Occultism,
Satanism, and the Left
Occultism and Satanism are essential and logically necessary to the
Left. I want to explain why this is so. To begin with, I want to set
the context in which the Occult, Satanism and the Left need to be
seen, for the meanings of things are only correctly understood in
their context. These things present themselves as proposals that
respond to the human question. So, first of all, what is the human
question? and second of all, what are other kinds of proposals.
The
human question:
The first thing is that I experience myself as a limited, finite
being. The second thing is that I have a desire for the infinite, and
not just a desire, but an irrepressible drive for the infinite, the
absolute, the eternal. However you want to call it, traditionally it
has been called God. This orientation is what defines human nature.
This is not a matter of faith, but of fact that is observable in the
behavior of men, all men, whether religious or not. It is a spiritual
orientation. It cannot be derived from DNA, because DNA is a finite
string of atoms with a finite number of finite properties. No matter
how much it evolves or how complex it becomes, it remains finite and
can only produce finite effects. In terms of intelligence, it can
only produce a finite intelligence, i.e. a finite state machine like
a computer. A finite state machine, no matter how complex it is, can
have nothing to do with the infinite. It cannot have any idea of or
have any question regarding the infinite. It cannot even ask what the
infinite is or what it could be, or whether it could exist. This is
because a finite state machine can only deal with numbers, and
infinity is not a number. Thus, DNA gives an incomplete picture of
what a human being is. DNA defines only the body, not the spirit of a
man.
Not only has man always recognized his orientation toward God, but
also that he is free. He is free to choose whether and how to move in
this orientation. His freedom is real even if it is finite, i.e.
within limits. This freedom cannot be the result of any evolutionary
process. No matter how much it evolves or how complex it becomes, a
deterministic world cannot produce a being that is free, not even one
that can have the idea of freedom. The very fact that I am concerned
with freedom is proof that I am in fact free. Randomness, i.e.
unpredictability, is not freedom.
DNA and evolution, even an evolution directed by God, could produce
neither an orientation toward the infinite, nor freedom. You do not
have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. Even the first
human beings were conscious of being free and oriented toward
something beyond the limited nature of this world. Human beings have
evolved in many ways since their first appearance, but the essential
nature of being human has not changed. The essential challenges of
living together has not changed.
It is necessary to say a word about gender. Desiring, following a
desire, and judging based upon desire is according to the feminine.
Recognizing proportionality, and correspondence with a reference or
law is according to the masculine. How I want to live is feminine,
while how I ought to live is masculine. A full human life requires
the marriage of the two.
Possible
responses to the human question:
The first question for a man is how to live this orientation to God.
How does he conceive it? How does he plan to realize it? His choice
sets the essential logic of his life. It forms the foundation of
every subsequent choice. It determines the structure of his life. It
determines what he perceives as natural. It is his standard of logic
and morality. There are two fundamental possibilities for realizing
our destiny to the infinite: (A). Through a relationship with God who
exists, or (B). without God whose position will be filled by man
through power.
——
With God
———
A.) That of the so-called traditional religious
man who recognizes that the world can neither be the source of his
freedom nor orientation, nor the goal of his orientation since the
world is finite in his experience. He recognized that he cannot
obtain his goal by his own capacities, neither individually nor in
coordination with others, nor with the aid of any kind of technology.
There must be, and in fact he has experience that there is, an
infinite being beyond the world who created the world, including
himself, and he calls this being God. He recognizes that he is made
in this world, but not for this world. This world is the place for
making a free choice, and that choice is not determined by any
worldly or bodily conditions. It cannot be in the DNA. That choice is
either to follow God, or not follow God.
Since God is infinite, He is invisible. He is not hiding. He simply
cannot be seen by finite senses or conceived by a finite mind. But,
God can reveal Himself to the mind and senses of man in a finite way
through signs. God, the artisan, has left signs in the world that
point to Himself, that indicate the path to follow, at least in a
general way. The senses are made for living in this world. They
cannot lead to God. So, the religious man is always on the lookout
for signs. It is the mind that recognizes the sign content of what
the senses perceive. Man is looking for a law for how to live. With
his reason, he recognizes the signs, and he acts in correspondence
with them. This is the law of nature that forms the basis of the
moral law. Being is the foundation for acting. It is inconceivable
that God has created us and the world in which we live for any other
motive than love. There is trust in God and trust in the way that He
has made us and the world.
God responds to the yearning of men to know Him, and so, He reveals
Himself to the such men in different ways and times. These messengers
of God revealed to different peoples more precise ways of living. Men
organize their lives, individually and socially, for following the
indications of God in nature and revelation according to reason. The
state, being of this world, has no authority on how he lives in
correspondence with God. The state expects that a man organize his
life toward God as his first responsibility, though it cannot define
that orientation. That is the responsibility of the chruch, not the
state. Thus, man hopes to realize a relationship with God who shares
his infinity, absoluteness and eternity. It is a life centered upon
relationship. It is based upon love and trust, not power and
position.
The state is
referenced to God, i.e. is under God, and so, the citizen can
criticize the state in relation to God. The citizens can propose
different ideas of how the state should be and act. Thus, under God,
the state is relative. There is freedom of political parties and of
religion, and these are guaranteed by freedom of speech, which is
nothing other than the pursuit of truth.
This religious way is called (I call it) Iconism. The world has the
nature of a finite, relative, temporal reality that points to and
participates in an infinite, absolute, and eternal reality. Hence, it
is an icon. Finite, relative human relationships are an icon for the
infinite, absolute relationship with God. It is centered on a loving
relationship with God, and this involves loving relationships with
other men as its icon.
The religious way, following the desire for God in correspondence
with the law of God, is both feminine and masculine. It recognizes
the specialization built into nature where reason is stronger in the
male and feeling is stronger in the female. A healthy human being,
whether male or female needs both feeling and reason.
——
Without God
———
B.) The other fundamental possibility is that an
infinite, absolute eternal being either does not exist, or else, its
existence is irrelevant to how a man lives. This works out in one of
three ways:
B.1.) We do not have to account for our
orientation to God because it is not real. This sense of being
oriented to God is an illusion. Neither, then are we free. We are
simply like all the rest of the world, finite and deterministic.
There is no essential difference between an ameaba, a monkey and a
man. There is only relative differences in complexity and
intelligence. The world is all there is. There is no God and no
afterlife. Thus, for them, religion consists of suppressing the urge
to the infinite as the only reasonable course. It stands suspended
between the opposites of extremes. The golden mean is the motto,
everything measured, nothing in excess. Everything is relative but
not relative to anything because there is no ultimate reference, no
God. The state is relative, with various political parties. It is not
in rebellion against relative nature and recognizes the need to
correspond to it. thus, there is freedom of speech.
Religion and politics are centered on the life of this world. Its
central preoccupation is is to prevent men from looking beyond. It
suppresses the desire for the infinite. In fact, it suppresses desire
in general. It is a pure rational, calculated adherence to law and
order. It creates a society well ordered but dry, sterile. It stifles
the longing of the soul which it does not recognize.
This is rationalism. It is pure masculine. It excludes and suppresses
the feminine. The religion of Rationalism creates ideal categories.
It identifies reason with the male which must be purified by
exclusion of the feminine in the male. It identifies sentiment with
the female which must be purified of reason. The masculine man
dominates over the female nature, and the male over the female. It
produces men who cannot feel and women who cannot reason. Freud’s
Oedipus complex applies to him: He kills his father, God, to rape his
mother, nature. It is a relationship of power, not love, but within
limits.
B.2) We don’t
have to account for how a finite being can be oriented to the
infinite because our experience of being finite is an illusion. What
we feel as an orientation toward the infinite as a goal is really
just a nostalgia for something we have forgotten. The goal of life is
to wake up. What keeps us sleeping is our insistence on treating the
world and its limits as real. There is nothing we have to do to
arrive. We do not have to break through the limits of the world which
would be to presume their reality. We are already at the goal. We
just need to dispel the illusion that we are not. Religion consists
of detaching ourselves from the world, including the body, with its
sentiments, passions, feelings, desires and aversions. Politics is to
prevent taking the world, with its ambitions, injustice, joys,
suffering, etc. as real. Total detachment brings peace.
This is Monism.
Is it masculine or feminine? It seems to be neither. It certainly
takes no position for or against either. It acknowledges the desire
for the infinite, but not for the finite. Reason is for analyzing the
finite world as the place of suffering and to understand the path for
dissolving desire for it. It does not take a position for or against
the world. Government is neither the problem nor the solution.
B.3) The last
possibility is that of the gnostic of which the occult belongs. There
is a tension between our being finite and our orientation to the
infinite. Man must conquer the position of God by acting absolutely
in the world, by transgressing every limit imposed by the world. His
identity has no reference to anything outside himself. He acts out of
pure desire, pure will. He does not act for a reason. There is no
reference by which his actions may be judged, because he is himself
the reference. He may be outwardly theistic, but effectively he is
atheistic. He is God in the world. He is the god-man..
How can he hope
to arrive at his goal of Godhead, seeing that there is no God who can
give it to him? Finite, deterministic matter cannot produce it? Since
it is imperative, there must be a way. The solution is the assumption
that matter contains hidden, i.e. occult properties or qualities that
are spiritual. Man can access these occult qualities through occult
practices. One can thus produce effects that are not proportional to
the causes, i.e. magically.
Historically,
the occult world is full of spirits, and the occultist, using
appropriate rituals and incantations, can invoke and manipulate them.
There is no question of loving or trusting these spirits. The
occultist loves the power that can be obtained from manipulating
them. Some claim to do this for the benefit of others, the so-called
white witches, and others do this to increase their own power and do
not care if they harm others, the so-called black witches. But both
the white and black are about the pursuit of power for themselves
without limit. It is all about attaining the position of God.
Now, when I say
the objective of the occultist is to become God, that does not mean
that he believes that he can wiggle his nose and make happen whatever
he wants to happen, or to actually be infinite, or to be absolute in
an Aristotelian, metaphysical sense. It is an imitation of God, like
a counterfeit. Being in the position of God means that a man has no
reference outside himself. He takes his own desires and reasonings as
absolute, and so he believes he has an absolute right that they be
fulfilled without limit.
The absolute is not related to anything else,
while everything is related to it. There cannot be two absolutes. In
the case of God, He is absolute by nature. He does not forbid other
absolutes. There simply cannot be. more than one. But, one pretender
to the absolute cannot tolerate the existence of another, pretender
or actual, because it is to deny his own pretensions to absoluteness.
The other must submit or be destroyed.
The gnositc man does not begin being absolute (like the monist) He
has to achieve it. He may submit himself to another who promises to
make him absolute over some realm, even if it is only over his own
body. He submits to being the slave of one for the sake of being made
absolute master over others. The slave master only cares for the
slave insofar as the slave is useful. Ultimately, the gnositc aspires
to become the top slave master in a pyramidal hierarchy of masters
and slaves.
The slave master is about creating a utopia for himself and the
slaves follow him hoping to be participators in his utopia,
imagining themselves being masters over slaves.
—-
Satanism
—–
The gnostic accepts no limitations placed upon his activities. He
must be free to transgress any limit. That which limits him most
profoundly are not limits imposed from without, but from within, i.e.
his own conscience. For where did his conscience come from? It was
instilled in him by others. Arriving at full divinity requires the
elimination of any sense of conscience. This is the proper realm of
Satanism.
One progresses through the Satanic order by following a gradual,
systematic program of violating his conscience as his worst enemy. It
begins with small things like stealing, or lying, and it graduates to
torturing little animals, to the ultimate which is the ritual rape,
torture, murder and cannibalism of children. The more innocent the
victim and the more terror and suffering inflicted upon him, the more
effectively the conscience is destroyed.
As with all religions, the majority are not willing to follow it to
its logical conclusion. Men prefer an easy life to a life of
sacrifice. They are satisfied with compromise and half-measures. They
learn to tolerate their level of frustration. Thus only the elite
progress to pedophilia and child sacrifice, but it is obligatory for
those at the top of the gnostic-occult society’s hierarchy.
The absolute man requires an absolute state. Establishing the
absolute state is required to complete the absolute man. Only the
gnostic needs an absolute state. It is a logical necessity. The
absolute state, the absolute man, occultism, magic and Satanism all
go hand in hand. They are logically, philosophically, morally and
spiritually inseparable like water and wetness. Where you find one,
the find the others.
There is no room for love in a gnostic society. It is dedicated to
power, position and pleasure for oneself, not the other.
—–
The Left —–
The Left is the politics and religion of Gnosticism. There can be no
separation of church and state. The state is the church. There can be
no freedom of religion. The political program of the state is the
religion that must penetrate every detail of life. There can be no
freedom of religion in an absolute state, any more than there can be
freedom of religion in any church. Freedom of religion consists in
choosing one’s religion, choosing one’s church. You cannot be a
Buddhist in a Catholic church. A Buddhist may be welcome to
participate in the Catholic community, but that does not make him
Catholic. Either you are Catholic in the Catholic church or you are
out. You are in another church. But, in an absolute state, there is
no out. There is only flight to another state.
Before going further, I want to make it clear what is meant by the
Left. Many people think of politics as a spectrum between the
extremes of Right and Left meaning Fascism and Communism with
everything else somewhere in the middle. The Right absolutizes state
identity against the Left’s internationalism which nullifies state
identity. It is the Right’s closed borders as opposed to the Left’s
open borders. State identity is either all or nothing. Both of these
ideas of Right and Left are those of Hegelian absolute government.
The government is the ultimate reference for the citizen, not God.
The government is in the place of God and the god-man is at the head
of the government. The Left portrays the current battle as between
which idea of absolute government will prevail. Rather, the battle is
between the idea of absolute government in the place of God verses
the idea of relative government under God. The Left falsely claims
that the Right of today is Fascist. The truth is that the Right is
for relative government and vehemently opposes both the Communists
and the Fascists as well as any other form of absolute government. It
neither absolutizes nor nullifies state identity.
The political program of the absolute state is absolute, there can be
no other. There can be no question of the program needing to
correspond to “reality” or “truth”, for that
would deny the programs absoluteness. The program is the definition
of “reality”, and “truth” is that which furthers
it. There is only one political party. Attempting to form another
political party or criticizing the states program is both treason and
heresy. The political program must be followed with religious fervor.
The ultimate reference for the citizen must be the state and its
political program. The citizen is not permitted to have a conscience
that could resist that program.
The gnostic Left is purely feminine. The masculine is excluded and
suppressed. Behavior is dictated by internal feelings to the
exclusion of having to conform to external norms such as scripture,
nature or reason. But, in fact, the absolutization of the feminine,
i.e. the pursuit of what one wants without any reference to how one
ought to live, is reserved for the one absolute god-man. All others
must suppress how they want to live and live in absolute
correspondence with how the one absolute man dictates to them.
The gnostic god-man intends to enslave everyone else, but he presents
himself as their benefactor. He offers them what they want and they
do not care to know what the true cost is because they want what they
want.
The absolute god-man seeks absolute control through the absolute
state. He needs to control everything. Control requires knowledge and
manipulation. Knowledge comes from observation. The absolute god-man
needs to know everything, see everything. He needs to know what
everyone is thinking and what everyone is doing. The absolute state
is a surveillance state. It runs on distrust and suspicion. This
distrust and suspicion passes from high to low. The government is
suspicious of its citizens who are in turn suspicious of their
government and also of each other. Every citizen spies on his
neighbor and reports any independent activity, i.e. unauthorized
activity. All citizens are under the state. Only the one god-man, the
dictator, the Fuhrer, the Stalin, the Mao, is above the state, and he
knows that behind all the feigned allegiance of a citizen there is a
plot, a conspiracy to take his place. For self preservation, every
citizen hides himself within himself, never daring to act or think
independently, even unconsciously, lest he be accused of subversion.
Everybody lies about everything to everyone all the time.
No one seeks power just to posses it. What is the point of having
power if there is no one over whom one can exercise it? “In
order to live absolutely the way I want, you have to live absolutely
the way I want, the way I tell you”, says the god-man. There is
no one more dangerous than the counterfeit god-man. He knows this and
so he keeps his nefarious plans and actions hidden. He operates in
occult ways, manipulating things from behind the scenes. He relies on
manipulation. He offers men what they think they want while he
undermines their capacity to judge what is really to their benefit.
He weens them away from their reference and weakens their masculine
judgment.
Gnosticism is the world destroying spirit. It promises to make you
into God, but it delivers you to slavery and death. And this is the
Left.
31 replies on “Occultism, Satanism, and the Left”
This is very interesting!
I would like to share it, outside of our Member Blog, not on social media unless you call texting and email social media. I wouldn’t reference you by name, as I don’t really know you or your credentials/bonafides to be proclaiming these opinions. They do, however, appear to be well thought out, and come from a very interesting perspective (rationality).
My friend that I would like to show this to is what I would call an agnostic. He was raised Roman Catholic, but has looked into other religions in the world, in particular Buddhism. His progression seems to be away from a traditional belief in God, as the infinite to be worshiped (because in It’s infinity, it is beyond our comprehension) to the thought that God may exist because it is rational to conclude that he has to (what caused the Big Bang, after all). But lately he has been veering closer to B2 and B3, like it’s some sort of progression.
Michael (below) says he’s on the right, but not religious (perhaps agnostic). There are other Members who may/may not agree with him. I know of at least one, and I respect both their person opinions/beliefs. I agree in the normal world that all forms of religion and non-religion are welcome. It’s a personal decision, not a corporate one.
I would be interested to read an example of a particular disagreement Michael has on the topic of religion and politics.
Hello Grace,
I am Roman Catholic, but I never believed when I was younger. I was atheist until my early 20’s. My first religious interest was in Buddhism. My first religious affiliation was Hindu.
You can certainly share the article.
http://home.teletu.it/malachi4-6/Html/Occultism-Satanism-and-the-Left.html
http://home.teletu.it/malachi4-6/Pdf/Occultism-Satanism-and-the-Left.pdf
The relation between religion and reason is like the relation between the foundation of a house and the house. Religion is the foundation upon which the structure of reason stands. The structure of your reasoning depends upon your religion.
I wrote “Introduction to cosmology and spirit” in which I explain the four categories more in depth.
http://home.teletu.it/malachi4-6/Html/Introduction%20to%20cosmology%20and%20spirit.html
http://home.teletu.it/malachi4-6/Pdf/Introduction%20to%20cosmology%20and%20spirit.pdf
A brief autobiography.
http://home.teletu.it/malachi4-6/Html/About%20me.html
http://home.teletu.it/malachi4-6/Pdf/About%20me.pdf
Thank you!
If you look at my member profile, you’ll see that, among other things, I say this:
“Religiously, I don’t do religion.”
And that is very strictly true. If something is part of any kind of known religion or anything else that believes in any way whatsoever that anything supernatural, of any kind and to any degree, exists, I reject it. I came to this conclusion after decades of investigating, participating in, and researching everything related to the natural world and the supernatural. I am convinced that it is right and proper to dismiss religion because I am convinced that the supernatural does not exist.
Note that this includes only the beliefs, not necessarily any inferences, deductions, or conclusions that derive from those beliefs. When I agree, say, politically with someone who does believe in some form of religion, I will have come to that common idea in my own way, via different reasoning. That’s why, for example, I am here in this community. (If anyone reading this has believed up to now that so-called “atheists” are and must be on the political left, I am proof that that isn’t true. BTW, I don’t label myself “atheist.”)
Note, also, that I care about my conclusion only for myself. I have no interest in changing anyone else’s mind. I resist all attempts to force beliefs on me and never myself attempt to force my thinking on anyone or, as I said, never even desire to “convert” anyone to my thinking. As long as someone is not harming anyone, I live and let live. And I certainly will never deliberately cause anyone else harm, so I require the same from everyone else.
That said, I must say that I strongly disagree with nearly everything in your post. I’m happy to discuss it with you if you like. If not, as long as you know that disagreement exists then all is well.
Hello Michael,
I would be interested to know what it is that you disagree with and why. Seeing that you disagree with everything, I suspect that the disagreement is more fundamental than the particular ideas expressed.
Let me ask you this. What is it that defines a human being? What is it that every human being shares and that no other creature has?
I would say that it is his orientation to the infinite. A human being, by nature is oriented to the infinite. This is readily apparent by observing how men behave. It is not simply some particular aspect like walking upright, but is the essential element that makes us human. How one accepts or rejects this orientation determines the overall structure and identity of his life. I beg to differ with you when you say that you don’t do religion, but all men are religious by nature. Perhaps it is a question of semantics. What do we mean by the terms religion or religious?
I would challenge you with a question. After all, what is life without a challenge. If, as you say, there is no supernatural, then are we not simply natural? Wouldn’t that mean that we are completely defined by our DNA and our responses to experience? Would you not agree that DNA is a finite string of atoms which can contain only a finite amount of information? Would we then not be a finite state machine like a comuter? But, a finite state machine can have nothing to do with the infinite. That is because a finite state machine can only deal with numbers, but infinity is not a number. All of its data and algorithms are in the form of numbers. Therefore, it cannot enquire about the infinite. What to speak of DNA, even the entire universe, composed of a finite number of particles with a finite number of properties that can have only a finite number of relationships, is a finite state machine. A finite state machine, no matter how complex, cannot produce anything other than finite state machines. Therefore, it seems clear to me, that human nature, with its interest in infinity, cannot be the product of any kind of natural evolution. His body can be, because it is a finite state machine, but his interest in infinity cannot.
Related to this is the question of freedom. A finite state machine is deterministic. A determinisic machine can have no idea of freedom. It can have no idea of going beyond its programming. The very fact that you are concerned with freedom shows that you are not a deterministic machine, and therefore cannot be a product of the universe.
So, if you cannot be the product of the universe, what are you the product of? How can your finite brain hold the question of the infinte and of freedom, even if it is to negate them?
I say that the real human challenge is to take our orientatin to the infinte seriously and reasonably.
I am looking forward to a lively discussion.
What is the point of discussing the content of a pure word salad? I find no intellectually nutritive value in the pile of assertions and floating concepts you offer. Let alone anything worth discussing.
That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence! Consider your post dismissed.
Pick a point. Prove it. Show your work. Then and only then do we have anything that can be discusses.
Hello Lionell,
To be usefull, your post would have to be more specific.
How would you recognize it if it were?
Pick a point. Prove it. Show your work. Then and only then do we have anything that can be discusses.
Paul gave many points, it is up to you to pick one for further discussion. Start with the finite/infinite theory?
There is not one point in his word salad worthy of further discussion. It is at best pure assertion. He will meet my terms or nothing.
Hello Lienell,
Sometimes I find that discussions go nowhere because the trajectories of the two participants are like two skew lines with no point of intersection.
When I recognize this, I try to find a point of intersection which is really a common starting point. What is the starting point from which the other begins to reason and judge? That is less a question of who one is, than what one is. Then, I try to understand what is the ultimate point of arrival, not regarding the particular subject, but for the person. Then, I would like to understand how the other intends to move from their starting point to their ultimate ending point. Then, regarding these three questions, we can discuss whether or not they are reasonable.
Then, there needs to be a willingness to be converted. Responsibility means corresponding to reality. I know, without any doubt, that I am lacking in this regard. In every encounter, I am looking to be converted to a more true correspondence. So I am grateful to anyone who challenges me, even if their manners or motives are not entirely perfect. If we are not willing to be comverted, then we are not serious. We are just playing games.
Would you like to discuss these points?
Does reality exist?
Is reality what it is and not what it isn’t?
Is reality optional?
How do we know?
If we can’t agree on the answers to these questions, we have nothing to discuss.
What do you say?
You first!
I’m just curious. Is this a vital question for you? That is, is it a question that keeps you awake at night because you you do not know the answer and need to know it? Or is it an academic questiion like when two students challenge each other to a philosophical debating contest? Or maybe it is a test? Or something else?
Just answer the question.
I am sorry, I do not see any point in trying to discuss anything with you.
Finally, we agree on something.
Have a nice day.
Paul:
That’s a lot to talk about. No problem but it’s too much for a good single reply. I’ll start with what defines a human and we can go from there.
There’s a specific reason that the term homo sapiens was chosen to classify humans – we have a capacity that no other creature possesses, the ability to reason. In scientific nomenclature, the standard for biology is to distinguish genus from species. Our genus is homo, i.e. “human being” and our species is sapiens, i.e. “wise, sensible, judicious.”
Genus and species are determined scientifically, by observing characteristics of living things and naming them. In general, a proper definition of any word follows a similar, though less rigorous, pattern to that of biology – a class of things to which the existent that the word refers to belongs and a specification that distinguishes the particular word from all others in the same class. For example, “fruit” refers to a class of objects and “apple” to one kind of fruit as distinct from, say, “peach.”
We learn the characteristics that we use to define words via observation of reality. We look at what’s there and we determine similarities and differences based on what we see. (We also use our other senses, sight is merely the most common one mentioned in this context.) There is no other way to gather the information we use to develop knowledge and reason about it.
What we have observed in reality is that the characteristic which makes us different from all living things (and “living” is what makes those things different from the “non-living”) is our ability to think conceptually and to reason using that knowledge. Our defining characteristic is our ability to engage in conceptual reasoning. We distinguish ourselves that way because that is what reality shows us to be. Our ability to reason makes us what we are.
Yes, this sounds good to me. I might emphasize that there is an objective reality that exists independently of me and is observable through my senses and knowable through my mind. We apply our reason in order to correspond to this reality so that we may live well. In this we make an assumption that our welfare corresponds with how we are made. Whether or not this assumption is valid, is for another discussion. The standard and reference for reasoning is this objective reality. From what you write, I would think that you agree with this.
Merely living well is not enough. No matter how well I am living, I want to live better. This is the root of human progress. This implies an arrow of direction. How far do we want to go in that direction? To infinite wellness?
Many people have probed regarding the question of reasoning and whether and to what extent it exits in other animals such as chimpanzees or dolphins or elephants. The scientific literature is complex and I do not pretend to understand it all. But, it does seem that there is disagreement among the most prominent experts in the field. Most all of them, though, seem to think that it is an evolutionary development.
For me there is an absolutely decisive question that does not depend upon the shifting sands of scientific inquiry. The mystery of man is not only that he reasons, but that he reasons about the infinite. How is it possible for a finite being to reason about the infinite? Where does this capacity come from? It seems very clear to me that this capacity cannot be the result of evolution and that it cannot be in the DNA. This question has exercised men from the beginning. Our distant ancestors may not have been philosophically sophisticated, but they understood it inutiutively. They called the seat of this capacity to reason about the infinite as located in the soul which was distinct from the body.
Reasoning about the infinite is common to all men and unites them into a single genus. What separates men is how they reason about the infinite. If you prefer, we could say that there are four species of “reasoners about the infinite”: rationalism, monism, iconism, and gnosticism. The first three can live together because they do not absolutize the world. Gnosticism instead is absolutely intolerant precisely because it absolutizes the world. It may be more accurate to say that the gnostic absolutizes himself, and the world is his sole realm for exercising his absoluteness.
We do agree that objective reality exists and that through observation and reasoning we can know it. But first:
Before addressing anything else, I must insist that you explain which facts of reality support this claim. Why is reasoning about the infinite part of what you call “the mystery of man?” For that matter, what is “the mystery of man?” How does this relate to what differentiates human beings from other existents?
The question about what differentiates human beings from other existents is another question.
The mystery is that man can reason about the infinite. How is this possible? I have given my answer, now I would like to hear yours.
Well, man can reason about anything. We reason about nonexistent things all the time: unicorns, hobbits, communist utopias, any number of things. It’s the reasoning that sets us apart, not the objects of that reasoning.
Specifically regarding what you’re calling “the infinite,” it appears to me that you’re conflating two different definitions of “infinite,” mathematical and metaphysical. Despite having the same word referring to them both, they’re not the same concept and to treat them as if they are leads to confusion. I want to pin down exactly what you’re saying to prevent any confusion, including whether or not I’m confused about what I say in this paragraph about potential conflation.
I disagree that you have given an answer to my questions. I’m sure you’ve heard of the strawman logical fallacy. There’s a discussion technique called “steelmanning,” in which one tries to express the other party’s position in a way that demonstrates that it is understood, precisely to prevent strawman arguments. I want to steelman your argument so that I don’t misrepresent your side. As yet, I’m nowhere near being able to do that.
Any discussion of this nature is a long and involved process. 🙂
It is really a very simple question. I am not conflating anything. Use whatever definition of infinite you like. It does not matter whether the infinite actually exists or not. How is it possible for a finite being to inquire about the infinite? How can it have any idea of the infinite whether it is mathematical or metaphysical or whatever?
Again, we can reason about anything at all. All we have to be able to do is conceive of it.
Clearly we can conceive of the infinite – we have a term for it to denote the concept. And we reason about it all the time, whichever definition we’re using for a specific purpose.
As to how we can do so, the same way we reason about anything. There’s nothing different about reasoning about one thing vs another – reasoning is reasoning. If we can reason at all, we can reason about the infinite. Why wouldn’t we be able to?
I think you are missing the point. Infinity is fundamentally different from anything else. Infinity is not part of any number system whatsoever. An infinite existent is not among of all finite existent things, nor is it the sum total of all finite existent things. Therefore, reasoning about infinity is not part of reasoning about finite things.
The brain is defined in the DNA. The DNA is a finite string of molecules that can contain only a finite amount of information. Thus, It can define only a finite state machine, like a computer, although organic rather than of silicon. No fininte state machine, no matter how powerful or how complex can have anything to do with infinity. In order for a computer to treat of infinity, in any way whatsoever, you have to put infinity into an algorithm, and this cannot be done.
There are two possibilities: either my reasoning is wrong and infinity can be put into an algorithm, in which case you can explain how? or else, my reasoning is correct and therefore the ability to reason about infinity is not in the DNA, the brain, or the body, and. neither can it be the result of any kind of progressive evolution.
Does that make sense to you?
I’m afraid it doesn’t. That’s why I wanted to get into detail about your argument before proceeding.
Just because different things are different, it doesn’t mean we can’t reason about them. Everything has a nature – it is what it is and nothing else. There are no exceptions. In mathematics, we have created a concept we call “infinity.” That to which the concept refers has characteristics which we have identified. We find it useful for performing various mathematical operations.
However, “infinity” doesn’t exist in reality – there are no infinite things, which we know from observation. Infinity is an abstraction and no abstraction exists “out there” in reality. Abstractions only exist in the mind, they are man’s way of comprehending what does exist in reality. In exactly the same way, “dog” doesn’t exist in reality. Dogs do, but the abstraction, the concept, that we use to separate dogs from every other existent only exists in the mind.
Just as it’s not necessary to be able to count to infinity in order to reason about it, it’s not necessary to have seen every dog in order to reason about dogs. A concept refers to a potentially unlimited number of existents (think “star”) yet is itself finite, like a definition (though concepts and definitions are not the same). Thus, being finite, we can exercise our reason on concepts and understand and make use of actual infinite things, like infinity itself.
We are indeed finite existents. Everything that exists is. But we are able to understand and reason about infinite things because we can create concepts that identify those infinite things. This is the natural human method of cognition. It’s what we do.
Your assertions about abstractions and creating concepts I think are disputable, but I do not wish to discuss them here now, because it would be a distraction. I would just say that the conclusion that there are no infinite things because we do not observe them is not valid. Our instruments of observation are limited, and therefore could not identify any infinity. Our knowledge of infinity is by inference, not direct observation. We do not observe the infinite, but we do observe the behaviour of men and recognize that they are oriented to something beyond this limited universe.
The process is similar to our knowledge of what astrophysicists call dark matter and dark energy. They have never observed them, don’t know what they could be, have no instruments for detecting them, and really do not know how to go about investigating them, and yet, the consensus is that they really exist. They know this through inference from observing the behavior of the universe that they can observer and do know. There is nothing in our knowledge or theory which can account for this behavior.
But, these are secondary considerations. The primary question, that I have repeatedly asked and which you have repeatedly ignored, concerns HOW the idea of the infinite can occur in a finite universe.
A related question concerns HOW the idea of freedom can be introduced into a deterministic universe.
Explain to me a mechanism by which it could come about.
I disagree with this. Such orientation is not fundamental to our nature, not innate. It is learned.
I’m not ignoring anything, only trying to deal with one thing at a time in an attempt to clarify your argument. But I’ll go ahead and try to answer the questions in your latest comment. Keep in mind, though, that I still haven’t “steelmanned” your position, so I might not answer to the best of my ability.
The answer lies in the nature of our conceptual consciousness. We observe (“There exists more than one of any given kind of thing.”). We conceptualize (“Numbers!”). We reason (“There is no largest number.”). We question (“How can we deal with that fact?”) We reason more (re: the history of mathematics). We conceptualize again (“Infinity: a series of numbers that never ends.”).
That concept, “infinity,” is a finite mental construct that reduces the unending set of numbers to something we can deal with. It’s efficacy in mathematics demonstrates its validity. Sometimes our concepts need refinement, or even replacement, but “infinity” as it now stands is completely correct.
That’s the “how” of bringing the infinite within our finite selves.
This is a much more complex issue. Physicists and philosophers have been trying to find a definitive answer for at least the past 100 years, since the creation of quantum mechanics to explain the workings of the very small. Is nature fully deterministic? Or is there inherent randomness at the most fundamental level of physical structure? So far, there is no agreement.
My personal thoughts at this time – and I’m still studying the matter – lines up with Steven Wolfram’s idea, described in his book, A New Kind of Science, that deterministic systems of sufficient complexity cannot be distinguished from non-deterministic systems. That is, for all intents and purposes, they’re free. Our minds operate in a (more than) sufficiently complex physical system, our brains, so that we are just as free as if reality were not deterministic.
That’s one possible explanation of how freedom can exist in a deterministic reality. But remember that the jury is still out on whether or not reality actually is deterministic. Nothing about this question has been definitively determined.
P.S. If you think that anything I’ve said can be disputed, please go ahead and dispute it. 🙂 I’ll gladly talk about it.
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I have been distracted by other things, and I like to reflect well before responding. It is rather long and ask you patience.
I think we are going around in circles. I would state the problem like this: If there is no God, then your arguments could make sense. For, if there is no God, then all that we are and do is contained in our DNA , and that we are products of a natural evolution guided by random chance. Also, the universe must either be eternal, which the scientific method cannot confirm, or else it spontaneously appeared out of nothing with no cause which is simply magic. As for the age of the universe, we can only reasonably say that it is older than x years.
There is no way that infinity can fit into to a scientific equation. We have no way of representing infinity except as a divide by zero. We may say that x/0 = infinity, but infinity is undefined and undefinable even in mathematics. If divide by zero appears in an equation, then something is radically wrong. It is catastrophic for a computer which can only recover by a reboot. But, infinity is essential to modern mathematics as a tending to infinity, that is, as x approaches infinity, then y does something, e.g. approaches a finite limit or else increases without bound. There is no infinity in man except as an infinite potential finitely realized, but man is tending to infinity. Take the question of tending to infinity out of man and he is no longer man, but just another animal.
So, if the scientific method, which is just applied logic, cannot treat of infinity, then I would say that your assertion that there is no God is not based upon science nor logic. So how did you decide that there is no God? Further, I would say that all your reasoning presumes the non existence of God. The non-existence of God is the foundation of your reasoning, not its conclusion. When you say that God does not exist, that is not something that you know but rather something you believe. You reason that since men can reason about the infinite, then it goes without saying that it is simply the product of natural evolution. You begin reasoning with what you believe, i.e. “God does not exist” and end with what you see, i.e. “men are able to reason about the infinite.” The beginning and the end you are certain about. It is the middle that you do not know, i.e. the how. This is not a problem for you because it is an article of faith. If you did take the question of “how”? seriously, though, you would run into insurmountable problems similar to “How could I make a computer reason about the infinite? Or, how can I write a program that will enable a computer to function outside its programming? Anyone who knows anything about computers knows that it is not possible, and I do not mean that it is currently not possible. It is never possible to put infinity into a finite state machine, whether it is a silicon computer, or an organic brain defined in DNA, no matter how complex it may be. There is no progressive path to the infinite. Popular culture likes to imagine that self awareness or consciousness of infinity is something that simply, and spontaneously, comes into existence with a certain level of complexity, e.g. the Terminator films or Star Trek’s Commander Data. But, that is just magic.
Now, I would say, and this is my central point, Rationalism, with its denial of the infinite, is a religious system. For, any system dealing with the infinite, even in denial, is religious. All ultimate questions are religious in nature and beyond the scope of science and discursive reason.
At the root of human consciousness is the question of the infinite. If one cannot use science or logical discourse to decide the question, then how is it decided? It is a matter of desire. It is a desire of the soul, for the body, defined by DNA, and therefore a finite state machine, cannot contain it. A human being is tending toward the infinite by nature. This has been practically universally recognized from the beginning of human existence. It is the most fundamental of all human drives. The first question for a human being is how to respond to this drive. I ask myself, “What do I want, ultimately?” Can I reach the infinite for which I feel I am made, or not? The Rationalist says no, the sense of the infinite is an illusion, and he spends his efforts to justify his denial. Because the drive is continuous, the denial must also be continuous. The iconist says yes, but only by participating in the life of God which He shares with him, and he spends his life developing a relationship with God. The gnostic says yes, by his own power he will conquer the infinite and absolute, and he spends his life trying to find the magical key for transmuting the finite into the infinite, the relative into the absolute. The Monist says, he is already infinite, and he spends his life denying his sense of limits as illusion.
Human nature is made for fulfilment, the pursuit of happiness. The gnostic denies reason. The monist denies the senses. The Rationalist stifles the desire of the soul for an infinite and eternal relationship of love. Only the Iconist, who depends upon God is without fundamental contradiction. These are not positions as much as paths. They are roads we walk down to an end. We choose the road that seems most promising.
The way one chooses is a free choice based upon desire. Do we want a relationship with God that depends upon Him to complete, or do we want to depend upon ourselves to complete ourselves? This choice forms the foundation upon which we reason. It is an existential choice that forms the root of our identity. The question of infinite is the elephant in the room of modern culture. Many do not want to confront the question because it inevitably leads to fundamental contradictions, unless you are a believer. The fact that we can find fundamental contradicts in various religious sects, does not dispense us of our fundamental, personal responsibility in the face of this question. This question is an existential threat to modernity. That is why it cannot confront it. That is why it is suppressed. Not only is the question of the infinite suppressed, but curiosity is also suppressed or rigidly channelled, for unfettered curiosity inevitably leads to ultimate questions that no man is able to answer for himself, neither individually nor collectively.
You say “I disagree with this. Such orientation is not fundamental to our nature, not innate. It is learned.” This is an assertion that you cannot demonstrate. Rather, it is an article of faith. Also, it does not follow. We have to learn how to speak, but we could not learn how to speak if the capacity for speech were not innate in our nature. There is nothing more fundamental to our nature than the question of the infinite. Human history, art, literature, philosophy, culture, from the beginnings to now, in all the world would be inconceivable without it.
You pose the idea the randomness could be the root of freedom. Of course, if you do not believe in God, you have to have an explanation for our freedom. If you introduce randomness into a computer, you do not make it free. You make it unreliable. Some rationalists deny the possibility of freedom calling our sense of freedom an illusion. But, it seems clear to me that if I were not free, I could have no idea of freedom, not even an illusion of freedom.
I’ll tell you a story. I was visiting a friend of mine, and we were talking. He knew I was Catholic, as is his wife, and he would make indirect, critical references to religion. So I asked him what he believes and why he believes it. The first thing he said was what he did not believe in, which is standard fair for these kinds of discussions. The point being to avoid the question by turning it upon me to defend what I believed in. He said he was agnostic, which is not to answer the question. I kept trying to turn the question for him to answer, and he kept avoiding the question. After what seemed a long time, his wife intervened to change the subject. He ended by asking if I were disappointed because I had not succeeded in converting him. But, I was not trying to convert him. I just wanted to know what he believed and why, and he never said.
Another story. I sat next to a woman on the bus and we began talking. She told me she suffered from depression and was taking anti-depressants. I asked her if she believed in God. She answered that if the best scientists in the world could not agree whether or not there is a God, how could she hope to know. It just goes to show how deeply we have been indoctrinated into suppressing the question. We have been told that knowing reality is too complex for the average person so that we have to depend upon others, like the government or the big tech overlords, to tell us. Thus, we give up our most fundamental responsibility, which is to respond reasonably to the call of the infinite because we are afraid to risk. We are frightened by so many negative images of religious people repeated ad nauseam in all the media and in the schools now controlled by marxists. We are manipulated, like Pavlov’s dogs, to fear the question. We are in this civilizational crisis today precisely because we have relinquished our most fundamental responsibilities in exchange for an easy and safe life. The defect is that it is devoid of meaning.
In modern totalitarianism there is no room for questions. The totalitarian state puts itself in the place of God. It does not require sophisticated philosophy or super intelligence to know it is a lie. The soul intuits it, and it goes on a quest for the truth. Insisting on posing questions the state cannot answer will get you declared insane and confined to a mental hospital to be cured, or else, declared an enemy of the state, a traitor to be shot. The more intent they are in suppressing the question, the more life becomes intolerable. Notwithstanding the hardships and risks, the question is so vital that millions of people defy the state to respond to the question of the infinite and an ultimate meaning of life. It is irrepressible except that we collude in its suppression.
As a Christian, I do not say that I have the answer. Rather, like most all of my fellow religionists, I live the question. The Church is the community of those who openly live the question. The reason that we are reviled by the world is not because of our sins, but rather, because we do not let the question die. The world feels an existential threat from those who dare to openly live the question that they have an existential need to avoid. I pray and go to church for meeting the answer and for participating in the life of the One who is the answer to my question. Saint Irenaeus wrote in the second century that the glory of God is a man fully alive. The primary interest of the framers of the U.S. constitution was to preserve the freedom to reasonably live the question unfettered.
No worries about taking a while to reply. It’s not like this is a face-to-face discussion where going silent for too long looks weird. 🙂
I’ll go through this bit by bit:
Thus far I haven’t even really made an argument. I’ve merely stated facts that have been well-established for a long time, in some cases hundreds of years or longer.
I’m afraid that this is simply scientifically inaccurate. No one has ever claimed that DNA contains the instructions for everything that we are or do. DNA doesn’t, for example, direct the contents of our minds. It directs the construction of our brains, their physical manifestations, but says nothing at all about what the minds that “runs on” those brains contain. DNA has nothing to do with our thoughts or the specific information in our minds.
Science has determined that the universe is eternal. Something existed before the Big Bang™ – that’s what it all “banged” out of, not nothing – but we haven’t yet been able to determine exactly what it was because existing theories break down at that point. A lot more theoretical expansion and refinement, or even revolution, will have to be done before we’re able to figure that out. We have a lot of good ideas but none have been confirmed because of that breakdown and our lack of data about what states of matter and energy might have existed at that time. And the universe will always exist – all that “something” will always be here, in one form or another. Science says that, too.
That the universe big banged from nothing is probably the most common misconception about that theory. No one in the history of science ever claimed that everything came from nothing. That idea was never part of the big bang theory. It’s rather unfortunate that the theory is even called “the big bang.” It would be more correct to call it “the sudden expansion.” Everything was always there, it all just all of a sudden spread out enormously.
The best scientific estimate of the age of the universe as we know it is about 13.8 billion years. How long everything existed in whatever state it was in before it banged, and what things might have been like before that (and for how long) we don’t know. We do know, however, that, whatever it was, it wasn’t nothing.
There is no way that infinity can fit into to a scientific equation. We have no way of representing infinity except as a divide by zero. We may say that x/0 = infinity, but infinity is undefined and undefinable even in mathematics. If divide by zero appears in an equation, then something is radically wrong.
Mathematics has many different ways of expressing infinity other than a division by zero. Here’s one of the simplest:
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + …
Also, division by zero doesn’t necessarily mean that something is wrong. It appears in mathematics quite often and is managed just fine.
My entire career was designing and writing software. It is one of the most common programming tasks to handle division by zero. The only time division by zero ever causes a program to crash is when a programmer makes a mistake and misses a case where it might happen. Those mistakes are corrected as soon as they are found.
It is never the case that division by zero causes a computer to crash, at least not after an operating system has been released for general use. (Lots of errors occur during development – a major part of development is finding and fixing errors.) Individual programs will stop but not the entire computer. Protection against that is built into the hardware.
Infinity appears in mathematics much more than just that case. For example, infinite series and infinite sets are core elements of much of mathematics. There are many other examples.
How do you explain this assertion? Yes, physically, man is not infinite – nothing is. But “an infinite potential?” What does that mean? Upon what is it based? “Man is tending to infinity?” Same questions.
Also, I’ll ask again for you to explain exactly how this “orientation” or “tendency” to infinity is what makes us human. For that matter, what makes you think it exists at all?
But, as I’ve explained, it can and does. All the time. It’s quite common.
That’s exactly what it’s based on. You’ll have to prove that science can’t deal with infinity, contrary to what I’ve shown, for that not to be true. It’s been well established for hundreds of years that math – therefore science – can and does deal with infinity.
I observed, I reasoned, I studied, I investigated, I sampled. For decades, at least five of them.
(Side note – I once looked in to becoming a Quaker but decided not to when I learned that the initiation included taking a turn in the oatmeal mines. 😉 )
Not at all. I believed for a long time before concluding that I was wrong. I was raised Catholic (I like to refer to myself as a “recovering Catholic” 😉 ) and I investigated many different religions so that I could be sure that my beliefs were the right ones. Name a religion and, unless it’s very obscure, I’ve looked into it.
Not being satisfied with only what religions had to say, and wanting to resolve for myself the debate over whether or not religion and science are compatible, I studied science and philosophy extensively, as well. I wanted to be sure I had as much information as I could find so that I wasn’t merely following anything blindly or only because I was raised that way.
I’m afraid not. I mean, yes, I believe it, but not as a matter of faith. I do know it. For a fact.
Not at all. You have it exactly backwards. I saw that we can reason about anything, including the infinite, and I used that fact to help me come to my conclusion. (It was far from the only information I used, too.)
By the way, you are reasoning about the infinite in every one of your comments in this discussion. Your ability to participate in this discussion proves that men are capable of reasoning about the infinite. Your very argument contradicts itself.
I’ve explained the how at least twice in this discussion. Not in peer-reviewed scientific paper detail, but I have done so.
And my conclusion, coming as it does after, as I said, decades of seeking, is the opposite of an article of faith. Faith is belief without evidence. I sought as much evidence as I could find and based my conclusion, not faith, on that. I believe what I believe because of evidence and reasoning. It doesn’t come from nothing and my conclusion definitely didn’t come first.
It’s more than clear at this point that I take the question of how quite seriously.
At present, computers don’t, and can’t, reason at all. This, remember, is my area of expertise. Before a computer could reason about the infinite, it would have to be capable of reason at all. Whether or not computers will ever be able to reason is an ongoing debate with no resolution in sight. I’m not an artificial intelligence researcher so I’m not entirely up on the very latest work being done but I do know that it’s very likely that even the upcoming quantum computers won’t be capable of reason. It could be that reasoning is possible only to biological creatures. Man, for one. (Another example is ravens – they have the ability to reason within a small domain, e.g. they are able to reason out how to use buoyancy to get food from the bottom of a tube too long for their beaks to reach.)
In any case, this is an ongoing area of research and shows no sign of being solved any time soon. The problem is far from insurmountable, though, whether the answer is that computers can reason or not.
That has been done. There exist programs that can reprogram themselves. It’s very rudimentary but it can be and has been done.
You’ll have to explain what you mean by “put infinity into a finite state machine.” Mathematics can be programmed and, as I said before, math manages infinity quite well. Also, the brain isn’t a finite state machine, that’s another thing that’s well-established. Brains aren’t computers and no one in the field makes serious claims any more that they are.
I don’t know what you mean by “there is no progressive path to the infinite.” You’ll have to pin down exactly what that is before I can address it. And whatever popular culture thinks, I know that neither self-awareness nor consciousness of infinity spontaneously comes into existence. It’s easy to observe that babies aren’t born with self-awareness – the aren’t aware of themselves for at least several months after they’re born. That’s a well-known medical fact. Nor are people born with awareness of infinity. They learn about it (or figure it out for themselves) some time in their primary school years. This knowledge, too, comes from observation of when kids show that they know about infinity.
I don’t know how you’re defining Rationalism, but with a capital R it refers to a specific school of philosophical thought that says that only reason is required for knowledge, that even observation of reality is wrong for finding truth. I definitely do not subscribe to that thinking – reality is the base upon which to build all knowledge, observing it, understanding it, and reasoning based on it.
As far as I know, Rationalism doesn’t deny the infinite. That’s why I want to know how you’re defining it, whether as the school of philosophy or the common notion of just using reason or something else
So mathematics is religion? Here you seem to be slipping from one definition of “infinite” – as a quantity – to another – as, let’s say, supernatural. That’s why I brought up equivocation before. It’s invalid logic to switch definitions in the middle of an argument and you often appear to equate “quantity” infinite to “supernatural” infinite. They’re nothing alike.
Again, you’re going to have to demonstrate how this is the root of anything. Thus far it’s pure assertion.
But one can use science and logic to decide the question. In fact, one must use science and logic (i.e. reason) to do that. There is no other way. Every other possibility anyone might claim can easily be shown to just be reasoning or to be nonsense.
Like the brain, the rest of the body is not a finite state machine, either. It’s not the case that everything that isn’t “supernatural” or “infinite” is a finite state machine. Everything is finite, yes, but a finite state machine is something very specific. The body is not one.
You’ll have to defend the assertion that “it is a matter of desire.” Also, that “the soul” exists, because there’s no evidence for it. As I hope you have realized by now, I’ve looked.
Still an assertion. Where has it been recognized? Can you offer some source material that says this? Upon what is that claim based? How do you know it’s “the most fundamental of all human drives?” What is the basis for that claim? You really have to back up your claims or we’ll go nowhere with this.
I rather imagine that the first question for a human being is more something like “Whoa! What is this sudden brightness and all this strange stuff I see now that I’ve emerged from that nice, warm home I was in?” Without the ability to put it in words, of course. 😉
Of course, that’s something everyone should ask of themselves. The unexamined life and all that. Though, as you might presume, I would leave out the second question.
Again, you need to specify how you’re using “Rationalist.”
It seems to me that we have vastly differing definitions of very important philosophical terms like “Rationalist,” “Gnostic,” and more. Iconist is not a term I’ve ever seen before, nor could I find a definition for it, but four of the first five definitions I found for “iconism” all say, literally, the same thing: “The formation of a figure, representation, or semblance; a delineation or description.” So I guess I can see what you mean there. (The fifth definition was from the Urban Dictionary, so we’ll just leave that out of it. 😉 ) Your use of “monist,” referring to monism, doesn’t appear to correlate to its definition.
As I said at the beginning of this discussion, it’s essential to be discussing the same concepts, so until we agree on definitions – meaning, until you state your definitions, as they so often seem to be different than standard usage – pretty much all of this discussion is for naught.
I’m going to stop this reply here. We simply must agree on terms else we’ll both find nothing but frustration here. I’m still happy to go on but we really are going to have to step back and come to that agreement. Also, you’ll have to provide evidence supporting your assertions, which are nearly your entire argument. There’s simply no point to accepting what you say, even for argument’s sake, until you do.