Changes, changes

What does one learn from accepting his ignorance? Sometimes, he shouldn't be so opinionated.

Allow me to explain my (former) attraction to left-anarchism: if God can direct people through their hearts, could he not make a society of people who love each other unceasingly? The economic calculation problem is gone in their socialist commune, because God calculates for them, and they obey. God will tell them, and they should be aware of those who do not fit in the commune - more importantly, no one not fit for it would bother to join, believing what everyone else believes about left-anarchy: it's chaos. One could contend that if the society runs smoothly it will then attract the thieves and the murderers, but surely God could save the commune, or at least point out the wicked.

Furthermore - apparent to those who read last post's link by Kropotkin - there's a deep and fulfilling sense of a world without poor. A world where the science of man applies to all men, a world where no one goes hungry, a world where no one is devoid of a chance; surely in such an atmosphere - not to mention one endowed by the Supreme Creator - the hearts of men could change for the better, and the world could live in peace.

Now let me explain why I think that's wrong.

First, one's connection to God through the subjective - though the ultimate provider of truth - is certainly imperfect, and this I've come to more clearly in my recent experience than ever before. Man can try, he can align his long-term path with God, but he remains of the flesh, remains totally imperfect. With imperfection comes error, and with error comes, well, in a lawless society, chaos. This, I believe, is the function of church - to provide a standard for men to live their lives; and I believe, further, I know, that God endows the religious leaders of Earth, who He surely chose by hand - the great ones - with the knowledge to govern the faithful under their direction. But even with this tool - who many, even the religious, choose themselves to ignore (and who can doubt the left-anarchists, of all people, are inclined to disrespect the authority of organized religion?) - we still are of the flesh.

It seems to me that I know what's wrong for politics - I know many things that are wrong - but that I can't necessarily pinpoint what's best. A totalitarian dictatorship is contrary to the will of God - contrary to the free establishment of His churches, and contrary to the use of our God-given agency. Man, under government, must be allowed to choose wrong, and who can doubt that the leaders of government are fallible? Surely we can try, by democracy, to elect those rulers whose countenance and manner appeals to the ethical light within us, but let us never allow them the extreme power of tyranny over our very lives - for what then when they stray? Checks and balances on the authority of mankind - which authority must be restricted in extent to those duties that allow us, protected by law, to lead good, productive lives - is clearly essential for a bright future for the nations of Earth.

The tyrants - the obviously-power-hungry and ruthless dictators - I, perhaps peacefully, oppose. But the authority placed by God and democracy of man, whose power is restricted for allowing freedom in a broad sense, is an authority I humbly respect. Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Jill Stein have various outlooks on the best option for our country, but despite my personal preference for perhaps a candidate like Doctor Paul or the Green Party over the seemingly more violent Romney and Obama, all of these leaders share a general respect for the freedom of the country, and under the rule of various men and women like them, we've undoubtedly prospered. Is our nation perfect? By a fair margin, no. Are there people in need of assistance - public or otherwise? Certainly, yes. Is our foreign policy exactly in line with what might strike one as respectful? Definitely not. But we are all of the flesh and sculpted from a coarse clay; sometimes keeping it all together is the best for which one can ask.

So I'd consider myself moderate. Though decidedly from an American politics perspective.

Starting Over

In some sense, the title of this blog has lost its meaning; in some sense, it will take on more meaning than ever before - but hold those thoughts.

What is truth? This is the question all must answer, but because it answers the more relevant question - the only relevant question - what should I do?

Life is complicated and mysterious; no matter where you look, the appraisal of one opinion is coupled by its exact antithesis, and if you don't see it, it's because you haven't found it - that it's there all the same is what brings the mystery. How can one mediate the opinions of all people, the many "facts" that support them, when one hardly has the reasoning to choose what to do with his or her own life? Furthermore, how could one begin to mediate the opinions that people have yet to find?

As I've said here before, logic is to be built in chains - you start from assumptions and work to conclusions; so obvious, so overlooked. But the reason to back the logic you have is forever insufficient - how can you back the conclusion when you can never back the assumption, which, itself, always assumes something else?

You have to work back to an axiom: a certain truth; there only can you start and work forward and know the conclusion. People accept many things as axioms: one's own existence, the existence of others perhaps, existence itself - but they have no reason. Ask them how they know, and they are ultimately silent.

Rain falls. How do you know? Gravity. How do you know? I feel it. How do you know? ...

But can one really, honestly deny that they know? that they know something? and therein lies the paradox; people and animals alike - creatures - have knowledge where they shouldn't. Each creature accepts things he or she can't explain, and knows them to be true; you know, for example, that at this precise moment in time you are at your computer, you are in your body, you are; there is no reason why you know, in any traditional sense of "reason"; you know because you feel it, and you're right, and you feel that you're right, and nothing more can be said; this is what is meant by "truth is subjectivity": you, yourself, are aware of knowledge, but you can't explain it to others, because you can't even explain it to yourself.

You're a free person; this too you know. The choices you make come down to you, and that includes what you believe, even if that means believing something you know - on the deepest level - isn't true.

But can you believe you know nothing? How could you? For would not this, itself, be something you would know? The very fact that you think about your insufficiency - that you are aware of your thinking - is knowledge.

So you know. You know that you know, and, hopefully, you believe it. Then comes the question: how could you? How could you know what you can't explain - by feeling? How could this feeling be, and how could you know it? And if not by your own creation, and surely you are conscious that you did not create it, then how are they made? Where do they come from? How do you have them?

There is only one answer that satisfies these questions: God.

Only a being that knew everything, whose knowledge was without unknowns, could possibly be the mediator - the determiner and creator - of truth, and likewise the truth that we have. There is no alternative - it is as sure as yourself, and only by denying your own sureness could you deny that He has granted it.

You could say that we have the knowledge and merely can't explain why we have it, that we have it, but don't know why; then I assure you, what you will find, in searching yourself, is that you do know why; as surely as you know anything, you know God, and that He loves you, and that He has a plan for you, and you have but merely to ask. This I have found, this many have found, this you can find.

But allow me to dismiss readily another easily concluded alternative - that the knowledge comes by virtue of "yourself." First, what is you? Allow me to propose: a consciousness. Not a mind, not even a soul, both of which you have, as surely as you think and act, and both of which you are conscious, but surely what you are is conscious - it is your base "act"; it is the only thing you do not "have" and are.

If you are conscious, and are conscious of your knowledge, but not of why you have it, can you not question your knowledge? Can you - the only and ultimate in this alternative - not dismiss it? Can you - the chooser, by virtue of the soul you also know - not know something different? You are a free being, yet funneled into but one knowledge - a knowledge independent of yourself. Your choice is that knowledge or none at all, but you cannot create another.

To reason alone, I have proved not a thing, nor ever can. Only by acknowledging knowledge independent of understanding can one choose to understand, for only by accepting my axiom from the knowledge in themselves - the knowledge I cannot give - can they also know the conclusions of my reason.

Have you ever had a train of thought where you accept certain conclusions but they feel wrong? A feeling that's caused you to reexamine and reconsider until it feels right? This occurs because of the beliefs you hold that lead you to one conclusion or another; the beliefs not always at the front of your mind, but ingrained there by choice.

By choice - have I not contradicted my earlier statement? No, for we are funneled into one knowledge, but not into one belief, and as truth is a point and untruth another, we can choose either.

How then is one to separate those beliefs he knows from the ones he holds and does not know?

Find the axiom. Or, rather, the axioms. Work the argument backward with the reason you have, and study the starting points out in your mind. Do you know them? You will know. If you struggle, God's at the door.

God has rooted the same axioms in each of our minds, it is what makes us human. Fortunately, many of these axioms are in plain sight - arguments can go on with basic assumptions like the existence of people and the existence of things, else where could we go!? Less fortunately, many of them are not. The crowd of reason has chosen to accept only the easiest axioms, and to deny all else.

Examine the question from a reasonable perspective: does God live? Well let's start with some axioms, note that one of them isn't God. ...

Then that's the argument! Said and done!

What's curious is where that argument tends to go, since it does go further, without actual purpose. It's usually something like "God isn't the simplest explanation"; "we should assume only the axioms we have"; "we cannot reason past our axioms." ...It's all superfluous! It's the same statement, that the arguer does not know God, in as many ways as one could possibly say it! That they even assume something else, like an objective reality and universe, in either a blatant contradiction - as there is no reason for these either - or else not, but only by virtue of the fact that they have accepted these, but not God, as axioms!; how fortunate they have none to argue with, as the faithful accept these too; how fortunate there stands no opposition, as the faithful do not oppose; how fortunate to live in a world you create, then marvel at your ability to say nothing at all.

Except it isn't really fortunate. It's miserable.

Do I weep at the unknowing of my brothers and sisters? Constantly. But it is a joyous weep, just as theirs is a miserable pleasure. I see them, I love them, and I need to save them, but I know that they can only save themselves; I know that I can show them the door, but that they must open it; I marvel at my purpose, I love it, but I love the possible conclusions more than I even fathom. It's as though the most beautiful damsel stood in front of me behind a layer of fog; I know she's there, but I can't see her; I know she is beautiful beyond a beauty I can imagine - a thing unthinkable to know; I follow her, knowing, inexplicably, the steps she takes; I imagine her to the best of my ever limited ability, and keep my eyes on a prize that I know is ever greater. How then can I stray?

The faithful's is a lonely road, yet perfectly accompanied. In the face of the crowd, it is madness - neither understood nor accepted; in the face of the faithful, it is God - accepted, but still never understood; but in the face of God, it is true love - acceptance and understanding - and is not His love ever greater? I love God, even as I do not understand Him, by His own grace; He makes Himself personable, He makes Himself the most personable, even as he is the least; I awe at His condescension.

So it is not lonely, but it could be. It, like all, is by choice - a chosen perspective.

Ah, but I slow myself - what's that? All is by choice?

"I choose heaven, yet here I am!" you retort.

Consider: can you choose to be at the grocery store? Try it. Be there. You cannot do it directly - that is, within your repertoire of options, there is no "be at store"; but you can do it indirectly - by taking each necessary step. So it is with heaven.

What necessitates the distinction between direct and indirect choice? Why are some choices mine to make in the moment, and others mine to delay? I will tell you: insufficiency. God has placed you in an arbitrary, for He can give you knowledge, but only as you gain experience, which He cannot give you. The arbitrary is, however, an arbitrary only by choice; one that we choose out of incapability to choose otherwise; it is the existence one is forced to perceive in inaction, and better he perceive, to gain experience, and thus knowledge from God, than not perceive, and remain without capability to progress. But it bends to our will, and we can even escape it - each of us, in either case, to varying degrees. When the boy daydreams in class with his eyes on the ceiling, he perceives not the arbitrary - not that existence in which he is otherwise forced - but the world he chooses; does the arbitrary grant a castle, all his to enjoy - and without a mite of physical labor? Does it grant him fair women, loving swaths of people, or sheer enjoyment without flaw? No. He has transcended it.

The "reasonable" man takes a look at this world - the world of his choice - and rejects it. Perhaps out of pride in his ability to conquer the arbitrary on his own - false pride indeed, as there is no such ability; perhaps out of a lack of pride in himself - his true self - to improve his creations, and he can improve them, for is he not of God Himself?

"Sit down! Shut up! Look at the teacher! Do your work!" Slave your life, your energy, your potential, into the finite. 

WHY, I SAY? THERE IS HEAVEN TO BE HAD - MAKE IT YOURS.

Do I say: reject the finite? Do I say: reject its science? No. For we must acknowledge our present weakness, and our current reliance on it. But to need it is not to love it. Need your science, but love your God, for the former is only a means to the latter.

"Get a job! What on Earth do you do with your time? There's always more money to be had and you've got nothing." Progression is confined to the arbitrary and to the finite. Work for the system and lose your soul; you can trade it for the riches you've never had.

REBEL.

Work in it, sure - but only because you have no other choice. Your goal is to make that other choice, and to bring all people - your family - with you. You need only to foster your love in God and you cannot fail, for He is transcendent.

"Science is the answer, really. Too bad you're not intelligent enough to understand it. Trust all these other people - they lead the crowd, and can lead you too. You are nothing but inferior to the other finite creatures; you have no choice but to drag behind on the coattails of your authority and hope for the best.

THE CROWD IS UNTRUTH.

When the way is unsure, and you need an order, there are only two choices: the order of God, and the order of man: be it your government, your boss, your school, your anyone. Good men give advice, and to them you can listen, and from them grow - for as you are confined, by your weakness, to the arbitrary, you must learn within it - from God, and also from people, your family. But if it is good to follow a command, that can be a command of God alone. No man is as God; no man can be superior; he can only pretend, and by so doing become totally miserable. While those at the bottom suffer a real pain under pressure, there is no greater reason to abolish the hierarchy of man than for the sake of those at the top - the ones living in fantasy. God's reality of choice - true freedom - is to them a fantasy, and the fantasy of true joy in the arbitrary - which will never be found - is their reality, for they are deceived by power, which is misery disguised; what a need we have to save them!

We, the lovers, grant greater material care to the poor and oppressed, for in this respect they have the greater need, but by the same token, we must grant the wealthy (and the oppressors) greater spiritual care, for they, likewise, have the greater need in this respect; each is our brother, our sister, whom we love unconditionally. Which is not to say it is truly "unconditional" love, as a thing must have conditions, but that the sole condition - that they feel, and we feel with them in our collective soul, for we know empathy - is eternally in effect; insofar as we do not feel them, we know it is the product of our insufficiency to feel, and that by acting as though we do we draw closer to what we know - we catch glimpse of the damsel, and oh the Joy!

This is how it is with all things - we know, but we doubt what we know by insufficiency. It is only by eliminating the doubt, or by acting in spite of it, that we progress to God.

It should come as no surprise that, in light of these conclusions, which bring me more joy than words can speak, my political and economic views as referenced on this blog have undergone substantial change. Those more familiar with my new position - left-anarchism - may have noticed its theme in some of the preceding paragraphs.

For those who would like to learn more about this philosophy, which will henceforth be discussed here, I invite you to read the article by Peter Kropotkin linked at the bottom of the article (designed for the youthful - at least in heart and mind).

--

"Experience-free" ... what does that mean for an opinion? Originally, it was an acknowledgment of my intellectual standing - I had completed no college, I've (still) been employed to no internships, I haven't written a book or received a degree or won a nifty prize for anything; in the world of the arbitrary - the world of the crowd - these are the things that matter, and I hadn't a thing.

That meaning is gone; I have no desire to gain this sort of "experience," save with exceeding caution.

But then, what is experience, really? It is the path to knowledge - the path that each must take, by themselves, for themselves, such that God can reveal all things and you can know them, even as you doubt them. It is the road we feel and choose that is self-reinforcing, that, when traveling in good courses, breaches the fog; it is the road to a truly beautiful damsel that is not a damsel, but something even greater we cannot imagine; it is the road we walk with a forever-insufficent motivation: a motivation we choose, for the real reward we cannot choose - yet. For it is the road that indirectly chooses it.

In that sense, while it is entirely incorrect to say I'm "experience-free", it's an excellent approximation in comparison to what I have yet to experience. And here I am still giving opinions.

Link