Skeptical and Mystical Absurdity

In a recent discussion with an online acquaintance about Skepticism and mysticism and whatnot, I found myself once again in the position of having to defend logic, reason, and rational thinking.  Much of the difficulty in maintaining focus in the conversation stemmed from the lack of common definition of critical terms.  For that reason I offer a definition of "mysticism" relevant to our discussion from Webster’s dictionary:

Mysticism: Any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge through intuition. 

Essentially mysticism is the acceptance of allegations as factual – a claim of some irrational means of knowledge such as intuition, revelation, or any other form of “just knowing”, also to my amusement, referred to as magical thinking.  I also draw on Webster’s definition of knowledge since that word seems to be wholly misunderstood by Skeptics and mystics. I use these published definitions because they represent a common ground for communication.  An attempt to use these words with some meaning other than their accepted published definitions removes the common ground element of communication.

My debate participant oscillated between supporting proponents of both Mysticism and Skepticism (which are logically in opposition) and being exposed to such "crazy making" anti-reasoning was challenging to say the least.  At one point he expressed having no certainty about "anything" (classic Skepticism); an unacceptable contention because I am not willing to doubt my mind's ability to form cogent interpretations of my perceptions - particularly when perceiving scientifically obtained results or any other self-evident truth. (To be certain, I am not referring to scientific skepticism which is simply the requirement of proof to substantiate knowledge.  I am specifically referring to the philosophy sector known as Skepticism - a doctrine that questions truth in knowledge, even doubting existence itself which of course is a logical absurdity).

Existence merits identification for the sake of our (humankind) understanding of the concept as such, and it is simply that existence exists.  Existence cannot be reduced to any other sub-part or component and therefore needs no other evaluation or verification.  An argument that would attempt to disprove existence would constitute an absurdity (i.e. proof by means of non-existence).

The laws of Nature are unequivocal, absolute universal corollaries of existence.  I do not mean to imply that all of Nature’s secrets are attainable.  Humankind obviously does not know or fully comprehend all of Nature’s secrets, and has miscalculated more than a few – but those discrepancies in the repository of human knowledge, in no way permit an existence that defies the natural laws.  Pardon the personification, but Nature doesn't care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of our theories concerning her order.  But the fact that Nature has secrets, and that we are as yet unable to decipher many of them, does not substantiate a general negation of knowledge and truths that have been observed and verified.  Factual, knowable information is not contingent on doubt.

The principles of an objective reality are self-evident and absolute.  (Note that I do not claim to offer proof of these principles.  An attempt to prove an irreducible self-evident principle would be equally as absurd as trying to disprove it.  To propose that these axioms are not self-evident truths would constitute a denial and evasion of reality.

By the same token, reality does not permit a claim of truth where there is no available evidence, such as the existence of god, or other such forms of mysticism or magical thinking.  The mystic’s claim of “knowledge” without any evidence to support the claim does not conform to the definition of knowledge and consequently represents nothing more than conjecture by speculation.

My debate contestant also asked what does logic have to do with the real world (implying that logic is only useful as a tool for proving Boolean expressions).  My answer was and is everything - provided that you intend on conducting your affairs and making decisions based on the precepts of reason and rational thought, but certainly logic has no bearing at all if you operate on a belief system rooted in mysticism. Thinking is an act of identifying and integrating information.  Logic is the application of non-contradictory identification.  Logic is the fundamental concept of method on which all other rational methods depend. The abandonment of logic is the first condition on which mysticism and Skepticism depend (which is likely the only commonality between those classically divergent camps).

I reject mysticism for accepting something as factual without proof, and I reject Skepticism for upholding that provable information cannot be conclusively substantiated or true.  Both of these contentions represent logical absurdities.  To assert that natural facts (i.e. existence) can not be proved is to create an unnatural dichotomy between logic and reality.  This kind of anti-reasoning is what Skepticism sustains.  Credulity in a system that permits this kind of abandonment of reason leaves its constituents within the confines of hopeless perpetual uncertainty.

The application of reason, which inherently sustains the integrity of knowledge and truth is freely available to anyone choosing to think rationally.  It is not a requirement that anyone subject themselves to the impairment of their cognitive faculties as demanded by the Skeptic and the Mystic.  Fortunately, reason and rational thinking are matters of volition.

~

Fascism American Style

American fascism is a long standing tradition that began with the arrival of Columbus and the establishment of Jamestown by the English.  In post-conquest America (after slavery and extermination of the aboriginals) fascism flourished in economic crisis.  The conservative movement today is directly derived from the Lincoln administration that defined the post-civil war oligarchic state - a vision embraced by every aspect of the modern American Republican party, from the support of the religious right, to their obsessive, mindless nationalism. This modern oligarchic movement is also blatantly racist, sexist, exclusionary, and determined to keep its hold on the American public through control of the media, and backed by its sustained implementation of military and para-military (police) force.

Some have told me that comparing the Republican party to Fascism is an extremist and alarmist point of view, but is it?  According to Wikipedia:

"Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology [that] seeks rejuvenation of the nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics."

Sounds like modern conservatism to me.  The modern conservative (Republican) movement promotes social change through "moral revolution", and the glorification of nationalism, just as Fascism does. Fascism and Republican conservatism  reject internationalism, pacifism, liberalism.  Republican conservative values are rooted in the concepts of social class order in which 98 percent of the population are in servitude to the ruling 2 percent. Fascism and Republican conservatism are anti-feminist as evidenced by policies on birth control and abortion (just to mention two).

There may not have been a committed institutional partnership between conservative elites and the Bush administration but most observations would testify otherwise. Advent of an American version of totalitarianism as demonstrated by Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes blossomed in the wake of the World Trade Center disaster of September 11, 2001, and there seems to be no limiting the ever expanding police state.

The conservative faction supports and promotes terrorist action by law enforcement agencies against American citizens in peaceful protest.  From here, does it escalate to murder and targeting certain groups for elimination?  Or are we already there.  From the alternative minority (GLBTQ) point of view we certainly are.

Republicans target immigrants, gays, women, and liberals for persecution. Republicans do not want the public to recognize the need to replace the corrupt media, and a government system that gets away with stealing away rights under the banner of national security and moral values.

Anyway, I digress, and ramble on.  In the absence of returning to common sense and social sanity, at the very least, now that Osama bin Laden is dead, can we please have a little dignity returned to the mass transit experience -- do away with Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, and whatever other fascist implement that was enacted after 9/11?

Answer: Probably not in my lifetime.

~

Solitude

    I made my home as far from the city as feasibly possible. Not so much for reasons as noble or lofty as to live deliberately in the woods, though I delightfully embrace that aspect as well. I came to live on the edge of a great wilderness so that I might find solitude for peaceful living and to find an environment where I might do something with my creative inspirations.

    I settled not squarely in the thick of the unshorn wild, but in a riverside cabin on the edge of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area of the Cascade mountains.  Neighboring houses can be seen through the trees, but the general occupancy of the area is elderly and quiet. Elk and deer regularly visit my cabin grounds, and the occasional bear brutally inspects my garbage can. Even though they may not welcome my presence here, I am none-the-less honored by, and welcome theirs. Very few people visit my cabin; the once or twice per year Jesus merchant, and the occasional drop-by visit of a friend/loved one, and I enjoy their good company, made sweeter by time passed in their absence.

    These ramblings may ring somewhat misanthropic, but such an interpretation would be inaccurate. Though neither is philanthropy substantially intrinsic to my nature (or yours), I am not given to indifference either. However, my first obligation is to my own health and happiness, without either of which, I would be incapable of giving back. - this unequivocal truth is a natural human fact, and it is ubiquitous, albeit woefully, and seldom acknowledged or expressed.

    Because I chose to live in the woods, despite being alone, I have yet to discover the meaning of loneliness. Within the confines of my cabin, I have little serving the effusive media machine (no television or radio); a computer for writing, employment telecommuting, social networking, blogging, and such.  This connection to the outside world is enough to satisfy whatever general need I may have for human contact (intimate companionship notwithstanding). I suppose my lifestyle is as close to hermitage that can be had while still having intimacy and employment needs.
 
    I need to be alone to bring my creative inspirations to fruition. Being in solitude brings many things to the creative and emotional table; thoughts that can lead you to tears, laughter, revelation, invention, and art. Alone is when conversation occurs spontaneously and continuously in your mind. Given ample isolation and time, you may get to know yourself.  Solitude is the condition in which creativity is afforded the opportunity to flourish without distraction. And of recent, I have been writing and singing often .....

    .... Sometimes I engage my creative energy with a walk down to the creek, which I just did at the conclusion of the last paragraph. Each season has its own song, and myriad of sun spilled colors dancing on clear water caressing the rocks beneath a flowing surface. I have pelted the creek with stone and stick, and splashed my face with its icy snow-melted freshness. In early autumn the trees still replete with yellow, orange and brown leaves, applaud the efforts of the wind with gentle hushed rustlings. They cling desperately to the mother bough, each one engaged in its own unique dance with the wind. Catching sight of one released from the clutches of its twig is as likely as predicting the point where a lightening bolt may exit a thundercloud, but I am pleased enough to watch for one, and follow the flight path of any that may enter my view. Out from under the shelter of my cabin roof and walls, I welcome the dilution of my solitude by the presence of nature. Connecting and comingling with the abundance of life outdoors feeds the fire of my inspiration further, and after some time I am torn between lingering and being compelled to go back inside to describe what I can.

    Back inside the cabin the aroma of coffee hangs in the air.  Scanning the interior with its unfilled chairs and couch, I sense the lingering essence of loved ones and visitors now gone. The floor speaks to me in crackles as I head for the kitchen and the coffee, reminding me that I am not really completely alone in my animated little home in the country. Steam from the fresh brew rises up from my cup, to remind me to sip with care. The oak table in the kitchen creaks a complaint against my resting elbows as I lean closer toward the window, in the hope of seeing something more - something I may have missed while walking; some forest creature perchance passing in the safety of my withdraw, or the flight of one more leaf.

    Shifting my gaze from the beauty beyond the window pane, back to the stillness inside, I close my eyes to look within me for the words to describe the quality and character of my solitude. These that I have written thus far, scarcely express what I had hoped to convey. I am going back outside with my coffee.

 ~

I Break My Heart

The greatest personal misconception of all time is believing that someone else is responsible for your feelings.

Continuing The Quest For Equality

The writing is on the proverbial wall for the end of the heterosexual hold on the institution of government sanctioned marriage between two people as three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage in this November election - a very good step in the right direction of equal rights. Personally I don't endorse government intervention in matters of human relationships at all, but the fact remains.  So within the confines of reality, whether a bourgeois straight-couple marriage, or new radical in-vogue same-sex marriage, the government designed institution (that codifies and dehumanizes natural love relationships) remains discriminatory toward multiple-partnered espousal relationships (polygamy). The new marriage laws probably don't include gender neutrality either - just a hunch, I don't know for sure.

There are three specifically understood forms of polygamy: polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), and group marriage (multiple partners of some combination of polygyny and polyandry).  Marriages of this type of multiplicity (more than two) are not sanctioned by current legal systems in the United States which of course is discriminatory toward people who partner up with more than one, and wish to be "legally" conjoined with each of their respective sweethearts.

With the advent of legal same-sex marriage between two people, the evolution toward legal, multiple-partner marriage remains the logical next step in the continued quest for equality.  Of course any marriage dynamic of multiple partners will require new rules and regulations regarding insurance, employment benefits, etc., as that is the only function of government meddling that could serve any purpose.

The definitions of such regulations need to be completely flexible to avoid discriminatory restrictions. Said flexibility must include static (one to one) and dynamic (one to many) wedlock provisions irrespective of gender of course (which would inherently include gender neutral people). These provisions must include any dynamic desired, including definitions for an equilateral state of matrimony in which all partners may be married to each participating partner, aggregate dissolution contingencies, and so on.

Additionally, and with specific regard to those who do not identify with one of the gender binary (male/female), the first step logically should be the elimination of gender verbiage from all legal terminology regarding marriage, and other legal documentation.  Eliminating the gender factor and just referring to the participants as espoused partners, associates, whatever the situation warrants, is much less linguistically restrictive, and consequently much easier for the minions of government to litigate and indoctrinate into the legal system.

On Feminism

I was asked to read  Melissa McEwan's blog on feminism 101 and supply my opinion on the article, ostensibly so my feminism sensitivity could be evaluated.  Despite being an avid feminist, I accepted the request for possible further edification on the matter if any were forthcoming.

I agree with most of the concepts presented by Ms. McEwan, and have always adhered to the recommendations she makes, so reading her blog for self-evaluation purposes was on the whole, somewhat pointless; still, an interesting read, and contains topics that compel me to comment.

On "off-limits humor"; I have long upheld the belief that there is always an underlying sting couched in allegedly innocent jokes about, well about so many subjects – I grew up in a household that used sarcasm and “comic” witticisms ostensibly in fun but in truth were simply demeaning and cruel. Everyone laughs, even the person being made sport of, but inside it hurts. So I don't make such "jokes". I don't do snide bullshit jokes about anything that might be hurtful to someone.  So it was refreshing to read a like-minded perspective in Ms. McEwan's blog.

I have never been one of those who try to ally a feminist against certain types of women “Surely, we're all in agreement that Britney Spears... whatever. Such nonsense would require that I first care or otherwise have feelings about a woman's choice of gender presentation, feminine or otherwise.

The “outside looking in” perspective consigned to male appreciation of feminism as prescribed by Ms. McEwan is, and should be objective (as should all evaluations of one's perspective), but being on the outside as a limitation on the observable perspective does not really apply to me as I do not gender identify as either male or female - a perspective wholly unattended by Ms. McEwan. The “pronouncements of similitude ” paragraph describes a ludicrous argument used by the weak-minded anti-feminist. Again, the author's exposition of this amazingly lame tactic is simply elegant. In my opinion the “stereotype” paragraph is an extension on the “Britney Spears” paragraph, and it completes the sentiment. By any other label she identifies the essential sub-categorical generalizing and the not-so subtle intent of sustaining subjugation.

Altogether a really good article. I found myself moved deeply more than once while reading it – for the generations of sorrow that the message implies, and for all women everywhere because I know what Ms. McEwan describes is pervasive, and it breaks my fucking heart.


The Patriarchy hurts All of Us

by Nancy R. Smith

For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong,
There is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.

For every boy who is burdened with the constant expectation of knowing everything,
There is a girl tired of people not trusting her intelligence.

For every girl who is tired of being called over-sensitive,
There is a boy who fears to be gentle, to weep.

For every boy for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity,
There is a girl who is called unfeminine when she competes.

For every girl who throws out her E-Z-Bake oven,
There is a boy who wishes to find one.

For every boy struggling not to let advertising dictate his desires,
There is a girl facing the ad industry's attacks on her self-esteem.

For every girl who takes a step toward her liberation,
There is a boy who finds the way to freedom a little easier.


------------------

Fitness & Self-Image

The pandemic proportions of the visual phenomena and the fact that it even affects society’s most intelligent members is fascinating to me.  And I wish that I could claim to be above it, but I cannot.   Of course the visual is our first-line mechanism for determining objective reality, and that’s fine, but the importance placed on individual personal appearance by the populace of most modern societies seems to exceed basic instinct – perhaps exacerbated by the fact that the phenomena is artificially driven by various industries through the sundry vehicles of mass media.

It would be one thing if it were a health inspired issue, but appearance seems to be the driving force behind the trend toward a leaner collective.  However, though the popularity of the appearance of physical fitness is almost ubiquitous, actually managing the body image through fitness is still limited to a small minority.  So we are a society of corpulent constituents at one end of the physical spectrum (35.7% of the U.S. population is obese according to the CDC), about 13% physically fit at the other, and a majority of fitness want-to-be's in-between.  I like to think of myself as falling in the 13% camp of the fitness freaks, but my midsection measurement vetoes that illusion daily.

Sometimes the energy required to engage in my daily duties wears me down.  The simplicity of the mountain beckons me and I must obey – otherwise the emotive residuals gathered over the week will fester into something dark and ugly.  So as with Alice and her looking glass, I step through to the other side to share stories with the Walrus about many important things, but not cabbages or kings, and least of all what my workout routine for the day is going to include.  And the darkness of procrastination will wash over me as it so often does – and I will languish to return renewed on another day.  But I digress and ramble apparently.

It is very late.  And I am obviously near delirium.  But the condition of sleep mercilessly evades me (again).  It is my own fault – as mentioned I have been remiss in my exercise regimen, steeped in procrastination – so much that I can hardly call it a regimen.  So my mind, fueled by excess blood sugar, continues to process late at night despite my having clicked ‘shutdown’.  Hopefully the weekend adventures will rekindle the workout energy and hopefully the following week’s daily toil will not drain me of the energy needed to climb onto the stairway to nowhere (Stairmaster®) to fully engage in my imaginary fitness fanaticism.