse is judgment day, when all the chosen ones – among the faithful ones – will rise to Heaven, thus leaving behind the unfaithful or the unbelieving. According to the bible:


Revelations 1
2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand…

More particularly…

Revelations 6
1And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

2And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

3And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.

4And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

5And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.

6And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

7And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.

8And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

9And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

12And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

13And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

14And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

15And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

16And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

17For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?



Among many modern Christian scholars, it is believed that the 4 events are being played in current worldly affairs. Such as from the following:


Revelations 11
2But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

4These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

5And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

6These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

7And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

8And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

9And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

10And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

11And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.

12And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

13And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

15And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

16And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,

17Saying, We give thee thanks, O LORD God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

19And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.


Wherein verse 11:4’s ‘olive trees’ refer to the two witnesses as stated in 11:3 (which is according to Revelations 11:3) who are mourners who are “…the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth” (Zechariah 4:14). The two anointed ones are referred to as olive trees, as in Psalms 52:8, wherein they trust in the mercy of God and as in Hosea 14:6 the two are rather beautiful. The two shall create havoc on earth (Revelations 11:5-6) by killing those that are inherently enemies of God, wherein all the countries that are exposed to the seas shall be waged in massive wars in correspondence with all known natural disasters occurring at the same time. In this sense, while there likely is world war, there shall also be global warming (the most likely cause for all known natural disasters to occur). While the United States has attacked Iraq and is openly considering invading Iran, it also has to cope with economic competition with China’s rocket-economy. Is this some aspects that form the foundation for the next world war? Nevertheless, the two anointed ones are the causes of world war and global warming, of which are considered divinely beautiful because they are subject to God’s mercy.

I do not wish to go into an in-depth analysis. But the above analysis already reveals how Christian thinking will affect how they shall lead their lives until their supposed judgment day. That is, rather than trying to cope with global warming and stop future world wars, they see it as a sign of divine hope for the chosen few among the faithful. Then, the United Nations can be considered as the antichrist (or the beast) since it is attempting to stop all known or prospective wars.

Therefore, before so frivolously deciding which religion to be true, we must allow for the natural right to liberty, and thus the right to free inquiry and freedom of speech. Only then can we decide which religion is true to orientate our lives around it.

Of course, however, there are also abstract issues regarding that of the natural right to liberty. We must first understand that since the right to be free is natural and inherent to reason, and that since we humans are in actual fact contained within nature, then we by nature also think freely for the determination of truth. I would dare say that without such liberty granted by the government, mass society is thus created. Mass society can then be further characterized as a monotonic body of individuals who prone to political persuasion and manipulation. According to C. Wright Mills, the masses are rightfully described as having no power over government’s policy-making, who is by majority not opinionated, and of having no autonomy in any form legal grouping. As, such an unthinking and uncritical people is created. Thus, as I have mentioned earlier, to reduce the quality of the human mind is, by far, one of many other crimes against humanity itself.

Read more!

Irrationality of the Plebeian

For all the gift of rational and abstract thought, but criminalized under the heading of impracticality. This be the fact of reality, that is, the ultimatum of de-intellectualism. For those who do not believe in the very foundation of philosophy – of intellectualization as defined as the critical rationalization of truth – and its other derivative precepts, they are irrational. They are those who in the least do not have minimal appreciation for reasons and reason alone, but only for conclusions. This is the state of the masses.

What gives in retreat when revealing the various possible reasons for one given problem, then critically evaluating each by refining and understanding their foundational beliefs? Only an answer of reluctance towards critical thinking. They may delude themselves by using terms like ‘smart’ and ‘clever’ to evade from their inherent irrationality. It is as if only having acquired some materialistic goal gives them greater and higher status over others. They may say they have reason, but the fact is that they themselves have not studied Philosophy - the discipline of logic and reason. Having acquired no skills in reason, how can they classify themselves as above others?

I imagine someone who has gotten an ‘A’ grading in Physics at a Junior College level. Apparently they have covered Einstein’s “e=mc^2” equation. It would seem that the ‘A’ reveals that the individual has understood the equation. But on further review, I realize that – and this is plain to education in all countries – the student has not actually gone through the hundreds of mathematical calculations before arriving at the famous equation. So does the student understand how it was formulated? Has the student proved it, to the least, mathematically to be right? T put it more simply, has the student understood the inherent mathematical assumptions or foundations of the equation? Nothing of that sort. The student has ONLY learnt to APPLY it, not UNDERSTAND it. In essence, the student has learnt nothing at all. Thus, the ‘A’ grading does not represent one’s ability to understand. Rather, it represents that the student knows how to apply it – while indoctrinated the belief that the equation is right beyond reason. In conclusion, the educational system indoctrinates, not teaches. Here I define indoctrination as having towards the person(s) of interest that something is true and no proof needs to given to that person. Then, to provide proof of something to the person(s) of interest is then what I call as teaching.

It is here, then, that I say that the education system is at fault at creating masses that is inherently stupid. While there may be a few that recognize the problem – who are not ones who usually do poorly in such a doctrine-based system – others do not actually understand the problem. This is why the masses can never be intellectual, but instead eternally inconsistent in relation to itself and unto Logic. Let me point to two more examples, one in the subject of Chemistry and the other in the field of Biology.

It may seem initially rational to assume that theories regarding ‘pressure gradient’ and ‘chemical equilibrium’ plainly explain the phenomena of Osmosis and Diffusion. Yet, students are first not taught the basics of Euclidean Geometry versus non-Euclidean Geometry, Fluid Dynamics, and Complexity Science. Without any fundamental understanding of nature itself, they are already told of phenomena as observed in nature.

Also, in Biology, the splitting of DNA for either DNA replication or DNA-RNA transcription may seem simple to understand. Yet, until now, we have not fully understood the functions and shapes of proteins that are formed from these specific DNA molecules. In fact, from a student’s point of view, They do not even understand how each molecule and atom contained within the DNA strand interact with each other in order to contribute – though in minimally significant amounts – to the separation n of the two complementary DNA strands.

This is all I have to say about the masses. The rest shall be left to government and the ministries of Education.

Read more!

On Divinity and the Prospects of a Democratic Character - a Dilemma

For we know that in reality – physical reality – that a pure democracy ceases to function due its surmounting contradictions, yet it is assumed that under the characteristics of a deity, such contradictions are only but illusory. For, it is argued, that since deities are greater than that of reality, no worldly reason or irreason thus applies to divinity. I shall show here that, in relation to physical reality, such is but of the authority fallacy, but that such views on the character of divine forms are democratic by nature is hanging.

The most direct and simplest of objection to such a view is that if we arrive by human reason that divinity is exempted from the issues of mere humans the issue of reason, the statement refutes itself. For if reason were itself formulated by humans – the field of dependent and independent logic, and the sufficiency and necessity of premises and the validity – then it makes no sense for exemption for it would make the statement meaningless. That is, if divinity is exempted from reason, or worldly reason, and that since this statement is innately worldly reason, then divinity cannot necessarily be allowed for such exemption. Because to allow it would be to first permit the use of it. An inherent contradiction exists.

The more sophisticated rebuttal to this is that of the second premise – the democratic nature of divinity. That is, it would only initially seem that pure democracy is only suitable for the divine, not mere mortals. The problem comes at the proposition that all members of this democratic regime enjoy equal freedom. These members are we mere mortals. That is, in the perspective of the divine, humans are all equally permitted to the freedom and equality. In so, such members enjoy the same benefits these privileges give rise to. Yet, it seems that such a regime does not seem to be operating at the level of nature itself – including human nature and their relative worldly conditions.

For if taken democratic principles as the moral take for divinity, all human beings must necessarily be equally free and thus be able to enjoy the various acts or things of interest at equal opportunity and privilege. From here it must then be insisted that free-will necessarily exists due to the premise of the presence of a democratic divinity. Then, if pure freedom exists, or the essence of arbitrary decision-making exists, then the processes contained within the world are necessarily incomplete when contemplated only in view of natural law. The discontinuity of natural things thus permits the occurrence of miracles or unexplained phenomena. Two points are to be noted here. First, that it is assumed that democratic principles are the most perfect among all other principles of other varying political ideologies. Second, the question of whether freedom to choose exists is begging. The first note I shall deal with in the near future. The second note shall be dealt with here in great length.

We take that if some divinity exists, and it formed the physical reality as it is right now, then all occurrences within nature are thus the eternal and unbroken decree from the divine. Therefore, whatever environment, culture, society, or time period a human being is born into is thus pre-determined by this divinity. A question arises. So is choice solely dependent upon the natural surroundings, or both natural surroundings and free will? Such is the dilemma is alluded to on the above. The answer comes from whether democratic principles are perfect. That is, if divinity is perfect, that its will is also therefore perfect – and therefore its act of causation or formation is perfect – whether a democracy best fits the notion of divine perfection.

Read more!

Of Oneness with All

As it is said and explained thus, from all the variety of religions, God can be said to have explained its own existence – because he is perfect. And therefore we draw from this, mathematically speaking, that he be un-derived. This is the premise that leads to fundamental dichotomies, of the absurdity of all things. Yet, as outrageous this may sound, but it nevertheless gives me greater pursuit for the understanding of the nature of all things.

I have come to understand that if God be un-derived, since he alone explains his every attribute, then, in effect, we cannot even subscribe the name God to him. Nor can we use any pronoun for him – including him. For to do so would be to make God be derived from the word ‘God’, and the word ‘him’, and then, thus, to make him imperfect. Yet, I cannot say that he is either perfect or imperfect, for, in doing so, it would cause God to be a derivative of these two essences. In this way, we cannot describe God. For if he is to be perfect – and therefore be un-derived – God is not perfect or imperfect. God is also neither mysterious nor innately coherent. God is neither something nor nothing. And God is neither everything nor no other. And in conclusion, God neither exists nor is non-existent.

And so, if God is perfect, innately coherent and therefore in itself true, or be un-derived, then he cannot be perfect. Because the very act of making him inertly derived makes him unexplainable – and yet saying this makes him, again, derivative of being unexplainable. It seems as if that whatever I say about God, this something-ness and yet nothingness, is utterly meaningless and unutterable.

Perhaps this was what was meant by Jesus and all the other saints when they said that they were God. For if everything that which they said were true, or beyond reasonable doubt, then they are by reason perfect. And if this is so, then their reason is self-derived, and requires no other to prove those reasons – for they are rational axioms. Then, this reason becomes both imperfect and yet perfect, because it is un-derived, and therefore cannot be derived from either the sense of perfection or imperfection of rationality. Neither are they meaningful nor meaningless. It is a dichotomy of reality they accept, and therefore seek nothing and yet have everything all at once. Then, they can be rich and yet poor at the same time. Strangely, then, to call themselves God is to defeat the very purpose of saying so. For if those of which that are un-derived are necessarily perfect, then all reason or irreason breaks down into something-ness or nothing-ness. The pursuit of perfection is thus flawed to end in itself, since perfection comes to a halt where all opposites are true and yet false at the same (or even different) time. Perhaps this was why those saints by reason threaded the life of lifelessness, to live in a social world yet be unsociable, to seek life but want for death to come. This is the ultimatum of pall perfection, if perfection means to be un-derived.

And yet, it seems, then, that the idea of being un-derived as perfect and yet imperfect is both refuted against and proved for. We can neither disprove this proposition by argument through contradiction, nor prove via inference or deduction. Indeed, this idea is alien to both irreason and reason. Therefore, to say anything as perfect is therefore to say that is it both perfect and imperfect. Where perfection comes, it seems that it is simpler for the non-existence of something and nothingness itself. And yet, ironically, this argument exists.

This is the singular point where all religions unite. To hold and be held responsibility unto oneself, to be accountable for and from one’s self, to exist for and in it is viewed as the ultimatum of perfection itself. And thus to live in a secular society is thus mimicking the best of perfection, since no religion is truer than the other, other than the rituals and derivative beliefs they each individually hold.

But I ask why, in the first place, be being un-derived considered as perfect? The greatest irony to this question is that I am baffled. Since this is the most begging of questions, an answer that is beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily follows. Yet, if this be coherent in reason, and therefore perfect, then I cannot give an answer. This is what I meant by the strangeness of what is thought to be perfect.

However, since it is simpler for the non-existence for something and nothingness itself, and yet that we obviously exist, then our existence is necessarily imperfect – that we are derived from other things, that all things that exists are a result of other existing things and this follows for all eternity. It follows, then, that if God’s nature was to reflect upon known reality, and that since reality is imperfect, then God himself is imperfect. And thus if only reality and God exist, and that both are imperfect, then one is a derivative of the other, in such a way that they become complementary to one another – being not derived from each other. They become contingent upon each other for their own existence, thus unified into one total reality of all what that which exists. God and reality become as one – a super-reality.

For those mathematics students, it would be the same as saying that reality and God are both e^x, in such a way that both are derivative of each other, forming no greater no smaller authority with each other – that are essentially the same!

Then, if God and reality were similar, then it makes no difference to do away with God, since God is essentially reality, and that reality is essentially God. For, in doing so, we make things contained within reality derivative of other things within reality – though we keep in mind that both God and reality remain derivative unto one another. And yet here, in my point that follows from the above, a sense of strangeness is felt. For if God were imperfect, and if reality considered independently were innately following cause-effect laws, then God’s attributes must be derivative of other known attributes, which are in all derivative of reality, and vice versa.

Therefore, when we observe nature we observe God, and that when we observe God we observe nature. This is all in such way that if we observe natural coherence among all things contained within reality, we are in actual fact observing the eternal decree God has put forth unto reality. And when we come to understand God’s unbroken will, we understand the path of nature. As I said, both are complementary to one another. We are as One.

Read more!