1
The Ethical Principles of Paradigmatic Realism
A realistic ontology for environmental and animal ethics
By
Jack Ferguson
Copyright © 2013 by Jack Ferguson
All rights reserved. This book or parts thereof may not be reproduced in any form with permission of the author.
scancode@peoplepc.com
Introduction
In order to intelligently analyze environmental and animal ethics, an ontology is
provided as a ground for determining moral or immoral actions and defining
critical terms missing in most ethical arguments.
Parmenides explained that the Relative, the Many, (rivers, forests, deserts, etc.) is
not the Absolute; the Relative is outside of the Absolute, the indivisible One,
therefore an illusion of the sensory driven mind or a mirage, either way, only
overcome by logic. The Absolute became self-conscious in Parmenides’ acosmism
as the opposing Relative emerged in Heraclitus who explained the Relative was no
illusion or mirage but the Absolute in absolute relativity. It seems that reality is a
paradox with no solution.
This Relative/Absolute paradox is a mental fixation on, or reification of one side or
the other, but if the paradox of two realities is comprehended in a paradigm, these
mental illusions or physical mirages recede into the being of reality. Heraclitus
takes Relativity or change as Absolute, unchangeable, and for Parmenides, the
negation of the Relative, the illusion of change, is an absolute negation of the
Absolute. Heraclitus also hints that the Logos is a paradigm that restores balance to
its polarities. These polarities or two sides of the paradigm are only possible in
contrast to or separation and negation of its other. Each side has an inner and outer
side, quantitative and qualitative side, infinite and finite, and so on.
2
The paradigm becomes self-conscious in the opposition, negation, separation,
rejection, otherness, etc. of itself in spacetime. The unified self is undifferentiated
comprehensive identity outside of spacetime. Its finitude negated, it remains
conscious for it is the negation of all negation. Finite negations are negated in the
infinity of negation, or the negation of negation. The paradigm of Reality emerged
and receded in the two-sided, Absolute/Relative formation. Consciousness of
emerges in ontological negations; for otherness is the essence or form of prereflected self-alienation expressed in a finite stream of infinite ontic not-me’s. This
succession of not-me’s is the temporal and special moving presence of being in the
here and now. The finite form of the self contains an infinity of not-me’s giving
rise to its identity in difference. The self is both infinite in negation and finite in its
series. Zeno’s arrow traverses an infinity of points, yet the bow, arrow, archer, all
eventually vanish for they are finite. That is not to say they are illusions; rather,
they are finite appearances with an infinite structure that emerges in their
negations. Finite appearances are structured by natural laws such as causality
through force, electricity, temperature, etc. that are built upon negations; for
example, temperature ranges by degree, and, in order to appear, each degree is a
negation of all other degrees. The appearance of degrees is captured through
instrumental measurements. The reifications of degrees occur in freezing, boiling,
and so on.
Ontological negations are physical/spiritual for they emerge out the paradigm of
reality, and since reality is not an idea, reality cannot be mental, so the mind is
limited to reflection of it; however, a fixation on one side or the other is a
distortion of mind. Mind is the process of spiritual and physical negations that
Reality generates. Given that mind has no substance other than its history of
reifications, its memories, how cans an internal process externalize itself and take
physical form?
Paradigmatic Realism holds that these are sides of Reality, and Reality is an
ontological paradigm reflected in epistemological paradigms. Mental paradigms
such as Newtonian/Einsteinian physics, Ptolemaic/Copernican cosmologies are
secondary human reflections of underlying Reality. Paradigmatic realism finds the
Absolute is an alienated side of the paradigm of reality; first sided by the Absolute
and Relative; neither illusions nor realities, but opposing sides such as
inside/outside and quantitative/qualitative; not of the mind such as opinions or
3
ideas, but of polarized Reality itself. Inside spacetime, Reality is divided, and that
separation is the paradigm of spacetime; it is finite being isolated from itself and
other beings. Outside of spacetime, infinite Being is united with its finite contents.
In spacetime, someone both ‘can step in the same river twice’ and ‘cannot step in
the same river twice,’ and both is and is not. The Absolute One is only possible in
the reflected negation of the Relative Many for the Many is the other quantitative
side of the Absolute. A river’s form and unchanging sameness is its start and end,
sides, top and bottom, and its substance is its process in form and form in process
until it evaporates. Its form cannot be separated from its content for they are sides
of a medium negating from within and from without, so the river remains identical
in substantial transformation and insubstantial in process until it no longer is. The
fact of its finite being is eternal. So too, the Absolute is the form as is the Relative
its inseparable content. Cosmic consciousness is the form of the Absolute
expanding through its negated limitations of exclusions into an inclusive multiuniverse. Permanence is the shape of change and change is the content of
permanence; inescapably, change is the shape of permanence and permanence the
content of change. Change from without or change from within introduces the
inside/outside paradigm.
The sides of Reality are not double-aspects or Spinoza’s limited perspectives, but
shifting sides or polarities of reality becoming self-aware in its otherness. Human
reflectors mirror this and confuse these shifts with their own processes. For
example, Hegel held that Being is an idea, and it self-animates through the
dialectic of its own Nothingness. Hegel thought Being was the same as Nothing
because it was empty of specification and determinations, and their union brought
forth Change. Hegel confuses the human mammal’s mental map of Being with the
diversity and richness of Being itself. This map of Being is just a copy. The more
complexity is not due to the mind but to Being itself that the finite mind records
through instruments such as eyes or microscopes.
Again, Reality is independent of any human, cosmic, or divine mind. What Hegel
is describing is the World and its virtual entities such as the State that are products
of the human mind, the mind as primarily described by Kant’s transcendental
idealism. The World is not real because it, the World, is only possible to enter
spacetime with a human mind behind it. The World is virtual. The World is
perceptual for it is under empirical realism. It is cognitive because it is animated by
4
concrete, materialized ideas or entities such as science, economies, laws, programs,
reactors, turbines, etc. that reproduce and mimic natural laws. The World is an
extended intention with ethical consequences; intentions have ethical origins and
they are engineered so as to mesh with Reality. Thus, the World is inescapably
ethical or unethical.
The World is a distortion within Reality. Reality is connected by natural forces and
rhythms. The human mind reflects these natural forces and instrumentally
replicates them. Natural forms of energy are artificially replicated billions of times
daily with unknown consequences and a disregard for other beings. Billions of
animals are tortured and killed for “scientific” experiments, and evolution has been
remodeled around human interference. Human caused extinctions of thousands if
not millions of species, devastated weather, ocean, river, forests, etc. systems are
undergoing human alterations with minimal concern. Waiting for the Earth to clean
up the human mess is unethical.
The World templates Reality and interferes with it, but Reality cannot cancel it.
Reality has sides or polarities that take shape, not through the mind with its
programs of understanding, reason and logic, but through an ontological process
termed negation. Negation is seen in fractal formations and contrasts. Negation is
the emergence of consciousness. Sides are double internal and external negations,
and negations are the points of consciousness. Negations can be both pleasurable
or painful, or not registered in sensation for that is only one medium of negation.
Where there is no negation, there is no consciousness.
Obviously, Parmenides’ realization that the Absolute is One or not-Many reflects a
two-sided paradigm, the one and not-one reflected off the One, for the one is
established in the not-one, the two or the many sides of self-emergence. This
duality is not that of Cartesian substances, but simple sides of the paradigm of
reality reflected by the mind.
Heraclitus’ process and Parmenides’ unchanging One are sides of one underlying
reality that is self-conscious in its negations of otherness, the Many as is the Many
the negation of the One. They emerge in the contrasts of the other. Process and
Substance, ontological negations, are inseparable; in this way, the eternal,
unchanging laws of non-contradiction, identity, substance, etc. are at the center of
5
process, change and contradiction. Identity-in-difference is an ontological
paradigm, and reason and logic reflect the negations in one side off its other. The
reification of this side reflected is termed “mind.” The reification is ontological,
not psychological. It is a negation of substance in time or process taken outside of
time and suspended. This suspended side cannot endure and collapses back into
process. Process is the negation of substance in time, and once reflected, collapses
back into substance as the here and now. The here and now collapse into the past
and future there only to reemerge as the here and now. Again, these are not
epistemological shifts, but shifts in being. The phenomenal field is the noumenal
field or the for itself is the in itself unrecognized, but experienced in the shift. Just
as a winner is reflected in the loser; the shift from one to its other is not the content
of experience, but experience itself.
Reality
Kant held that Existence is a pure idea and a category of thought. Instead, Absolute
Being is a side of the paradigm of Being/not Being. Being, not Mind, is the core of
Reality. The shift into not-Being and the negation of Being is the dispersion of
Being into and infinity of finite beings offset by the medium of spacetime. The
medium of spacetime is negation of the infinite and affirmation or shift into
finitude in the finite/infinite paradigm. This negation is the consciousness of the
past, yet the Absolute cannot be in the past for the Absolute is a negation of
separation by time and space, but has yet to recognize its alienation, negation and
shift, and the here and now struggle to shift back into one spirit through the laws of
nature and matter. The Absolute perfection and infinity of Being is now the
Hegelian “bad” infinity of beings, not concrete ideas, struggling towards infinite
reunification. The Absolute is now negated and one-sided, self-repressed in the
affirmation of the Relative, and its bad infinite side shifts back into the Absolute
seem depressingly impossible and violent according to the laws of nature.
Finite being is the negation of Infinite Being which is alienated and repressed selfunity. Egoism arises with the relative disunity of Being into beings as altruism
arises from the relative disunity of beings into the absolute unity of Being. The
separated, unique ego is born in the negated unity of many common egos; the
physical separation both blocking and allowing the unifying shift of beings into
Being. Finite being in spacetime is conscious life and not-being in spacetime is
6
conscious death. Death is a negation of life, as life is the negation of death, and
negation is consciousness. The finite establishes its side in any ontological
negation of its infinite side. A simple pain reflects one’s finitude against infinitude.
One side’s imperfection reflects and confirms the other side’s perfection and shift
into perfection.
Descartes’ deduction of God through the idea of perfection against the ontological
fact of Descartes’ imperfection does not work as an a priori idea. Instead,
perfection is a side of a paradigm of being; as the ontologically imperfect is
instantly established against the reality of the perfect as is the perfect is established
against the imperfect, captured in the reflection of the being/Being paradigm. In
short, God’s infinite, perfect being is ontologically established in the reality of
finite being. Not the idea, but the fact of imperfection and finitude is the fact of
perfection and infinitude. Where the fact of the one is, is the fact of its other. The
sides of the paradigm of reality are inseparable; for although different sides, they
are the same in the paradigm of being/Being. God’s Being is experienced in a
simple cut reflecting one’s finitude against His infinitude.
The Phenomenology of Negation
The phenomenology of negation is opposed to the neumonology of negation.
Negation is not a destructive process. Any visual scene is one of contrasts, and
contrasts are negations as in colors, hues, shapes, etc. Finite negations offset other
negations, but do not overcome them. These negations are the limits ontic unities,
and finite unities form identities and shapes. Identities are inorganic and organic
forms or shapes that are intelligible other-conscious beings. Consciousness is
therefore pervasive in the natural universe. Minimal consciousness is a simple
negation of one or all unities: ‘this unity is not that unity’ ad infinitum. Selfconsciousness occurs when and where the origin of negation negates that negation
forming a conscious identity. This negation of the original negation is selfreflection in its unity. This is the phenomenal field. The field is an infinity of
negations, and this infinity is a negation of finite beings. The Absolute is formed in
the comprehensive negation of the infinity of finite negations. In negating its other,
the Relative, the Absolute becomes a self-conscious, infinite Being outside of
spacetime which is the structure of its content. The content shifts into form as the
form shifts into content.
7
Being/not being
The Being/not being realizes itself in the paradigm of matter and spirit. Finite
being is the paradigm of being/not being, and the finite fact of being/not being is
infinitely realized in itself. That eternal fact resides within the eternal unity of
Absolute Being, for it only disappears in the disunity of Relativity swallowed by
an infinite series, yet it is eternally registered in its negation. The negation of
spacetime is accomplished through instruments by which spirituality enters in the
intentional shape of the world.
Having lost their original unity, beings shift back into Being through the negation
of otherness until the ego is born fully reflected in its presence, its appearance,
which is its unique ownership of the present, and stands opposed to all when
realized, yet shared. The shared presence is indistinguishable for the ego’s identity
is in its differences and negations. Some negations are structural giving an
appearance while most are idiosyncratic. Unfortunately, the complete shift into the
absolute unity of Being is impossible due to the paradigm of spacetime; so, the
shift is eternally ongoing through death and loss, birth and gain. It is a vortex of
side by side unity and disunity. The ego is both repelled and attracted to its species.
Its species is both attracted and repelled to other species. The material side of
being, the physical universe, unites or divides under natural laws as the immaterial
side, the world, unites or divides under spiritual laws. The physical law of gravity
and the spiritual law of justice are made perceptible through matter. Bodies are
united by gravity forming planets only to be torn apart by the same forces, and
societies are united and torn apart by justice and its negation.
Consciousness reached infinite ontological negations in the human mammal. Its
World is physically shaped through the controlled and contained natural laws; it is
spiritually shaped through spiritual laws. Natural laws govern the body and
spiritual laws govern the intention. These laws are the structures of their respective
sides of being. Morality is a necessary human condition of freely chosen spiritual
forms of good or evil and physical forms of natural laws. For example, hospitals
choose natural laws to follow such as immunity and spiritual laws such as
necessary benefit while torture chambers choose physical laws such as force,
pressure, temperature, etc. and spiritual laws such as unnecessary harm.
8
Egoism
Egoism is a reification of the one/many paradigm. Each reification is a suspended
negation and not a true identity or essence. Who-someone-is is not what someone
is. Who is only built in a community that holds contrasting who’s. Doctors,
lawyers, artists, etc. or the who-is-who list is only possible in the world, but human
beings are their shared essence only possible through nature. Capitalism is the
economics of egoism. Egoism is a disregard of the consequences of the egoist’s act
to others. It is self-affirmation through chosen negations of others and things
affirming the me. The affirmation of egoism is Marx’s alienation of property. The
metaphysics of “me” and “mine” emerges. That negation ranges from absolute as
in murder to relative as in rudeness. Egoism is a reified shift of the many into one,
and the one is the suspended negation of the many.
Egoism confuses objects with beings. Objects are mental projections upon beings;
they are templates loaded with subjectivism. Ego-objects are manipulated under
the delusion of property. Property is the negation of being. This is easily proven by
the disparity of contradictory “objects” projected by alienated, self-absorbed
humans upon another being. A “tiger” is a vicious predator, apex feline, biomachine, mascot, medicine, emblem, pet, zoo exhibit, martial art, skin, species, etc.
None of this has anything to do with the being itself. There is no common shared
reality among objects, only various imaginary human projections on another being.
The being of a caged tiger stands as undeniably real, not a caged idea, and that
being is fundamentally abused for human perceptual consumption.
Kant tried to neutralize egoism through a categorical imperative that equalizes the
ego as a member of the rational community subject to the categorical imperative,
but his categorical imperative does not apply to nature and natural beings for they
are mere means to a rational agent’s ends. Kant allowed animal consumption and
torture under his hypothetical imperative as a means to a human ends.
Utilitarianism neutralized the ego through the democracy of the Greater Good.
Nature is a means to one’s end, the mantra of rational egoism and capitalism is the
economy of egoism because it logically and mathematically exploits Nature
imagining it an object; natural innocent beings and their habitats are commodities
for sale according to human interests. Even the destruction of entire ecosystems is
9
the introduction of other forms of rational profiteering. A categorical imperative
allowing the destruction of an ecosystem is rational provided it does not damage
the rational community; the ratio, and the rational community overcomes these
problems with agriculture and a hydro and bio-engineered human world. The mind
imposes rational, humanized order on Nature with a disregard for natural order and
its intricate workings. Consuming the biosphere provides immediate well being
for a few humans, but this egoistic model is based in ecocide for short-term gains.
Utilitarian would reject this model of happiness for harming animals and profiting
at the expense of the Greater Good.
Utilitarianism is a modified form of egoism under the premise of self-interests, yet
neutralizes the ego in the equality of the Greater Good. The self-interested ego
aligns with the majority’s interests where the majority is the status quo. Pleasure or
well-being and pain or ill-being of the majority determines the boundaries of the
Greater Good. Massive well-being or hedonic pleasure is measureable, and rather
than left to chance or trial-and-error, inductive science is a logical foundation of
hedonic public pleasure policies shaping an enduring Greater Good. Self-interests
in conflict with the Greater Good are logically denied on this basis. Utilitarianism
protects natural beings under the appearance of suffering and the theory of
equality. This theory is based on a value for all beings that have the property of
suffering and pleasure. However, their model is limited to the pleasure/pain
paradigm. Suffering is categorically disallowed under the principle pleasure/pain
which is universal to all animals. It is unclear if there is a utilitarian imperative to
increase well-being in other animals, only that it is disallowed, but this would take
utilitarianism into altruism. Suffering is a human judgment limited to an
appearance. The causes behind it are critical in determining if the appearance
requires a duty. For example, animal births are painful, so is it one’s duty to
medically intervene or provide fast, painless deaths and allowing animals as food
items for human survival? If the direct perception of animal suffering is
unavailable, what is the responsibility of utilitarians to prevent it?
Animal Rights
Prior to their legal enactment, animal rights are philosophical, specifically, ethical
issues. Ignoring this fact, and with poor philosophical insight, “animal rights”
disappear into politically assigned activities backed by legal force for pampered
10
and protected commercial interests and zoos. Outside of zoos and parks, animal
rights and their environments rarely exist in the human world and depend upon the
culture to protect the leftover “property.” The concept of property usually removes
personal responsibility unless modified into a “pet,” and this is not about interests
towards animal rights, but commercial interests in manufacturing and selling
“products.” Currently, animal rights are separated from human rights by
philosophical arguments based upon reason, personhood, intelligence, selfinterests, self-consciousness, etc. These arguments are spiritual else they reduce
animals and humanity to physical functions and mechanical behaviors, even
degrading the status of man to that of “another” animal machine with ordinary hard
wired prejudices and species’ bias towards other life forms.
Spiritual does not mean a herald of angels playing trumpets, but is simply the
opposition to materialism found in ordinary experiences such as love and free
choice that defy reductionism to a body organ, mass of cells, or field of atoms.
Love is reduced to sexual instinct, biomechanical reactions, stimulated nervous
system, glands and hormones, evolutionary behaviors, and so on. Under
materialism, ethics dissolves into a sham of conflicting, emotionally charged,
verbal reactions as to the consequences of these human behaviors. Justice devolves
into ad hoc nonsense backed up by physical force. Soulless bionic human machines
without inherent value controlled and conditioned by a select few through
politically engineered propaganda and violence will soon overrun the earth.
Experimentation on and vivisection of dogs or children is of equal weight when the
spiritual side is suppressed by reconditioning the actors to the ideology of
Cartesian biomechanics and pseudo scientific worldviews.
If reductionism is a sound scientific methodology, it cannot be generalized into a
metaphysics. Descartes would be correct to claim animal machines do not
experience pain or pleasure for machines are incapable of experience; however, the
cogito makes man special and more than mere automata. Rational man is a
spiritual being; a person no longer under the control of nature.
Yet animals think and experience life. Nevertheless, this Cartesian dogma still
dominates our world view. Life is reduced to bioelectrical pulses, thoughts to brain
activities, emotions to conditioning and behaviors, organs, charts and gauges, etc.
Sticking wires into animal brains proves their point. The lines between humans and
11
other life forms has been philosophically blurred and distorted by justifying the
transition out of nature into an unethical world engineered by violent commercial
exploitation of animals, environments and innocent tribes. Any other strategy
would prove inefficient and costly. The reductionism of life forms to machines is
not a scientific argument limited to the empirical, observable, and measureable
methodology; rather, it is a poorly constructed 18 th century ideological assertion
based on analogies with machines and clocks to justify violence towards
indigenous people, animals and their environments. These arguments center on the
vague notion of personhood as an exclusive property of human beings. The
ideology of violence and terrorism against the ecology and its inhabitants is based
on a deeper world function. That function is to thrive based on the irreplaceable
organic energy held within its ecology. It is the unregulated human alteration and
consumption of the biosphere. It is irreplaceable energy because without it, natural
systems collapse. As the ecology is depleted, so the culture declines. Well-being
based on the ill-being of innocent animals and their environments is an immoral
principle.
Persons
Socrates knew that if people cannot define the critical terms of their arguments,
they do not know what they are talking about, and if they act upon those arguments
they do not know what they are doing. US abortion laws are built upon the notion
of person, but person remains undefined and overlaps with animal rights because
humans are animals. Abortion is an ethical problem; it is a philosophical issue
disconnected from its legal formulations that rest upon semantic assumptions of
personhood. The human animal professes an innate, supreme difference over other
species that “morally” allows it to behave with unnecessary harm towards
indigenous people, animals and their mediums when standing in the way of
commercial progress which is another vague notion justifying ecocide.
The medium of the ill defined person is no longer the natural environment; instead,
it is the world, and the world is a virtual zone of instruments, entities and systems
engineered around personal interests. Automata fit comfortably into this world;
animals do not. The supposed difference between human mammals and other
animals is the notion of personhood which, it is argued, includes reason, self
consciousness, interests, etc. The hypocrisy is that the underlying behavior is one
12
of violence done with bulldozers, chainsaws and guns under the direction of
“corporate persons” out of a “rational community.” The legal assumption is that
persons following or obstructing the law pretend to understand the undefined
concept of person by following their commercial interests, and claiming personal
property in the name of progress, commerce, jobs, etc., agreeing or disagreeing
with it. The arguments presented in rational, self-serving courts are unprejudiced
and reasonable or unreasonable and unbiased or biased. All of this “rational”
pretending and acting enables ecocide.
Mary Ann Warren, Utilitarians, and others try to define personhood in order to
morally justify abortion in the court of reason; however, this quickly expands into
animal rights because “persons” (besides corporations) are occasionally rational
animals as when legally compelled or emotionally disengaged. Warren’s
arguments disallow animals as candidates for persons, and if properties of
personhood such as ‘self consciousness’ were to include animals it would show her
claims are counterfactual. Utilitarian arguments for personhood are complicated
with degrees of self consciousness, reason, animal rights, suffering, self interests,
desires and a future. The moral status of animals and their environments remains
disjointed in those arguments and the conclusions are often convoluted and
controversial. The fact that animals meet the criteria of personhood includes them
as persons, but the status quo is prejudiced against them for animals would then
have full legal rights. Some argue that person means human being; so, when is the
fetus a person? If it depends on the development of the brain as in the first
trimester, that occurrence overlaps with animals for they have brains too; so
animals are persons by the presence of a developed brain. It is also an
uncomfortable reduction of humanity to a material fact, the brain. A person is a
human being and a human being is a somewhat developed brain missing foresight,
language, math, perception, understanding, reason, etc. Equivocating these terms is
confusing, but there can be no controversy if we knew the factual definition of
person.
If animals are categorically included as legal persons, the problem is partly
resolved making this paper unnecessary. Animal persons along with corporate
persons would then be fully protected by the law forbidding murder, assault,
hunting, torture, caging, restraint, trafficking, slaughter, abuse and require health
care, etc.; for they too would have the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of
13
happiness demanding an untouched environment. By law, we would be
vegetarians, and there would be one universal animal law administered by an
unbiased human species serving the interests of all members. Eating animal flesh
would be viewed with the same disgust as cannibalism.
With the self-serving, open-ended notion of personhood unresolved and indicating
species bias, one can conclude that the US does not know what it is doing in its
abortion project. Given that the US cannot explain its actions in the abortion
project, and given the fact it cannot or is unable or unwilling to define the critical
terms of the legal argument, can we still judge if the ongoing project is right and
wrong? The implication is critical to other arguments for or against vast human
projects with irreversible consequences to animals and their environments such as
the ongoing consequences in the deforestation of Haiti and the ongoing
commercially driven ecocide in Sumatra for palm oil by US business interests. Is it
wrong to ignorantly proceed in other political projects involving incalculable
environmental degradation, dumping, animal experimentations, vivisection, bio
weapons, education, etc? Are these vast trial and error activities even necessary if
overpopulation were under control?
Right or wrong applies to human activities and the judgment of right or wrong does
not come solely from missing definitions or the actor’s ignorance of principles and
consequences. Activities are often empty of critical definitions, logical arguments
and ethical principles, and must be judged on another basis such as their intent and
the consequences. However, waiting on the consequences to transpire to gather
evidence of right or wrong can result in irreversible harm and damage as in the
spraying of herbicides in Vietnam that are still active. Upon what basis can we
make a moral judgment before the consequences occur; when the core actor’s do
not know what they are doing or imagine they do without proof or with contempt
and disregard? The argument for short term gain is an avoidance strategy
justifying the behavior and willfully sidestepping responsibility for the everlasting
devastation. In the abortion project, abortions might be morally justified as a form
of overpopulation control and state sponsored contraception for those unwilling or
incapable of making an informed, free choice. One plausible argument is that our
planet will predictably be overrun with billions of human beings and the pressures
on the finite environment to support them will collapse in ongoing and foreseeable
mass starvation, ruinous climate alterations, the extinction of thousands of
14
environmentally critical species, wars, diseases, devastated oceans, jungles, forests,
rivers, etc. based upon unregulated collective individual behaviors. The
consequences in Haiti and the Nigerian delta speak for themselves.
Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Realism
This argument for population control is clearly Utilitarian for the Greater Good
will probably be impossible to maintain with overpopulation. Few will vote “well
being” in a sick, overcrowded planet, yet in the face of the obvious, uncontrolled
sexual activity in the human species where billions engage in self-unregulated
sexual activity ending in abortions or overpopulation is still considered a human
right. An alternative Utilitarian argument against abortion is plausible if
depopulation was a world problem. This raises the charge that Utilitarian
arguments are relative for they are based upon a moving target termed the Greater
Good, and the Greater Good is a reflection of the status quo. Turning to the
subjective, individual side, Kantian individual duty would forbid abortions for the
consequences such as mass starvation, ecocide of the earth, wars over resources,
etc. are irrelevant. Instead, an “abortion categorical imperative” is irrational
because it cannot be universalized; for it pertains to arguments from egoism, my
body, my interests, my future, etc. Good will cannot be recognized in these
activities. It is self-contradictory; there is no universal, natural law of abortion else
everyone would logically be aborted and humanity extinct. Furthermore,
Kantianism is forced to acknowledge that one cannot use a potentially rational
being for their own ends, but must be treated as ends in themselves. Potentially
rational beings include once rational agents who are delirious, intoxicated,
disturbed, asleep, etc. In other words, from time to time, persons are simply human
beings with the potentiality to regain their rationality. Once acknowledged,
potentiality logically extends the right to life to fetuses, newborns, comatose,
delirious, intoxicated, etc. Realism takes the abortion issue in another direction.
Realism holds that the entire US abortion project is incoherent, beginning with the
undefined concept of personhood at the core of its legal arguments trailed by inane,
ad hoc definitions. Realism holds that free, informed choice is mandatory in all
sexual activities by sexually mature human mammals, and if individual, free,
informed choice has not been or cannot be met, the moral world can intercede and
halt sexual activities by those who break the law with unplanned pregnancies,
replacing instinct with choice. The consequence of unnecessary pregnancies is not
15
abortion, which is elective, but ecocide which is forced by commercial interests. Of
course, if it is the case that the billions of the human species are incapable of free,
informed choices, and admit that their claims to superiority over other species is
delusional, then ecocide is inevitable given our inability to control our instincts.
But we can control our instincts; else no social events other than orgies would be
possible. On the other hand, if the members take full responsibility for their sexual
activities, nature is removed, mankind is then outside of the natural law and
ecocide is unnecessary given a free, informed choice between a sick or well planet.
It is a free, informed choice that separates us from nature, not the vague notion of
personhood. For Realism, abortion is not the issue because instinctual sexual
activity is under the control of choices structured by knowledge of the
consequences and the responsibility for the consequences accepted; rather, before
abortions, unregulated and irresponsible individual, sexual activity is the problem
with the consequence of pregnancy followed by the consequence of
overpopulation, or the free, informed choice of abortion as mandated by law. It is
comical that there is presently no free informed choice legally required before sex,
but there is before abortion. Behaviors and laws based on informed, free choice,
not personhood, is the core argument. Once we know what the consequences of our
actions, the choices are separated into moral or immoral intentions, actions and
consequences. This argument does not center on the definition of personhood or
the arguments for or against abortion, but challenges irresponsible sexual activity
with licensing, insurance, fines, jail, and so on. This model works with automobile
drivers; it can work with overpopulators. Given a mandatory informed free choice,
it is unnecessary to become pregnant and bring about unnecessary greater
suffering. As Sartre contends, there are no [in this case, sexual] accidents. The
harmful consequences of abortions and overpopulation are unnecessary. The
negative consequences to the planet including extinct species of animals and
plants, poisoned rivers, oceans, disrupted weather systems, etc. are unnecessary if
regulated by freely chosen, fully informed individual sexual activities that follow
communal ethical principles that each member must make daily. Reduced demand
for animal and vegetable products will increase. The necessity, the must, lies in the
consequences. Hobbes was correct to hold that we must give up our natural rights,
in this case, uninformed, spontaneous sexual activities in order to form a world free
from overpopulation and the oncoming horrors. The control comes from within as
an informed choice or from without as squalor, disease, starvation, overcrowding,
16
drugs, crime, deforestation, extinctions, pollution, genetic and hormonal
tampering, toxic radioactivity, trial and error experimentations, etc. trying to abate
the inevitable. Our species is held responsible for all consequence to itself and the
earth by its claim to a moral superiority or an honest admittance that it does not
care. Moral superiority requires an adherence to knowingly benefiting, never
unnecessarily harming, all innocent beings. By the evidence, our claim is little
more than that of corporate fueled narcissism, exotic pleasures, irresponsible
energy projects, cheap fuels, cheap foods, and so on for short term profits. We
know but willfully ignore the fact that natural overpopulation in other species is
controlled by natural law with brutal efficiency. The human animal can avoid this
fate with informed free choice in its sexual activities, and a morally grounded legal
system not conflicted by special interests. We hold drivers, tax payers, doctors,
nurses, students, etc. responsible for their judgments, but, sexually mature
participants still claim an irresponsible right to pregnancy with the consequences of
millions of orphans. The earth must be protected by everyone if there even is to be
free, informed choice. Every member is responsible for the consequences. No one
except those incapable of informed free choice can get a free pass. If informed
autonomy is not possible, choices must be made by a morally grounded world
according to the definition of morality. That definition is the delivery of necessary
benefit to innocent beings. A fully informed population is the responsibility of the
educational system, but if education is controlled by political interests and their
fixations rather than educators with proven knowledge, the world project will fail,
and so far, it is an ongoing, unnecessary failure. For realism, given an informed,
free choice, the majority of abortions are unnecessary; it is an immoral activity
because the human mammal, unlike other mammals, according to its own claims of
superiority, has a starting point in a freely, informed conception and an ending
point in a protected earth. All ignorance of the fact of being does not remove
responsibility for the conception. Being is prior to its epistemology including
consciousness, reason, intelligence, etc., as can be observed in the waking of the
comatose where being generates consciousness followed by reason, and it is the
fact of being rather than the fact of consciousness, reason or interests that makes
reason, etc. possible for ethical judgments.
17
(Person is a configuration of ontological, psychosocial, cultural, etc. negations; it is
infinite in that it is the negation of an infinity of negations, yet in the negation of
the infinite, a unique finite unity emerges: am = ~ (am not) unto infinity. )
The Relative
We live in relative worlds divided by beliefs, viewpoints, cultures, insecurities,
genders, abilities, hatreds, opinions, group allegiances, idols, starts, and so on, so
much so that total, comprehensive and structural unity is impossible. This is not a
unity of papered agreements or beliefs, but a unity based upon ontological
structures. Various declarations of rights are paper tigers and feel good delusions.
We strive towards a virtual universality and unity through cell phones, computers,
organizations, etc. overcoming the universal cultural divisions and separation of
space and time. This virtual unity has yet to adhere to ethical structures. The
structures are necessary and autonomous; hence universal to all species. The
ethical world rejects uninformed, unnecessary choices and projects as unethical
structures of disunity. Universal ethics is still a dream because of the diversity of
culture, beliefs, opinions, interests, behaviors etc. found in the virtual world. Every
group and country has its own “ethics” including the Mafia, KKK, Taliban, Cartel,
government, political party, religion, tribe, military, etc. Each organization breaks
down into factional disagreements over their rules and behaviors making it
impossible to reach universal agreement. Murdering a schoolgirl for is good for the
Taliban and evil for Western viewpoints. Common belief holds that cultures differ
and should be respected, so moral judgments are improper in judging behaviors of
other cultures in the relative side of reality especially by those who have their own
unjust history to explain. Each county does as it pleases with its indigenous
peoples, land and animals. Resources continue to be exploited in the West, species
extinguished, ecosystems transformed into thriving businesses, water and minerals
rights exchanged, and so on; so what business is it of hypocritical outsiders if the
rhino, elephant, whale, bear, wolf, rainforest, are bought and sold, or slaughtered
for national interests? After all, for example, Americans stole Indian lands,
slaughtered millions of buffalo, extinguished the passenger pigeon, devastated the
plains with industrial farming, non indigenous species, introduce invasive species,
displaced tribes, genetic tampering, dumping toxins and chemicals into rivers,
buried radioactive debris, deregulated industries to alter river ecologies, and so
on.
18
The relative takes us into a moral void. Child and animal trafficking are just novel
business ventures serving needs, and the rules against them are simply human
agreements based on strong emotions in limiting these activities to acceptable
levels. Other cultures have no problem in promoting these activities. They are
written off as untouchables, inferiors, stupid, unlucky, etc. They are profitable.
History shows that agreements reflect changes in the political environment so that
the blood sports of ancient Rome dedicated to the emperor were replaced by torture
and burning at the stake by religious inquisitors for Christ. Any activity can be
justified within the relative. The slaughter of entire species and their habitats based
on human food, beauty, housing, clothing, business and energy behaviors, or
human interests is sometimes disgusting, but so what? There are no screaming
headlines or sections of the newspaper devoted to these activities such as sports
screaming headlining superbowls of soccer, basketball or football. This is progress,
and who would dare protest that? The sanctification of human interests is now a
universal dictum that is challenged at one’s peril. Once common trees, animal
horns, plants, birds, etc. are rare or gone, but their value increases due to scarcity.
Scarcity of ivory, horns, skins, meats, wood, etc. is good for business. Palm oil
interests turns rainforests into plantations; thousands of miles of savannas are being
turned into soy and sugar cane plantations; cattle ranchers burn thousands of acres
everyday transforming forests into sterile habitats; poachers and trappers are
everywhere. Under the relative, moral arguments for right or wrong activities
dissolve into conflicting opinions and are soon forgotten. If existent, laws vary or
are ignored, or altered to satisfy public opinion, and poorly enforced. Most species
now survive in zoos and game ranches. Laws vary according human needs and
their punishments more so. Things will not change without a disaster, but a direct
connection to ecocide is difficult if not impossible to prove. Stuck in their private
interests, most do not realize or care that ecocide of the earth is an ongoing
certainty.
The Absolute
Hegel held the Absolute is truth and Being. Hegel’s Being is an idea. The
individual is real when the universal, the category, is determined within it. The
mind detects these categories, and forms meaningful subjective experience.
Experience is expanded from sensual to cognitive. Experience is presented in
19
sensual and cognitive, but the cognitive aspect must be developed. If it is not
experienced, it is not real. Being is only real as a part of the Idea.
Nature and Logic are inseparable for they are sides of one process. They are
reifications within the process of development. Thought does not create nature nor
does nature create thought. Thought does not create things. It discovers itself
within things. There is nothing behind knowledge. The dialectic is the movement
of the Idea to the Absolute through thesis/antithesis and their synthesis or sublation
of two false sides into a true synthesis by holding both in a new formation. Reason
is concrete, not abstract and empty; reason is the unfolding of the Idea in space and
time. There a logical structure among the categories of experience. The end is the
Absolute that has no categorical instability. The categories are unstable and limited
resulting in contradictions. The dialectic forces the contradiction to appear. The
concrete thought, notion, is the unity of two sides, two contradictions, in a
synthesis.
Subject, Object, Mind and Nature
Opposed to the Relative is the Absolute. The Absolute is found in unity,
universality, oneness, etc. The Absolute is logically outside spacetime,
transcendental, but occasionally it is experienced. We are offended by relative
justice that gives minimal to maximum sentences and fines for identical crimes, yet
the crimes and their consequences remain absolute.
The Absolute is apparent in zoology, biology, astronomy, and all sciences. Under
the intuition of being, evolutionary forms manifest in the individual or generalized
in the species has its cancelation in the universal form of the genera. This
relationship between the genera, species and individual is a momentary set of
reifications of an evolving organic fractal process. The Relative is the Absolute
separated by spacetime in a struggle for reunification. This return to itself through
finitude and finite infinities is the shift in the paradigm.
The Relative and Absolute are sides of the absolute/relative paradigm. Under the
absolute, the life/death paradigm is an entry and exist point into the Relative. The
Absolute side is infinite positive unity with the gestalt of life and the Relative side
is finite negative division that shifts back to the Absolute upon death. It is though a
coin shifts into one side then back to its other side without a flip; it is though a
20
mountain is defined by its valley, not in the perspective. This paradigm is itself the
platform of evolving paradigms. The Absolute side presents itself in what Hegel
termed bad infinities such as the endless count of planets and galaxies or ethical
oughts as in there ought to be... Plato placed the Absolute outside of spacetime in a
Heaven of forms, yet even the forms are in spacetime which he thought were
copies. Kant found the Absolute in the categorical imperatives. Parmenides held
the Absolute or One was outside of spacetime. Kant placed the Absolute in the
categorical imperative. And so forth.
Philosophers deal with the positive manifestations of the Absolute such as
perfection, infinity, justice, beauty, truth, etc. yet their opposites are also present.
Imperfection, injustice, falsity, ugliness, finitude, etc. are common experiences and
difficult to explain. Hegel’s dialectic synthesized the opposites into a rational
process where the evolving idea is reality. Rather than an evolving idea absorbing
its opposite, becoming a new idea containing the seeds of its own destruction, it is
being that evolves, and not through rational negations, but through ontological
negations. For Hegel, the concrete, upon phenomenological analysis, dissolves into
ideas such as primary and secondary qualities within the movement of time and
space. Kant and Hegel gave the idea ontological source code, but this is a virtual
world, and unacceptable. Being cannot be an idea, but is the source and ground of
ideas and the mind. A mind fixated on one side brings about various hallucinations
and false causes. Fixated upon matter, spirit disappears into blood sports,
vivisection, experimentations, extinctions, and slaughters. Fixated upon spirit,
worship of animals and denial of the flesh follows. Mental and ontological
reifications differ in that a mental reification such as racism forms and invisibly
spreads and endures through education and observation while an ontological
reification forms in ecological adaptations such as canines. Fixated upon canines,
humans interfere with ecological reifications and produce variations that cannot
survive on their own. They only survive in the world where they are completely
dependent on humans.
Being must hold reality including the experiences of ontological contradictions
such as injustice, evil, good, justice, perfection, imperfection, finitude, infinitude,
even the absolute and relative, etc. The paradigm of two sides shifting one into the
other explains this. Thus good is the absence of evil when its side has shifted into
the present displacing evil, only to shift back into evil in the future. The paradigm
21
shifts into evil as it shifts from extensionality into intentionality. Infinity is found
in the endless finite amount of perspectives, particles, and other evolving fractal
formations. In this way, the one is the many as the many is the one. They are
inseparable sides, but one side surfaces to dominate the other, itself. Aristotle’s
Golden Mean aimed at halting the shifts in a limited way, and Hegel held that a
suspension of the dialectic could not hold for long. Can the paradigm be
suspended?
The entire evolutionary process is within the Relative as it momentarily shifts into
the Absolute. The Absolute is the Relative outside of spacetime and in spacetime is
finite being. The medium of spacetime is the separation of being from being. The
drive towards absolute unity is offset by the laws of survival and adaptation that
reorganize the process separating being from being. A similar process is evident in
the world such as religion that continually breaks down into factions. The process
begins at the most general, the universal, the absolute, and breaks down into
individuals. Of course, the individual is the starting point and holds the universal,
the species, the genera, the universal formula in its smallest particle. The synthesis
or drive towards ontological unity and the relentless analysis or drive towards
ontological separation is the struggle for dominance between the sides of the
Absolute/Relative paradigm. These sides are not substances, nor are they processes,
for they are only sides of their own paradigm. The instant one side appears
substantial, it reflects process, and process appears substantial only to dissolve into
process. This is the nature of reality, from the atom to the universe.
The Paradigm
The paradigm of reality is ontological, not psychological or mental such as the
Copernican Revolution. The paradigm of reality is completely independent of the
mind for it generates mind or its self-reflection. The mind is generated in the
negation of sides forming the paradigm of in/out. The Absolute/Relative paradigm
is the immaterial-material universe or concrete universal. Both the structure and
being of the universe; it is a singular unity and unified multitude of beings, both
divine Being and mundane beings. All categories of one and many, quantity and
quality, structure and function, etc., of this evolving yet changeless paradigm
bloom like flowers. The paradigm shifts in its structure and function reflecting
within being in its polarity. This reflection within particles of finite being enables
22
consciousness symbolization of the unchanging process or the rational/irrational
and evil/good for death and misery can shift into life and happiness. The shift is
not aligned in any special way, no more than true north or south is but another
point upon a compass of Relativity. The paradigm is not a compass but polarized
concrete universal neither containing nor externalizing itself nor paradigms
generated, or in other words, there is only the paradigm realizing itself in finite and
infinite physical and immaterial paradigms, in spatial and temporal medium of
past, present and future locations as it moves through the Relative. If it externalizes
itself as outside and inside, this paradigm forms other paradigms because what is
outside the paradigm but its inside? What is its other? Only itself in shifting, static
polarized gestalts. Each gestalt emerges with the conscious reification of a shift,
and this is a reification for each shift is its gestalted consciousness. If the spiritual
and material are poles of a paradigm, then how is pantheism avoided? Pantheism is
the polarity of its other, theism and deism, inside or outside. God emerges in an
alienated form, the negation of its other, finite beings. God both intervenes through
natural laws and stands apart for God is infinite. We experience God in the
negation of finitude, imperfection, deception, and evil. These negations are the
transcendental of good, justice, truth, beauty, perfection, and so on. We experience
them as absent. We have sensuous knowledge of God’s body, the universe, nature,
but not the form, for there is no sensuous knowledge of the form. One has sensuous
knowledge of a marble or coin, but not the form of the cosmos. We have moral
knowledge of the world through analysis and synthesis of intentions and the
sensuous consequences. The world is both evil and good for it harms innocent
beings and helps others. Children and animals are sacrificed out of fear,
superstition, selfishness, tradition, greed, anger, etc., and the suspension of the
paradigm through the world is the momentary gestalt of good or evil. The
knowledge of good and evil is the polarity of the universe, and each pole struggles
against its other. The suspension in the concrete universal of Christ is the free
choice of conscious being when learnt. There is no Absolute in the Relative, yet
they are identical in Christ. Yet this is a moment in the universe spanning billions
of years, years measured by the rotation of the Earth, measured by instruments of
finite beings that can disappear with another comet.
Rather than focusing on essence such as species, this analysis concerns being.
Absolute Being is the negation of Relative being. Absolute is therefore one side of
23
reality. The other side of reality is the Relative. This is the paradigm of
absolute/relative that philosophy has struggled with through the ages. Parmenides
held the relative side is an illusion. Most philosophy holds that reality is relative,
yet they cannot avoid absolute claims such as Kant’s claim that truth is an
absolute, or Hume’s claim that conditioning and habits are the uncertain basis of
science (except this claim), reality is relative (reality is absolutely relative), all
claims must be empirically verifiable (except this one), etc. The Absolute side is
inescapable; its very denial is its manifestation. It must be dealt with as a side of
reality. The Absolute is a common experience in our reflections upon being. The
Absolute undergoing change is the Relative, and the Relative when frozen is the
Absolute. It is an absolute fact that certain beings are within the present and others
are extinct because of our contempt for their innocence or they could not adapt to
the natural conditions.
As the Absolute side is the ontological negation of its Relative side, it is the logical
cancellation of all relative paradigms. This negation is not not-being in the
paradigm of being/not being which is within the Relative; instead, it is the negation
of Relativity or finite being separated by spacetime aiming towards unification; the
separation is overcome by the paradigm of negation and negation of the negation;
the negation of the negation ending the state of finitude; the negation of finite
being is infinite Being; the negation of finite being is not nothing for nothing is the
negation of something or a side of the nothing/something paradigm; the negation of
space/time paradigm is the unchanging; the negation of the material universe is the
immaterial universe, and so on. The absolute negation is the presence of the
Absolute.
This is the a priori structure of reality experienced by conscious finite human
beings. We experience infinitude in the infinity of negations and unities found in a
beach or river process described by Heraclitus. We experience the unchanging in
change; permanence of non permanence, and so forth. We glimpse the absolute.
The Absolute is understood in its concrete negations. The micro instantly shifts
into the mega for they are inseparable sides of a paradigm. They are not mental
constructs, but ontological formations. The inside is inseparable from the outside;
in is its own universe as out is its own defined by its opposite; both define the
other, and the universe cannot be separated from its smallest particle, but the
24
Absolute side of Reality can be experienced through several points of entry. Can
the Absolute enter the Relative through man?
The Absolute shifts into the Relative through human ethical choice; not to choose
is instinctual, reactive and Relative such as flight or fight, else it is a choice and
Absolute; to choose is free and Absolute; it is a momentary manifestation, yet
endures in the consequences; for example, Roman choices still impact the present
in extinct species and damaged habitats; the consequences are in the present as the
ecocide of Haiti; so, the Relative shifts into the Absolute in the ethical form of the
consequences. This human form of consciousness is inescapably spiritual. Spiritual
does not mean angelic choirs, but simple choices and their consequences.
Human beings evolved into a thought-separation, isolation and disconnect from
nature glorified in the definitions of man’s essence as reason, cognition, the cogito,
etc, which supposedly excludes other species and gives dominion over nature. This
virtual cognitive separation magnified and reified into a pseudo psychotic
superiority complex permitting a theatre of horrors upon animals and
environments. The human world vs. nature emerged. Pointless experimentations,
pollution, toxic dumping, genetic tampering, environmental alterations, species
modifications, mass extinctions, ecosystem tampering and destruction, etc. are
allowed and encouraged and funded. Our exalted speciesism is not an illusion
because it is perceptual in our behavior, instruments, entities, commerce, weapons,
machinery, etc, and their consequences, and it encourages, supports and defends
mass hallucinations such as
Americans, Nationalism, Russians, etc. and
reifications such as religions, corporatism, militarism, racism, nationalism, etc.
There are no human subspecies termed American, Russian, IBM, bankers,
Catholic, New Yorkers, etc. The only reality is human beings among other beings,
not their titles, wardrobes, costumes, cultures, beliefs, religions, etc.
Ontology
Few philosophies have any claim to ontology. They are self-limited by their own
parameters, methodologies, and structures. Phenomenology starts and ends in
descriptions. Empiricism starts and ends with the observables. Language analysis
starts and ends with language, and finalized with Wittgenstein’s silence.
Transcendental idealism is blocked by self-imposed antinomies and paralogisms.
25
Positivism ends in empirical verifications of all claims with the exception of its
own rule. Aristotelian ousia begins in being but ends in pure thought. Realism is a
thoroughly ontological philosophy. It begins with being and ends in Being. Being,
Absolute Being, is the perfection of finite being, and finite being realizes that when
it has developed itself to an irreplaceable fact.
Transcendental Existentialism
Existentialism
Spacetime is the separating medium of being. It also permeates being. Spacetime
shifted to the interior ends in distortions just as a shift to the exterior ends in
various systems and postulates.The unifying medium of being is Nature.
Existentialism is the virtual world of the human mammal in spacetime that the
human world controls.The world is a human medium offsetting and managing
spacetime ending in the destruction of or benefit to nature. Humans intend to
suspend death, disease, hunger, thirst, weather, etc. Humans bring their ideas and
intentions into existence, not being. These ideas and intentions become concrete,
and this is easily confused with being because the world is dependent on the
human mind, but independent of perception. For this reason, humans confuse being
with existence. To clarify the divide, devices within this world are said to exist.
They are denied ontological status. Devices exist. Because they are independent of
perception, they are easily confused with being and the infinitive to be is
misapplied. Devices exist, beings are. Beings are independent of ideas and
perception. Ideas exist outside of perception by virtue of their material
encasements. The patterns are preserved for some relative time and space. The
minds that generated the ideas are often gone, their underlying being has shifted to
nonbeing, yet they endure and their intentions transcend their origins. Bombs from
past wars where all actors are long dead are discovered and remain dangerous.
Naming natural beings only brings them into existence, not being. Naming a “new”
species does not bring these beings into being; rather it only brings them into the
human world. “Discovery” of patterns through instruments such as diseases or
subatomic particles brings these patterns into existence; into the human world with
a time and place stamp, and the world bickers over their “ownership.” Unlike
subjective ownership of objects, possession is a recognized, universal fact of being.
Possession is concrete ownership of being as in the recognition that the tree, forest,
26
animal, species, etc. possess certain traits. Animals recognize the fact of separate
beings in possession in other animals such as speed, strength, weapons, etc.
Humans also recognize the fact of being in other species and their powers and
possessions. Humans also abstract materialized patterns establishing their supposed
ownership of entities that are independent of their perception. Berkeley’s dictum to
be is to be perceived (by spirits) works if restated to exist is to be perceived by the
human mammal. In other words, the template is the pattern of the human state of
being reducing and ridiculing the facts of being in order to gain a perspective of
moral superiority and property rights over innocent beings and their mediums.
Housing subdivisions, crop yields, economic patterns, sewage systems, dumps,
energy grids, etc. sustain the moral superiority of the virtual over natural systems.
The human template takes on the mask “reality.” Devices comprising the template
are independent of perception but dependent on the minds that generated them. The
human mind depends upon an underlying being. This being is a process of shifting
between immaterial and material sides while devices only serve the purposes of
human beings. Devices endure spacetime through human intervention and
education while being endures spacetime by adaptation, instinct, conformity to
natural laws, etc. Being is or is not. Devices exist or not. Being has an essence
while devices hold human purposes and their intentions. Devices and beings are
independent of perception inherent in all beings resulting in confusion between
them and beings; however, beings are independent of the mind while devices are
not. Beings are not ideas. Being form patterns, but the patterns are not beings.
Patterns (ideas) are transferred into material containers forming devices and
instruments. Human patterns are residuals from templates that harm or benefit the
world and earth. These patterns therefore must be controlled. The template, often
named the Greater Good, is a reified pattern of harm or benefit to the world or
earth. The aggregate of beings is not independent of Being. Beings are dependent
on the medium of living being or the Earth. Devices are concrete human ideas such
as guns, zones, laws, books, boats, monuments, bridges, economies, etc. forming a
reified state of being termed the World. Ancient Rome is within perception for its
devices such as its temples have not entirely disappeared. The Roman mind is
gone, and subsequently, the virtual Roman State is gone. The gladiatorial games,
gods, slavery, crucifixions, etc. are gone. Thus cars, bombs, money, economies,
states, cities, etc. are independent of perception. When one blinks, they are still
there. They are not illusions or fantasies. However, they are dependent on the
27
human thought that generated and maintains them. They are products of the mind,
and they have decodable human intentions embedded within them. These
intentions are decoded by the human mind as purposes, functions, tools, etc. They
hold intentions that are decoded as infinitives such as to kill, to cut, to
communicate, etc. They form the world, and the human world is a virtual schema
and aggregate of materialized ideas or concrete infinitives. To distinguish the
world from reality, the world has existence. The only infinitive found within being
is the a priori infinitive to be. The world is a virtual, epistemic “reality” without an
ontological foundation. It is independent of perception, but not thought. Being is
the alpha and omega of existence. Existence is a means to an end, and not an end in
itself. The world serves man; man does not serve the world. This world has two
ethical forms, good or evil.
For Kant, objects are epistemological formations while things are unknowable
ontological formations that give off data that provides the content for the
categories to process into understandable objects. Things or beings stand behind
the veil of appearances and appearances are known as mental objects, not things in
themselves, not beings. Kant’s transference of the natural categories described by
Aristotle into mental categories governed by reason is necessary to avoid
Ptolemaic errors and the cognitive dissonance of transcendental realism.
Copernican knowledge is a logically ordered combination of objects, and objects
are combinations of a priori categories and empirical data within subjective
spacetime. The rational mind provides the form while the body provides the
sensory data in spacetime. Appearances are elevated into combinations of rational
ideas that organize their content of empirical data into objects of science that can
be engineered into a rational world of de novo concrete ideas. Solipsism is
overcome through a rationally structured intra subjective world of ideas and virtual
objects--provided reason is limited to empirical content. Synthetic a priori
knowledge is the foundation of our world, and Hume’s skepticism overcome
through cognitive assonance. The soul, God, and origins of the universe are
unknowable for their properties are purely conceptual, forms and categories empty
of sensory data.
Transcendental idealism is inseparable from empirical realism. Inductive science is
the result. Science solves various mysteries such as crimes through DNA,
cause/effect, logic, mathematics, temporal and spatial measurements, ballistics, etc.
28
and by these applications of the mind to appearances, logic overcomes irrationality
and error. The court of reason examines the evidence and determines guilt or
innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Transcendental idealism and empirical
realism are necessary to engineer a rational community according to science and
law. This community is the world, and the world is virtual meaning it an artificial,
but rational, logically organized state according to the laws of mind. Science and
law rest securely on epistemology, not ontology. Synthetic a priori judgments
translate into a scientific utopia regulated by logic and duty to follow categorical
imperatives.
The combination of idealism and empirical realism is herein termed
“transcendental existentialism” that is removed from God, soul or ultimate origins.
Transcendental existentialism is our virtual world that has transcended these
metaphysical problems. The regulated mind is limited to appearances, but this is
not a problem for building a rational world. Virtual objects come into existence by
engineering their material forms replicating natural laws in order to control and
regulate restructured appearances. Nature is a means to this end. Nature is the
canvas upon which science fabricates the world. De novo objects correspond to
their synthetic a priori judgments and it is a triumph of the rational community.
Transcendental existentialism is a combination of transcendental idealism and
empirical realism. It is no more than the virtual existence of object epistemology,
unworkable categorical imperatives, hypothetical imperatives, mental categories,
instruments and choices that cannot find evil in Draize testing, unnecessary animal
experimentations, vivisection, LD50, bioweapon technology, extinctions, ecocides
of Africa, America, Tibet, and Indonesia, etc. Although Kantianism tries to filter
out egoism through reason; for the environment and non-rational animals, it
supports ecocide in its anthropomorphic dogma. If being is a category of the mind,
what is generated is insignificant for it does not exist in itself and has no reality
outside of the mind that generated it. It is an intellectually supported mass
psychosis of self absorbed narcissism with an overriding contempt for the earth
and innocent beings acted out in ecocides resulting in unnecessary` filth, waste,
desertification, suffering, contamination, and extinction.
An example of the principles can be found in the case of vivisection. The
vivisectionist claims to dissect the conscious animal out of scientific curiosity or
29
purpose, and otherwise does not have intent to harm it, and therefore the act is
claimed to be moral. The act is claimed necessary to scientific knowledge without
proof. The rational, scientific, political and legal communities do not disapprove,
and tacitly approve. The nonscientific response to the act is disgust, horror, boos,
etc. which are emotive fallacies, irrational behaviors, irrational moral arguments, if
such arguments even can be found, for ethical claims cannot be objectively
verified.
Freedom
Freedom from and freedom to constitute the free side of the freedom/determined
paradigm. This transition into freedom to immediately becomes a struggle, freedom
from. This is material in a physical escape from an alien physical body and
immaterial in a spiritual escape from a nonmaterial form such as a ignorance.
However, one broken link in the chain of determinism does not remove the chain.
The absolute is materialized in the infinity of the universe and shifts into
spiritualized matter in a few species in their choices. Worlds are spiritual because
they are formed out of free choices between good and evil. A cure or a bioweapon
are spiritual choices. The shift from determinism as in the formation of mountains
or cell death, to freedom present in choices confirms this paradigm of being. Ethics
is a rare structure of appearances we term the chosen world. The elimination of
unnecessary suffering of innocent being is the ethical world project. This translates
into providing necessary benefits such as habitat, water, forests, and the
containment of diseases in all finite beings within the world. Those habitats outside
of the world should be left alone or the virtual human world will collapse. This is
certain from past worlds such as Easter Island and present worlds such as Haiti.
The freedom/determined paradigm is ontological for it does not require the mind;
consciousness is freedom from unconsciousness as in a coma, just as
unconsciousness is freedom from consciousness as in unbearable pain, but it
cannot free itself from being nor can it generate being without making a choice.
Being generates consciousness through negation, and consciousness generates
ontic choice such as flight or fight. Consciousness transcends ontic choice with an
existential choice by generating options, The world provides options that are
mental in their origins, thus knowable. A finite organic being must be free from
30
something such as a disease, thirst, pain, etc. in order to act according to instinct or
choice and complete its essential unity by thriving and reproducing. The ethical
world assures this for the Earth’s inhabitants. These examples are necessities of
well being, and necessity of well being becomes consciousness of itself in the
ontological negation of well being or the shift into ill being. These negations are
only associated with pain for pain may or may not be present. Pain and pleasure
are sensory indicators of harm or benefit. Harm and benefit are ontic shifts into
disunity or unity. These shifts are natural consequences of the earth or artificial
consequences of the world.
The material/immaterial paradigm shifts from autonomy to determinism when illbeing, or absolute death for there is no absolute health in nature. Life is the door
into the relative and death is the door into the Absolute. Life is the exit point from
the Absolute into the Relative; death is the exit point from the Relative into the
Absolute. This is an ontic negation where life is a positive side and death a
negative side of finite being. Within the positive side of life are the sides of well
and ill being. An ethical virtual-world shapes well-being; an unethical virtual
world shapes ill-being. Finite being is opposed to infinite being. Finite being shifts
between ill and well-being in the paradigm of spacetime into the unity of infinite
Being outside of spacetime and relativity. The human mammal shifts momentarily
into the absolute with its informed free choice and eternally into the absolute with
its death. It is absolutely alive moment by moment. Its individual form is an eternal
fact because it is unique. Its ethical form endures in space/time as the
consequences to other beings by its choices. The moral facts of its actions are
momentarily and eternally registered and cannot be undone. This is proven in the
negation of finite being and its shift into infinite being; the only possible shift.
Freedom from something enables freedom to choose, and once freed from a
restraint or barrier; it is a redundancy to claim free choice because choice is
absolute freedom. This is evident when within the restraint or barrier there are
micro choices. The transition from choice to reflex is a shift from immaterial
necessity to material necessity. In the human mammal, reflex is cause and effect.
Reflex is not a choice. Nevertheless, choice is burdened by unknown consequences
and requires absolute knowledge to be perfectly free. Imperfect choice is burdened
by ignorance of the consequences and material determinism in cause/effect
paradigms unleashed. This requires knowledge of the instrument and its effects
31
upon innocent beings. Complete freedom from ignorance is an impossible demand,
and the shift back into relativity and guessing the outcome is certain. Until the duty
of knowledge of the infinity of consequences is complete per choice, the world
remains in the immoral side of the moral/immoral paradigm. Knowledge of the
harm and benefit of the consequences generates the shift out of immorality into
morality with the selection of benefits. The application of that knowledge
determines the ethical form of good or evil. The duty of a moral world is to seek
ethical knowledge and its application to all being.
In the world, an equality of options is necessary to call a society free. The
paradigm becomes clearer: it is a determined choice to learn in order to be free of
ignorance. This constitutes necessity within the ethical matrix. Those who
purchase more options have more choices and are freer than those with less. Free
choice is mired in the materiality of options. Yet, free choice must be free from
ignorance in order to recognize and work the options. Take the option of position
acquired from knowledge of an impending tsunami: caught in a tsunami, those who
can swim have more options than those who cannot; those with a position of height
have more than those at sea level; those with access to a helicopter have more than
those on foot, etc. To choose or not to choose is a choice. To be there or not be
there is a choice only possible through knowledge of the impending disaster and
the knowledge of its arrival time and escape time. Individual and collective actions
are classified as spontaneous or controlled choices. Sartre was correct in holding
that the human species is condemned to be free. This is a burden animals do not
have. Humans know their intentions are good or evil and the consequences of their
actions as good or evil. They know if their actions are necessary or unnecessary.
They know animals are innocent beings.
Classification is a reflection of the presence or absence in the ontic formation of
choice. Conditioned collective actions externally orchestrated by behaviors
following laws, religions, cultures, shared beliefs, businesses, etc. break down into
an individual’s ethical or unethical acts by informed, misinformed, poorly
informed, and willfully ignorant free choice. Free choice is separated from
necessary choice by knowledge. Knowledge transforms necessary choice
expressed as I had no choice which is itself a choice into free choice between
acting or not acting, and free choice transcends the present by taking the
consequences into a virtual future.
32
Acting without knowledge is a blind choice as to the future. Traversing a landmine
field is an example. Having a map enables free choice. Most will choose not to step
on a landmine. Knowing one has months to live enables free choice. Knowing how
to prevent a disease removes choices made from fear and ignorance. On the other
hand, making diseases as weapons is a choice of evil for it brings intentional,
unnatural, unnecessary harm upon innocent beings. Ignorance of lifesaving
techniques or basic medical applications limits choices in emergency situations to
physical positions or seeking out those with knowledge in order to make an
informed choice
Perceptual necessary choice or determined choice is limited by circumstance. For
example, without knowledge of the exits, in a fire choices are limited to perceptual
options shifting into determined choices when the options shift from many to one
as in there is one visible exit. If there is only one perceptible exit, the choice is to
exit or stay with incomplete knowledge of the consequences.
Informed necessary choice is limited to instrumental options such as vaccines in
the presence of a disease. The knowledge of polio informs one’s choices, and this
knowledge transcends perceptual options such as fleeing the area. Knowledge is a
complete understanding and control of the disease. This knowledge includes
models, testing, theories of immunity, etc. and a vaccination. The choice between
good and evil remains open with this knowledge. One may choose to benefit or
harm. This is spiritual in that the informed intention does not exist in nature, only
in the world by choice. It cannot be explained by behaviorism, materialism,
determinism, psychology, etc. In this regard, Plato was correct to place the good
outside of spacetime. The chosen form of the intention is inseparable from the
human being that generated it and instrumentally encases it in the world. The
world paradigm of good/evil transcends its origins and endures beyond those who
chose and implemented it. Figuratively, the world chooses heaven or hell. It is
immoral to choose a world built on ignorance of the consequences. This is not evil
if unintentional, but immoral if the consequences are unknown. If willfully
ignorant, then immoral becomes evil.
Ontology
33
Ontological is the reflected logic of being. This logic is the paradigm of is/is not.
This paradigmatic process is consciousness. This process has a memory in the
essence. The essence in spacetime forms a history available to consciousness. The
history is confirmed through various sciences such as paleontology that links
appearances to the present. Being in spacetime appears as essence. Thus, that
human being is the appearance: that, the fact of a being with a structured
appearance, an essence, human.
Necessity is neither rational nor physical; rather, it is ontological; ontic necessity
shifts back and forth from material into spiritual being including rational and
irrational shifts. Ontological necessity is seen in attacking/defensive moves. The
logic of defending against one is less complex than fighting off two attackers.
Knowledge of attacking and defending as found in animal societies increase the
unity of being, while ignorance decreases the unity of being. Ontic necessity is
universal, not by an a priori concept exclusive to a rational being, but by an a priori
formation present in every being, to be. This formation of this paradigm is the
ontic logic of its unity that stands opposed to its disunity, not to be. That ontic
disunity is associated with pleasure and pain. For example, in various animal
societies, losing a family member is an inseparable spiritual and physical pain.
Thus, to be is a side of the paradigm of being/not being. The unity of being is built
upon the negation of being as other, and being undifferentiated not recognizing
itself for it is separated in spacetime with different essences, evolves by negation
of its alienated forms according to natural laws and evolution.
Being in spacetime is a paradigm of process/substance, and its evolution is a
process of greater unification. At war with itself, negated as different essences,
being in spacetime must obey natural laws, and therefore, cannot judge itself as
moral or immoral, but winner/loser, full/starving, etc. The law of survival is
universal, yet the human species has learned to suspend evolution taking itself out
of a state of natural innocence and into a virtual matrix of instrumental ideas
termed entities.
The Human World
This virtual state is termed the world, and it is now morally responsible for all
innocent being. This knowledge is grounded a priori in the state of well-being or ill
34
being, and this corresponds to unity or disunity of being in nature. World
disruptions of the natural systems are violations of ethical knowledge and duties,
termed immoral. This condemnation, the world is knowingly immoral, corresponds
to a fact of unnecessary ill being caused by the world upon itself and nature that it
regards as its property. The world knowingly depends upon nature because natural
laws transcend and govern world laws and are misused by the world against its
components and nature. In spite of its knowledge, the world hallucinates that it is
independent of nature and in charge of its destiny with its knowledge and devices.
Micro unities are particular essences dispersed in spacetime such as a canine, and
macro unities are species dispersed in spacetime such as canidae. This is the
paradigm of one/many where one species is comprised of micro unities and one
micro unity carries the essence of its species. The dispersion of being in spacetime
is finite being seeking absolute unity in its essence or species and each essence or
kind seeks unity with all other essences. Yet this is not possible for the unity of
each essence requires the disunity of other essences for survival. The world
provides a transcendence of this evolutionary process. Just as it destroys unities so
too can it unify all of nature. This is its ethical project, through knowledge to
provide necessary benefit to natural beings and stop the disunity of essences in
evolution and natural selection. Nature does not serve man; man serves nature
through his knowledge of well and ill-being.
Since the world is not cognitively or ontologically independent of nature, it is
merely a virtual or existential state that depends upon reality for its existence.
Continued denial of this fact in justification of its actions will result in its
inexistence. The world knows this, yet it continues to act as if in a state of natural
innocence and denial thereby avoiding its responsibility. Pollution is blamed on the
weather; attacks upon humans are blamed upon the animals rather than human
stupidity; leaking reactors and poisons are blames on tsunamis and fault lines; and
so on. Nature is not responsible for any state of the world, but the world is now
responsible for any unnatural state of nature.
The mind merely reflects reality; it does not generate it. What it generates are
intentions embedded within materials; it brings instruments to shape of world of
computers, subdivision, hotels, highway systems, etc. that in themselves cannot
sustain humanity. This theatre only contains us. The world theatre continues to
35
alienate the human mammal from nature. Since the human mind cannot generate
being, being is outside of it and the mind must conform to it. The mind cannot
think something into being, but it can think something into existence. By
transforming the object into an entity, it engineers a world. By choice, that world is
good or evil.
Only the real is valuable. Fantasy collapses back into reality. The real is being and
not to value it for a fantasy ends in disaster. When we wake up and the dreams
fade. The world theatre sustains these fantasies and vanities allowing humans to
deceive themselves into false essences, make-believe states of being, and false
escapes. Devaluing the earth and transforming it into a human playground destroys
ecosystems. Thousands of species pay the price for our fixations and
hallucinations. To value being over fantasy leads to a choice between ill and well
being. Well-being brings quality and quantity of life and ill being suffering.
The human mind will continue to deceive itself on its powers to invent reality, but
the program, the show, the game, the fantasy will come to an end and the theater of
our species closed by a shocking reality of a devastated planet and intolerable
suffering followed by the typical avoidances of responsibility and excuses: if we
had only known, why didn’t they tell us, why did this happen, and so on. Only with
infinite pain will the mind stop altering the state of natural being and stop using
natural laws against nature in order to transform it into a fantasy of private estates
with perfect views, parks and zoos. Hidden behind this dreamscape are dumps,
desolated habitats, millions of plant and animal extinctions, animal torture, genetic
tampering, modified weather and ocean temperatures, toxic aquifers, trophies, strip
mines, endless subdivisions, overcrowded cities teaming with diseases, overfished
oceans, polluted habits, etc. termed ecocide.
Philosophers have tried to give being to ideas and the mind. Plato held that ideas
were real and outside of spacetime in heaven. Kant held the mind holds the
category of reality and moved spacetime from the outside into the inside as mental
scaffolding. Hegel held that the rational universe is real. Berkeley held that
percepts are real. Russell held that all ideas have being. These arguments are
denied on the basis of independence and conformity. Reality is independent of the
mind and its products; subsequently, the mind must conform to reality, not its own
devices or products. Ethical principles are taken from reality, not the mind that
36
only verifies the principles within ontology, not psychology, neurology, sociology,
economics, politics, or any other cognitive disciplines that study the world of man.
The supposed externally controlled action as in ‘cultural pressure forces us to do
such and such’ is in fact an individual free choice under control. This control is not
the environment, not the society, not the body nor the soul, but the body/soul
paradigm gestalting free choice. A burning body is controlled by external pain and
pleasure removing a choice between these opposed sensations termed conditioning.
The intentional shift into soul out of the burning body with knowledge of the
consequences is also a shift into immateriality and spirituality outside of
spacetime. This is certain from Buddhist priests who burn themselves alive to
death for spiritual unity of freedom against their oppressors. This is not possible
for the majority, and anyone under torture has no choice in their painful reactions.
Thus, a selected action as in voting cannot constitute a reaction of which there is
no choice as in being tortured. Mega and micro reactions cannot be the foundation
of ethics; rather, they are empirical verifications of consequences.
Acting according to discriminatory, ecocide laws or their unstated rules out of
conditioning and habit is immoral because the laws and rules are built upon
unnecessary harm to innocent beings and ignorance of the society. Spontaneous
collective actions such as migrations due to disasters are not considered ethical or
unethical. Spontaneous acts are not the foundation of ethics for the consequences
are unknown and uncontrolled. Customary collective actions such as vacations,
rituals, ceremonies, etc. are relative and cannot be a universal foundation.
Assigned responsibility is probably outside of animal societies, but an indication of
an ethical human society through instruments of knowledge. The responsibility
cannot be relative, but is universal and specifically assigned when based on the
foundation of being. Spontaneous or automatic collective and individual acts are
neither unethical nor ethical in animal societies, but in the human world they are
unconditionally moral or immoral since they can be controlled through intended,
informed free choices expressed in blue prints, plans, documents, deeds, language,
symbols, data analysis, statistics, empirical models, etc. This knowledge
constitutes an ethical or unethical world. The killing fields and gas chambers were
planned and freely chosen. The knowledge and information that precedes a free
choice to act and invoke predicted consequences determines the necessity and the
37
morality of the transcendence of the intent forming the act and its registry innocent
beings. In cases where necessity demands controlled experimentation and informed
choices such as Pasteur’s rabies shots, the rule of informed choice is not violated.
Collective acts such as diverting rivers, dumping, reproducing, building highway
systems, etc., are controlled through public policies, and consistently violated with
unnecessary ignorance and blatant disregard of the consequences. Without these
legal controls, such acts often result in uncontrolled, unknown, harmful, and
unnecessary consequences such as the ongoing worldwide ecocide of the Earth as
exemplified in the Nigerian Delta, Java, Vietnam, Alaska, Brazilian rain forest, and
every continent and ocean. Out-of-control human reproduction is immoral because
the consequences of overpopulation end in unnecessary universal suffering and the
extinction of most species by the human species whose activities are governed by
free choice, and is knowingly responsible for its reproductive behavior. Forced
neutering is moral for irresponsible reproduction.
Actions
Actions are neither moral nor immoral. An act without an embedded intent such as
twitching is natural, and it cannot be the basis of ethics. Instead, it is the intent that
holds the key to morality. Individually, braking a car for pedestrians and animals is
automatic and neither moral or immoral; however, choosing not to brake is
unnecessarily dangerous and therefore immoral for the consequences are
predictable while choosing to brake for animals or unknown objects is moral for it
avoids unnecessarily harming animals. Spontaneous acts of individual or group
courage such as protests or cowardly acts such as riots are not the foundation of
ethics. Both sides at war spontaneously exhibit courage, but the morality of the war
cannot be decided in the field by virtuous actions and metals. The intent embedded
within the war and often concealed or purposely confused by those behind the war
determines the morality of any mediated war. The only moral war is one of selfdefense against an unnecessarily and intentional attack upon an innocent society.
This act of aggression/self-defense is independent of whether the invasion is
justified or not. The moral justification cannot be based on virtual formations such
as economics, oil, ethnic differences, religions, etc., but only upon stopping
enslavement, torture, rape, genocide, ecocide, etc. and other such ontological
38
violations. These activities are virtual requiring instruments, planning, knowledge,
purpose, logic, entrapment, etc.
Inconsiderate acts, especially those pretending to service the greater good but
driven by private interests, and consequentially affecting vast populations of
people, animals and environments for profit, and later proving to be uninformed,
negligent, or unnecessarily harmful are immoral and evil if done with informed
intent. Harm and benefit are universal to being and recognized through the
intuition of being. The intuition of being requires a presence of being to being to
determine the harm or benefit registered within a being. Actions governed by
principles such as categorical imperatives, virtues and the principle of utility are
often in conflict and therefore not universal or absolute.
Rules
Ethics is not a set of rules to be memorized and blindly followed. It requires a
reflective analysis of each rule as to its foundation. If there is no foundation, the
rule is arbitrary and capricious. Wash your hands is a moral rule because the
foundation is health and well being. Illness spread through contaminated hands is
unnecessary. Report suspicious behavior to authorities is an immoral rule because
its foundation is imaginary fear projected into innocent beings. Suspicious is
contrasted with common or ordinary, but this is relative to the group be it KKK,
Taliban, CIA, Arab, and so on, and can include eccentric and independent
behavior. Rules guided behavior is judged right or wrong by the rule makers based
upon actions that adhere to their rules. Often the rules begin and end with the rule
makers and therefore cannot be universal. A spiritual transcendence from the finite
rule maker to an absolute infinite foundation is necessary. Excuses are reasons
given for breaking someone’s rules, and if accepted, they are exceptions to their
rule. I couldn’t wash my hands because there is no soap could be accepted. Every
profession has its rules, but are the rules ethical? It cannot depend upon the
character of the rule maker, but upon a transcendental and universal foundation
beyond individual traits. This foundation is not recognized in perception,
understanding, or reason, but in the underlying intuition a priori to being, hence
universal. The intuition confirms the rules, principles, laws, reasons, etc. in the
consequences to innocent being. The spiritual side of the paradigm holds the free,
informed choice corresponding to the free, informed consequences registering that
39
choice. It also holds the free, uninformed choice corresponding to a material
choice. The material side holds the free, informed choice embedded within
spacetime in the embedded instrumental intentions and in the material
consequences. The spiritual side does not appear with heavenly choirs and
trumpets, but mostly goes as unnoticed choices or headlines screaming war,
collapsed markets, etc. To protect one’s unity of being, any organized activity must
first be analyzed for hidden agendas, profit and a power motive, for the individual
has chosen to follow another. Organized activities take on the power of a mass
hallucination, and anyone claiming powers from god, the people, the universe, etc.
claiming the right of control over others and the planet must provide empirical
proof they will bring necessary benefit to a world and planet of innocent beings.
The foundation of rules or laws is a universally binding principle; the laws
themselves are relative. Ethical rules guiding actions are built upon principles;
however, the principles are relative and must have a deeper foundation of unity.
The foundation can be physical, mental, spiritual, economic, scientific, cultural,
etc., and therefore principles are limited and separated by their foundations, and the
limitations are understood so as not to infringe upon other principles. The
foundation is again a paradigm of two sides, and most lists of foundations are
confused, reified sides of paradigms and entities. Always tell the truth/never lie is a
spiritual law emerging from the immaterial side of the material/immaterial
paradigm. Lying to the public and congress to start an unnecessary war is a
spiritual act that shifts from the immaterial into the material in the preparation,
costs and harmful consequences. The point is that the sides are inseparable, for the
spiritual (intent, choice, predictable future consequences, necessity, etc.) and
material (weapons, bodies, hospitals, battles, explosions, etc.) are back and forth
shifts in an identity of process and substance. The truth rule is constantly broken by
circumstances. Politicians and police are expected to lie to enemies and criminals
to win wars and solve and prevent crimes. Justice is a principle of legal equality
that limits truth to relevant cases, but with variations in punishment for identical
crimes ends in relativism. Supreme Court decisions are decided by votes, and
therefore relative. Reason is a principle limited to sound arguments. Science is a
principled discipline that limits the truth to observations and natural laws. Each
discipline values its truth above all, and these principles are clearly relative to each
group and culture. The ethical side of these disciplines requires an investigation
40
into the necessity of harm or benefit to innocent beings registered in the
consequences of their activities. The consequences are intentional or unintentional
restructuring of the being’s appearance.
Principles
Principles must have an absolute foundation that unites them into one, not divides
them into many. Under the paradigm of the one/many the one is only a moment in
the many and the many only a moment in the unity of the one. Humans can reflect
both sides of a paradigm, but not at the same time. A single cell is a unity that
disappears into the unity of many cells, an organ into a body, a body disappears in
the unity of its species, and species disappear in the unity of all species or finite
being, only to shift back in to a cell and reappear as one. This uniting foundation is
ontology or the adherence to being and its principle of unity. Ontology is study of
the particular fact of a being and the general fact of all being united in spacetime.
Being is a paradigm, and under this, Hegel’s contention that the particular is
subsumed by the general is rejected; instead, in Hegel’s observation, the particular
has only receded (past) as the one/many paradigm shifts into the general (present)
and the general (past) into the particular (present). If this were not the case, the
particular could not reemerge. Being is the universal, unifying foundation of
principles and their rules. There are no ethical principles or rules outside of being;
principles are not the inventions of reason for reason must adhere to being, and
their application is only to being or not non-being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, and principles and rules emerge on the side of being as forms of unity. They
may demand non-being as in a legal death sentence or the killing of for food or
survival, but are limited to the dimension of being in space and time. The opposite
of being is non-being, and it is not nothingness nor is it something for these are
sides of another paradigm something/nothing. Being generates the paradigm of
something/nothing by its unity. There are some things that are not natural unities
such as entities and by products that will be explained later.
Critical Ethical Questions
Ethical questions that follow from principles are composed of the critical
terms within the principles. There is no inherent rational duty to the principles
of transcendental realism other than the intuition of being within the present
41
that takes one into ontic harm or benefit. The intuition of harm or benefit
within being is given in the present, specifically the presence of harm or
benefit in another or from another being. In short, it can be compared to an
informed free choice governed by conscience as the event unfolds. Prior to
acting is knowledge, and this is elective for we choose to become informed or
remain uninformed. The only allowable self-interested act must be universal
in the outcome. This requires modeling and testing as outlined in empirical
realism. The consequence is not a rational universal as in a categorical
imperative; rather, it is an ontological, concrete, tangible universal found in
well or ill being. The actor’s being must receive the same consequence as
intended and delivered first if the assumption of innocence applies. The actors
drink from the cup first and with meticulous care, take it to a universal state of
being. Without proof, the planners must self-experiment first and provide
absolute proof of benefit or harm before acting. Justice is about the prevention
of unnecessary, intentional or unintentional harm to innocent beings and
punishment for those who ignore or avoid the responsibility of the
consequences they now knowingly caused. Vast political projects aimed
toward the Greater Good must benefit everyone equally; else they are empty
and self-serving such as animal testing, poorly designed educational systems,
deforestation and so on, indefinitely. Self-interests such as profit or nepotism
are not allowed in such projects because the Greater Good is compromised.
The one and many must be indistinguishable in the world. However, natural
differences and contingencies such as immunity variations are exceptions, and
exceptions are not the rule; natural variations are the strategy of continued
survival. However, commercial dog fights are a product of the world, not
nature.
1. Was the act intentional? This determines good or evil. A dog fight event is
intentional, unnecessary, knowingly harmful, planned, and hence evil.
2. Was the act unintentional? This determines moral or immoral. An audience
at a dog fight is immoral because they do not directly intend to harm the
dogs. This can turn to evil if they do not stop it and conspire to allow it. The
handlers are evil because they intend to unnecessarily and knowingly harm
the dogs. Dogs are innocent beings trying to please their masters.
42
3. Was the act done controlled by ignorance or knowledge? This determines
necessity. Is a humanly forced dog fight necessary or unnecessary? Here,
there are no grounds for necessity. The dogs are not moral agents, hence
innocent. Only man claims moral superiority to other men and the universe.
4. Was the act necessary or unnecessary? The only defense for necessity is
self-defense and survival. For the dogs, fighting is necessary, but the dog
fighting event is unnecessary.
5. Were the consequences known or unknown before the act? This determines
if it was moral or immoral. The consequences of a dog fight event are
known. There are no surprises other than the amount of gore and suffering.
6. Was the intended target of the act innocent or guilty? Dog are innocent
beings.
7. Were the consequences harmful or beneficial to innocent beings? Dogs
suffer horrible deaths.
8. Was the act done in part or entirely out of self interests? If so, it is evil or
immoral, or good or moral. A dog fight event is done entirely out of self
interests. The interests of the owners are money from the needless suffering
of innocent beings, and the interests of the audience are money and
amusement in watching the suffering of innocent beings. The audience is
limited to an evil intent, but the handlers are evil in intent, acts and
consequences. There is a conspiracy in evil intent. Self-interests are immoral
unless completely beneficial in the consequences for innocent beings. Here
ethical self-interests or compassionate egoism is allowed.
Ethical Foundation
The ethical foundation of transcendental existentialism is transcendental realism.
Transcendental realism ethically grounds transcendental existentialism or the
combined virtual activities of empirical realism and transcendental idealism. They
are considered virtual because space and time are intuitions. Transcendental
realism allows for internal and external spacetime that grounds the internal side of
this paradigm. Transcendental realism is ontological intuition and logic that
grounds transcendental idealism’s epistemological categories within ontological
structures. Since ethics originates within ontology, not epistemology, psychology,
etc., it is necessary to be informed of any consequences to being. Hypothetical
43
imperatives and efficient causes are regulated by the registry of being that takes the
virtual immediately into ethical structure of human consequences.
Some activities are impossible to formulate a rule around such as bioweapons,
vivisection, and ecocide. These activities are governed by the intention and free
choice, and are unnatural. This is because they are pure evil that can never
contribute to universal well being. The universal foundation of ethics is not reason,
logic, epistemology, psychology, culture, law, politics, emotions, but ontology that
unites them all. This basis requires a critical analysis of philosophical systems and
their metaethical principles to determine the universal ethical principles found
within reality.
In order to defeat relativism, skepticism, and untenable principles, the foundation
of ethics must be self-evident, universal, and real because every culture has its own
rules including governments, IRS, families, religions, courts, Cartel, Mafia,
military, Taliban, Jews, Catholics, businesses, societies, groups, etc. How does one
determine if the rules are good or evil both from the inside and from the outside of
that culture? Legal rules are sometimes immoral and evil. Upon what basis can one
determine ethical fact or fantasy in these rules? There must be a universal principle
that separates good from evil laws, moral from immoral rules and right or wrong
behaviors. History is full of examples such as the Nuremberg Laws, slave laws,
Indian removal laws, etc. that were argued both ways. Why are these laws
generally considered evil, and what is the principle of their reformation? Often,
there are no laws allowing evil or immoral actions against various species and
indigenous people for those people act without the threat of legal consequences.
Historical examples include the passenger pigeon, the ecocide of Haiti, and the
ongoing Indian exterminations in South America, the ongoing ecocide of Java,
Brazil, Alaska, India, and so on. The Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative, Greater
Good, Good Will, Principle of Utility, and such are not universal and rarely work.
The Golden Rule and Good Will can be twisted into a mafia code justifying
revenge killing. A Categorical Imperative in the absolute prohibition against lying
can be defended in situations such as espionage and kidnappings and ignored in
Santa Claus. Emotions such as disgust, rage, anger, dislike, etc. are universal, but
their triggers and expressions are relative to the group, and are not principles.
Cultural rules are not universal. The Taliban murders children and women
considering the murders virtuous and even holy acts. Worldwide deforestation,
44
animal torture and species extinctions are ignored or tolerated for profits and
political gain. To judge these acts, we must determine what is real and evaluate the
arguments against this criterion.
Reality
Reality is being. The case for animal rights is a philosophical argument,
specifically an ontological argument grounding metaethical principles in being.
Being has its own logic that precedes formal logic. This logic is a priori and
universal. It is the logic of unity and disunity, life and death. Animal and
environmental rights cannot be decided in a courtroom, congress or science
classes. Animal rights are granted or taken away in the world, but this is a human
game. Being is acknowledged as the primal fact and origin of the rational mind.
Even so, the law is a key for protecting animals and must be reformed around
ontologically determined ethical laws replacing laws driven by private interests
and untenable moral principles. Reflecting upon being, the underlying ethical
arguments will shape the laws, and the laws will shape our species’ conditioned
behaviors, mechanically acted out by billions of unthinking human beings upon
animals and environments; who regard their actions as right because they are not
illegal or legally justified as in historical cases such as slavery, women’s rights,
children’s rights, etc. Recognizing being, the legal right to be was granted or
legally taken away as with Jews, gypsies, insane etc., where the Nazi culture
denied being to some, yet contradictorily affirmed it by naming and murdering
those named. Only innocent being, innocent being in general or being in particular,
can be murdered. The absence, denial or select separation of being from the
intuition of being is found in culturally conditioned individuals, criminals,
psychopaths and sociopaths. Ethical laws force them to consider the consequences;
otherwise, they will continue in their behavior. It is critical to have laws in place
protecting innocent natural beings from these individuals. Game wardens cannot
fully protect innocent natural beings because game is a property owned by the state
and sold to the public for recreation.
Knowledge
The knowledge that the laws are good or evil derives from the universal intuition
of being. This intuition is a priori and universally recognized in all beings. It is not
45
a Kantian category of the mind; not an object in the imagination; not a cultural
tradition, but the source of ethical knowledge. Knowledge is based on facts and
ethical facts are registered within beings. The reflected ethical facts present within
the fact of being are those of good or evil and moral or immoral. Their presence is
not an accident, but a free, informed or unformed choice made by a human being
who is responsible for its instrumental registration. Ethical knowledge originates
out of the confirmation of being in the fact of its reflected presence. Ethical
principles are confirmed, informed reflections of ethical facts within being. The
fact of well or ill being is determined in the structured appearance. The structure is
not imposed by the mind, but reflected by the mind in the registry of being
established by the intuition. In this, the structure is fact, not fiction. Is the structure
of appearances necessary or unnecessary? Private and public reflections confirm
necessary wellness or unnecessary harm in the fact of being and the structure of its
appearance. The structure is evil if it is an intentional, unnecessarily imposed harm,
and good if it is an intentional, necessarily imposed benefit upon innocent beings.
For example, polio is a name for a structured appearance. Its appearance generally
consists of shriveled limbs, limping, wheel chairs, crutches, bed ridden, weakness,
etc. The structure is viral damaged muscles. The fact of ill being is indisputable
and certain in the structure of appearances, and that structure was not composed or
imposed by the mind. When the mind conforms to and confirms the structure, the
confirmations are termed true. A statement such as your child has polio is
acknowledged or denied based on the structure of being. The diagnosis is based on
the structure of appearances and classified as caused by a virus. The categories of
medicine cohere to reality, and reality is not a mental category. Structured reality,
not categories of the mind, determines appearances that shape perception. Because
structured reality shapes perception, uninformed opinions are disregarded.
Microscopic analysis provides a cellular set of appearances further confirming the
fact of an unnecessary illness such as polio within a being. The being is confirmed
innocent if it was naïve as to the infection and if infected through negligence or
intent such as a bioweapon. At this time, the polio disease, if present, is
unnecessary because there is a cure and knowledge of its prevention available. The
intuition of being provides form and content of appearances. Structures such as
causality shape the form and content providing the moral or immoral facts
registered within the being and a scientific confirmation. Given that the polio virus
is preventable, these facts are the consequences of calculated actions or negligent
46
actions or inactions, and such actions are not spontaneous or instinctual; rather,
they are instrumentally directed. Behind instruments is a human mind with
intentions. The intent is freely chosen and instrumentally applied through space
and time to alter beings for good or evil, moral or immoral purposes.
Understanding of the consequences of polio is fully available in historical
knowledge. The consequences are restructured appearances often matching the
expectations of the source or surprised as in experimentations. It is an absolute
moral duty to know the consequences of every instrumentally caused action before
setting it into motion, else not act individually or communally. The paradox of
knowing the consequences before there are consequences is solved by inductive
science. A model controlling all variables must be in place where it is proven in the
models to benefit or harm being universally. The model must be ethical and based
on informed free choice in our species. This requirement is in place in vaccinations
and disease control. It must be expanded to education, economics, wars, weapons,
environmental changes, transportation systems, fishing and hunting industries,
ecological systems, animal protection, and so on to determine the benefit or harm
to being and its mediums in the consequences. This requirement is a moral
imperative. Again, history is replete with case studies such as the rechanneling of
the Everglades, the spraying of herbicides in Vietnam, syphilis experiments, the
Horizon incident, the ongoing Nigerian delta disaster, the protected, ongoing
slaughter of the bison, whales, and so on. The problem of overseeing these
activities before they occur is again one of denying experimentations and
controlling political activities that would allow proven harmful consequences.
Most of these examples are self-evident and inherently immoral. The denial of selfevident consequences is evil. Self-evident consequences are not debatable such as
leaving loaded weapons in school yards.
The intuition of being is not conscience; conscience is a learned spiritual and
material formation reflecting being; it may not be materially developed and void in
psychopaths; otherwise, it is ontic; it is the mutual affirmation of undifferentiated
being and the starting point of realism. It is a simple mutual reflection and
judgment this is a being as I am a being. It is ontologically self evident. Any rights
are external or internal to the being. The universal ontological right is that of self
unity and the rejection of self disunity. This right can be an externally imposed
right granted by other beings as live and let live, etc. Imaginary projections of
47
ownership are imposed by force. It is a reflected, shared identity at the most
fundamental level. Arguments against the animal rights movement divert from
ontology to economics, medicine, jobs, income, business, progress, civilization,
private interests and it stands opposed to frontiers, wilderness, etc.; to human needs
such as economic and social wants, and removed from being: Animal skins, meat,
trophies, etc. are businesses, and businesses are more valuable than animals.
Forests, rivers, etc. also provide incomes for the masses, etc. and are necessary for
human progress, and so on. These fallacious arguments do not provide evidence
for the necessity of activities that harm animals and their environments. Such
arguments demonstrate biased egoism, narcissistic obsessions, and anthropocentric
fixations. Only sound arguments from necessity such as survival and self defense
are indisputable, and in many cases these are unnecessary. Trappers claiming
wolves must be killed to stop them from robbing their traps is not a case of
survival, but exploitation. Hunters attacked by a lion on safari are not cases of
survival for it was unnecessary that they were there in the first place. Killing sharks
for their fins or slaughtering whales is unnecessary for there are alternative food
sources for exotic tastes. Exotic tastes are unnecessary for well-being. Torturing
rabbits for cosmetic purposes is evil for it is absolutely unnecessary for universal
well being. Psychological arguments are not considered for there are alternative,
suffering free products. Following the ontology of necessity, specifically, universal
well-being demands a reduction of unnecessary violence towards animals and their
environments. Any ethical alternative to harmful acts separates unnecessary from
necessary activities. As with slavery laws, unethical laws will not change
overnight, and could take generations. A progressive strategy can be developed.
Perhaps a gradual long term strategy is to first reduce unnecessary sets of harmful
activities until alternative replacements are found for the remainder. This allows
for a non confrontational, concerted and focused agenda of social transition where
industries and habits can be adjusted. The realistic moral principle of no
unnecessary harm to innocent being, and it opposite, necessary benefit to innocent
being is a fundamental axiom of animal, environmental, and social well-being.
There are alternatives to products and activities involving unnecessary animal
harm and death, and these moral leaders and manufactures must be found and
rewarded for basing their businesses on animal rights. The villains must also be
identified and condemned. The necessity for animal rights, not human needs, is the
core premise of the ethical relationship of the human world to legally include
48
animals and their environments, not the red herring of man to man, but man to
being. The tactic of diverting the argument to economics can be avoided through
critical study. Realizing that the anthropocentric court of reason is biased and
pointless, equivalent to slavery laws and slavery ethics argued and decided by
slave holders or their representatives, all claiming reasonableness, they have no
sound arguments against the principle of necessity. Like the slave, property,
namely, animals and their environments cannot defend themselves in the human
world. Property has no legal right of self defense. Only property owners’ defense is
legal because property is a legal concept, an idea, corresponding to an owned legal
entity. As with slaves, women, children, animals and environments are legally
locked out of this virtual world. It would be incoherent to argue legal concepts if
there is nothing to argue over. For example, it is incoherent to argue over dodo
laws and rights since there are no dodos, and even if discovered, they would be
owned by a legal entity such as the state or an agency. The legal arguments center
on property, and the ethical argument centers on the ethical basis of ownership of
entities or beings. Beings cannot be owned, entities can. The human law generates
its own self-serving concepts, but animals and their environments are not legal
concepts. It is a fundamental ethical principle that animals and their environments
cannot be owned by the human species, for ownership applies only to entities, not
beings, and animals are beings as reflected in the intuition of being. This radical
claim that beings cannot be owned is identical to that made for slaves, women, and
children. These beings are not property because property is a concept. This seems
impossible to prove until we realize that at one time this was not the case, and there
was no necessity in ownership, and the human world managed without it.
Nevertheless, ownership of innocent beings prevails without consideration to the
earth and its inhabitants. This is only acknowledged when some environmental
event hurts human interests. Trial and error is a poor way to learn and adapt, and,
as argued herein, immoral because it is unnecessary; if it is known yet applied, the
consequences are evil for they are allowed. For example, building nuclear reactors
upon known fault lines is immoral, and when they finally explode, evil. The human
ownership of innocent beings and environments is fundamentally immoral and to
alter it to a moral status first requires knowledge of benefit and harm to the
property. The moral human act towards innocent being requires necessary benefit
to any owned being. This is often the case in primitive pet laws. Again, in the
world, the property with few exceptions has no legal rights in this human-
49
dominated relationship. Outside the world is nature, and in nature, there are no
moral relationships because nature operates upon natural laws, and beings within
nature operated with necessity. Hawks and snakes must kill chickens, and it is
immoral for humans to kill hawks and snakes because they kill chickens. Humans
are required to protect both. Animals have no choice; human beings have a choice,
and with a choice, ethical responsibility is upon us. The form of our choice is
moral, immoral, good or evil. The form is chosen, and when applied, defines the
world, both at the individual and species level that underlies the choice, and
necessity includes knowledge of the consequences. The fundamental question that
must be answered before the act is committed upon an environment or animal: Is
this necessary? If necessity cannot be proven before the act, it is immoral to
proceed. Is ecocide necessary? This apparently is still unanswered despite multiple
historical examples, and still allowed in the world. Until it is universally prohibited
and vigorously enforced, it remains evil. Many governments and corporations are
fine with this judgment against them. Even though the world does not recognize or
ignores immoral and evil acts, the ethical case against it can now shape laws to
regulate these behaviors. Ethics grounds laws and determines their form. Laws that
violated ethics are then recognized and removed either by force or reform. Nazi
laws are one such case.
The Absolute posits Being. It forms in space and time for it is now outside of itself
as it was. Consciousness is the negation the other or not-Being, and the emergence
of space and time or the concrete logical separation of the Absolute from itself. A
conscious Absolute is the Relative or the Absolute unconsciousness of itself. The
Relative establishes infinity of finite me’s or unities that change over space and
time to become the mine/ours paradigm under the law of possession and defense of
unity. The other in the shape of a side is the first emergence of logical concrete
consciousness emerges in the world from the Identity.
The fact that something is, is not the same as the thought that something is.
Thinking something does not make it true or real. Accurate thinking is a reflection
of something. That reflection is accurate or inaccurate depending, not upon the
idea, but on the being reflected. An accurate reflection clarifies the essence of the
being. If the idea is not a reflection of a being, then it is simply an imaginary
formation without reference to anything but the mind that composed it. It dissolves
with a shift of attention to another idea. This object reflects the mind, not reality.
50
This object is imaginary and depends upon activities of the mind for its continued
existence. The fact of an essence is its being. Being is reality. It is the ground of
truth, fact, logic, causality, and all value. There is no logical exclusion of man from
nature. This exclusion is virtual where human imagination and logic is forced upon
nature. It is a form of species psychosis as found in Christmas shopping and the
decoration of millions of dead pine trees. Other than belief, there is no ontological
exclusion of man from nature. Man is part of the whole and not its source. Man is
the source of his chosen world, but this world is not real; it is at best existential
meaning man brings it into existence, not being. Man cannot bring being into
existence by thought or instrument. Only being generates being. Man must
conform to being for being does not conform to man even in torture and extinction.
It is no less real in agony or death and remains as an absolute fact in its absence.
Intentional death and torture may be hidden and out of perception, but the fact is
registered in the being of the universe.
Paradigms generated from the platform of the absolute/relative paradigm reflect
the presence of transcendental/immanent paradigms of freedom/determinism,
justice/injustice, infinity/finitude, beauty/ugliness, love/hate, truth/falsity,
unity/disunity, etc. These transcendental paradigms are interactive with paradigms
such as one/many, substance/process, complex/simple, immaterial/material,
form/content, quality/quantity, etc., that cannot be separated ontologically or in
fact. Thus justice, for example, is both material and immaterial. Material justice
involves jails, guards, courts, books, computers, mechanisms, measured time and
space, etc. Immaterial justice involves ideas, logic, intentions, emotions, etc. To
separate them into sides and to become fixated upon one side over the other as in
idealism vs. materialism, ends in reifications. Reifications end in distortions such
as parallelism, positivism, behaviorism, etc. Justice/injustice paradigm shifts into
injustice through the intention. Laws can be unjust, so laws or rules are not the
source of justice. Instead, it is a priori to being and reflects in and between beings.
In so far as its source is being, it is universal. It is not recognizable until an
ontological analysis of a just/unjust state of being is realized. The paradigm
reaches consciousness in the human mammal and its intention to take on one side
over another.
Absolute freedom enters spacetime overcoming relative freedom through human
choices. No matter how much analysis aiming to negate absolute freedom from
51
relativity, the intention to reduce choice to behavior or a neurological object, it
remains ever present even within the analysis which was a choice. Choice is the
pain presence of the absolute, here and now a relative point within spacetime,
particular and finite; located and measured and scaled, under the laws of nature, the
human choice is within the paradigm of finite being making this choice a
conscious, controlled shift of two sides or a spiritual shift into a world. The
spiritual side is not one of eternal bliss or choirs of angels; it is simply the
ontological negation of the material side of this paradigm. In order to shift from
one side into its alienated form is one of a simple negation. The ontological
negation is consciousness. Ontological negations can be material with associated
physical pleasure/pain paradigm emerging; it can be immaterial with spiritual
bliss/despair paradigms emerging.
What seems only a series of material options, material forms, also has an
immaterial forms and options. Because reality is a paradigm, these options are
binaries. In human essence, it is an ethical choice between good and evil, moral
and immoral; a choice between the necessary and unnecessary, knowledge and
ignorance; material and immaterial options. The choice ends in consequences of a
devastated earth supporting a human playground. The form of the choice is
absolute; the consequences to the planet are absolute and eternal; the consequences
to the virtual world are relative and short lived, the distribution of the content
relative to unnecessary garbage or necessary verdant ecosystems, the methodology
is relative; the acts are violent or healing.
The structure of ethics is intention, act and consequence. The consequence
determines if the act is moral or immoral. The intention determines if the act is
good or evil. A good intention aligns with a moral consequence, and combined,
they form an ethical principle. An evil intention aligned with an immoral
consequence forms an unethical principle. The categorical imperative concerns the
intention while consequentialism concerns the consequence, but both are excluding
sides of a comprehensive ethical principle. The intention to benefit animals and the
ecosystem aligned with beneficial consequences requires necessity. Necessity is
the knowledge that the act bridges the intention to the consequences. This is
universal, true and constant in all possible worlds; not because these worlds are
logical, but because they are ontological and register instrumental intentions. They
are not epistemological objects, but real beings. Contingent propositions are based
52
on cultural, psychological, religious claims, and are products of relativism. The
judgment reflects morality or immorality in the appearances of the consequences.
If benefit structures the appearances, it is judged moral. For example, giving health
and nutritive care to animals in a zoo is clearly moral; however, the structure of
appearances is that of caged innocent beings, and that is judged evil regardless of
their care. The intention has been modified from captivity to care, but the original
intention remains intact. To capture and sell innocent beings for hedonic purposes
is evil. It intentionally and unnecessarily harms innocent beings by removing them
from their environment and caging them in the world. Utilitarian models allow
hedonic calculus, but not suffering, and on the principle of suffering, judged
immoral.
An ethical principle governing the act is the combined “good” intention and
“moral” consequence. Since the consequence is in the future, it necessitates
knowledge to insure the results. The skilled act is structured by knowledge rather
than ignorance, belief, opinions, faith, hope, etc., leaving unstructured appearances
as consequences. This is commonly termed “trial and error.” For example, the
introduction of invasive species may have “good” intentions, and highly skilled
actors can capture and transport the invaders, but without knowledge of the
consequences, as in the case of the cane toad, the consequences are determined by
ignorance, trial and error, and judged immoral for the unnecessary harm to the
ecosystem of Australia.
An ethical judgment follows from ethical premises. Ethical premises follow from
critical definitions that classify them as other than biological, psychological,
cultural, etc. claims. The ethical definitions are taken from human alteration of
another being observable in its ontologically registered properties; and though they
are unnatural essences or properties, alter the quality of being. The definition for
“immoral” or “the unnecessary harm to innocent beings” limits activities that can
result in such consequences. The consequences are classified as moral or immoral,
and the consequences are factual, observable, and measureable. In damming a
river, unnecessary harm results if not carefully studied before construction. This
constitutes ethical knowledge of benefit and harm. Ethical knowledge structures
the act. Ethical knowledge is the reflected intention embedded with being after the
act, and this overturns Hume’s observation ‘no ought follows from is.’ The “is”
53
can be judged moral or immoral for it is self-evident in the quality of being, and
from this knowledge of being, oughts necessarily follow.
Choice between emerges from ontological negations that separate into reified
opposing objects. In this way, objects come into consciousness and take on the
shape of options. Objects must be transcendent into the mediums separating
beings. Objects enter spacetime in instruments and entities. As with any paradigm,
spacetime is relative and can be instrumentally separated into virtual commodities,
and in this way, owned. Time is divisible into sequences and space into points. The
chosen form of the intention, action and consequence is positive energy if
necessary benefit is intended, delivered and realized in innocent beings. This form
is termed good. The chosen form of the intention, action and consequence is
negative energy if unnecessary harm is intended, delivered and realized in innocent
beings. This form is termed evil.
Without the intent, the requirement of necessity is that there is knowledge of the
benefits/harm before the consequences are realized. If necessity cannot be
demonstrated before the act is set into motion, it is immoral. An uninformed
intention is merely a wish that the result ends in benefit, harm, or both to innocent
beings. It is at best trial and error usually followed by regret for the consequences,
for regret indicates a realization that knowledge could have altered the outcome.
Moral is the necessary benefit to innocent beings that does not have intent behind
it. Leaving a jungle alone and unexploited is moral. Policies such as taxation are
moral. They have no intent to harm or benefit those taxed, yet are considered
necessary. If they were intended to benefit those taxed and demonstrated in every
case to benefit the innocent taxed, they would be good. Benefit means well-being
and harm means ill-being. On the individual, micro level, intent is the choice
between harm or benefit to another. The benefit must be necessary and the harm
unnecessary to be considered moral or immoral. Raping a child is intentional,
unnecessary harm to an innocent being and evil. The choice to stand by, not
stopping the act, and not intending harm to the child, are immoral. On the macro
level, those who stand by and do not protest or stop the intentional, unnecessary
destruction of the planet or the unintentional destruction of the planet are immoral.
The destruction of the planet and violent relationship to it is a choice as is the
relationship of the observer. There is no moral neutrality in the world, even in the
54
observer. These definitions of good and evil, moral and immoral constitute the
ethical laws of transcendental existentialism. They are not a priori to the mind
except as reflections of the organization of the human being upon which a choice
emerges as to which side is applied. They are a priori to being which generates
ontological reflections from its negations. Because they are a priori to being, they
are universal, herein termed transcendental realism. There are unsound arguments,
tricks, deals, bullying, etc. in any community built upon the dogma of reason
termed transcendental idealism and its scientific, objective evidence found in
empirical realism.
Reality is independent of mind and its components: sensation, perception,
understanding, emotions. If it were not independent, it would be an idea. However,
reality is ethically dependent upon the mind insofar as the mind interferes with it.
Reality is assigned legal rights and protections by the mind. This mental
interference with reality is backed up by force. The mind instrumentally interferes
with its own foundation. This interference is moral or immoral, good or evil for
innocent beings. The moral act results in known beneficial consequences for
innocent beings. Innocence is any natural being inside of or in forced contact with
the world. If reality is independent of the mind, then not a trace of mind is within
it. When mind overcomes reality, the results are perceptual. This virtual state of
interference is the world. The world terminates in the frontier and beyond that is
the wilderness that must be civilized or turned into parks. This activity is termed
ecocide. Ecocide is the informed, intentional, unnecessary destruction of
ecosystems. This overriding unnecessary human activity is propelled by the belief
that the frontier is to be tamed, exploited, and destroyed for me. The world is
perceptual, material and cognitive. Its cognitive aspect comes from the human
mind. The mind extending into reality creates a virtual state. The virtual state is
composed of perceptual ideas and although denied being, it exists. Mind must
conform to reality or the products of nature and existence or the products of the
mind. Scientific activities are therefore moral or immoral and never morally
neutral. With any activity such as science, there are universal consequences which
have their existence among and within the dimension of being. Science is therefore
not real, nor is it unreal. Science is an ethical activity. Claims that ideas, emotions,
feelings, sensations, etc. have being or are beings are denied. They are products of
being. However, ideas and intentions are detectible in human instruments and
55
entities. So, externalized ideas conform to the mind and the mind conforms to its
externalized ideas. The human mind must conform to a lion even if tamed, and the
lion is completely independent of the mind. An instrument is independent of
perception, but not the human mind for it remains transcendentally connected
throughout space and time. The mind recognizes itself an ancient artifacts. This
transcendence applies to instruments, entities, and human inventions. Since they
have no being, they have existence or independence from perception. As it stands,
transcendental existentialism cannot determine if its activities are moral or
immoral. It requires a foundation in ontology and specifically the intuition of being
confirming necessary benefit or unnecessary harm to innocent beings. It is either
harming or benefiting the environment and animals by injecting instrumental
powers that transcends those of natural innocence into spacetime bringing
devastation or healing to the earth. The difference in being is that it is a naturally
structured paradigm with shifting sides while the world is a virtual paradigm of
chosen good or evil structuring unnatural appearances.
Being is defined as a paradigm generator; being is itself a paradigm. It generates
paradigms such as spirit and body, one and many, cause and effect, space and time,
finite and infinite and so on. These opposites are commonly experienced, but
difficult to explain. The paradigm explains them. The paradigm overcomes the
Cartesian mind body problem by allowing both mind and body as sides of being
under the material/immaterial paradigm. Thus mind is the body externalized and
the body is mind internalized, and the difference is in the side reflected. A mental
fixation upon one side such as the body leads to Cartesian dualism and
materialism; when fixated upon by the mind lead to idealism. These fixations are
reifications of being and incomplete because they terminate in philosophical
extremes such as cognitivism, behaviorism, atomism, solipsism, and so on. The
mind body problem is also a critical philosophical error because there is no
mind/body paradigm. This is a misidentification of the sides of a paradigm such as
left/right with left/back. The location of reason within the soul, and the soul located
in the body is unwarranted. The immaterial is the opposing material side of the
material/immaterial paradigm. These sides are not substances for substance is the
opposite side of the substance/process paradigm. The fixation of one side such a
mind, the cogito, reifies and distorts reality. The material/immaterial paradigm
cannot be replaced with the rational/irrational paradigm. The mind/no mind
56
paradigm emerges out of the material/immaterial paradigm. The mind is not
immaterial; rather, it shifts back and forth into material, the brain, and immaterial,
ideas, emotions, intentions, emotions, etc., formations. The mind is only one side
of being; the no mind side, as experienced in Zen or instincts, is also an ordinary
experience. Cartesian dualism, reductionism, materialism, idealism, pre established
harmony, and so on, are the bizarre results of combining mind and body as sides of
a finite substance. The finite substance is the opposite side of the infinite substance
and both are sides of a substance/process paradigm. The substance/process
paradigm entered the confusion with a reified analysis of the human mind under
the side of finite substance. The mind sifts back and forth from substance to
process; substance does not undergo process or change; substance is its process
and process is its substance; substance is a momentary reified process much like a
motion picture is broken down into a series of frames, and only one frame selected.
Pictures of me over time are only reifications of the process me. If one picture of
me is held to be outside of spacetime, absolute, the process continues in the
background, and it ends in a distortion of reality.
Animal Rights
The frontline for animal rights and habitats is a poorly funded and dangerous
activity as exemplified in the deaths of moral heroes Chico Mendez, Marina Sylva,
and Dorothy Stang, and the ongoing suppression of Paul Watson. On the other
side, the destruction of the environment and the torture and destruction of innocent
animals for their skins, entertainment, curiosity, meat, mythical powers,
environments, etc., and the eradication of entire ecosystems such as Sumatra brings
incredible fortunes to those in power. Ecocide pays; ecology loses. Unknown
species disappear within hours; species that could benefit the planet and all animal
well-being exterminated. The animal rights movement requires an ontology and
metaethics upon which to base its actions and to determine and separate reality
from cultural fixations, egoism, corporate interests, experiments such as genetic
alterations, and so forth. A common argument made against animal rights is that of
a superior human intelligence and our species mind over animals. Mind makes
right. This argument is false because the human intellect also designs death camps,
mass genocide strategies, body disposal systems, bio and chemical weapons
systems, rape rooms, land mines, atomic bombs, massive banking fraud, torture
57
chambers, date rape pills, and so forth, and because these come from the superior
human mind, they must be right.
Reality and the World
What is reality? Reality is being and being is generated within the medium of
Nature. Being is independent of the human mind and the human world which is an
existential projection of the mind upon nature. The world is not the Earth. The
Earth is a living unity that generated being, but the world is a dead, virtual
container of humanity. The world is a conglomerate of concretized ideas structured
by nature in an abstraction and upon which it must conform in order to maintain its
existence. Nature in the abstract is science. This is known by the human mind
because being cannot be mentally generated; however, the world can be mentally
generated through instruments. To understand how this works, recall Kant’s Thaler
analogy. A Thaler cannot suddenly exist in his pocket with a mere thought or idea;
thought cannot generate existence. On the contrary, the Thaler is a coin and a coin
is an instrument of commerce. It comes into existence through other instruments
including the Thaler as an instrument of exchange, and distributed in various
virtual neural systems such as economies, mints, banks, computers, merchants,
clothing industry, shops, universities, etc. With this virtual neurology providing the
idea a means of material transcendence, the idea of the Thaler is embedded with a
common purpose. The idea of the Thaler and the existence of the Thaler and its
transference into Kant’s pocket are functions of his world, not nature. Kant is real,
the Thaler is virtual; it is a materialized idea; an instrument of commerce
containing a human intention to purchase. In this way, the idea named Thaler is
instrumentally mediated through spacetime, and the transposed and transported
intention eventually structures an appearance in Kant’s pocket. Timespace
separates A from not-A. Negations take time and position, and their reflections are
only possible in a separation. Mentally, A is separated from not-A instantly;
however, ontologically A is physically separated from non-A in time and space
necessitating separate locations and temporal sequences. A is reflected in another
being as A, establishing it as universal. A is any property. An infinity of reflected
A’s is an ontological reflection for the reflection is dependent upon an infinite set
of finite beings extending unto a bad infinity or an infinity impossible to count
because of death; A/~A is rationally instantaneous in the medium of mental
spacetime, but ontologically mediated through the medium of being in spacetime
58
in an infinite sequence. Zeno’s arrow passing through an infinite set of numbered
points took millions of years of evolution to reach instrumental transcendence, and
his instruments of bow and arrow to enter into his analysis. Zeno’s arrow is a
virtual instrument propelled through space and time while an infinity of points is
an unperceived and unintelligible set of objects unrelated to the mathematical
operation of division of 1 that is also virtual because it is sequenced and takes time
and space as demonstrated in a computer operation to divide 1 unto infinity. The
computer is virtual and its activities are electronic mental simulations. They are not
real for they have no being. Instead, they have existence.
Independence
Independence is a criterion of reality. Reality must be independent of the mind;
otherwise it is a fiction or phantasm. The human mind does generate things, and
they seem to be independent of the mind. They cannot be independent of a mind if
the mind generated them. Instead, they are independent of perception, but not the
mind. They still contain an idea. A landmine contains an idea and intention. It was
brought into existence by a human mind that reflected on the laws of nature and
replicated some of those laws by encasing them into entities. These entities are
often commercially replicated and sold throughout the world, and left buried in the
earth. They remain fully independent of perception but not cognition or the
intention they deliver. The child or animal that lost a leg received the intention by
the designer and planter.
Conformity
Conformity is another criterion of reality. The mind must conform to reality.
Reality does not conform to the mind. Galileo found the human mind distorted the
way the universe works. His mind conformed to the evidence and facts of natural
law. The ethical conformity is to reality, not fictions such as cultural norms, rules,
beliefs, etc. The Taliban claim some innocent beings have no right to life. Honor
murders are common. The human mammalian mind conforming to social norms
over the fact of being is immoral and evil.
The human world is a product of the human mind that invents, participates and
owns it. The ownership/property paradigm is a virtual template laid upon the earth.
The property template is mathematically divided into an infinite set of legal points
59
though instruments. These legal entities are recognized as objects and entities such
as grids, deeds, etc. The world is broken by virtual instruments into property and
this template destroys the earth because these divisions are based on private
interests rather than the principles of ethics or ecology. Private interests are
supported by political interests backed by force. Although not real, private interests
are converted into virtual products of consumption. Innocent beings caught in this
virtual cage are destroyed or displaced by their owners. The virtual interferes with
and destroys reality. Contrary to Kant, existence and non existence are predicates.
In philosophy, Kant’s transcendental idealism and empirical realism, when
combined, as he held them inseparable, form the cognitive infrastructure of a world
that cannot reach ultimate reality. If not grounded in reality, and unable to reach
reality, then it remains a zone of extended human intentions out of touch with
reality. It is a mental template; for his version of reality is a mental category
shaping sensations within the intuitions of subjective time and objective space.
This world is virtual or existential; it is not real for being is a mental category, nor
is it imaginary for it is perceptible. It is empirically and cognitively formed, and
insofar as it is perceptual, it is easily confused with reality. For example, we see
guards transporting money to banks, etc., and no one can deny this. It is not a
phantasm, nor is it reality. Instead, it exists. Man confuses existence with being.
For example, Heidegger in Existence and Being is correct in applying existence
only to man; however, he is incorrect in holding that if man alone is real then all
other beings are equally real:
The being that exists is man. Man alone exists. Rocks are, but they do not exist. Trees are, but
they do not exist. Horses are, but they do not exist. Angels are, but they do not exist. God is, but
he does not exist. The proposition "man alone exists" does not mean by any means that man
alone is * real being while all other beings are unreal and mere appearances or human ideas.
Existence and Being, Martin Heidegger, (1949) from Walter Kaufman, editor. Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to
Sartre.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/heidegg2.htm
This analysis will show the opposite, that given man’s existence and his world,
animals and ecosystems are unreal, mere appearances, and human ideas. The only
way animals, rocks, trees, flowers, etc. enter the world is to be taken out of nature
under the mass hallucination of property and commodities, then bought and sold
throughout the human template as commodities. The human mind on the basis of
60
its intellect rejects instantly the non-human as inferior and a means to it ends. This
intolerance lies in what Kant considers the essence of humanity, the rational
principle of non-contradiction. Yet, this rejection is profitable in the objectification
of the non-human, namely the commoditization of other beings for profit; for the
appearance of the subjective side of the property object is mine giving rise to
ownership. An ontological rejection is to simply leave another being alone, fight it
or flee; however, when mediated through the transcendent object into a legal
entity, alienated being is reduced to a container for market. The paradigm of
life/death is reduced to a management strategy for shipping a container of being.
The
life/death
paradigm
is
ontological,
not
epistemological.
Rather than a principle of consumer logistics, life is an onto-theological principle;
it is the entrance or shift of universal, infinite being into the relative separation of
being into species and species into individuals; species is the presence of the
Absolute in the Relative and under the conditions of space and time, its individuals
must adapt; death is the exit or shift of the finite universal from the relative into the
absolute unity of Being.
What is being? Being is a paradigm composed of two sides. Each side is
inseparable from its other. For example, the body has a left and right, top and
bottom, front and back, etc. side. They cannot be separated without loss of unity.
Sides are the manifestation of being in spacetime. In material form, sides shift
mechanically by turning. In spiritual spacetime, sides shift emotionally as love to
hate. The material/immaterial paradigm encompasses all of these shifts. The
spiritual is manifest in the configuration of the material, the visible made visible,
but often explained good or bad behavior. Finite being and infinite being are shifts
in a single/multiple paradigm. Material and immaterial being is a shift in a single
paradigm and each shift forms multiples such as finite/infinite, unity/disunity, etc.
Sides are the structure of being, and being structures its appearances. In human
beings, the form of appearances is chosen. This form of appearances is either good
or evil and the choice of instruments structures phenomena.
What is a paradigm? The paradigm is an irreducible undifferentiating presence
manifesting a side. Every reduction by the human mind trying to explain it is
simply a fixation on a side. This reduction to atoms, matter, spirit, perception,
sensation, one, change, soul, justice, perfection, finitude, happiness, pleasure,
process, mind, death, substance, numbers, etc. is a reification of a process that will
61
collapse with a return to the presence. These fixations are distortions for the
process/substance paradigm continues shifting leaving the mind holding an
anachronism in its reflections. The fixation is a reified side of ousia holding onto
what it negated. Animals as individuals and as species also reify their worlds. As
the last member of any species, it will search for its kind. This is spiritually
understood as loneliness and emptiness. This is an eternal negation for it is the
expression of the universal, the species, in the particular.
What is a virtual world? This virtual world we live in, science and its applications,
and supporting epistemology, is herein termed transcendental existentialism. The
world is the human mind transcended, yet the world is not independent of its
origin. Because it is not fully independent of the human mind, it is not real. Nor is
it unreal or imaginary. The world exists between reality and unreality. It is brought
into existence; it has no being, nor is it nonbeing. Existence means it is an extended
idea, a materialized idea in spacetime. Concretized ideas include entities such as
banks, cars, zoos, suburbs, cities, states, jails, highways, etc. and instruments such
as computers, hammers, languages, etc. They differ only in their purpose. Concrete
is the particular side and quickly dissolves into sensuous universals, only to
dissolve back into sensuous particulars. The particular paradigm of being, unlike
the particular entity formed by the transcendent mind, is a fractal paradigm of
paradigms:
whole/part,
one/many,
particular/general,
finite/infinite,
perfect/imperfect, and so on, formed by nature. The mind enters spacetime through
instruments forming entities. Entities are not real nor are they unreal, but they
exist. This means the world is perceptual and can hurt or benefit beings because it
is materially intelligible in its form, content and structure, all taken from nature and
applied against her for human needs. A car is a materialized idea that can run over
you or animals. Embedded within the car is the intention to transport. It can take
animals to clinics or slaughter houses. The car contains other intentions such as to
turn, open, close, reverse, etc. In order to function in nature, it is an artificial
paradigm. The car is independent of perception. The mind intends to make its
world perceptual. Idols, statues, dragons, and so on are all made visible. The
separation of one from another is made visible through cameras, computers and
other instruments. The world is populated with entities and instruments such as
cars, highway systems, energy systems, etc. that form a virtual medium covering
the earth. This world medium is a primitive form of Star Trek’s holodeck room.
62
This medium of human mammals is a virtual template that unnecessarily interferes
with nature. The human mind, through instruments, brings the world into existence
where commerce, economics, politics, agriculture, educational, military, etc.
transfer natural laws into efficient causes with devastating effects on nature.
Transcendental existentialism describes the human world commonly understood a
progress, development, civilization, etc. and its ethics is often termed humane.
Humane death is an anthropomorphic adjectival cover term for human atrocities
done to innocent animals. Transcendental existentialism includes the consequences
of applied science to the environment and its animal inhabitants that revolve
around the schema connecting man’s mind to his world. The human mammal’s
mind is the new center of the universe. The agenda is to impose human ideas upon
the Earth without regard to the consequences. In other words, the Kantian
Copernican revolution is a radical anthropomorphic agenda allowing ecocide and
reportedly animal torture:
Vivisectionists, who use living animals for their experiments, certainly act cruelly,
although their aim is praiseworthy, and they can justify their cruelty, since animals
must be regarded as man’s instruments; but any such cruelty for sport cannot be
justified (27:460 Lectures on Ethics )
What is transcendental realism? Transcendental realism is the philosophy of the
intuition of being, or being in the present, and this can be any being including
one’s own being, and it opposes transcendental idealism that finds reality is an
innate idea or category capable of reaching a virtual idealism in the discoveries and
applications of empirical realism, but not an ultimate reality. If ultimate reality is
being, then the transcendence is the immediate contact of being with being. This
intuition of being is undifferentiated unity of being. It is prior to consciousness or
negation. Opposed to this, Transcendental Idealism reduces reality to a category of
the human mind, but there is something unknowable behind it, a noumenon, that
causes phenomena. Transcendental idealism and its counterpart empirical realism
is an artificial zone distorting reality. We reach reality through the intuition of
being that grounds and confirms the knowledge of being. It is incomplete
knowledge, but that does not imply relative or absolute knowledge. Upon
examination, transcendental realism and its ethical principles are founded in being
itself, not the human mind and its epistemology with mysteries as to the source and
scope due to the limits of the rational mind to get beyond imaginary categorically
63
formed sensations. For that, Kant limited deontological ethics to mental principles
he termed categorical imperatives: such absolutes as telling the truth. Since the
absolute is a reality outside the mind and not a fiction, it must originate in another
dimension. A platonic source of ethical principles is a strange foundation in
Kantianism. Instead of anamnesis, realistic ethical principles hold the definitions of
moral, immoral, good and evil are ethical terms that reach ultimate reality. These
terms refer to ethical facts present within being; yet, these terms are rarely defined
in ethics, apparently out of a misguided respect of skepticism and relativism. They
will be defined herein according to the principles given in the intuition of being.
Is the human world ethical? The human world is by default a paradigm; it is
inescapably ethical or unethical. The human world is an ethically determined
world. It is necessary and unavoidable because of its form. The form is freely
chosen, but there are only two options. These options are good or evil. Good is
defined as the intentional, necessary benefit to innocent beings, and evil is defined
as the intentional, unnecessary harm to innocent beings. These definitions cover
the deontological aspect for they originate with the intent chosen, and are prior to
the act. They do not have to be rationally tested as a categorical imperative
requirement, but are instantly self evident. For example, should I kill a rhino for its
horns? is no!, while the act may or may not be allowed under deontological and
utilitarian principles. The rhino is an innocent being and killing it for its horns is
unnecessary. Nature is innocent no matter how violent it appears. The act is
governed by the definitions derived from being itself. The good/evil definitions are
universal (not relative or subjective). Moral and immoral are facts within the
registry of being, and are defined as the necessary benefit to innocent being or
unnecessary harm to innocent being. They are not governed by the intention, and
apply to the consequences of the act. Benefit and harm are evident in the
consequences. Prior to the consequences, the governor of the act is termed
necessity. Necessity demands knowledge of the consequences before the act. The
consequences are both general and individual, and the Greater Good or Individual
Good are determined. The moral rule is clear: knowledge of the consequences is
required before the act is necessary for the Greater Good. Any social experiments
without prior knowledge of the consequences is forbidden and deemed immoral.
For example, the ongoing project to convert the islands of Java and Sumatra into
palm oil plantations. Proponents argue that palm oil is a component of the Greater
64
Good bringing jobs, money, food, etc. to society. Besides the unnecessary loss
species, innocent beings killed, extinctions, devastated forests, huge profits for the
underwriters, and so forth, it is an unknown as to the effects upon the weather.
Palm oil injected into the human diet is unnecessary; loss of unique species of
animals and plants is unnecessary; possible interference in the weather system is
unnecessary; ecocide is unnecessary; ignorance of the consequences is
unnecessary. In the case of Sumatra, the shift from immoral into evil is clear for it
demands the recognition of the intentional, unnecessary destruction of the island
for money. Universal definitions are grounded in being, and in order to correct and
connect the dominant competing ethical systems, Kantianism (intentions) and
Utilitarianism (consequences), and their ethical axioms under a unified ontological
framework, realism is a necessary foundation for it is grounded in ontology. The
realistic framework includes intentions, acts and consequences as an aligned
ethical structure. Again, a structure is the cause appearance. When aligned, ethics
escapes subjectivism, emotivism, determinism, egoism, solipsism, etc. as well as
relativism, anthropomorphism and materialism. Depending upon the alignment, the
world ethically includes or excludes animals and environments. The ethical world
structures the appearances of good/evil and moral/immoral. It takes on the power
of an ethical efficient cause. The formations are material/immaterial because they
are outside of natural causes. The structure of ethical appearances is the alignment
of the intention, act, and consequences.
Innocent beings require protection both from the world and from natural events
such as disease or drought brought on by the world. Natural events such as lions
killing baby animals are neither good nor evil, moral nor immoral. The intention
and consequence are always in accord by nature. On the contrary, human mammals
have a free choice of intent and consequence within their world.
Why are the Kantian categories in the mind? By placing them in the mind,
certainty is assured. Certainty is reduced to a cognitive solution to Descartes’ doubt
and Hume’s skepticism over psychological habits. Kant reversed engineered
Aristotelian realism to idealism by relocating the categories of reality from
physical spacetime into mental spacetime. This move had a profound ethical
impact on animals and environments for it reduced them to epistemological
objects. The restoration of the Kantian categories to being is fundamental to
establishing a real ontological foundation, especially for protecting animal and
65
environmental mediums that are automatically excluded from the ideal human
world, the Kingdom of Ends, and must be legally reinstated as property and
commodities, not beings with natural, universal, and spiritual rights. The spiritual
side is the form of the material side as given in the structure of appearances.
Intentional death, betrayal, torture etc. are immaterial causes that structure bodily
appearances reflecting the intention back into its immaterial source. The source
code is immaterial and spiritual. Thus animals and environments are
immaterial/material paradigms that can be intentionally and unnecessarily harmed
or intentionally and necessarily benefitted. This is a free choice made by our
species.
Animals as Objects
As objects, animals are excluded from the virtual political State controlled by those
in power tending towards process (liberal) or reification (conservative). As objects,
they must be legally accounted for as property when entering it even though it
appears to the animals as their medium, which it is. Times and spaces within the
mediums are sold for hunting, logging, strip-mining, fishing, and so forth. Time
and space are reduced to objects and commodities. Ownership of time and space
has its natural analogies; however, the human mammal’s template is provided with
mathematical certainty through gps, clocks, gauges, maps, lasers, etc. This
Cartesian certainty overrides ontological certainty reducing entire ecosystems to
legal documents. Kant restructured the cogito with categories and logic, that
included the categories of causality, reality, and substance. The relocated and
restored Kantian category of reality from mind to being is not itself a structure
because being is the registry of the other categories (structures) such as causality
and substance. The fact of being is absolute and in itself. It is the noumenon that
synthesizes and analyzes itself into alienated natural paradigms. Kant relocated
reality with its structures in the human mind and termed them categories; but there
is no category of reality without an a priori and a posteriori reference to being as
being shifts back and forth between inner to outer. The mind does not structure
appearances of being but is formed by it. A priori formations are actualized by a
posteriori formations. There are no categories without references to the structures
of being, and those structures are both internal and external. In this way, being is
one and many, objective and subjective, finite and infinite, immanent and
transcendental, material and spiritual, known and unknown, and so on. Being is
66
still within the spatial/temporal paradigmatic medium and therefore sequenced and
positioned. It enters spacetime and exits spacetime forming the paradigm of
life/death. The Kantian categories exist, but do not have being; they are reflected
and remembered structures until the structures take over and shape the appearance
in the form. In this way, we know the inevitable before it happens. Old age,
disease, malnutrition, etc., are reflected in others and understood within me upon
experience. However, existence is a virtual state termed the world that does not
require experience. For example, the Atomic Bomb was understood and even
projected to destroy the universe upon the first explosion, but experience
confirmed a single explosion. The Atomic Bom is perceptual as are its
consequences, so it is not imaginary, nor is it a priori to the mind. It is an extended
idea inseparable from its embedded intention to kill. It is virtual and an existential
entity with a purpose. To impose a mental category termed reality upon a percept
leads to a confusion of the world with earth, animals and environments with
objects, entities, instruments, and property--a virtualized existence cut off from
reality for it still remains an externalized idea. The virtual world is a purgatory of
human ideas and intentions in perceived matter, neither mental nor natural beings.
Idealism’s movement towards Feuerbach’s declaration that ‘god is a being of the
understanding’ was inevitable.
From this realistic framework, the categories are learned and internalized
reflections of structures that are independent of the mind because they are first
natural structures among and within beings and not physical or mental formations.
The categories are reified reflections of structures that are a priori to being; they
are ontological and epistemological universals grounded in structures such as
cause/effect that determine appearances. If it shapes phenomena, it is a structure of
reality.
 How is reality encountered? Reality is given, not in structures, but in the
intuition of being, in undifferentiated presence. After this, sensation,
perception, form, understanding, etc. take place differentiating being from
being. This is prior to the representation for the Kantian representation is a
cognitively dissected intuition.
 How is reality known? Reality is known in reflected ontological structures.
Reality becomes aware of itself and otherness; sides are generated; its
67
identity is formed in its negations for negations are the reflected sides of
being intending unification within and outside of itself. For what one ontic
side is, the other is not. Each side is a shift in being, in reality. The world
does not follow this process; rather, it excludes other beings and seeks
anthropomorphic unites through instrumental negations such as atomic
devices and bioweapons. Nature is being in particular and in general for
they are inseparable sides of a paradigm. The human mammal excludes
itself from nature, often torturing and terrorizing its residents, yet is helpless
without it. Nature includes the human mammal and is unprejudiced
regarding its continued existence.
Reality & World
Aristotle gave us a human account of reality with ousia and the natural categories.
Kant gave us a human account of his world through mental categories and the
contradictions of reason. Ethics for Aristotle amounted to the middle way through
extreme polarized behaviors ending in an individual’s good life and contemplation.
Ethics for Kant amounted to a duty to act according to the categorical imperative
regulated by reason and good will. Neither took the environment or animal beings
into ethical account other than a means to one’s end. The utilitarian position placed
animals into ethics with a duty to prevent their suffering, which in the case of
human intentions is an observable, transverse, immoral property, but natural is
amoral or morally neutral for instinct does not provide a choice. Utilitarian
philosophy is limited to a sensory and intellectual sensory binary pleasure/pain
governed by the ontological categories of quantity/quality, but a complete
foundation is unavailable. Utilitarianism is limited in its transcendence into future
spacetime and limited to a post facto analysis of the relative amount of pleasure
and pain in a given greater population such as the Iraq war, deforestation,
overpopulation, etc. Pleasure is a positive sensation or feeling while pain is its
opposite. Most live in a neutral state, devoid of pleasure or pain for most of their
lives. The absence of pain or pleasure is a state of being. Pleasure and pain are
externally induced, for if internally chosen most would live is a state of pleasure.
Reasoning happiness into existence is impossible. So, pleasures are not an a priori
state of being. Instrumental transcendence is limited to pleasure/pain derived from
materialized intentions, but this is problematic. The instruments must hold the
intention to harm or to benefit, not to make a population happy or unhappy, not to
68
pleasure or pain. Illegal drugs and disease prevention drugs are delivered through
injection. The first causes great pleasure followed by greater pain. The second has
no pleasurable effects. Pleasure and pain are not adequate criteria, and only an
ontological analysis of being provides a principle. Well and ill being are
indisputable moral facts registered within being. If within the presence of being
and there because of knowledge, negligence, or informed intent, the structure was
artificially induced. If not registered within being, they are moral fictions (ideas). If
under the demand for the greater good, the majority must register these facts. If the
educational, commercial, health, economic, etc. systems are not registering in the
majority, this principle is violated. It is conceivable that the intent was to harm the
minority or majority ending in a greater good such as racism, fascism, etc., as
argued by Nazi Germany, and for this example, the greater good principle is
problematic. A minority can exterminate a majority and vote their greater good is
reached just as a majority can exterminate a minority in the name of the greater
good. The shift is relative to the consequence termed the Greater Good. The
Greater Good is virtual and arbitrary and not a moral principle. Private or public
interests cannot provide a transcendental ethical principle, but rely on an ethics
outside of interests such as justice. One party can unnecessarily harm to save
money, and often there are no laws until massive, generational harm is determined,
and their political support dries up. The universal principle is found in moral facts
of being. Moral judgments are reflections of the presence or absence of facts.
Moral facts, not intentional, actual or consequential pleasure/pain, are the
foundation of ethical principles. Happiness/unhappiness is state of being, but
incidental and relative, and not the foundation of ethical principles. Serial rapists
can claim a state of happiness. Moral facts originate within the intention and
terminate in being and its mediums as consequences. In order to take animals into
ethical account, a deeper understanding of realism is necessary; realism includes
moral facts in the registry of being.
What are ethical principles? Ethical principles are an alignment of intent, act, and
consequences among paradigms such as inner/outer. For example, the intent to
bring religion to a jungle tribe is good, and the act of informing them is good, but
the transference of disease and death of the tribe is immoral from negligence and
perhaps evil if done with knowledge of the consequences. Their abandoned
property is considered a greater good by those who would now inhabit their lands.
69
This alignment or misalignment is according to the chosen forms of good or evil
and their informed consequences. The consequences must be necessary. The
introduction of a disease into a defenseless tribe is unnecessary. Neither side can
stand alone in directing actions. There can be no absolute a priori ethical
governance of individual actions, nor any relative a posteriori ethical direction of
actions ending in a greater good. Kantianism and utilitarianism are connected
within being, and these systems are separated by breaking with reality. The
consequences are immaterial and material, spiritual and physical. The physical is
empirical, and with a quantitative threshold, shifts back into the spiritual side of the
paradigm of being.
Phenomenon & Noumenon
Is there another reality behind reality? There is nothing behind reality; there are no
noumena behind phenomena because reality structures appearances, and the
structures, when reflected, and which Kant misidentified as mental categories that
epistemologically form the field of sensations into objects, are inseparable from the
appearances; beneath this, being structures the forms holding the content of
sensations, and the process, termed abstraction of the form held by Aristotle and
the Scholastics, identifies the textbook species. This is not to be confused with the
structure such as cause/effect. The form is the presence of being in spacetime,
specifically termed essence. In other terms, the forms are the termini of
ontologically structured appearances. The outline is the separation of the paradigm
in/out. The limitations of reason terminate in antinomies. A presence does not
require an observer while an appearance does, and an epistemological relationship
follows. This is not a mental projection with a mental script cut into a canvas of
sensations. The same structures can be identified and transferred into a virtual
world through scientific procedures. The categories are merely reified reflections
of structures. By misidentifying reality with a category of the mind, Kant held that
a noumenal meta-reality stood behind the veil of phenomena, yet, if phenomena
are structured, that which holds the structures including substance and causality
must be the noumenon. The noumenal field is the structure of appearances, and the
structure is known in the reflection as being. A pine tree has a structure of
appearances such as bark, branches, needles, cones, etc.; it is known in the
reflected structure. This structure is not the form and the phenomena its content.
This being, the tree, in spacetime is an essence, pine, and the essence is a presence
70
given in the intuition and then known in its structured appearances termed the
form/content. The form emerges from the one and the content is the shift to the
many. Cause and effect work from within and from without to determine the
structure of the tree. It essence or form is an ongoing process, and the pine is a
reification or a concretized universal. Being structures its form holding the content.
The structures are those of a paradigm. In Kantian terms, phenomena refer to
essence; noumenal refer to being. Kant is dealing with the paradigm of
being/essence as an epistemological problem. The being/essence paradigm is
located in external spacetime, not in a holograph.
When is reflection true or false? True reflection is that of movement of being
towards a greater unity or disunity. The unity or disunity is that of being, not an
idea. This ontological reflection is associated with the sensory binary pleasure or
pain. Pleasure/pain hold consequences such as drug induced pleasure or the small
pain of an immunity shot. To hold that consequences themselves have
consequences ad infinitum is not an ethical principle determining actions or
choices for the worse/ lesser/greater/greatest good. For example, various countries
were momentarily ecstatic before going to war. The consequences were
predictable. There is no feeling or understanding providing a permanent state of
happiness. Happiness is beyond one’s control. Neither physical nor spiritual
control can shape it completely. Rather than an association of pleasure and pain, it
is a function of the paradigm of being; the relationship is one of necessity.
Necessity is physical as with gravity and spiritual as with love. Again, necessity is
a structure, function and property of ontological appearances, not a supposed
category of mind that forms virtual appearances in the theatre of rational science.
Pleasure/pain paradigms reflect off being, for any being manifests the Kantian
categories of quality/quantity with sides of one/many. The one is impossible
without the many which are themselves ones. The side of the one/many paradigm
does not break down to simple parts as held by Kant for that is a reification of one
side into the virtual one. Again, a category only reflects the structure of being;
neither the category nor being originates in a mind. The mind is never independent
of being though it can benefit and harm the magnitude of being through
instruments. The mental reification reflects the structure of being within and
without, but it must be activated by negation. The structure is an ontological
paradigm and the category is a reflected structure. The paradigm of relationship is
71
cause and effect. Cause and effect are sides of the paradigm of relationship outside
subjective spacetime where the effect is determined by natural laws and inside
subjective spacetime where the effect varies through position, variables of well
being, etc. that interfere with the reflection of the appearances of being, but can be
instrumentally corrected. In this way, the paradigm is in alignment. This paradigm
of relationship, through its structures is mentally transferred into instruments such
as weapons forming a virtual world with the moral shape of evil; for the intent of
the weapon, oblivious to innocence, is to kill. The shift into one is reflected in the
unity of being and the shift into many is reflected in the disunity of being. The
paradigm of quantity/quality is a shift into positive or negative being. A positive
shift moves into unity while a negative shift moves against unity towards disunity.
The categories are reflected ontological structures, and they are sides of paradigms
before reflected categories. Thus, the paradigm of Relationship has two sides that
are not categories of ideas, but ontological structures. Again, the cogito must be
clarified. If there is mind, there is an underlying being is true and factual; if there is
being, there mind is false and counter factual as in a coma.
Is being in the world possible? Being is never a mental product. The world is
populated with mental products revolving around human beings. The world is not
for other beings, so being in the world is limited to one species. For the human
species, the world is not one of pleasure or displeasure. Pleasure and pain are
relative sensory opposites associated with degrees of well or ill-being. We prefer
not to have a happy terminally ill child, but a child in well being capable of
happiness. Necessity regulates this process. This is an ontological process of
unification that it is prior to mind and a priori to being. Thus, the principle of
utilitarianism is rejected for pleasure or pain may or may not be necessary. For
example, the quantity of palm oil injected into the world’s diet may or may not be
necessary for the greater good. Small amounts of pain, as in flu shots for humans
and rabies shots for animals are necessary for their well-being.
The intuition of an inner and outer presence is the gestalt of universal unity. Being
includes being through exclusion of others. The human species excludes other
forms of being unless classified as property. The positive side is only recognized in
the negative contrast (not-me) against the positive (me). Thus, the human species
takes negation to another level. Rejection and inclusion are economic processes for
72
our species. The accumulation of property is taken as a fetish. Property as a
spiritual/material means of unification are violated in the ownership of beings.
What is the origin of consciousness? This is the origin of singular and universal
consciousness. Individual exclusion is ontic consciousness; inclusion is ontic
unconsciousness. Ontological opposites are reflected as contradictions. As
Heraclitus held, reality is a conflict of material opposites (old/young) and a conflict
of ontological negations, not rational, verbal contradictions (war is
necessary/unnecessary). Contradictions are reflected opposites. There are no
unreflected contradictions. Consciousness is formed in the ontic negation and
refined in the abstract logical contradiction. The scholastic argument over the
status of universals is clear; universals are existential; mental entities at best. The
mind is a reflection of reality and if not real, it is virtual when combined with
matter and imaginary when combined with ideas. Reality reflects its sides. Change
is ontological consciousness; permanence is ontological unconsciousness.
Universal unity transcends self unity through intuition. The unity of the many
aligns with the unity of the singular. Locked within being, the mind, the reified
categories, transcends its interior externalizing itself through instruments. This
transcendence into the human world reduces the being or reality of animals and the
earth to an idea that is externalized as legal property. This transcendental self or
mental ego as owner of entities is a reflection of itself within the world as property.
It exists, but is not real. Owners exist, but are not real. Owners are legal entities,
not beings, and what they own are commodities, not beings. Property reification is
a fiction of the human mind. At most, it is a thing, instrument or complex of
entities holding its ideas and intentions until alienated. In the human world, these
instruments must be brought into existence. Existence has a complex
epistemological foundation, generally termed the mind, while realism has a simple
ontological foundation, namely unity, and their transcendence is entirely different.
The human mind with its contents of ideas, objects and intentions enters spacetime
through instruments forming a world, be it Roman, Arabic, American, etc. The
world is a temporal unification in a particular space, and it cannot endure. These
worlds are reified legal entities with associated passions, icons, fetishes etc. by its
members. The western world’s epistemological frame has a Kantian interior lined
with subjective spacetime where objects seem to move around in a virtual
spacetime by themselves. For example, paperless money moves around the world
73
at electronic speeds, counted and transferred to new owners under this virtual
schema. The virtual human world is a template covering the earth. Beings and
mediums of beings such as sex slaves, goats, forests, rivers, exotics, etc. are little
more than virtual objects bought and sold, then moved around in this template
termed the world, but confused with the Earth. They are inevitably caged, killed,
tortured or harmed unnecessarily. Their lives are simply convenient containers that
must be kept “on” to keep the product fresh. Their environment is treated as
disposable property. The instrumental transcendence of the human interior and its
contents of objects into materialized ideas or virtual entities in the exterior forms
the world populated with human beings and their possessions. Instruments to
protect these possessions such as legal, communication, economic, political, etc.
systems emerge. In this way, the world comes into existence. Its laws are the laws
of the human mind, not the laws of reality. However, the template must conform to
reality to work. Yet, it is more than a mental projection upon a canvas of matter; it
is also a spiritual, ethical project that is presently unnecessarily immoral and evil.
The template upon the Earth, the world, is an epistemological project that brings
objects into existence and justifies their transference into legal entities without
regard to the consequences delivered to the Earth.
What is existence? Existence is the virtual status of the world. This virtual world is
epistemologically governed by the Kantian categories; self confirming in the static
demonstrations of science, then animated by the Hegelian rational “reality”
employing competition, war and destruction, slave and master, to engineer out of
the ashes of history the absolute State of reason and kingdom of ends in spacetime.
Thesis, antithesis and synthesis are virtual, not real movements of free choice. Real
being in spacetime is barely recognizable in the form of great leaders such as
Napoleon, Christ, et. al. Hegel’s state of logic is not ontological as explained in
the phenomenology of the here and now where the particular disappears into
universals. So, being disappeared in the idea of becoming which contains its
remains along with nothingness. A return to realism that encompasses and grounds
this virtual world with being, not mind, centers in the Earth, not the world, and it is
governed by the informed choice of good or evil. The world is a materialized state
of mind in the here and now, the present location, where universals enter space and
time becoming particular, specified and virtual entities as in this fork; when
commercially repeated, are materially universalized into instrumental species
74
plastic, steel, silver, etc. forks containing plans, intentions, designs, etc. These
universals undergo a transformation from objects to entities to commodities and
their materialized universality of entity distribution over spacetime. The entity has
a corresponding object tracked in virtual spacetime by its owner through electronic
instruments such as computers. An entity cannot be ontologically equated with
being. A car cannot be equated with a horse, an owner, a legal entity, cannot be
equated with a human being (corporation, government) and if equated, is a priori
immoral or moral depending on the intent and consequence of the distribution.
Again, the intent and consequence must be in positive alignment to be ethical.
Ethical Forms of the World
Ethics is grounded in being. Oughts emerge from being. Oughts reflect the
presence of unnecessary harm and the absence of necessary benefit within innocent
beings. Hume argued that ‘ought cannot come from is.’ Prescriptive statements
cannot emerge from descriptive statements. The universe is one way as described,
so how can ought-statements emerge from is-statements? The chosen ethical form
of the idea and the intention is also embedded physically and immaterially into
space and time as the outline of the world. Hume held that knowledge comes from
definitions, observations or logic. Paradigmatic realism provides the missing
definitions of moral, immoral, good, and evil. These definitions are observable in
beings providing moral knowledge. Ought-statements are found in these sources,
and therefore, Hume erred in claiming there is no moral knowledge. The
definitions can be factually verified or refuted in the reflected being where they are
registered or unregistered.
Ethical naturalists claim that oughts emerge from goal directed acts. Oughts are the
means to one’s end. This hypothetical imperative is insufficient for moral
knowledge. Goal directed behavior reduced to its intent can be examined as ethical
or unethical according to the definitions, and it is unnecessary to wait for the
consequences. The intent to harm or benefit must be reflected within the
consequences to provide moral knowledge.
The assertion that all is matter is instantly immaterialized as is the assertion that all
is immaterial is materialized in the assertion. A materialized idea such as a dam,
car, bridge, etc. requires materialized intentions such as instruments and tools to
75
complete them. Entities and instruments are interchangeable roles. Materialized
intentions are ideas holding intentions and allowing future intentions to flow
through them. They are the forms of spiritual and material transference of violent
or beneficial forms of energy into another being. The form of their intention has
four shapes, namely, good, evil, moral and immoral. At their core is a state of
being innocent or not being innocent. Not being innocent can indicate guilt, willful
ignorance, willfully negligence, etc. The dominant opposing shapes, good and evil,
often projected within the personified images of angels and devils, contain their
respective subordinate shapes, moral and immoral that has no image. They form an
ethical paradigm of transcendence that absolutely excludes divided and alienated
other beings. This stage of transcendence is termed an entity, and entities such as
pets, lawyers, doctors, workers, students, etc. compose the world. Essence or
species of being is excluded from the world other than legal or biological textbook
classifications. Who, i.e., title, legal description, personality, not what, comprises
the world. To note, Sartre confused what with who, essence with titles, and being
with existence. Being, not existence precedes essence in that being in spacetime is
essence, a what, and only after education and choices, a who takes shape in the
medium of existence. There are no objects within the world other than mass
hallucinations such as American, Russian, French, etc. These titles are not essences
or other species. At most, they are legal descriptions. Objects are a side of an
epistemological paradigm object/subject. This paradigm is a living reflection of
in/out. Controlled by the life/death paradigm, the subject/object paradigm requires
instrumental transcendence because the object can be a projection, injection, or
combination. By injection, the object can be recognized as n external formation
and by projection the object is recognized as internal formation such as a
hallucination, and a combination is found in illusions. Behind the transcendence,
the intention or accident shapes the consequences. An uninformed intent allows
accidents to dominate the outcome. The object/subject paradigm never fully
transcends its origin, and responsibility is the residual within the consequence.
The absolute enters the relativity of spacetime in the universal and found in a
species such as a tiger or instrumentally in the ethical or unethical kind of entity
such as a weapon; otherwise, the object never leaves the human mind. A
transcended object is the objective. The objective is the completion of an ethical
action. The target, mission, quest, purpose, etc. are universally defended as ethical
and spiritual regardless of the consequences. Only in the dialectic are the
76
arguments tested and shown sound or unsound. Tons of bioweapons, chemical
weapons, nuclear weapons, stripped ecosystems, chemical dumps, etc. are mixtures
of the subjective and objective poles. With an objective confused by profit,
jingoism, patriotism, and fear, these instruments and their applications are
inherently immoral. Because the intention is embedded into an entity, the entity
holds a spiritual component that will form real consequences as it transforms being
with a chosen, known benefit or harm. A transcended intention is a purpose. A
bioweapon or saltshaker has a purpose embedded within it. The ethical form of
entities is good or evil depending upon their purpose. An entity can be an
instrument, or a means of transcendence, or an end in itself. The spiritual side of
this process is the chosen intention and through its physical side it enters the
exterior/interior of another being. It enters through the spiritual side of being in the
manifestations. For example, the spiritual side is violated with the threat,
manifestations and consequences of weapons. These instruments artificially
restructure the exterior and interior of both entities and beings altering their
appearance. These instruments are virtual and dependent upon the human mind for
their operations. They are independent of perception, but not the mind. Entities are
modified to alter their purpose to harmful or harmless and beings are modified to
suffering or well being. In this way, the good is a virtual hospital, food bank,
protected area, water source, etc. regulating transcendental existentialism. This
reshaping is accomplished by altering the virtual medium of the human being and
other beings and their natural environments. The environment, free of human
intentions, is termed nature, but any environment contaminated with human
intentions is termed the world. The world violates natural laws with natural laws
and then expects nature to correct the violation and restore itself and the world
with quality and quantity. The natural environment is the medium of natural beings
while the world is the virtual medium of human beings. The natural medium if
fully independent of the artificial medium of world, yet the virtual world,
independent of perception, unnecessarily harms and destroys the natural medium
upon which it is dependent. This activity is termed ecocide, and it is a fundamental
duty of transcendental existentialism to never unnecessarily harm innocent beings
through its activities. It requires a complete knowledge of the consequences the
world inflicts upon nature. Each project requires a plan is incomplete and negligent
without fully a modeled impact of benefit. The destruction of islands, savannas,
wetlands, forests, river systems, etc. in the name of commerce, progress,
77
civilization, etc. is unnecessary, and with this fact alone, such activity is evil. There
is no justification for the world to act against nature with the structures of nature.
The claim of necessity due to overpopulation is fallacious because it is a virtual
overpopulation unregulated by free choice and political policy. Instinct is not an
argument for unregulated sexual activity with consequences of overpopulation,
deforestation, extinctions, etc.
What is transcendental existentialism? Transcendental existentialism is the
process of generating and maintaining the human world. The human world
displaces the medium of being such as forests and rivers. Being in the world only
applies to humans because it excludes natural beings and their mediums. The
artificial and virtual world compete with and destroy the natural medium of being,
the Earth. The case is clear in Sumatra where thousands of species are
unnecessarily exterminated for palm oil plantations. The common term for
transcendental existentialism is progress. The destruction of Sumatra, Java, etc. is
only possible through the existential template and its content of objects and
entities. The world confuses objects, entities, instruments and beings and
equivocates their status to that of being, not existence for it is stuck in esse est
percipi. The world is virtual, not ontological; it has no being. Nevertheless, it is a
concrete virtual world, perceptual and cognitive, but not real. The Kantian
categories and consequential theories apply to the world; in fact, they are simple
reflections of the structure of being used for human purposes. They are abstracted
then materialized into instruments. As with entities, instruments are independent of
perception, but not the mind. They are not real; they are perceptual. Transcendental
idealism completes itself in transcendental existentialism where the mind gives
concrete certainty to empirical science. Objects conform to the mind, and entities
follow the laws embedded within them by the mind. Entities structure appearances
within the world, and the Earth is the canvas for the world. The sun now revolves
around the world and the Earth conforms to the mind of man by mechanical force.
In order to reach ethical principles of transcendental existentialism, it requires the
human mammal ground its intentions within reality, that is, being and its medium,
and not existence or the world. This ground is termed transcendental realism given
in the intuition of being. Within the intuition emerges a fundamental ethical
78
principle. It is absolutely necessarily to benefit innocent being and to condemn all
unnecessary harm to innocent being and its medium. However, the human world is
a freely chosen medium providing necessary benefit or unnecessary harm to its
inhabitants and the natural beings trapped within it. Free choice can reject
necessity because necessity is impossible without knowledge.
The human intention is linguistically recognized in the infinitive to + V. The
ethical principle of transcendental existentialism is chosen and therefore intended.
The human being makes ethical choices. Its choice is informed or uninformed. An
informed choice or uninformed choice is itself a choice. A willfully uninformed
choice is unnecessary and therefore immoral and even evil for it is intended. Thus
it is a moral duty to have informed choices, else not act. An informed choice
knows the beneficial or harmful consequences of its intention. The intention is an
idea with a purpose to alter being or its medium with instruments. The chosen form
of the intention is good, evil, moral or immoral. Flexible instruments such as
hands, words, eye movements, etc. and inflexible instruments such as guns, cars,
trains, signs, etc. transfer intentions into being. Intentions are specific forms of
energy meant to transform objects according to the form of the intention. Opposing
sides of the paradigm are unified by a spiritual and material paradigm of good or
evil reflecting its origin, the paradigm of Being/being.
The medium of Being, the Absolute separated from its alienated other, the
Relative, is spacetime the void separating being from being, or Being from itself,
the two sides of reality. The unity of sides distinguishes being from existence, but
the choice of good or evil is unique to the human organism. The choice originates
in spacetime and refers back to finite being seeking ultimate unification in Being.
The symbolic division between ethical good/evil is the finite or (/); a symbol for a
free, informed/uninformed choice and not an internal paradigm boundary. The
dividing line between paradigms such as Being/being and finite/infinite is the
ontological negation of its other termed consciousness. Consciousness is the
negation of its other side, clearly formed in the / or. Consciousness is necessary or
unnecessary. Ethical or intentional choices are freely determined, hence
unnecessary to consciousness while ontological (physical/spiritual) choices (to be
or not to be) are necessary to consciousness such as burning to death or escaping.
More precisely, necessity is ontological consciousness, species consciousness, or
79
ontic consciousness in the particular; necessity does not stand outside/inside of
consciousness as an object, but is the form of consciousness. To choose to burn to
death is a transcendental spiritual choice, an onto theological free choice, that can
override ontological choices and seemingly contradictory until the reason for the
choice is made clear such as Tibetan monks protesting Chinese occupation of
Tibet. The term reason is not the Kantian theme of rational communities, but is
simply the ontotheological pattern symbolically transmitted to others. Nor can it be
considered the cause, for this pattern is outside the laws of nature. The ethical
choice is unnecessary, else it would not be free; however, the consequences of the
choice are necessary or unnecessary for they are not freely chosen by the
recipients. They are imposed, and even agreeing with an imposed choice is not a
free choice, but is a Stoic strategy not to fight with the cart.
Consciousness is the fractal reflected movement of the paradigm into its positive
and negative sides and these sides generating other paradigms. The only paradigm
that cannot shift into its other is good/evil because its intent defines it and free
choice separates it. In all paradigms, as the negating process terminates, it reaches
an identity in a momentary ontological reification, only to begin the process again.
While Hegel’s dialectic is the movement of the concrete idea into its opposite
followed by a reconciliation and separation, transcendental realism is the
underlying, self-differentiating process of the paradigm of being. Hegel animated a
static Kantian virtual world with the dialectic of the idea reaching the existential
State, but he did not reach being. The sides of being are those of matter in the form
of the body and the body under infinity in the form of the species. The body has a
left/right, top/bottom, up/down, front/back, and so on. The shift from one side to
the other is a material shift. The shift is always in spacetime, therefore in reference
to something other. For example, to shift from left to right while facing something
requires one to turn from front to back. The paradigm of left/right generates the
paradigm of front/back. The shift from materiality to immateriality is seen in the
example of a shift from love to anger. The body cannot fully repress this back and
forth shift from body/soul. The shift from immateriality to immateriality is also
seen in the love/hate example. The shift from
Reification
80
Reification occurs in sensations, perceptions, understandings, and throughout
being. The reification of sensations, often termed habits or conditioning, reflects
one side of the paradigm of being. Reifications are ontological in their origins.
They can be experienced in sensory, perceptual, cognitive, cultural and legal
formations, and so on. Reification cannot be a suspended paradigm for the
paradigm will always shift. They are gestalts of being; suspended ontological
memories that cannot endure and will shift into the forgotten. However, the world
suspends nature through the manipulation of its laws, using recast natural laws to
hold off or alter the inevitable. Plastic surgery, makeup, etc. Reification occurs in
paradigms. There is a reification of age, sex, identity, culture, law, etc. A
dominant, one-sided, non-polarized reification associated with matter is termed
unconsciousness. This association is the emergence of another paradigm.
Consciousness shifts to unconsciousness as reifications are suspended. For
example, when the body is damaged, the shift into unconsciousness usually
follows. This shift in the paradigm is for now dominated by materiality and various
stages of material reifications follow. These moments of disunity can reverse and
shift back into unity and reflect into self and others. This bipolar structure of reality
appears in various paradigms such as the one/many, infinite/finite,
material/immaterial,
necessary/unnecessary,
knowledge/ignorance,
quality/quantity, free/enslaved, absolute/relative, space/time, here/there,
beginning/ending, cause/effect, and so on. Each paradigm structures its particular
appearances.
Consciousness is the movement of negations within reality. Every negation leaves
an affirmation. For example, the negation of happiness is the affirmation of
possible unhappiness. Consciousness of reflections is thought. Reflection of
formed sensation is perception. Reflection of formed perception is the
understanding, and reflection of paradigms is reason. The form of perception
comes from the structure of appearances. Consciousness of formed sensations
allows the form to be abstracted or the pattern separated from the content and a
geometric template developed. This virtual template does not justify Kant’s claim
that time and space are a priori, nor does it allow him to move primary qualities,
Locke’s substance, and Aristotle’s cause/effect into the mind for safe harbor.
Berkeley tired to move concrete reality into perception, and Hume reduced
structure to habits and form to conditioning. Kant’s cookie cutter mind imposes
81
forms upon sensation, a synthesizer, but this is an activity with global
repercussions. Subdivision, dams, reactors, zoos, wind farms, fur farms, etc. follow
this model. There is no inherent, a priori structure of the mind that was not first in
reality. There are no a priori forms projected in the mind that are not first in reality.
Mind is a reflection of reality. The world is a projection of mind while reality is a
presence of being. The Kantian projected virtual world is one of narcissistic or
communal ownership while reality is the absence or presence of undifferentiated
being. Reality stands outside the subject/object epistemological paradigm.
Existence or the human world is distinguished from being of which humans are
only a small part. The virtual, human world’s existence is separate from the Earth
which is a being. The human world is not reality because it depends upon the
human mind, and the human mind depends upon a human being. Being therefore
precedes mind. The mind does not proceed being else reality would be an idea.
Reality is given in the present through individual intuition of another being, a
gestalt of a priori unity, me, determined in a reflected ontic negation not me.
Reality does not conform to the mind; rather, the mind conforms to reality. What
conforms to the human mind is the virtual human world, specifically; the world of
devices, entities and concretized objects that compel appearances into conformity
with the mind resulting in a devastated Earth; also, it allows for evil human
intentions towards the citizens of the Earth, and immoral activities such as
whaling, trophy hunting, ivory trade, etc. Ecocide is the consequence of the human
world.
Kantianism seems a passive enterprise of understanding how appearances
somehow conform to cognition; however, only active, human controlled,
instrumental force brings about this Copernican revolution. Kant’s version of
reality is rejected. It follows that reality cannot be a monism of idea or bodies, or
mixture of matter and ideas; idealism, materialism, Cartesian dualism, Newtonian
mechanisms, etc. Materialism is rejected for it denies immateriality making
consciousness, ideas, soul, etc. impossible or mere epiphenomena. Mentally
formed appearances, even from empirical data, cannot be considered reality.
Appearances cannot stand independent of something; nor can they be separated
from something, else they would become just another something. Appearances
refer to a substance and that substance is an essence. Appearances are not a
substance, but a paradigm of substance/appearance. An essence is the presence of
82
being; therefore, appearances are the presence of a being in the spacetime
paradigm. Appearances are not mental phenomena, but the presence of one being
to another given to the intuition that represents essence in the fact of being. The
possession of an essence is simply the shift back from the essence to the being’s
most fundamental possession: its reflected, alienated side, momentarily invisible in
the visible. Hume’s quest to find his inner self through his outer self will forever
elude him. The inner self is made visible only in the mirror of another’s smiles,
tears, castigations, etc., or a reflection in a mirror or the mirror of consequences.
Materially and immaterially reflected negations form the paradigm of Being/being
giving rise to consciousness, and thus consciousness is universal to some degree to
all natural unities. Pan psychic unities imply a unification of material and
immaterial parts, but a unification of substances has been denied for it is without
process. Instead, the sides of the paradigm are reifications of process/substance
paradigm. Reified paradigmatic sides are self conscious for they negate bad
infinity (per Hegel). The negation becomes reified as in war and emerges in an
undifferentiated field of otherness, the enemy. Reifications are conscious as in the
borders of a state and enemies at the gate and unconscious as in the unreflected age
of a body. This last reification becomes self conscious as when one looks in a
mirror and sees their visible age. The processing side of the substance/process
paradigm is the serialization of substance. They are the same, only one side shifts
in the temporal pole and the other into a spatial pole. Just as someone sleeps on the
left, then shifts to the right, the sides are different, but the individual is one and the
same. The chronological and spatial sequences are identical. Leibnitz’s pre
established harmony is simply that of a unified being with two sides manifesting a
presence. Their unity is that of sides of a paradigm rather than substances such as
soul and body, mind and matter, infinitely small and infinitely large, etc. The
process of consciousness is not yet a thought with immaterial content of ideas and
material content of neurons, etc; rather, it is simple material negations
differentiating bodies out of a priori defensive mechanisms. Material negations are
immaterial once reflected. Consciousness emerges in the shifting of poles or sides
within the material/immaterial paradigm. For example there is material justice in
space and time with entities such as jails, courts, books, etc., and immaterial justice
such as concepts of consideration, equality, property, punishment, etc. in the
separation of being. The immaterial side is a momentary shift into the absolute
83
while the immaterial side is a shift into the relative sides of the Absolute/Relative
paradigm. The relative pole is separated by spacetime; while the absolute pole is
inseparable. The shift out of unconscious materiality to conscious immateriality
originates in the field of otherness for this pole opposes anything other than its own
negativity. Being undifferentiated alienation, it is a universal without
individualization and remains a process without individual reifications. These
shifts within the polarities of a paradigm account for the dual structure of reality.
The structure is not that of substances for processes are their polar opposites. In
other words, a dualism of substances as in Cartesian accounts separated the
material/immaterial paradigm on the basis of a fixation with one pole, namely
substance. Yet substance within process is only a momentary, reified shift that
cannot hold. This reification when reflected recognizes its unity with the process,
and an identity forms. The identity x in time and space is not entirely an essence,
but a self within an essence. Thus, x1, x2, x3, …is a unique (x), self-conscious
human being with a history of reifications (1,2,3…). The first negative reflection is
that of pain which is indicative of disunity leading to rejection of anything that
would bring on its disunification, and pleasure leading to acceptance, identity and
enhanced unification. This description remains ontological for the mind and its
content of ideas, i.e., epistemology, is undeveloped, and the Cartesian cogito yet to
occur. The cogito violates the rule of being; that being is independent of thought,
nor can finite thought be the origin of finite being. Thought is limited to causing
existence and existence is the virtual medium of the human being with the effect of
disconnecting the human being from natural being. This disconnection must be
ethically regulated so as to bring about benefit to all being. The cogito is not the
foundation of being; being is the foundation of the cogito. The cogito is a gestalt of
being. Minimal cogito is found in atomic bonds and higher cogito is found in the
human thought. Thought is a universal binding of being to being.
Devices
Devices are never independent of the mind for once perceived, they can be
deciphered; however, they stand independent of perception that locates them in
space and time. Perception is a process of organizing sensations into epistemic
formations that may or may not correspond and cohere to reality and the virtual
world of devices. These formations are contaminated with subjectivity and
84
insecurities, and often named for their inventors. What then is real? Reality must
be fully independent of the mind, but devices are dependent upon a mind for their
existence, and therefore are not real. Devices are perceived, but cannot be real. To
distinguish them from reality, they are held to exist. Existence is distinguished
from being and the infinitive to be. Existence then applies to anything virtual, and
this means it is a cognitive dependency, but not a perceptual dependency. Devices
have cognitive histories tracing back to a human inventor while reality does not.
For example, a car has a cognitive history in that it was planned, engineered,
produced, distributed, named, etc. A car is not a being; rather, it is an instrument
and entity generated by an ego. This ego transcended itself through instruments
and recognized itself in the reflected consequences of those instruments and
devices. The ego is that which possesses and forms a unity around those
possessions. Behind the ego is the principle of subjective unity or the soul. This is
similar to Sartre’s transcendental ego that is outside itself in things. This principle
is that of immaterial unity with other immaterial unities though it can confuse the
principle of material unity when it is dominated by objects within perception. This
principle is often confuses with immaterial instruments such as laws with material
instruments such as guns.
The Intuition of Being
Descartes’ cogito broke from the intuition of being by isolating his soul from his
body and reality, returning to a virtual, mental world by deducing infinite being
outside spacetime, and animal machines and other finite rational beings inside
spacetime; all deduced, not from a Platonic memory, but from an innate definition
of perfection. Perfection must be real but outside spacetime by its impossible
presence in his finite, imperfect human mind, the cogito. However, the certainty of
the cogito and its contents is fleeting for it depends upon a finite being--one that
must endure distractive successions in the here and now. The immanence of the
cogito that connects the human soul locked within a body to a transcendental God
is over upon its affirmation. Immanence is formed in flashes of meditation. Being
is affirmed in thought. I think, therefore I am reveals his thought is prior to his
being and his being is a rational conclusion. Modus ponens: if there is thought,
there is being, (T) modus tollens: if there is being, there is thought. (F) An infinite
sequence of finite transcendental affirmations is impossible to sustain in order to
85
provide rational security, certainty, of God’s existence and his own existence; a
forced return to sensory spacetime is instantaneous and error prone while a shift
back to meditation is demanding. Prolonged meditation has a foundation in a priori
certainty. Mathematics deals with objects in spacetime with certainty. Other
irrational beings require God’s perfection for their ontological status, but not his
protection. Cutoff from the cogito, and discounting the intuition of being, animals
and their environments did not stand a chance. They were machines, not rational
beings, for they had no souls, and machines don’t suffer. The Earth serves man.
The intuitions connecting being to being through the representation bypass object
formations. Kant held that the representation provides virtual objectivity, but this is
incomplete. Experience shows that we differentiate objects from beings. The
representation provides our initial contact with reality. The representation is the
intuition within spacetime. Outside of spacetime, the representation does not apply.
This leaves the negation as the only method of dealing with another dimension.
The negation brings consciousness into the opposite of the finite, imperfect,
material, empirical, etc. The universal is the entry of the infinite, universal,
immaterial, etc. into spacetime. This is grasped by negation of the individual and
one. The image, copy, structure, object, form, etc. are the ontologically structured
intuitions of being reflected in through our own unity. Kant may have provided an
argument for synthetic a priori propositions about phenomena, but contact with the
is simply the immediate intuition of being, being that generates the phenomenon.
Reality is available to the intuition of being for intuition is an a priori gestalt of
unity that underlies all being; for the intuition of being is that of its unity or
disunity reflected to and from another being in which its intentions are reflected.
The unity of a being involves other beings in its species that transcends individual
unity. The intuition of being is an access to the species. The species is the universal
and the member the individual. A shift from the one to the many, and the gestalt of
the one in the unity of the many is that of a living species. This gestalt is life and its
disunity is death. The intentional, unnecessary disunity of any species is an
ultimate evil. This evil is manifested in the human mammal. Its reified objects
template being as being is only recognized and connected to another being within
its intuition, and not through reified object formations originating in the
imagination termed templates that only alienate being from being and being and its
species. So far, the only species capable of object reification, abstraction, and its
86
materialized transcendence is the human mammal. Intuition is a being’s immediate
access to another being through the a priori gestalt of unity or disunity. The gestalt
of unity is that of self-unity that paradigmatically transcends perceived spatial and
temporal divides in its self-recognition reflected in another essence as well or ill
being. This reflection of essence is immediately accepted or rejected through
affirmation or negation. The patterns of negative and positive sensations form the
representation; the image is a gestalt of ontic unity, not mind, as accepting or
rejecting another being. Some might term this instinct. The fact of being and the
gestalt of its essence are certain in the intuition, for even if in error, the error
remains detectible and correctable. For example, if camouflaged, the being
underlying the appearance remains detectible. This analysis is not concerned with
the production of a false image through instruments or magic shows, but remains
within the realm of nature. This is ontic, not cognitive logic. The process begins in
sensation and runs its course through perception. The representation is the intuition
of being, and never reaches a paradoxical level unless brought before the
understanding and cognition. Where there is a separated essence, there is the
possibility of transcendental unity of the individual with its species. In the human
being, nature is replaced with the world, and the world often templates beings with
cultural devices and imaginative objects such as stars, winners, losers, and other
labels. In this process, our species unites physically and spiritually, not under
being, but under imaginative devices with socially fabricated and reified
definitions such as Catholic, Jew, Sunni, migrant, etc. The informed human
intention determines if the unity is good or evil. The evil intention wills
unnecessary disunity upon another being and expects those consequences reflected
after the act. Objects of perception are grounded to reality by the intuition of being
else they become distorted fictions and reifications such as slaves and enemies.
Intuition is the unmediated presence of being while perception is the unmediated
presence of being to devices and beings. The presence of being or many identical
forms of beings is a species, and the presence of a being is an essence. An essence
a paradigmatic shift to the one while a species is a paradigmatic shift to the many.
They are sides of the same paradigm. Any being in space and time is an essence.
Objectifications intentionally abstracted and alienated from the intuition of being
making them objects of the understanding. The understanding abstracts the object
where it can be counted and moved around in subjective time and space, and with
this control, ownership and property templates emerge in this shift to ego. Kant’s
87
transcendental unity of apperception is the ego’s contribution to the object, my
object. Kant’s internalization of spacetime is limited to a flat world; however,
when the flat surfaced, imagination is twisted and stretched, Euclidean limits are
realized. Internal time and space can be coordinated and synchronized with
instrumental timespace in devices in the natural spacetime medium. For example,
commodities markets move millions of unperceived objects (beings such as cows
and chemicals such as gasoline) around in a virtual electronic world coordinated
with instrumental devices, outside of the intuition of being, but inside the
imagination and the virtual world of computers and devices that corrects the
imagination through coordinated references to the intuition of being and the natural
medium of spacetime. With this critical separation between that which is
independent of the mind or its productions, and that which is independent of
perception and possibly containing an idea, emerges the foundation of an
existential world and its origin within human reified formations. Without this
ontological division, confusion between existentialism and realism prevails where
human beings consider devices beings. In this way, relativism emerges and
competes with being for the title of reality, and with the title, relativism takes on
supreme universal value. Being generates being, yet the exceptional human beings
bring objects into existence termed devices such as computers, microscopes, genes,
x-ray technology, etc. Beings are reality, yet human beings form their world of
devices and instruments that exist in spacetime and template all beings. The
template has the form of good or evil, moral or immoral. Kant’s move of spacetime
to the interior has some experiential basis as when time and space become
distorted. But the distortions are explained, and the interior corrected and
reconnected through experience and instruments to the exterior. This experience of
distortions clearly requires a reassessment of Kant’s claims. Kant held that a
transcendental realist cannot know if representations refer to things in themselves
(A491/B519) because things do not conform to cognition (Bxvi). Kant reverses the
claim to say that things (objects) must conform to cognition (Bxvi) or the laws of
the mind, the categories, in order for us to know them. Things in themselves and
the way they work are unknowable. Kant’s world is transcendental existentialism
where the human mind imposes its order upon reality. Hume’s world is one of
behaviorism because we have no impressions of the laws within nature, i.e.,
cause/effect, substance, etc. Knowledge of reality eluded both Hume and Kant.
Kant’s mind is organized by something outside space and time for if there is a law,
88
there must be a lawgiver. This is clearly platonic for he places the source of the a
priori outside of space and time. Hume’s uncertain world is organized by habits
and operations of the mind. Both agree that things in themselves are unknowable.
Hume ignores the fact that impressions come organized; they have structure and
form; they appear in a temporal and spatial framework with a start and finish in a
location. No habit or custom can frame appearances; rather, they are formed by
something. The framework is space and time and the structure is cause and effect.
The human mind can reproduce these appearances through instruments, and
describe the appearances through mathematical and linguistic symbols. Kant
realized that the form gave the certainty to the understanding, so he placed the
form in the mind avoiding Hume’s skepticism of unconditioned knowledge.
Granting Hume accepted formed impressions, for him the connection between
them is habit and conditioning. Again, Hume did not grant that appearances are
formed and structured, and the structure unfolds over space and time. A hammer
hits a nail or a tree falls, the structure is the same and reproducible. It is not an
analogy or habit that forms the structure. Lightning hits the tree. It is the things and
their relationships in themselves, and the structure appears in space and time.
Cause and effect are visible and measureable in the structure of appearances. Each
structure has its class that separates it from others. Isolating the structure allows the
human mind to replicate it through instruments. Generators produce electricity.
Connecting the structures of reality especially cause/effect and substance through
the appearance is not the human mind with a priori categories or habits, but beings
and their mediums that underlies the appearances. It is being and its medium that
appears. Being and its medium have essence and it is the essence that appears. The
essence is formed and structured; the appearance must follow the structure. Any
impressions record the appearance from a position and thus are phenomenological
and structured because it is in space and time. The structure is the perspective
which gives an incomplete reflection. Errors follow, not from conditioning, but
from judging the properties of being upon partial appearances. Humes’s division of
impressions is not due to anything internal. Simple and complex ideas are not due
to an internal division of the mind, but the structure of reality. The paradigm of
simple/complex as found in Hume’s apple example are simple shifts in the thing
itself, not in the mind that only reflects the shift. The apple is not a complex of
impressions or simple ideas, but a paradigm of one/many properties. The senses
did not cause the apple to turn black over time. The senses are recording devices
89
for the structure of appearances. The shift to red, sweet, hard, etc. are soon to shift
to brown, bitter, soft, etc. These are prior to the senses that record these properties.
These senses record them accurately or not depending upon their functionality.
Because one records and reports red and another records and reports grey does not
alter the property, and their reports are accurate as to their power of reflection. A
color blind individual reports the functionality of that organ accurately, and the
report of gray shows that the organ is not working. The structure of the appearance
of the apple determines which set of organs is deficient or sufficient, and does not
change the structure of the apple. A gray apple is a structured appearance such as
wrinkling, shrinking, etc. The form of the appearance, the apple, is a shift to an
individual while a field of apples is a shift to the species. This shift is a
paradigmatic structural shift of one/many. Cause/effect is a paradigmatic shift in
the structure of appearances within the paradigm’s medium of space/time. For
example, a falling tree, hammer, avalanche, etc. are structured appearances termed
cause and effect where there is a beginning and end of sequence. The beginning is
the cause and the end is the effect. They are separable by consciousness through
reifications. The paradigmatic shift from quality to quantity or quantity to quality is
inseparable from cause/effect, one/many, substance/process, and all categories.
The categories are reflections of the structures of appearance, and the structures of
appearance emerge from the prime category, Being/being. The categories structure
consciousness; consciousness conforms to the categories and is conditioned by
them. They do not originate in consciousness for consciousness merely reflects
them. The weight of natural shifts is determined by natural law. Natural law is the
balance between the shifts, and when in balance, consciousness reflects one side of
the appearance or the other within the moment. An absolute balance cannot result
in the medium of space/time, and imbalances result in dominate shifts. Dominate
shifts require time. Finite consciousness reflects these dominant shifts and the
processes become reified and distorted in the reflection because finite
consciousness attributes substance to the reflection. Following Marx, reflections
become fetishes. The structure of the appearance over geologic time remains in the
effects and can be decoded. The structure of appearance in individual and political
time can be decoded from the consequences. Even as the consequences are
unfolding, the structure is decodable. The forms of the appearance are determined
by the structure. A damaged society or individual is decodable because the change
of form resulted from an intended structure. The natural structures in the human
90
world are made and intended to change the world for good or evil. The structure
was applied by embedding it within instruments. The instruments themselves
require structure in their distribution. The quality of their applications results in
massive torment or benefit over historic time. The present social order is a
reification of past applications still unfolding. If Hume’s matters of fact are limited
to experience, sensory experience, impressions judged a sunset are always
particular; the jump to a universal sunset remains unwarranted for Hume. There are
only sunsets from the present to the past, but never to the future. There is no
guarantee or certainty of another sunset in the present. Anything can happen, and
the universe destroyed. However, can we jump to a change in form, not being? Can
the sunset be transformed into a pink elephant without cause. The sunset cannot
suddenly change form, though it can change in the structure of appearance. With
structure, the change is caused by another structure such as a supernova. Hume is
correct in this, and we accept it; however, a change in form or essence is incorrect.
The structure of appearances is limited to a form. An appearance such as a
supernova is structured by laws of physics while an elephant is structured by the
laws of biology. The laws of nature shape appearances while spacetime divides
them in form and function. For example, the hand is a structured set of appearances
that vary slightly or greatly as with a birth defect. The cause is inseparable from
the structured appearances. We cannot explain the appearances through habit or
conditioning, but must refer to a structure. For example, a bullet wound is
perceptible, but perception does not explain it; it only confirms it. The structure of
the wound and the appearances rendered explain it. Appearances are not
subjective, nor objective. Instead, they are the manifestations of a being
independent of any observing mind. The experience of the relation of ideas is a
priori knowledge limited to tautology while matters of fact are limited to sensory
experience and remain uncertain as to their continuation except for the past and
present sensation. Hume is denying knowledge of the future and claiming
uncertainty of continuation of the material form and structure of the fact such as a
billiard ball. Thus the ball could disappear or become else for there are no sensory
guarantees, no certainty in impressions, and no knowledge of causality for
causality remains insensible. On the contrary, we experience knowledge of things
without sensing them. The missing elements in the periodic table, viruses, x-rays,
the other side of the moon, and so on, are known, understood, their structures
determined, without being given in sensation, and direct, corresponding
91
impressions completely missing. They appear indirectly and their absence causing
no impressions, yet their structure determined, not by analogy, but by necessity of
a coherent structure. We also know the consequences of events through the
structure of appearances. Dropping a bomb is the beginning of the structure, and
the structure cannot suddenly change into another structure. The structure
determines the form, and the form of the bombing is an impact followed by an
explosion. These appearances are formed by the structure, and their repetition is
anticipated with certainty that the form will be the same and not suddenly turn into
another structure of appearances such as a field of tulips.
Transcendental realism can explain how reality works. If the form is imposed on
the senses by the mind rather than things, then it has a priori certainty, and Hume
was correct to point out that if imposed on the senses by things, rational egoism,
associations and conditioning can occur. Hume did not point out that we also learn
from our errors and misconnections. Hume left out a key component; that structure
or form is also imposed. The structure is not a bundle of impressions but a
prefabricated organized structure that the senses adhere to forming the contents of
the mind. Cause and effect are experienced; they are structured appearances given
in space and time, and space and time are outside of the mind, and the mind must
adapt to this state through observation and instruments such as clocks. Kant cannot
explain how the mind discovers the operations of things in themselves by imposing
a priori categories upon nature. Natural logic is not human imposed rational logic.
Because the human mind imposes its ideas upon nature does not guarantee
anything. Natural operations are discovered and utilized without full
understanding, and the operations of nature are often misunderstood. The problem
is that the mind does not always impose structure; rather, it imposes structures
discovered and copied from nature then imposed with instruments such as needles;
the representation is our intuition of being and existence, and being is the thing in
itself supporting Kant’s virtual existence. We live in a virtual world of computers
and concrete virtual world of transportation, economic, political, military, etc.
systems. Our intuition confirms being in the a priori awareness of our unity. The
image is a simple reflection of an essence/being paradigm. Being is not an idea of
the mind, but a fundamental unity prior to the mind and the generator of the mind.
Experience
92
Experience is inseparable from knowledge. There can be no knowledge outside of
experience. Experience does not consist of one form such as sensation; rather, it
has multiple forms including perceptual, cognitive, emotional, spiritual, and so on.
Each breaks down into more specific forms of experience. The form of experience
establishes it classification. Thus, flying a plane has many layers of experience
including perceptual, physical, cognitive, forms that break down even further to
include patterns of hand movements, responses to various gauges, symbols,
conversations, etc. Flying a plane cannot exclude any of these experiences, and in
total, are the contents of knowledge. The point is that experience cannot be limited
to one form such as sensation or perception. True enough, sensation and perception
are necessary for cognitive experiences, but cognitive forms of experience are not
bound to sensation.
Materialized Ideas
A materialized idea is the transcendence of the immaterial and spiritual into time
and space. It takes a form independent from perception, but not the mind. The
immaterial side of the human being transcends its solipsism by paradigmatically
entering space and time in order to harm or benefit other beings. This entrance into
time and space requires a material schema of instruments beginning with hands
and language. The intention/extension paradigm emerges and shifts from intention
into extension. When the idea becomes visible, the human mammal begins to form
theirvirtual world. By understanding external, material laws, a priori immaterial
laws of ethics shift to the absolute unity of their interior from the relativity and
disunity of spacetime or their exterior. Humans must do this through instruments.
For example, instruments such as rifles, bullets, etc., collectively termed devices
are materially embedded with the intention to kill. Templates such as “the enemy”
dominate this consciousness. A template is killed while the intuition of a human
being is suppressed. The world takes on the template of war.
The World
The world comes into existence and continues through the human mind that
materializes its ideas and intentions. This mind constitutes a virtual world through
its instruments and devices. The mind is not an entity; rather, it is a process that
remains to be clarified. The object of its mind is a reified, immaterial process, and
93
objects aggregate and interconnect forming a human world of property. The world
is a virtual realm beginning with epistemic objects. Objects are not real for they
emerge out of consciousness of something while reality or being emerges out of
Being. Objects are not ontological units, but mental dependencies with owners.
Beings are never owned except by force while objects have owners. For example,
Locke owned primary and secondary qualities; Descartes owned the cogito, and so
on. The something is dropped, and a formation, termed “the object,” remains the
consciousness of an object. For example, a “slave” is a template of a human being
where the object, the slave, takes on a “reality” more valuable than the human
being. The “slave” is a commodity “for sale.” The slave is nothing more than an
entity given existence by its “owner.” A slave is independent of perception in that a
human being stands beneath the slave template that can be re-projected on any
human being. The slave template is within the human mind overriding the human
being, and projected in a mass hallucination among those who “perceive” a slave.
The slave nominalism is empty of being. This is not an agreement to perceive
slaves; rather, it is a shift in the epiphenomenal subject/object paradigm that is a
mere reflection and projection of its underlying, polarized ontic structure. This
shift can vibrate in a wave among the many forming a confederation. This shift to
the objective pole takes on the template form of a “slave,” and only shifts back to
the subjective pole of the paradigm when “ownership” of the slave forms “mine”
or the “slave” template is internalized in the being, now a “slave,” now me.
Templates divide being further into them/us. Templates such as “slave” do not
emerge from ownership consciousness and its virtual world, but arise from the
realm of being and the direct intuition of another being. While a slave is a mass
hallucination, a murderer is a fact.
Objects
Perceptual objects, entities, are not real; they have no being for they are dependent
on being for their emergence in spacetime. An object is a reified pole of
consciousness reflecting its underlying ontic structure of me/mine. Being underlies
the existence of objects because it generates them, and existence refers to
epistemic, internally/externally charged formations and their instrumental
transcendence into being from being; they are formations of consciousness
overriding the intuition of being; in short, ontology precedes epistemology.
Epistemological processes cannot generate being nor are they epiphenomenal; it
94
generates existence or virtual worlds such as science, sports, politics, etc.
Instruments such as language suspend and overcome the spacetime barrier.
Consciousness of something emerges from the negation, separation and
identification of being under the paradigm in/out. If outside, one is a spectator;
inside, one is an actor. Being precedes consciousness for it is its foundation, and
the medium and origin of being is the Earth. Objects cannot be perceived nor can
they stand independent of perception. Objects are not representations of being for
that is a property of direct intuition; rather, they are polarities of a medium termed
consciousness that itself originates in the polarities of being. These polarities are
immaterially and materially charged. When objects transcend their inner region,
they are termed devices and instruments, and their medium is termed the world.
The world generates virtual epiphenomena through instruments such as Christmas,
parties, fashion shows, movies, music, art, etc. The underlying cause is the
instrument and the mind behind it. Because some phenomena are predicted or
discovered, the phenomena are held to be real or independent of the human mind.
These phenomena are not real, and are considered epiphenomena of the human
world. They are instrumentally brought into existence and are dependent upon
them. The world and its byproducts are independent of perception, but not the
mind. They are under human control, and as such, their form is by human choice.
The form is either good or evil.
Names
Objects are further confused with beings when humans name and predicate them
ending is reifications such as memes. For example, the noun USA refers to a legal
entity. It also refers to a location in space and time. It has a short history, and by
appearance, is “real.” Legal agreements do not generate beings; rather, they
generate entities and devices. These legal devices are brought into existence and
take up mental space occupied by millions of legal entities such as contracts,
deeds, wills, marriages, etc. It also contains millions of instruments such as
electronic devices, dams, economic entities, and so on. As an aggregate of devices
and instruments, the human world is based on choices. The USA shapes and
conditions the USA mindset, and it is imagined a state of being. In this way, the
USA is a relative state of being; more precisely, it is a series of reified opinions,
i.e., poles. These poles are instrumental reflections of political devices and their
consequences. The USA reification varies accordingly. Slavery, Indian wars and
95
reservations, animal extinctions, communism, wars, pollution, and other
hobgoblins are the ontological consequences derived from the templates of the
USA mind. The only realities of the USA are the beings and their mediums covered
by this template.
Concrete Consciousness
Prior to being is the paradigm of materiality and immateriality. This paradigm is a
being in the process of negation and affirmation, and an immaterial/material
substance reification appearing within the process. Prior to consciousness is the
intuition of being or simple undifferentiated presence followed by a simple
physical and spiritual concrete paradigmatic negation forming a concrete reflected
unity in opposition to a field of otherness, and within this negation the intuition
emerges unifying its singular, unique oneness by separating from the field of
otherness through a negation or series of negations giving plurality its unity in this
mutual negation; sides emerge and the paradigm of one/many surfaces. This
process of identification in the infinite negation of otherness is termed concrete
consciousness. It emerges out of the shifts within the paradigm of being.
Consciousness is a polarized process of generating reifications, that is, objects
through negation and affirmation. Reified objects such as slaves take hold. These
objects shift back to the subjective polarity under the category of possession and
property. These are spiritual categories or polarities of consciousness directly
based upon being. Being can become an object of consciousness in the contrasts of
the being/not being paradigm. The concrete assertion it is/is not generates
consciousness and the reflection of the process takes on substance. Thus emerges a
slave and not a slave. Various rational arguments support the reifications such as
natural inferiority/natural superiority with the right of ownership. Slavery and its
acts and reactions come into existence. Slavery is not imaginary for it exists, nor is
it real for it has no being. There is no subspecies termed slaves. Without slaves and
instrument force, those holding on to slavery are hallucinating objects. It is an
invisible template imposed upon innocent beings. Animals suffer the same
reifications. Consciousness cannot generate the underlying being, but it can impose
instrumental force upon it and force it into existence. This existence is virtual and
can be forced out of existence. Being is not virtual and cannot be brought into
existence through epiphenomenal consciousness of reified objects. Consciousness
generates objects that can be instrumentally brought into existence through will
96
and resources. These entities include medicines, genes, vitamins, bridges, weapons,
chains, locks, computers, telephones, games, etc. are examples. Innocent beings
that are treated as objects of affection or hostility and are transformed through the
human intention and its delivery system. Objects and their entry into spacetime can
bring about good or evil consequences. The form of the object is charged with
good or evil intent towards innocent beings. Being is altered by devices, and when
being is confused with devices such as the fur industry, unnecessary harm can be
judged and classified as immoral or evil. This form of the good excludes the
existential category of ownership and the egocentric interests behind it. Hybrid
beings such as goats made to glow in the dark, and even more evil or good genetic
alterations await innocent beings. These alterations modify being, and the human
mind enters into being that reflects its intentions; however, it cannot bring being
into being. For the mind to bring being into being, it would necessitate its being a
being. Nor can the mind bring being into existence. The “discovery” of a new
species is the entrance of this species into the world. Columbus “discovered” and
brought “America” into existence ignoring the fact that its existence predated him
by thousands of years.
Spinoza
Hegel criticized Spinoza’s One Substance as undifferentiated uniformity, a night in
which…all cows are black (Hegel, PS, London: Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1910, p. 78
ff.) Spinoza clearly recognized the paradigm of Being/being. His God/attributes
constitutes a paradigm under the one/many. Matter/mind is the human viewpoint of
God. Thinking substance/extended substance are identical, hence a two-sided
paradigm. The paradigm solves the problem of change within the changeless, for
they are the same in difference, namely their sides. The outside is material, the
inside is mental and the axis or point of the shift is God. There is no free choice,
only determinism. In defense of Spinoza, determinism is the perfect choice for it
too is a paradigm of infinitely free/finitely determined among others. To answer
Hegel on behalf of Spinoza, the one is the many and he should realize that the
contradiction is ontological negation undergoing a shift, an unchangeable change.
God is the totality of all mind and matter. God is nature and God’s will is its law.
One attribute of God is infinity and of man finite. An infinity of shifts is possible
while each shift is finite for else there would only be shift for many shifts is a
property of the finite, or precisely, no shifts occur. If each shift were infinite, the
97
finite is impossible and experience of finitude is illusionary, and Parmenides was
correct. Yet, we experience a momentary shift into the infinite when we grieve,
choose, think, unite, pray, enjoy, inspire, etc. Because we are finite beings within
the finite shift, the shift back to the infinite is only momentary.
Spinoza held that God is an infinite substance with infinite attributes. We are
limited; we are modes of nature; we know only two attributes, infinite thought and
infinite extension. They are the same? How can he claim to know this being
limited to only two attributes? Mind is not an attribute but a relationship between
body and soul, and Nature is a substance in process. These contradictions can only
be resolved within the paradigm. Besides the problem of comprehension, Spinoza
is describing the paradigm of immateriality/materiality. He resolves the mind/body
problem through the paradigm. Spinoza’s model differs from the paradigm of
being in that matter/mind shifts are sides of God; however, the shift is not in the
perceiver, nor in God; rather, it is in the paradigm of Being/being. Good and evil
correspond to pleasure and pain, and there is no free choice in his thought.
However, man does stand outside nature though free choice. Spinoza assumes a
free choice to overcome ignorance through knowledge. Being is prior to the
relative human relationship to the Absolute it terms God. Spinoza knew this, but
could not escape it. God and man are two limited sides of the Being/being
paradigm. God is man’s projected relationship into the Absolute while man is the
reflected negation and opposite of that behind what humans name God in their
exclusive, anthropomorphic relationship to Being. Infinite Being is infinite unity
and this includes the universe. This projected God into Nature and the world is
false for the human world stands against nature. It objectifies nature and devalues
it into commodities. Spinoza does not separate the world from nature, but God is
limited to the human world. The natural universe cannot stand outside of God for
that would affirm only one side, the immaterial and deny the material. The
Absolute cannot stand apart from the Relative. Finite being has free choice such as
good or evil within spacetime, while God, having made all infinite, unlimited
choices including the paradigm of good/evil, cannot be reversed. All choices
having been made, space and time separating Being, Nature and its laws organized,
the Universe only seems determined. Finite being is infinite Being, selfdifferentiated and determined. The paradigm of free/determined aligns with the
paradigm of finite/infinite. There is an infinity of paradigms beyond matter and
98
spirit. In religious terms, outside space and time, the shift is God; God inside space
and time is Christ. The Christ/God paradigm is limited to the form of the human
mammal. The human mammal’s informed free choice results in an absolute
struggle between the forms of its intentions within the relativity of spacetime. An
informed free choice of good or evil is an instance of the infinite within the finite
or the absolute within the relative. The limit of free choice is ignorance of the
consequences or the form of the intention.
Kant
For Kant, space and time are a priori forms of intuition. Space is found in outer
intuition while time is found in outer and inner intuitions. Sequence is a priori,
hence an intuition that pre-organizes experienced object or events in before and
after. From this, the concept of time is available enabling me to explain the idea to
another. Empirical concepts such as tree, dog, car, etc. are not a priori but
empirically formed objects given in a sequence. Yet cause, substance and reality
are a priori categories synthesizing sensations. So, if given, the empirical object is
judged as caused, substantial, and real. Kant is an empirical realist when spatial
objects are external and the categories applied to appearances in the empirical
field. Yet Kant also maintains transcendental idealism with the categories. There is
a factor that lies beyond the limitations of the categories, much like the negative
concept of what is beyond the universe. This is platonic. Understanding overcomes
and transcends the limits of spatial intuition in grasping the structure of a sunrise
and sunset making the universe intelligible. Cause is an a priori concept and
outside of the empirical sequence. This means that cause is immediately
apprehended and this intuition transcends space and time for it is not an empirical
concept but a pure category.
On the contrary, a transcendental cause is not an empty form or template shaping
empirical data; instead, it is a learned structure of appearances inseparable from its
polar opposite, sensation, shifting from one to the other. A cat is a being with
organic cause and effect within it. It can bite and was born at an exact time and an
exact location. A car is an existential entity with cause and effect intentionally
embedded within it. This governing intention is to transport. The car is also a
medium of other instruments such as a radio, lights, odometer, etc. A cow is a
being; cattle meat is an entity with cause and effect calculated and measured within
99
it. It registers measured cause in various mechanical forces in the slaughter house
and positive and negative nutritional effects in the commodity. It registers cause in
the nutritional measurements of protein, fat, calories, etc., and effect in the
consumer’s well-being. The cause/effect paradigm within the matrix of devices
momentarily suspends the space/time paradigm. This matrix forms a world outside
of the earth.
The Kantian model of ethical events begins with beliefs and desires filtered by
reason leading to a decision before the act is set into motion to satisfy the ego. The
intentions determine if the will is good or bad. Kant’s starting point is a belief or
system of beliefs. Beliefs are entirely relative and this conflicts with his position
that categorical imperatives are absolutes. The conflict in duty to one’s beliefs or a
categorical imperative has implications. Religious, military, political, family,
heritage, etc. are hard to suppress with a categorical imperative. Kant makes it
clear in his inn keeper example that the higher obligation is to the categorical
imperative truth, even over harm to a family member. The Realistic model holds
that the beginning of ethical events is a human being determining the necessity of
the act and choosing to know the consequences or not in order to select the form of
the intention behind it. In Kant’s innkeeper example, it is unnecessary that anyone
be stabbed. Self defense is the only acceptable necessary action, and it does not
apply. Innocence is assumed by the observers. There is predictable knowledge of
the consequences in the situation; the keeper’s intent is a choice in the means of
protection by lying, misdirection, false information, etc. The other option is to
deny knowledge or even withhold information by saying nothing further provoking
the assailant. Telling the truth will probably lead to a stabbing and the innkeeper
will be an accomplice to the deed. The innkeeper can physically interfere. Our real
duty is to protect innocent beings from unnecessary harm. Our virtual duty is to tell
the truth even if the recipient does not deserve to hear it and misuse it as a weapon
of destruction. The inn keeper’s good will is meaningless against the bad will of
the assassin. Anyone can claim good will depending on their beliefs, religious
dogma, superstitions, ideology, etc. The Grand Inquisitor would claim good will.
The will can be predicated with good or evil, and therefore relative to something
else. Good or bad will is a choice relative to one’s beliefs. Kant’s evaluation of the
innkeeper situation only finds the duty to tell the truth. If the innkeeper’s
evaluation refers to the registry of innocent being through his intuition of being,
100
the choice is one among several options of protection according to his capacity to
defend the innocent party. The absolute that surfaces is an innocent being and the
duty to protect it. There is no absolute duty to tell the truth, yet. The truth is
unfolding; it is the completion of the situation, not a positional moment within it.
The will is in the intent within the act, or active intent. Passive intent would
include planning, supervising, while active intent is in the actual event. The will is
a paradigm of passive/active intent. Good will is a component of the act where the
intention shifts from passive to active. The good will comes from the intentional
act, not the good intention that may never act, but act through others. Those on the
front line act according to the good/bad will, but those behind the lines, who
planned and fund the war, can always claim good will. The focus upon the will
misleads the analysis into the relativity of beliefs, and ignores the absolute’s shift.
Kant’s model begins within the subjective, within the interior. Beliefs originate
from without and are learned while desires originate within and must be acted out.
Beliefs are often insane as in the Taliban and are evil. Desires are universal to
every human being. The beliefs must correspond to the ethical principles of good
and moral to be considered ethical. Desires such as sex, food, water, etc. must be
regulated according to the definitions of good and moral before acting them out.
The consequences must correspond to the definitions of good and moral.
Knowledge and necessity must be present in the actor and recipient. Choices must
be in place and an agreement reached. The absolute duty is to protect innocent
being.
In the case of animals and the environment, where choice is not possible, the world
in conflict with nature, nature must always benefit if the world is to endure.
The moral law under the categories of causality and substance requires a moral
lawgiver. This law is transcendent, yet immanent in one’s conscience. In this, one
is aware of their good or evil will. Natural laws such as gravity are transcendent,
yet immanent in all physical experiences. Natural laws are both internal and
external to the unity or disunity of being operating independently of free choice.
The virtual world of the human mammal does its best to suspend and overcome
natural laws such as gravity with airplanes, rockets, etc. Kant’s claim that laws are
a priori epistemic or virtual ontological formations accounts for virtual laws found
in the Copernican Revolution. Epistemic objects and formations have no being.
101
Their possessors have hidden being, but the possession is empty of being. The
being of the possessor is the body/soul paradigm. The shift between these sides
accounts for consciousness or the negation of its otherness. The body/soul
paradigm can be shifted in spacetime to one side for centuries. Reifications of the
soul occurred throughout mediaeval times resulting in religious wars, sects,
pilgrimages, monasteries, etc. These expressions of the soul are material and are
inseparable from their immaterial sides embedded within their forms. The negation
of the external material body is its internal immaterial side termed property and its
immaterial connection to the side material is termed rights. Again, the principle of
unity shapes the body/soul paradigm, and this principle is one of sides of a process,
not separate substances. By removing the laws from nature and relocating them in
the mind as mental laws, and internalizing space and time as forms of intuition,
objective certainty and universality are assured with this move. Nature is reduced
to mental projects utilizing plastic matter to shape a virtual world for rational
humans. Instruments such as telescopes and microscopes brought planets and
microbes into objective existence and their owners and discovers honored with
awards and prizes or shunned and condemned. The mechanical universe allowed
this until contradictions and inconsistencies emerged with relativity and
nanophysics. This rational, mechanical universe begins to break down. Following
Kantian model, the Newtonian mechanical universe is a mental organization of its
a priori laws in a rationally engineered universe of mathematics and measurements
described by formula. It is a certain and ordered world. Outside of this world is the
requiring faith as to its contents. This contradiction of the phenomenal and
noumenal, being and Being, is comprehensible. Another universe allowing the
contradictions to coexist is under construction. The barrier is the contradictory
door without a key. It is the location of the suspended paradigm, the suspended
antinomy unable to shift into infinity for it is chained to sensation. The paradigm
embraces both sides. The paradigm under the one and many is only one or an
infinity of paradigms.
Kant’s virtual rational world is governed by duty to a categorical imperative. A
murder pays with his life, but suicide is not allowed. Gravity can be modified with
instruments resulting in rational spiritual experiences such as hangings, or
irrational suicides by jumping to one’s death, and so forth; free choice overcomes
virtual determinism. Finite being has the moral law embedded within one’s
102
conscience/cortex paradigm and the center of the good will. Removal of either side
results in the death of the paradigm. Conscience can be retrained or the prefrontal
cortex cut out or repaired. The paradigm shift from the finite perspective to the
infinite dimension is one of informed free choice; it is not a virtual modification.
The paradigm of good and evil, infinite and finite, inner and outer, material or
immaterial, etc. are sides of the human being under the control of free choice. An
irrational contradiction lies in the heart of this power. The human mammal must
choose. There is no choice but to choose. No to choose is a choice. Its choice is
both the expression of its freedom and determinism. The power of the choice must
be practiced and developed. It must overcome its ignorance of the consequences
before choosing and acting. This is its solemn duty to Being and the unity of all
being. The moral law within and without, immanent and transcendent, is a free
choice. Free choice overcomes the determinism of material nature and its relative
laws shifting the paradigm back to immaterial spirit or the absolute law. The free
choice of the finite human being is immediately absorbed into the determinate. A
free choice is an absolute transcendental bullet absorbed in the mass of the relative
and determined. This absorption of a free choice or spontaneous acts is a new
matrix of consequences within the world and the Earth. Like a pebble dropped into
a vast pool of water, the fading ripples are the consequences. The pool is forever
changed, but identical. With the human mammal, the determined need not be
obeyed and can be suspended or ignored as with gravity resulting is physical and
spiritual harm. It is transcendent and physically indeterminate for it is a free choice
shifting from the individual into the universal. Once the choice transcends its inner
origins, it enters the phenomenal field where it not only Hume’s bundle of
sensations, but Berkeley’s bundle of ideas. This composite of universals is
animated, not by the Hegelian dialectic, but by paradigmatic shifts. This shift from
the immanent to the transcendent is a simple choice in the form of the intention.
The form of the intention is that of good or evil. Unlike the natural laws, ethical
laws, namely, good and evil are freely chosen. Each form has its recognizable and
measureable consequence. Each form must be instrumentally injected into space
and time. Kant moved space and time to the internal, and indeed there is a
subjective space and time. It is a spiritual form of space and time that must adjust
and readjust to physical space and time.
103
Kant’s moral law enters space and time as a categorical imperative and his good
will is his intention to obey it. This duty overrides his personal happiness or
negative consequences. His good will is the duty to follow the categorical
imperative. In this duty, Kant holds that egoism is overcome and the rational
community has a new member. The categorical imperative has mean-end and
universal rule components. Kant’s analysis differs from transcendental
existentialism that holds there is no duty to follow the form of the intention. The
form of the intention is good or evil, and one or the other is freely chosen. A good
will is the intentional necessary (informed) benefit to innocent beings. An ignorant
free will is a determined will loaded with impulses. Freedom is confused with
determined behavior. A good will can never claim ignorance. An evil will is the
intentional unnecessary harm to innocent beings. There is no categorical
imperative other than the imperative not to objectify being, but to return to the
intuition of being and leave innocent being alone. Utilitarian and consequential
ethics are covered under the definition of necessity. The intention is not required to
be immoral or moral, only the knowledge of the consequences and avoidance of
arrogant ignorance, that is, negligence before acting.
Kant held that the I think, the cogito, accompanies our representations. For
example, [I think] + I see a tree. Is this the case? In this example, the cogito is one
of doubt governing the visual consciousness of a tree. In another example, I think I
am right is again a sign of uncertainty overriding the over confident claim I am
right. If certainty governs the visual, auditory, tactile, etc. forms of consciousness,
then there is evidence backing up the claim, and thought has provided more than
doubt. For example, I am certain that I see a tree takes the claim to the evidence or
empirical verification or nonsense. This empirical verification is ultimately
grounded in the intuition of being while nonsense is grounded in the intuition of
notbeing, not an illusion, mental disorder, trick, misperception, hallucination,
plastic tree, etc. The representation must be grounded in the being of the tree. This
requires the tree is present; it has a presence, and presents an essence such as oak.
Kant tried to transcend the phenomenal objectivity of the relative and the
subjectivity of egoistic possession with the absolute categorical imperative. There
is no hierarchy of duties for they are all obligations to absolutes. Good intent or
will is within the medium of space and time and subject to cultural variables. As
Socrates knew, even killers claim to act under a good will. Like Plato, Kant tried to
104
escape egoism and relativism with another dimension that caused the moral law,
but it does not work. In any political situation, good will shifts effortlessly into bad
will. To avoid this, it must be an informed choice where the consequences to
innocents are clear. Kant’s good will supposedly transcends the relative space time
conditions of his 17th century virtual world, but it is still a choice. Kant like, Plato
tied to escape a conditioned will with the and reach the absolute, but the only
escape is not the law within, but the paradigm of being itself that simply and
effortlessly shifts back and forth from determinism to freedom, finitude to
infinitude, evil to good without permission. The only freedom left is the power of
free choice over the form of one’s individual intentions, but this freedom is
momentary. This occurs with an informed free choice; otherwise, freedom and
determinism are equivocal. Sartre’s spontaneity is not a free choice, but an
uninformed impulse ending in unknown consequences. This is fine with painting
or poetry, but cannot extend into another being. Sartre’s spontaneity can be
modified and retrained by an informed will, but the form of the will is a choice.
Any physical art such as martial arts are spontaneous, informed choices where the
consequences are known. The form of the intention to fight, for good or evil, is a
choice. Sartre’s axiom that existence precedes essence applies if existence is
divorced from being and applied to the world where one’s roles are equated and
confused with essence. The choice of roles or behaviors such as a waiter, doctor,
prisoner, senator, nurse, etc. are the contents of who I am, not what I am. These
titles are awarded after learning select skills.
Hegel
If Hegel were under the paradigm, his analysis would follow this: the Hegelian
Absolute and contingent are unrecognizable, one to the other, but they are not two,
but one; upon reflection and with depth, a shift occurs, the one into its alienated,
unrecognized other for they require each other and are necessary and inseparable
sides of Freedom. The end is reached. Absorption would then be one of dominance
over the other until a balance of freedom is reached. Why a balance in a struggle of
dominance; a tie? If contingency is not fully absorbed, a paradigm exists, not a
dialectic absorbing the other. The rational is real; concrete ideas are real such as
Napoleon, Cesar, et. al. The concrete is opposite of the abstract universal. The
abstract, infinite universal enters space through the finite concrete and an historical
record is formed.
105
Understanding corrects perception’s misidentification of substantial or real things
as mere phenomena. The thing is not independent of the mind; rather, it is a
construct. Kantian space and time are not sensory intuitions. History requires time;
nature requires space. Hegel relocated Kant’s categories and logic into spacetime
where they dialectically engineer history through the concrete logic of negation
and synthesis. The animated idea is externalized and independent as in Napoleon.
Finite minds conform to the state; the state does not conform to finite minds which
are subsumed. Negation is concrete as in slavery, revolution and war; peace is little
more than a transition in this titanic struggle. Hegel’s dialectic accounts for
political change. The synthesis of the contradiction is a new entity; for Kant’s
categories of the mind and Aristotle’s categories of nature cannot account for
political change. The Absolute enters spacetime, becoming relative, and remains
within development in timespace, especially in a physical location, Germany,
where its development is a tragic struggle of war, slavery, conquest, and so forth.
The mind/idea is now unfolding inside spacetime through the dialectic, and in
order to operate in spacetime, the idea must be both material and immaterial, or a
materialized idea that moves through negations such as war only to absorb its other
as in the master/slave relationship for a momentary time in a never ending struggle
to reach and advance the state. Once again, Hegel’s world is virtual and animated
through negation.
The Human Mind
The mind is a process, not a substance until reification. Reification is the shift in
the process/substance paradigm to substance. The mind emerges by reflecting off
another being or something it is not. It is a process of negation periodically shifting
into a state of being held as a substance, but is a simple reification of that process
in spacetime. This reification of negations is the process paradigm shifting into
substance. The mind originates in the intuition of being or its unity, I am, and its
unity is established in the negation of its disunity, I am not X, for if I were X, I
would not be me. This series of negations is consciousness. Reflection shifts to
objects as they emerge from the contrasts off the sides of being. I am not a tree, yet
the tree is my object. In order for the mind to reflect the object, the object must be
intelligible and have form. The object is universal for it is a template, and
templates are universal in that its individuality is removed with an abstraction. A
tree is a fractal redundant member of all trees. The object has form imaginatively
106
from its foundation in being while being has prereflective ontological logic
beginning with is and is not. I am is only realized in the fact that I am not. This
process constitutes what I am not/what I am. They are inseparable sides of the
being/essence paradigm unfolding through experience. Ontological logic precedes
epistemic logic and finally rational, formal logic emerges. I am is defined against
the logic of I am not. If I am undifferentiated, then I cannot be. There can be no I,
only an undifferentiated mass. The limits of me is the beginning of mine. My
identity in difference is the reflection of a unique paradigm. The gestalt of me is
more than the sum of my parts. Yet my parts both limit and expand me as tools for
existence. My limits established through negation of otherness identify me as
unique and define my unity and identity, and other than otherness, only to fall back
into the undifferentiated universality of humanity. When the ontological status of
being and object become confused, and the mind reflects both without
distinguishing their origins, this results in devaluing being into an object
ofpossession and commoditization, and its alienation is complete. Historically, in
reconstructing the origins of being and object, Plato’s mind filled reality with
intelligible forms in heaven; Aristotle moved reality to individuals; Kant’s mind
moved reality to the mind itself. This odyssey begins with Platonic forms
imaginatively placed in another dimension and ends with Kantian categories
placed in the mind. The forms in space and time are essences outside of space and
time; they are the scripts generating reality. Scripted reality is virtual, and the
formula generated by the mind, believed discovered, hence objective, cannot be
separated from mind denying the principle of independence. Mind and reality are
inseparable when reality is virtual. The mind cannot separate itself from its script
and encoded products; and dependent mental instruments enter spacetime. Mind
cannot separate itself from its formula. The form is the mind itself and the content
is the template. Does it correspond or cohere to reality, to being? If reality is
independent of the mind, a separation of the mind from reality is demanded, yet
impossible to comprehend. The mind is the shadow of the real. The real can only
be grasped in itself. The virtual semblance of reality demands that the formula
must be located somewhere and become active at sometime. If reality is in God’s
mind, or another dimension, or even outside of perception, transcendence is
necessary to avoid the paradox. The infinite becomes finite and the finite becomes
infinite. Perhaps reality is an idea as Berkeley reasoned. If outside the mind, Hegel,
accepting this conclusion, animates the idea in space and time through the
107
dialectic. This transformation into intelligibility is necessary for the universe of
become conscious of itself. A virtual reality is partly mental as in Kantian
schemata with mind providing structure and the body or something outside the
body providing sensations and data content. However, if the categories are simply
viewed as code and the brain an analog computer, a virtual reality is projected and
Kantianism disappears into materialism. Platonic forms can also be seen as source
code of the universe, and Berkeley’s God is also a mainframe or master program
holding up the virtual universe of ideas. Mind and brain are the software and
computer, and the program is its own spectacle; the world is the holograph room in
Star Trek, impossible to know the programmer or what is outside of the room.
Viewer and viewpoint cannot be separated or divorced from the thing, and the
thing in itself is unknowable. Outside of the virtual world of mind (an impossible
position) is the noumenal and a matter of faith. Inside the virtual world of the
human mammal, the mind composes the algorithms on the language of substance
and causality, and the analog brain supplies the primary and secondary qualities to
complete the show. The phenomenal field is intelligible and certain; trial and error
and conditioning are avoided by induction ending in probabilities. Social reality is
a mixture of scripts and codes with various programs running in or out of sync.
Relativism is the virtual reality of cultures in conflict or in sync. This theatre of the
personal and social mind almost works. It is a self defining system content with the
phenomena of appearances and will fully ignorant of the center of human political
power. Occasionally, this world is rocked by the noumenal that breaks through the
virtual and hurts enough to get a law passed.
Berkeley
Reality is outside of the mind. Yet outside of the mind does not mean outside of
perception for perception is an incomplete process of forming ideas; it is not yet a
fully processed idea independent of reality contained and protected by the mind
and exchanged in a rational community. Secondary qualities are a set of fully
developed ideas, and imperceptible in their universal forms. The internal
representation X and X outside of the representation cannot be fully equated.
Sensory distortions eventually readjust to X, and the senses autocorrect unless
interfered with by drugs, injury, etc. The cause and effect are distinguished in the
paradigm of being under the reflected paradigm of cause/effect. The distinction
between inner and outer is a priori to being through ontological negation, not
108
rational negation which is a later event dependent upon and in conformity to
ontological negation. Ontological negation when reflected is termed sensory or
perceptual which is fully an internal mental event as reflected as colors, textures,
measurements, or secondary and primary qualities. In other words, the paradigm
of inner/outer has shifted into inner, and become fixated as with Berkeley, Kant,
and Hegel. Plato resisted the temptation of idealism and declared the reality of the
forms outside of the mind in a separate dimension of heaven, but this imaginary
state is unconvincing. For example, a chair for Berkeley is experienced as bundle
of ideas, and those ideas are separated into categories of secondary and primary
qualities. Under Berkeley, reality (to be) is perceived (to be perceived). Perception
causes being. The statement to be is to be perceived is differentiated from to be is
to be thought. The chair is generally assumed as outside of the mind, yet upon
analysis, the chair breaks down into primary and secondary qualities. Upon
analysis, the outside chair becomes the inside chair. The idea chair is a bundle of
primary and secondary qualities, and left is the idea of substance. So far, Berkeley
is correct, but he left out several facts. The chair is an idea, and the chair is an
external idea, and an externalized idea is an entity held within the virtual world.
The chair was externalized through instruments such as saws, drills, glues, paints,
fabrics, etc. The concretized idea of chair is a virtual idea, perceptible, and, for
that, it is not a pure idea or universal. Chair is commercially universalized. Chairs
are brought into existence, and are in conformity to the mind. Perception conforms
to the chair, but the chair conforms to the mind. In this way, chairs are not real, nor
are they unreal. Being is real because it is independent of the mind, and in fact, the
mind depends upon it and conforms to it. An idea cannot be a being, instead it is an
object or entity when externalized.
Descartes
The existence of God lies in the attribute of perfection. The existence of Descartes
lies in his being that possesses a thought. The I is my (thought) which contains and
owns it. In other words, I think means my thought and my or the owner or container
must exists. The statement I think, therefore I am is analytic and therefore
necessary. If there are thought contents, there must be a thought container.
Descartes divided human reality into immaterial and material substances. The
division or dividing mechanism is thought which is the core of the immaterial,
109
rational soul. This division was his recognition of a paradigm of soul and body that
ended in a mind/body paradox. The paradox was due to his reification of one side
of a paradigm, namely, immaterial/material substance over immaterial/material
process. His union of the two substances is the pineal gland; a material formation
that is obviously arbitrary. Rather than a contradiction of substances, reality is a
paradigm of being with immaterial and material sides. Descartes settled on the
material side to explain the interaction. Within the paradigm, there is no
interaction, only individual and universal thresholds and subsequent shifts from
one side to the other. Individual and universal shifts are themselves a paradigm of
the one/many. Aristotle allowed a relative middle some into his formal logic, or a
triadic structure one/some/many. The some is rejected because it is simply a
subdivision of the many. For example, without a threshold quantifier, some/many
have ill-being stands opposed to one has ill-being. The many is still a unity, a one.
Rather than a complete ontological shift into being, Descartes shifted away from
the universal into his mind and his cogito. Not only anthropomorphic, but egoistic
certainty became a crisis. It ended in a paradox of momentary, finite certainty.
Ontologically there is no middle ground between binary ontological structures such
as material/immaterial, finite/infinite, one/many, quantity/quality, and their source
paradigm, Being/being. The human project to push the division of the paradigms
into a middle ground termed the world remains unregulated by ethical principles.
The Good
Plato located the good in another dimension, heaven, the absolute, outside of
spacetime, and the end of human knowledge; Aristotle relocated it within the
individual’s social spacetime, in the telos of the good life ending in contemplation;
Mill and Bentham kept it in social spacetime as the greater good or a socially
engineered utopian ideal. Within spacetime, the greater good is variable and
measured in degrees determined by popularity polls. The greater good is a relative,
moving political target for it can collapse into the lesser good or expand into the
greatest good, the best of all possible worlds, or reverse and disappear into the
neutral, bad, worse, worst, the worst of all possible worlds. The relative, human
happiness index measures the greater good for it is simply a majority opinion at a
single point in space and time and an end in itself. Iraq may someday vote that its
greater good has been reached, and the sins of the past were therefore necessary in
reaching this point. Rejecting the relative, Kant moved the good from the outside
110
in spacetime into the mind or conscience in the form of the good will, the good
intention. In this way, it was restored to an absolute position as the duty to a moral
law outside of spacetime. The telos of the good will is the Kingdom of Ends. The
Kingdom of Ends is the community of rational persons, again the logical mind
defining the membership. Transcendental realism moves the good into being where
it must be reflected. When and where locate a being in spacetime. The good is a
reflected fact, and knowledge of the fact shapes the intention as to its form. The
intention cannot know the fact before its reflection. The registered fact is the
consequence of the intention. The paradox of knowing the fact before the fact is
registered is only resolved accidently or through inductive scientific methods. For
example, building a highway through a migration route has known dire
consequences. Or experimentation on a given population with untested educational
models is forbidden. Experimentations are only allowed with thoroughly tested
models. It is registered as an ethical fact on a highly controlled population. Its telos
is the unity of beings of the shift from finitude to infinitude of Being. Beings are
Being divided and alienated from itself. Being is moved into both the relative as
finite and the absoluteas infinite where it originates in a chosen form, the good
intention, and terminates after instrumental transcendence into benefit registered
and reflected as a moral fact of an innocent being. To know the good is to do the
good is a form of determinism. Rather, both knowing the good and doing the good
are separate choices free of determinism. This paradigm of being includes all being
in finitude and as one Being in infinitude. The separation and negation of the other
is an ontological function of unity through disunity, one in many. For example, a
minor disunity such as an immunity shot is necessary for a greater unity and well
being of one and a greater unity with a community. Being is the universal, absolute
unity of beings in space and time. At this point, the relative shifts into the absolute.
Beings within spacetime is the simple reflection of its disunity and separation.
Being outside of spacetime is the absolute unity of beings outside of spacetime.
There are reified beings, beings from the division of Being in spacetime, beings in
finitude and the division of universal unity.
The telos of the good intention is the reflection of ethical facts. This can only occur
if ethical facts are registered with an innocent being. Again, ethics is the study and
knowledge of good and evil.
Being
111
Being is independent of any belief system. A belief system is not independent of
being. Being is independent of mind and perception. Mind and perception depend
upon being. As such, as the source of value, being has inherent value. If something
has no reality, it has no inherent worth. Instead, its value is based on a mind that
conceives it and its place in existence. It has existential value as in utility or a
means to an end. A car has value based on its intention of utility to transport.
Devices such as cars have relative value; being is absolute value. In this, being is
the good. The good is not in a platonic heaven, the greater good, rules, nor a good
will. Its value is absolute even though it is within space and time. It has an absolute
right not to be interfered with or destroyed. It has an absolute right not to be
objectified for unnecessary harm. This right is expressed in its unconditional self
defense and struggle for life. Because the human being has the condition of
templated Being with the forms of good or evil; it is condemned through eternity
by this universal ability. Just as we are condemned to make waste and garbage, we
are condemned to intelligently and knowledgably recycle it or suffer unnecessarily.
The Origins of the Paradigm
Spinoza’s god is clearly an ontological paradigm. Hegel’s dialectic is clearly a
paradigm. Spinoza described his god as two sided, matter and mind while Hegel
described his god as a two sided idea. The perceptual and conceptual paradigm as
described by Thomas Kuhn clarified the shift. Spinoza’s ontological paradigm and
Hegel’s dialectic, when applied ontologically, are the basic components of reality,
not the idea, evolves into consciousness. When Hegel’s dialectic is located in
being, not mind, being evolves. Kantian mind allocated the forces and laws of
nature to itself, and with this relocation of the categories from being to mind
emerged the object. The human world became self conscious, and its destruction of
Earth rationalized and venerated and justified. The Copernican revolution cannot
be limited to the understanding. Kant’s imaginary projection of categorical forms
upon sense data resulting in objects is also an ethical project of altering the Earth
and its inhabitants into commodities, as means to human ends. The paradigm
resolves the mind/body problem for the dilemma is simply a shift in sides. The
finite spirit and finite body are one but not the same appearance. Hegel’s
phenomenological analysis of the here and now turns a tree into universals.
Berkeley shifted the spirit/body paradigm into from matter to perception.
112
Spinoza’s solution is simply admits that these sides are different appearances of the
same reality.
Universals
Universals are not a work of the mind for the mind only reflects them. The
universal such as red is only a reflection from a concrete being. Red has no being
in itself, but is the manifestation of a being as found in a red flower, wound or
apple. Red is also found in rainbows, blood, or dust laden clouds, and rainbows,
blood and clouds are not beings. They are not products of the mind for red blood,
apples, and clouds are indicators of minerals, fights, accidents, food, etc. They are
indicators of unity or disunity. Each indicator has its underlying being and this
cannot be ignored. Red blood indicates something ongoing in an animal being.
Red flowers indicate something ongoing in a vegetative being. Red sky indicates
something ongoing in the being of the weather. The weather is independent of the
mind, and therefore the weather is a being. Suppose that the mind can someday
control the weather forming a virtual weather system. Such a system is dependent
upon the mind that generated it. Universals abstracted from beings are not real for
they are properties of beings. The concrete universal is a fractal replication under a
formula for adaptation. They are. They do not existent, for man does bring them
into existence with the mind. They were generated within the imagination, but are
not imaginary because they are perceptual such as a Santa Claus. The red weather
or soil is a property of the Earth, and the Earth is real; it is a being that generates
beings. Concrete universals such as species are real. A red pen is a product of the
mind and dependent upon the mind for its existence. It is not real, but it exists. It is
not real because it is not a natural being or paradigm organized by nature. The
infinity of pens is dependent upon the mind; the intent it holds is the externalized
mind; the red color is a chosen mental formation.
The intended object is an alienated internal formation to exist as an entity in space
and time. It is a simple intention formed within the limits of imagination. It could
be a penny in the street or a dream romance. The dream romance can remain in the
grip of existential fantasy or end in the intuition and connection with another
being. The existential template must dissolve into being to reach reality. The object
can endure or pass in a second. It is generated by a being reflecting from inside and
outside on a surface of the ontological paradigm. The structure of Reality is a
113
paradigm, not a triad, dyad or monad. This being/not-being paradigm necessitates
the unity/disunity paradigm in that being is impossible without unity in its
separation, and its unity is recognized only in its opposition to disunity. That
opposition is not a mere reflection but a concrete negation that is both a spiritual
and a material separation. The unity of an individual being, a unique oneness, a
person, is a moment of absolute unity within the relative, and the singular and
unique moment of unity in the many; a group, a culture, is a moment of absolute
unity within the relative/absolute paradigm. These paradigms immediately shift
out of the intuition and into the object in determining the extent of a being’s unity.
Here they remain dominated by the objective side in common perceptions such as
trees, cars, etc. as the negation forms around a principle of self defense in this
estranged landscape; their unity remains organized around sensory forms of
reflected consciousness. The sensory forms are principles built upon pain and
pleasure, and only when this content is a pure reflection of memory patterns can
the unity shifts back into the spiritual side as more or less than me.
Ontological Paradigms
Paradigms shift forming sides. Sides are often confused with the paradigm itself.
For example, left is the shift from the right. Right and left are simple negations of
its other, and conceived in the other. If the left were reified and the right somehow
unavailable, the left would be located in spacetime not by reference to the right,
but to another paradigm such as front and back. The reference to the front-left and
back-left involves other paradigms such as a position of another. Thus facing
another who also is afflicted with a left only shift, another paradigm. In the
paradigm of being and not being, the shift to non-being has its properties. The
physical side of negation is thirst, hunger, illness, tiredness, etc., and the spiritual
side of negation is the emptiness of loss, regret, anger, sadness, etc. We carry this
manifestation within us until it can be suppressed or accepted. Hunger is
suppressed in fasting or negated in eating. Over eating only pushes this side further
away only to return. At the grave, the emptiness of spiritual loss cannot be
suppressed because it is an eternal, infinite void. It can only be momentarily
diverted.
The Mine/Yours Paradigm
114
In Kant’s unity of apperception, the mine is revealed in the ownership of the
representation. It is within the field of alienated otherness that intentions are first
fixated and aspire to dwell. In order to transcend and overcome its solipsism, the
intention forms an object that has yet to shift back into a subject. In order for the
subject to emerge, the object must be reflected within the field of alienation where
the subject emerges in its possession of the alienated object. This object is mine,
and mine is the infinite negation of yours. This insecurity is only proven by
instrumental force whereby an ego emerges within the field of intentions and is
recognized and confirmed within the field of extension. The field of alienated
objects is a template of protected property. The spiritual shift to ownership is the
natural process in the unification of being. The organization of property objects
and their distribution by force is a spiritual and material law of unity. It is a
moment of unification in a shift towards the reunification of Being/being paradigm
for it is an absolute within the relative; it is a momentary shift of the relative into
the absolute.
Good/Evil Paradigm
When caught up in the contents of perception, reflections are organized under
justice and ethics. The epistemic subject/object paradigm shifts into its subjective
side with various forms of possession, ownership, responsibility, etc. as in my car,
tree, idea, etc. S/O paradigms of consciousness and their transcendence are
governed by the intentions of the beings that generated them. When the intention
reaches insight, it is able to transcend its subjective origins through simple
instruments such as hands, rocks, words, symbols, etc. Mirroring its polarized
origin, the intention has a dominant positive or a suppressed negative side.
Possession is controlled through legal and military instruments. The positive is
termed good and the negative is termed evil. The dominant side subverts the other
for it is conscious having arisen out of negation. The consequence of the
transcendent object formed as an instrument or entity around an intention is
positive or negative due to the form of the intention encased within it. The positive
side is termed moral and the negative side is termed immoral. A positive intention
and negative consequence are often misaligned paradigms due to ignorance,
deception or negligence. The form of the intention or its polarity is not an
intention; rather, it is intended good or evil, moral or immoral in its objective. The
intention is gestalted and its form chosen in the soul and materially determined in
115
the body through which it is extended into the field of bodies. In an Aristotelian
account, there is a material cause in the body and selected matter formed around
the embedded intention; there is a formal cause in the shape of the instrument
recognized as holding an intention; there is final cause in the purposeful benefit or
harm inflicted; there is an efficient cause in the production of the instrument.
Pleasure and pain are the forms of the physical intention grasped as extensional
structures such as weight, length, etc., while benefit or harm is the spiritually
formed intention of the soul grasped as good or evil. They must be in some way
aligned. This alignment is the mind or the constant shift between soul and body.
For example, an experienced killer shifts back and forth in physical and spiritual
intentions in loading and firing a gun correctly for it is a complex web that must be
mastered. Murder is a spiritual and physical intention. This intention is chosen; it is
under the control of free choice. The value of a life has been decided. The source is
the soul, the haunting transcendental ego, the infinite become finite. A sequenced
must be followed in overcoming the spacetime barrier for the intention to
transcend its source. The transcendence is a unity of the soul/body paradigm
where, for example, the careful squeeze of a trigger requires a symphonic unity of
the physical and spiritual vibrations in order to fire the gun resulting in the
intentional disunity of another being into nonbeing. The unity is dispels upon
confirmation of the injury in the other; a confirmation is a simple reflection of the
consequences into the soul/body paradigm off another paradigm. A virtual world of
stage and actors following evil scripts allows for this horror.
Substance/Process Paradigm
The soul and body are shifts of a paradigm that is itself an endless source of
paradigms; the paradigm of substance and process emerges as substance in process
or process in substance; a reflection captured in a mirror or camera artificially
freezes the paradigm reinforcing the notion of substance. The substance/process
paradigm is that of finite and infinite being. Inflexible, perfect, absolute Being
repels into relative imperfect, finite being as an opposite that must be negated and
repelled. It is the interior, immaterial self, self-negated and self-recognized in selfreflected external reifications. The reifications of the process are the reflections of
being separated by spacetime into inseparable Being. Just as substance is reified
process or process frozen in reflection, process is reified substance or the
serialization of process. The substance of being is reified process and, therefore,
116
momentarily finite permanence; when dominant, the process is the infinitely
incomplete moment. The infinite/finite moment in motion is the spacetime
paradigm in its reflected sequence. The infinite is free, just, perfect, realized in bad
infinities of nature. For example, in a “free” political state, those watching us
require others watching them and so on unto bad infinity. Justice cannot be reached
in spacetime perfectly or universally for that would freeze spacetime into absolute
justice, and the political state a bad dream available through anamnesis. Finite
being is divided material unities whose telos is Being. Absolute justice is only
realized within its other, the Relative, as is relative justice realized within absolute
justice. Yet, being in becoming Being through the reification of finite particles is
not Being as is infinite Being not finite being and universal consciousness is yet to
shift into unconsciousness of perfect, infinite, static unity. Yet, they are but sides of
the paradigm of being shifting in and out of balance. Materialized justice is only
possible in immaterialized justice as is immaterial justice realized in material
justice.
Ethics: the Study of Good and Evil
When knowledge replaces negligent, willful ignorance, etc. the paradigm shifts
from moral to good or immoral to evil by necessity for necessity follows from
knowledge. The consequences and intentions are correctly aligned in ethics that
knowingly advances its transcendence through the study of good and evil. The
consequences are registered within another being where the intention reflects its
transcendence, not in an epistemic object for it can never transcend its origin until
reflected and returned as moral facts; facts of necessary benefit or harm registered
and perfected in being. This reflection is developed through instruments of
inductive science in tested models. Moral facts are reflected through
correspondence and coherence when the logical connections are unavailable
whether science is involved or not.
Ethical Principles of Transcendental Existentialism
When grounded in realism, the absolute ethical principle of transcendental
existentialism is the intentional and necessarily benefit to innocent being. This is
the definition of moral. This principle can be applied to animals and trees. On
Earth, animals kill out of necessity; in the World, humans kill out of choice. The
117
Earth is considered a being and medium of being. The absolute principle of self
defense that allows for necessary harm of innocent being is the reflection of
unnecessary harm found in various groups such as disease control, overpopulation,
invasive species, etc. Unnecessary suffering mandates controls. Ethics is the study
of good and evil for moral knowledge. An examination of ethical facts held in the
registry of being forms the basis of this knowledge. Good and evil are sides of a
paradigm freely selected to form human intentions completing a world view. Good
is defined as the intentional, necessary benefit to innocent being, and evil is defined
as the intentional, unnecessary harm to innocent being. These definitions are
reflections of the factual structure of being specific to the human being, yet applied
universally to finite being by individual human beings. In other words, the selected
form i.e., good/evil, transcends the individual source whereby the form of the
intention enters one or all being. For example, bioweaponized anthrax can be
released upon an individual or everyone including animals. The structure of reality
is a duality of opposite sides of a paradigm, not substances, for substances are only
one of a side. The paradigm in space and time is being; the paradigm outside of
space and time is Being.
The Unity of Finite Being
The structure of being is singular and multiple unity as associated with pleasure but
only realized in the reflected state of well-being. The momentary unity of being is
not that of the positive and negative intention (the form of the intention), but the
unity of being itself. This unity is one of soul and body. The unity of soul and body
is not that of substance, for substance is a moment in a process; rather, one of
polarized sides of a reified process, and process is a reified moment of
substance.The polarization emerges in the dominant shift into substance from
process and back to process from substance. The struggle of polarization is due to
the dominating material and its alienated other, the immateriality sides of a
paradigmatic shift. Unity of being gestalting in the absolute paradigm of life over
death is a structured alignment of polarized fields of a reified process forming
conscious moments of the moving present, and its disunity is that of conscious
dissolution of the reification of a back and forth process. This reification is but a
moment suspended, and this suspension is that we term mind. The process is one
side of telos. The alpha/omega paradigm holds other paradigms in its shift. The
telos is the reunification of finite being in the medium of Relative being to infinite
118
being in the negating medium of spacetime. The infinity of Being is present but
impossible to realize in the finite realm under the paradigmatic medium of space
and time resulting in the absolute paradigm of life and death. Yet, this is only one
side. The telos, the other side is Infinite Being, fully resolved in the medium of the
Absolute. The human engineered disunity of that structure is merely associated
with pain but realized in the state of ill-being. When and where the form of good or
evil is intended, selected and applied, a humanized existential heaven or hell
emerges. This virtual medium objectifies being resulting in epistemological
templates of being, and in this medium of alienation, being becomes a commodity.
Without ethical control, universal ill-being is the consequence of these virtual
templates. In this world of transcendental existence, the extinction of species, child
trafficking, destruction of environments, etc. are the norm. Their value is not in
being itself; rather, it is in their consumption. The buying and selling of being is a
crime against the universe. Economics replaces ecological mediums, devices
replace beings, and the paradigm of life and death shifts to death and evil.
The a priori Forms of Good and Evil
Good and evil intentional forms of objects are exclusive to the human mammal;
they are the polarized structure of its intentions. Once suspended through
reification, they take on a life of their own. Because there is free choice over the
form, ownership of intentions and alienation of those intentions is then possible.
The alienation of the intentions allows their shift from subjective to objective and
transcendence into the spatial/temporal paradigmatic medium separating Beingin
itself.The transcendence requires the will. The will is an obsession to transcend the
subjective and immaterial and materially form the object in spacetime. The
intentional object becomes the extended instrument through the informed will. An
understanding of spacetime is required in order to transcend the interior.
Knowledge of the laws of nature enables the intention to be materially encased
outside of the immaterial interior. The body becomes an instrument of the will in
accomplishing this transcendence. The knowledge of the in itself is a living
knowledge of its separation and overcoming the in itself in physical and spiritual
unities. The unities are achieved in finite being through objectification,
competition, consumption and death other its other. This process is perfected in the
human mammal. With the exception of the human being, all other beings are
exempt of a moral knowledge and informed choice. Sartre is correct in his
119
reflections of “no exit” for the human mammal. We are condemned to the a priori
forms of good and evil.
Polarization and Possession
Polarized structures surface as sides of a paradigm. Propelled by informed choices
in the human species, polarized structures emerge in the form of the alienated
object. The dominating alienated object has yet to externalize or enter spacetime in
spiritual and material form for it is also a suppressed, alienated and polarized,
subjective formation. The object/subject paradigm is dominated by the objective
polarity until the subjective polarity surfaces revealing ownership and
responsibility as expressed in statements such as my idea, my plan, my interests,
etc. An alienated subject emerges as an object. Fully alienated from itself, reified
and stuck in its objective formation, the unrecognized side of its paradigmatic
transaction is exchanged and mathematically tracked under legal ownership. This
ownership, now reified into property, extends into existential formations but not to
another being. Ontological formations cannot be physically owned unless by force.
These objects are devoid of being and mere templates. Underlying the template is
an innocent being.
The Emergence of Instruments and Devices
A plan is not the intention because the intention flows through the plan that is its
structure. Ownership is a critical marker of properties of that being revealing its
source, the owner, as good or evil, and a choice by others for its acceptance or
rejection is latently demanded. The acceptance of the alienated object and the
transfer of its original ownership are different choices in the field of otherness. For
the alienated object to transcend its interior necessitates the production of an
instrument. The instrument is a materially encoded intention. The instrument
enables the transcendence of the object from the interior to the exterior. The
original intent and the encoded instrument’s intent usually align as in to kill with a
gun. However, the instrument’s original intent can be modified as in killing with a
knife. The interior/exterior paradigm aligns with the immaterial/material paradigm
when an entity or instrument is produced in the process of existential
transcendence. At that moment, instrumentally connected within and among
beings, the interior/exterior paradigm shifts to the exterior/interior in otherness.
120
The instrument is an embodied intention identified by an infinitive such as to kill.
In the entity, the intended/extended paradigm is virtually isolated from the field of
being, yet under the control of a knowledgeable human mammal, enabling its
intentions to enter the field for good or evil. The entity is the purpose of the
instrument; in its alienated extended form devoid of context often recognized as a
commodity for consumption. In this way, an entity can be an economy or a murder
victim participating within that economy; in this way, the particular shifts into the
universal. This is recognized in the weapon and the war industry where the
instruments of death are commodities for the destruction of objects and engineered
devices. Even the murder victim is an economic commodity involving property,
transportation, devices, payments, rentals, contracts, crews, laws, etc. This object
does not reach commodity of consumption level out of taboos for dead humans,
but it does in the case of other species. The intuition of being is ignored in such
industries and the epistemology of the object substituted for its ontology.
Capitalism and communism both substitute epistemological formations for being.
All objects are for sale in capitalism while all objects are owned by the state in
communism.
Mine/Yours Paradigm
Intentions to harm or benefit are specific to one unity. This unity can be one being
or some beings or all beings including the originators. The structure of the unity is
the in/out paradigm the interior is mine or ours and the exterior is theirs or not
ours. For example, countries, economies, health care, transportation systems, etc.
are for all beings including plants and animals and their mediums. The intent for
the original atomic bomb was to benefit one country and harm another at one time
in their space, not ours. The intent for a vaccine is the benefit of one/all beings, one
at a time for an unlimited time. The intent for consequential policies is for the
majority/minority, and the replicated individual that constitutes that group ad
infinitum.
The terms moral and good are exclusively applied to innocent beings including
plants and animals, even the Earth. A highway system does not target innocent
beings but all beings. For it to be moral, it must not harm innocent beings. For it to
be good, it must benefit innocent beings. In itself, it can only reach a moral
application since it unnecessarily harms the Earth. The highway system that
121
traverses animal migration routes is immoral because it harms innocent beings. It is
unnecessary for there are alternatives. Necessary harm is illustrated in surgical
operations or immunity shots or other medical procedures that can be applied in
population control of invasive species. Necessary harm must result in necessary
benefit to shift the unnecessary/necessary paradigm. The benefit cannot be rational
egoistic or experimental; rather, it can only be known before implementation.
Economic systems such as capitalism are existential instruments alien to being as
such. Prior to capitalism, the human species developed under cooperation until the
paradigm shifted to competition. Cooperation is often as ruthless as competition
for property boundaries are not recognized or respected. Rational egoists live in
both worlds, and define the good as a rational being and its mediums that support it
such as capitalism, science, etc. while evil is that which destroys a rational being.
There is the moral duty to life through reason and reject the choice of irrationality,
ignorance and subsequent death. The maintenance of human life is only possible in
the rational medium that includes property, science and law as opposed to
superstition, superstition, and poverty. The rational community chooses life and
protects it through property. Somehow, the happy life is an absolute time within
the relative. Yet there is no absolute time, only relative time as in pain and slower
time and pleasure with fast time. The rational must be chosen and achieved, hence
only rational individuals, experts in rational instruments such as mathematics
comprise the moral community. Rational egoism is a .moral state of being because
it values one’s rational life over one’s irrational death. The quality of one’s life,
prosperity, brings happiness while a mindless diminished life through the medium
of poverty brings unhappiness. Choosing other’s lives over one’s own life is to
choose evil. The propaganda for the greatest good such as communism and
altruism leads one to devalue one’s life for others. A rule such as my good is in fact
the good of others, negating my good, and life is not allowed. This resembles
Cartesian principles. Excluding other experiences such as willing, the I think,
therefore I am is a maxim of good leading to property and happiness, while I think
not, therefore I am not is a maxim of evil that could be followed with the certainty
of death in poverty. My life is an absolute, for there is nothing behind death’s door.
Virtue is selfishness and vice is unselfishness. The rule followed is self-interest
over other-interest. One is not allowed to throw away one’s self-interests for
others. Provided it does not end in one’s death, one can share rationally such as
122
giving to charities. Egoism maintains that self-interests of the person trump all
other interests. All other interests are the property of Others. Other’s interests are
only allowed if they agree to my interests. If they do not agree, then I must change
their interests to agree with my interests, and the method is relative. I can persuade
or misdirect the other. Or I can eliminate the other, and his interests disappears.
This would require enormous financially and political power. To alter the mind set
of millions is impractical. If my self-interest is to make a profit at the expense of
the majority, such as pollution, deforestation, mining, etc. and if legal, rational,
then good for me. However, if the majority changes the laws, bad for me because I
will now pay for it, not the majority. My rule is to never alter my self-interests for
the majority nor allow the majority to override my self-interests with their arbitrary
rules that would take away my rationally earned gains. The egoist imagines
otherness as a set of objects, not beings, to be determined as a means to his end.
The rational egoist is opposed to Kant’s kingdom of ends or the rational
community; however, in a rational egoist’s arguments, she demands a rational
community as in rational laws to protect her. This community is often built upon
self sacrifice for justice, not profit or even happiness. Prosecutors and police are
rarely rich. The respect for otherness is found within the successful rational
community. This respect is limited to successful persons. As such, respect, pride,
power, etc. are spiritual rewards given me by the community for reaching my end.
Unlike the demands for my money, property, time, etc., pressured on me by
altruists, these nonmaterial gifts such as respect do not diminish those that grant
them. The extreme of altruism, the opposite side of egoism, is evil for rational
egoist. Its non-logical position demands the sacrifice of my life. Anything that
blocks my end is evil including any irrational position such as altruism.
Moral & Immoral Defined
The unnecessary harm to innocent being is the definition of immoral; the necessary
benefit to innocent being is the definition of moral. Thus, good and evil encompass
moral and immoral that are key components of the definitions. Harmed or
benefitted beings are material and immaterial sides of being in spacetime. Through
benefit, well-being dominates harmed beinguntil the paradigm shifts to ill-being
that then dominates well-being. Pleasure and pain are gestalts of the harm/benefit
paradigm. Pleasure and pain are both materially and immaterially shifting around
123
the benefit or harm delivered by the instrument. Materially, the facts are
measureable and empirical. Immaterially, the facts are qualitatively manifested in
various gestalts such as happiness, grief, sorrow, misery, etc. Pleasure and pain are
sensory gauges for Bentham, and Mill invisible gauges for qualitative pleasures
(and pains?) constituting the Greater Good. Kant moves the good away from
Aristotelian egoistic pleasures and Utilitarian goals of a shared utopia to the
individual yet a priori, therefore universal rational obedience to a moral law, and
the Greater or Lesser Good will remain an ignored consequence of the rational
communities’ obedience to the moral law in order to realize the Kingdom of Ends.
Intention Defined
Intention is defined as the material and immaterial formation termed an object of
consciousness. It arises from the reflected shifts within the paradigm of being.
There are spiritual objects such as loved or hated ones and physical objects such as
cars and money. Objects are outside of the intuition of being, yet within the
intuition of being (the undifferentiated presence) the epistemic object can
dynamically shift back and forth as in a conversation between the you (being) and
the me (subject) over an object. Although still in the present, the presence begins to
recede, and beings emerge. A conversation introduces objects between beings as a
virtual medium of unity or disunity. Since the intention originates within being,
immaterial and material objects are inseparable epistemic polarized formations
termed the subject/object paradigm. They are positive or negative polarities of a
singular formation. Reification emerges and an object formed. Reification is a shift
from process to substance. Evolving species are finite substances reflected in
forms, and this reflection is a reified shape of a process undergoing adaptation. A
reified process is a formed substance. It is fully formed when complete unity
followed by a process of deterioration; a deterioration is simply the beginning of a
new process and substance. A rock has minimal degree of consciousness while a
mammal has a high degree of negation. Infinite Being self generates. With the
realization of self and change, Infinite Being shifts into finite being. The separation
generates the medium of spacetime. Spacetime is a paradigm. The shift into finite
space and time separates Infinite Being into paradigms. Finite being is only one
side of the paradigm of reality, and conscious of itself, the cogito, reaches
momentary absolute certainty only to fall back into spacetime and the the
uncertainty of the relative. Reality is the paradigm of being/Being. Finite beings
124
generate beings; their spiritual and material byproducts cannot be beings. A being
generates the same degree of consciousness as itself. This range of consciousness
is the reflection of the complexity of negations. Human cannot generate trees out
of themselves. This a priori law is given in the negation; a human is not [a tree]
where not is an infinity of concrete negations. The form or species is self conscious
by its degree of negation. Canine is not [feline, bovine, etc], ad infinitum, and to
that infinite series it is conscious of what it is not, establishing that and what it is in
time and space. The shift into spacetime brings Being into the paradigm of its
facticity and essentiality. The fact that it is and what It is are inseparable shifts.
The fact that it is is a register of moral and physical facts constituting a history of
species/member being. The extinction of its form is inseparable from the extinction
of its being. The death of a member and the death of a species is an absolute fact of
Being. The natural extinction of a species is outside morality. If extinction is
brought on by the human mammal, it is immoral or evil. The unnecessary
destruction of any habitat is immoral; an appeal to ignorance is an immoral fallacy.
Socratic ignorance is the divine in the process of knowing itself, in recognizing and
understanding what it initially rejected as otherness and negation. It is the one
identical with the many; the infinite one with the finite, etc. Knowledge is the relief
of transcending the state of ignorance, and to willfully deny it is pure evil. The true
overcoming is not the negation of death, but the negation of negation terminating
in knowledge and identity. The only justification is an appeal to survival. This is
exceptional and would only apply to diseases or unnatural events such as invasive
species brought on by the stupidity of the human mammal. This negation is
available to the intuition and only given to understanding through technology. The
essence is a priori to all beings and reflectively and immediately given that
transcendence into another essence is impossible without instruments such as
genetic technology. The barriers of their bodies and shapes prevent it. Behind the
transcendence is the intention of good or evil. The only unity possible is a spiritual
unity of care, love, friendship, etc. between species. Being is not opposed to
nothing as Hegel held; rather its opposite is non-being. The thing is properly
opposed to nothing, and nothing.
The negation establishes a presence that must be dealt with. The intention is simply
consciousness of an object emerging out of the paradigm of being. The identity of
x throughout a process is one of reification. Descartes’ cogito is a reification of a
125
process. This reification allows this reflected moment of a process to be identified
and named. Naming the reified process defines it and gives instructions as to repeat
it. Scientific formulas are such instructions. Diseases are instrumental descriptions
of fractal processes. Stages of objects are series of reifications. Each stage has its
owner who named it. Clearly, the object shifts from outside to inside. The object is
yet to achieve existence and its place in the medium of being. Kantian categories
form the inside of the object and Aristotelian categories form its outside.
Ownership is reflected in the subject and affirmed in the alienated object
recognized by others as “your object.” This is not an intuition of being because the
object can be an external (out) or internal (in) formation in an epistemic paradigm
of property ownership reaching a virtual existence confirmed in a legal judgment.
This paradigm is purely dialectical. The exterior formation is polarized perception
with unintended and unwilled sensory content, and recognized as alien and other;
and the interior formation is the same polarized perception shifted back to my
sensory content or to the underlying me without sensory content. The intuition of
being’s transcendental meaning does not reside entirely within a being for it is a
direct, immediate, undifferentiated presence in the present. This is prior to
Husserl’s observation that consciousness is consciousness of something. This is not
a starting point for analysis. The something is differentiated into and object/subject
paradigm, and being has been assigned to the object and an ontic dyad is
undergoing self awareness through its negations. This is a self awareness of the
dyad itself, a pan psychic paradigmatic identity/differentiation formation of
subject/object//object/subject or me/you//you/me, differentiated and then identified
by spacetime as in a relative positional paradigm of here/there. On the other side,
the presence is indistinguishable for it is prior to evolved sides or more than one
being alienated and negatively charged otherness. At some point, an object
emerges from the intuition and the ontological separation reflects in two sides.
Being is transformed into an object. The realistic transcendence is not from idea or
concrete universal, but from an undifferentiated presence in space and time. When
and where negation occurs, mediated and mediating being self differentiates into
the monad/dyad paradigm. The monad is a side of the dyad for the dyad is only
possible if there are two monads. The monad recognizes itself in the dyad as the
dyad is a gestalt of the two monads. This process can go unto and infinite many.
An existential transcendence of the intention has yet to occur.
126
Consciousness
Consciousness is a side of the body/soul paradigm where the soul has taken a
dominant side. Unconsciousness is a shift to the dominance of the body.
Consciousness gestalts into objects. The conscious object is the dominant side of
the object/subject paradigm. The unconscious object is the side the other’s
consciousness or the observer’s object. The subject side of the paradigm is
reflected in ownership of the object.
Necessity
Necessary is defined as the dominate side of the necessary/unnecessary paradigm.
Necessity is an absolute requirement of well-being. Necessity is the knowledge of
well being or the unity of being thus avoiding negligence. Negligence is
unnecessary prima facie. Thus, its opposite, that is, knowledge, is an absolute duty:
to know the consequences and never act out of ignorance upon an innocent being
and to have fully predicted the consequences. Knowledge is defined as true
reflections of the structure of being. True reflections are those that are informed as
to the consequences. Trial and error is never allowed without voluntary consent.
Voluntary consent removes innocence from the definition of immoral for the
recipient, having reached autonomy, fully acknowledges the possible
consequences. Well being is defined as the unity of being while ill-being is the
disunity of being. Unnecessary is defined as a side of the paradigm of being that
rejects known disunity. Benefit is defined as the known relative requirement of
unity of being. Harm is defined as the known relative infliction of disunity.
Relative benefit is unnecessary for the unity of being. Innocent is defined as
outside of knowledge of good and evil. Animals are innocent for they have no
knowledge of good and evil. Thus, good and evil are forms of intentions. The
forms of intentions are reflected in the structure of their transcendence into other
beings. The transcendence is the alteration of the body/soul paradigm in reflected
space and time. The reflected unity through benefit or disunity through harm is
self-evident for it is a priori in the structure of being. The structure of being is
confirmed and affirmed in the intuition of being that recognizes being and its
presence in time and space.
Moral Facts
127
Ethical statements require definitions of critical terms prior to their applications
within rational arguments. Terms such as moral, immoral, good, evil, right and
wrong must be defined against reality in order to be applied. Reality is being and
its medium, and facts of being are the foundation of true and false premises. The
ground of moral facts is being, not mind that intends and reflects them. The mind
reflects its embedded intentions within devices such as banks and instruments such
as money. Such existential are independent of perception, but not mind that finds
its encoded intentions in the world. The world transcends the individual minds that
created its components, and indeed, most inhabitants have long forgotten its
history. In so far as the facts refer to being, moral facts are universal. Being is the
universal registry of facts. However, beneath the virtual world is its ontological
foundation of being. The intention of the singular can its subjective realm and by
means of the world enter time and space and through the world enter other
innocent being for good or evil purposes. Within the registry of being, the world is
defined according to this transcendence as moral or immoral, good or evil. The
origin of a moral fact has one source, and that is a human being. Moral facts are the
transcendence of that private origin into a universal registry. Terms can then be
predicated in premises and sound ethical conclusions, following valid forms,
derived. These arguments are self evident because if they accurately reflect the
structure of being. Such terms limit the argument to reality rather than existential
nonsense. Existence is manmade. It is the materialized object forming a virtual
world for the human mammal by harming or benefiting the medium of being.
Existence is the extended intention. For example, abortion can be predicated as
right or wrong provided abortion is a reality with properties that include right,
wrong, good, evil, etc. However, abortion cannot be a real problem if the critical
term person remains undefined. It remains undefined, and the problem is
existential nonsense. By undefined, it remains suspended within various definitions
based on social concepts rather than being. Acts of abortion continue without
knowledge of what one is doing. Furthermore, right and wrong remain undefined,
and thesepredicated properties are also unknowns. Concepts such as selfconsciousness, reason, etc. also remain undefined and suspended in philosophical
debates.
Reality is the only ground for ethical arguments, and reality is defined as
being/essence paradigm in spacetime. Appearance is defined as being in the world.
128
The world is a virtual medium, the composite of human appearances employed to
suspend and replace the natural medium of spacetime, being with objects,
instruments and devices. The world manages to suspend spacetime allowing its
inhabitants to imagine spacetime is little more than an intuition of their senses.
Independence of the mind does not include all things in space and time. A car is in
spacetime, but not independent of the mind for a car is an embodied set of ideas
encased in metal, rubber, etc. with various intentions supporting the one intention
to transport. A being does not hold any intention or plan. A daughter does not hold
the intention to daughter, but simply to be. Beings are autonomous for if they held
an external intention, if that intention were the principle of their unity, they would
be completely controlled by that intention. Existential templates can render a being
under the external control of another being such as slavery, prostitution,
propaganda, fear tactics, torture, confinement, etc. where they autonomy is
externally conditioned to an immense degree and their material and immaterial
unity is diminished. Being in spacetime is that which is independent of mind, its
concepts, consciousness, etc., and is the generative source of mind and its
concepts. Yet, being must be present to any conscious being without being
composed by that conscious being removing the possibility of a fiction, dream,
error, misperception, etc. Beings are independent of the mind, but whatever is
formed out of a mind is a dependency, even if external of the body. The man made
devices comprise the world, but the realm of being is independent of the world of
man for it is reality and interdependent of beings. The Earth is real, but the World
of man is not real for it cannot be independent of the mind of man or the reality of
the Earth. Because an entity exists, does not mean it is independent of the mind. Its
form is decodable even if ancient. The world exists; beings are. The world depends
upon the mind of man for its existence; the realm of being does not. The ethical
guidance of the world originates in the a priori intuition of being and the reality of
its factual unity or disunity. The world of man can extend to the realm of being
controlling diseases and unnecessary hardships or leaving it alone when necessary.
The world is intentionally formed, yet rarely planned around the realm of being,
and as such is under the form of good or evil. There is no middle ground, no
golden mean, no moral neutrality. The realm of being is morally neutral and
innocent. It is the decodable for it is the mind of God. All finite being must die a
cruel death, yet these deaths are necessary and unintentional for they are
instinctual. Herein, there is no knowledge of good or evil. The best of all possible
129
worlds is one of good human intentions towards the realm of being. The world
project will only remove its evil towards the realm of being by minimizing its
destruction of the Earth and protecting the realm of being.
Consciousness is a gestalted property of every natural unity; it is its process of
perfecting that unity by overcoming and negating its disunity at the minimal level
of molecular bonding or the maximum level of species unification; consciousness
is not a property of the byproducts of being such as waste. Earth’s consciousness
gestalts in ecosystems; it gestalts in vegetative and animal beings. Being with its
properties and facts stands independent of the observing human mammal’s mind
and its products. Being is prior to facts and properties for they are apprehensions of
the mind that reference being as their repository. Completely outside of the mind,
being is grasped by another being through intuition that is not a mental process.
Intuition detects the presence of being. Intuition is prior to sensation which reveals
the sequence or series of things. Being appears or presents itself in spacetime; it
appears as essence and empirically evident and factual through the senses. It
appears as a decodable essence or form such as a tree, dog, camel, etc., and its
shape is its species or genetic group; thus, essence is a material idea that is
inseparable from its being. It is not an abstraction of thought for thought only
reflects it, and at that point, it becomes an object. Essence is a side of the
being/essence paradigm and cannot be removed from being; however, it can be
destroyed and the species brought into extinction. The fact of being is eternal
weather discovered by the human mammal or not; the essence of being, that which
presents, changes in the moving present. The moving present is the shift of sides in
the spacetime paradigm. Species evolve. Essence is being specified in spacetime
where in spatial paradigms emerge such as left/right, up/down, front/back, and
temporal paradigms emerge such as now/then and beginning/end. Space and time
limit and determine being; being is finite; it is generated, lives or unifies, and dies
or dissolves. Its material dissolution is a shift completely out the relative into the
absolute. Being is also general in spacetime through its essence that includes
otherness in its form. The finite individual is a point of infinite Being in spacetime
and its species is the absolute in the spacetime paradigm. Spacetime is the
Absolute separated from itself and this separation is its alienated other, the
Relative. The self is the self of the Absolute when confronted by the Relativity and
the moments of unity and coherence of selves in the Relative when confronted by
130
the Absolute--depending upon the paradigm shift. There is no substance termed the
self, nor is an appearance. The self is consciousness of the shift and the shift is the
negation of a previous negation in a transitional present. The negation of the
negation is the reification. The reification only occurs when consciousness is
physically trapped in its reflections; spellbound, for each reflection must have a
mirror that is undifferentiated, and in this process, Aristotle’s thought thinking
thought opens; the finite becomes a Hegelian infinite moment. Here Being and
being form are momentarily united and transfixed. The content of form is form,
and time and space transcended. However, there is little more to this that an
realization of identity and the suspension broken by demands and impolite
impositions from otherness.
Kant’s claim that the first antinomy is proof that transcendental realism is
impossible because the human mammal’s world has a contradictory temporal
structure, a beginning in time and no beginning in time, therefore unknowable by
pure reason for its has no sensory data to which it is physically bound and limited.
Pure speculation necessarily ends in mutually exclusive contradictions or
paradoxes.
However, transcendental realism, as set forth herein, allows for both because the
universe is a paradigm of Absolute/Relative. Kant’s world of reason is confused
with the universe of being. The contradictions of reason are reflections of the a
priori contradictions of being, not reason. Although lost to history, Kant’s human
mammalian world of reason had an exact point in the space/time paradigm when
the gestalt of reason surfaced in Greece and other locations. The finite universe
emerged in an exact point in the space/time paradigm that unites and separates it
infinitely, the Big Bang, Alpha and Omega, etc., where Hegel’s bad infinities are
located. This separation is a sequence of time and space, itself inseparable from
physical and spiritual sequences. The structures are not hidden noumena behind
appearances, but only one surfaced side in the transition into its other. In any
transition, the sides of multiple paradigms emerge, one side moving into
dominance of its other. The paradigm Absolute/Relative was first reflected in
Parmenides and Zeno, Spinoza, Hegel, et. al. The Relative is Being in spacetime
separated by the spacetime paradigm into beings forming the being/Being
paradigm. In Aristotelian terms, the Relative is stated as some while the Absolute
is stated as all. The particular being such as Stalin imposed existential universality
131
and absolutism on beings locked into space and time based on his singular
perspective, ending in violence. When existential absolutism templates ontological
absolutism, the properties of being are often ignored resulting in the default
election of evil and immoral. An imposed economic system such as capitalism or
communism for the greater good also ends in violence and repression. The
Absolute is Being outside of space-time, momentarily reflected in various shortlived unities such as freedom from a tyrant, only to descend back into conflict with
other repressive existential formations. A tyrant is a virtual, existential unity
imposed on the many by the one and reflected in their fear, while freedom from
him is a transcendental unity, momentarily realized and quickly dissolved. The
shift in the paradigm only occurs in a struggle for dominance. This is the one in the
form of the many. Free beings are the sensory content of universal freedom. The
life of finite being is determined by the properties it has to prevent its disunity or
death. Intentionally imposed beneficial properties are good and moral while the
harmful properties are evil and immoral, and there is an absolute right of selfpreservation and defense against these harmful properties. These properties are
universal as given in the intuition of being itself. The intuition is that of its unity or
disunity. The unity is that of a paradigm that presents itself with two sides. The
side of soul and the side of body are but one thing, namely, being. Being is a unity
that generates sides forming barrier to spacetime while nonbeing is a disunity of its
material and immaterial sides forming a door to ultimately terminating that finite
being. That which defines and limits being thus forming its sides is that which
enters the opened side of disunity and overcomes the paradigm of being thereby
terminating it. This is the paradigmatic medium of spacetime. Spacetime is a
medium of finite being for it is the separation of the Absolute within itself. This
disunity forms two sides.
Hegel’s triad absorbs its other; an identity in difference accounts for the movement
of the absolute. Hegel’s negations are absorbed, but remain locked in potentiality,
only to reemerge in alienations. The slave become master can easily reverse.
Progress is the movement to an end and terminus. The end is logic.
Logic is not being, and its being is ousia; however, being has its own logic. For
example, cats have their own logic, and what is not a cat is an absolute. Hegel’s
reality is that of the world and its instruments such as the state. Hegel’s reality is
existentialism without ontology. His logic must collapse back into being, not
132
existence. The laws of logic are innate principles of unity and their violations those
of disunity. These are the laws of justice, commerce, exchange, ethics, value, etc.
One cannot be in different locations at the same time, and any conviction or
judgment based on a violation of this law is intolerable. These laws are a priori and
reflected in knowledge of the contents that violate the form. For example, one must
know that a coworker doing the same job is making more. This realization is
reflected without fully explaining the law of identity. It is a simple intuition among
others a priori to our species and others. Animals know when they are treated
unfairly as when one is discriminated over another resulting in negative emotions
such as jealousy. Consciousness of an object and consciousness of a violation of
the laws of logic are separate where the first is immediate and the second mediate.
The first is external and empirical, the second internal and spiritual. Sartre
incorrectly holds that they are identical. (BN, Pursuit of Being, p. 11) The
reflection is the shift in the external/internal paradigm, and this shift is one of time
and space separating being from being or unifying being to being. The shift can be
considered one of consciousness to unconsciousness which is not absurd for it is a
common experience. Clearly, the shift in consciousness to unconsciousness is a
paradigm dependent upon being. Being itself is a paradigm of soul and body for a
conscious body has physical intentions such as reproduction, hydration, nutrition,
and the strength or cunning to achieve them, and no need of good or evil
intentions,nor grasp the underlying laws of its unity such as justice. When
consciousness is reduced to animated bodies, these intentions vanish. Spiritual
intentions emerge in a paradigm shift from the body to the soul. This shift occurs
when confronted by disunity and pain. This becomes a problem of knowledge.
Pain and disunity brought on by existential projects are consequences of
transcended intentions. The intentions can be self or other inflicted. For example, if
inflicted such as a flu shot, then the momentary necessary pain of the shot shifts
into the enduring pleasure of well being. Necessity covers knowledge. If the shot is
avoided through willful ignorance, religious conviction, negligence, or
meaningless distraction, the pain of the flu is the shift into unnecessarily enduring
ill being and suffering. The transcended intention not to inject the vaccine
terminates in the unnecessary consequences of contracting a disease. The shift was
unnecessary. The shift was one of choice. If the shift were intentional, it is evil. For
example, not to inject an innocent being such as a child is defined as evil. The
intent is to intentionally, unnecessarily harm this child. This is a chosen intention.
133
Logic is mind, and this cannot be the telos of reality for reality is being. Thought
thinking thought cannot be the Alpha and Omega. The telos is being shifting to
Being. Prior to thought is consciousness, and prior to consciousness is being. Being
negates in the paradigm of being and not being or is and is not. This is the gestalt
of consciousness. A gestalt is more than the sum of its parts, and is a reflected
unity. The reflection is more that the parts. The unity is established in its limits,
and the limit-of-being is not being. The I am is only possible in the not me.
Essence arises. That which is not me is identified in what it is. What is not me is
found in its material and immaterial structure. The structure is determined its
physical and spiritual negations. The negations establish contrasts and delimit
being in space and time. Empirical and intentional formations establish the singular
and general, the individual and its species. The paradigm of being and essence
emerges, not in the mind, but the presence and its absence. Presence is the fact of
being in space and time as is absence the fact of not being in space and time.
The fact of being or not being is absolute. This absolute is reflected in the laws of
logic such as identity, non contradiction, etc. In the essence emerge multiple
paradigms such as pain and pleasure, ill or well being, love and hate, etc. The fact
of being is the register of essence. Within the human being is the physical and
spiritual intention and its form of good and evil, moral and immoral. In Kantian
terms, the essence is moral or immoral. The unity of one being at the expense of
another must be justified. Justice is a priori to being. In that it is a priori it is
universal. Justice emerges a survival or defense of singular or universal unity. Here
Kant’s means/end paradigm emerges. The intention is a priori to conscious being
and often physically dominant in most animals, can shift to spiritual in some
species. The spiritual intention is under the form of good or evil. Good intentions
benefit innocent being necessarily while evil intentions harm innocent being
unnecessarily. The paradigm of necessity and without necessity is the
moral/immoral structure of being. The moral/immoral paradigm is a fact of human
being and a priori. The moral side applies to science and other existential activities
such as business, education, medicine, etc. These activities are governed by
knowledge and are outside of the intention. Ignorance is not tolerated and when
universally applied without knowledge as in a social experiment, is immoral. It is
immoral because it is unnecessary. The consequences are unknowns. Any claim
that the intention was for the greater good is necessarily false. The consequences
134
are always unnecessary if elected in blind ignorance. Immoral/moral paradigm is a
priori and forms a priori synthetic knowledge of good and evil. Moral is a synthetic
unity with good as is immoral a synthetic unity with evil. In modus ponens, if there
is good, there is moral, and if there is evil, there is immoral. In modus tollens, if
there is no moral, there is no good, and if there is no immoral, there is no evil.
Moral and immoral refer to the facts within the consequences while good and evil
refer to the facts within the spiritual form. The spiritual form is chosen, therefore a
priori, and in this way, the form of the consequences is chosen. The form is
transferred through the instrument into innocent beings and their mediums. The
form is reflected back into the immaterial origins, i.e., the soul. This reflection is
termed happiness or unhappiness.
Good, Better, Best
The good within the relative moves into the better or even the best. Otherwise, the
shift reverses into the bad, worse, worst. These adjectives describe the state of the
world. Leibnitz’s best of all possible worlds is a relative state. The degrees are
measurable as with the state of any possible world. The world is a human
engineered virtual state of being and is subject to improvement.
The separation is within itself of unrecognizable polarities, the Absolute/Relative
paradigm in the time and space medium. This reunification is not a unity of
reflections; not Hegelian logic; rather, it is the concrete reflections of being ending
in gestalts of good or evil. These concrete reflections are shaped by intentions of
finite beings. Not all finite beings are capable of ethical intentions, and are
considered innocent. The responsibility lies within those with the knowledge of
good and evil. Yet, these finite unities are momentary for the absolute within the
relative is a process. Process is the differentiation of sides or negations followed by
affirmation of sides. This process is both immaterial and material, and is termed
the Moving Present.
The Laws of Thought are broken down into the Law of Non-Contradiction, the
Law of the Excluded Middle, and the Law of Identity. It is herein argued that these
laws are those of being, not thought, and thought is a gestalt of being in the process
of shifting between sides of its ontic contradictions. This shift transforms the
substance of being into a process of being.
135
 Non-contradiction holds that nothing can both be and not be at the same time
and space. Its opposite, the Law of Identity holds that something is only in
an exact time and space before it can be identified and the fact of its being
reflected. This is the Law of Being, not mind that reflects off its presence.
Mind does not impose this law, but reflects the state of being. It is both an
abstract law and a concrete law, yet it is continually tested by the universe.
Justice impossible without this reflection upon an innocent being.
 The Law of the Excluded Middle holds that something is or is not. Again, it is
a reflection of the Law of Identity that X is X, not Y, for there is no middle
connection explaining how X is Y. For example, I am the same being at 5,
20, 50, 80, and not another being. The law concerns being or not being.
Descartes cogito is his proof of this law of being; that Descartes is certain of
his being; his not being is impossible. The logic of his being is certain
because he thinks, therefore it is a certainty. It is unclear if it is also more
than a certainty; rather, it is a reality as well for his certainty is the
connection to reality. Descartes’ thought issues being and the certainty of
(his) being. This certainty is only momentary for it occurs in spacetime with
a start and end of the thinking process. This occurrence is not eternal but a
measured time in a measured space, a location, over a sequence, and when
the sequence ends, so too the certainty, and even the connection to being. So
Descartes disappears with the loss of his focused certainty.
Thought is only a reflection, not a creation of being. Thought is a
momentary reflection and intellectual connection to being that can be
determined with various instruments such as mathematics. The connection is
conduit into being for the delivery of good and evil intentions. The cogito is
only one part of experience, and cannot stand alone. Cogito ergo sum is
obviously false and easily proved. This proof is found in a simply
experiment. No reasonable being will sleep with a wild tiger. The tiger is
absolutely certain that you exist, and no proof of logic will change that fact.
The tiger is absolutely certain it exists, nor does it need proof. You are also
certain that you exist as confirmed by your reflection in the tiger and in the
intuition of your and its being, but you will soon not exist, and it is clear and
distinct that the tiger will continue on regardless what you imagine or think
or stop thinking. You may resent your objectification in the tiger’s eyes, but
136
this concrete epistemology is irrelevant to the logic of being. The logic of
being is prior to its reflection and delivered immediately and concretely in a
simple intuition of difference and affirmed immediately in any sensation for
a sensation is that which is not me.
 The Law of Identity is that something is what it is regardless its diminished
ontological unity. Over the ravages of space and time and the insults of
others, one is still one. One is still a human being. Who one is has changed,
but not what or that one is. Otherness or the field of others excludes me, yet
I am in their field as other. The object subject paradigm emerges where the
others are object, my objects, and I am their object. It is the law of essence
or the identification of what something is. What something is requires that
something be rather than not be. Essence is the presence of being both in
general (species) and particular (this being). Something is and something is
this, but not that, forms a paradigm of being and essence. The shift to being
from essence occurs under threat of death or absolute loss of unity while the
shift to essence occurs under the enhancement of unity or life.
With finite unity comes well being and with disunity comes ill being. Death
follows from this one-sided, disunified paradigm unable to shift back into unity in
time. Death is a side of the life/death paradigm where the shift is from finitude to
infinitude. Infinity is the unity of all being accomplished by the death of finite
being. The death of finite being is the death of the finite body and soul, being, into
the life of the infinite body and soul or Being. The shift from the finite, individual
material unity to the infinite material unity of the universe and shift from the finite,
individual immaterial unity to the infinite immaterial unity or universal soul is
termed infinite life. The paradigm of life/death in the human mammal is itself
organized by intentions into good and evil, moral and immoral, for that is the
structure of the immaterial side of the human mammal and property of the human
essence.
The structure of being is not the essence. The presence of being is not the
appearance. The appearance mandates another being while the presence does not.
The presence is the essence in the present where there is no requirement of another.
The appearance is the presence apprehended by another. The structure is
apprehended in the appearance as the principle of a being’s unity. Aristotelian and
137
Kantian categories structure being. Thus, feline is the essence of a natural order
and in this unity is a physical structure. The physical structure is unified by
invisible natural laws. There is an immaterial structure in its well being and
spiritual unity. The spiritual laws organize its immaterial well being.
To come into existence and to come into being are different processes. To come
into being is the gestalt of a new being through a natural sexual process. To come
into existence is the formation of an entity through the mind. An entity is an
artificial unity or synthesis of matter and mind. The mind is the gestalt of being,
the human mammal, and does not result in a novel being. It begins as an interior
object and terminates as a materialized entity. Even if produced and grown in a lab,
the result is an entity outside the process of nature; the processes of nature have
been abstracted and modified resulting in devices that can interfere with or destroy
natural being as with hybrid weaponized viruses and bacteria. Genetic engineering
and modification of beings is not a process of coming into being. Hybrid beings
and devices are good or evil in their intentions. Genetic modifications that cure
diseases in all beings are good. Natural processes are slow and destructive, and
genetic modifications that intend and result in less painful lives of all creatures is
good. Genetic modifications of being must be distinguished from existential
inflictions of good or evil devices. The modifications are allowed under the
principle that they are for the necessary benefit of innocent beings. Curiosity is
never a principle of harming another innocent being. Devices such as exploding
bullets or bioweapons are intended evils. The world is a canvas of good or evil.
Even under the intention was good, if negligent, the paradigm can shift to evil. The
intention is only a claim until transcended. Bioweapons were claimed good under
some doctrine of war; however, if released resulting in an uninhabitable region due
to plague, anthrax, etc., the shift is to evil. Even the slightest alteration of an
ecology has disastrous consequences from some if not all innocent beings. There is
no excuse, for the intention embedded within the consequences was untested.
Experimentations on innocent beings in the name of science, curiosity, the good,
etc. cannot be allowed. The uninformed intention is never morally neutral. It is
immoral and perhaps evil. It lingers in the consequences like vomit.
Bentham and Mill developed utilitarianism on the principle of utility. This
principle is a reflection of the physical and spiritual limits of being. Pleasure and
pain are the threshold of the physical and spiritual limits of being indicating
138
finitude. Well being and ill being paradigm are associated with pleasure and pain.
They are a paradigm indicating a shift towards disunity or unity of being that shifts
back and forth depending upon events, consumption, etc. Where the shift to
pleasure is dependent on something other such as water, food, sex, etc., or
otherness such as admiration, love, companionship, etc., the first material and the
second immaterial, Here is no ontological basis, rather a psychological foundation
that on the principle of sensation does not take intentions into account and because
it is a reflection of a paradigm of the external side of being shifting into the internal
side through sensation. Hume’s analysis of associations provides an adequate
explanation of good and evil in hedonistic ethics. Quantity of pain or pleasure is
essential for this principle. Quantity of pleasure or pain determines the shift of one
over the other. The quality of pleasure or pain has quantity threshold; thus the
quality of pleasure or pain involves two paradigms. The quality/quantity paradigm
determines the pleasure/pain paradigm; this ends in a shift into good or evil until
fully reflected. Various serial killers associate their victim’s pain with their
pleasure. The quality of the pain thresholds into death. Finite sensation passes into
infinity. Instruments remove the quality of pain as with an execution or enhance
the quality of pain with torture. With a shift into the good, pleasure has a measured
threshold to reach quality. The amount of dopamine determines well or ill being.
This natural chemistry shifts a quantifiable, material into a qualifiable, immaterial
state of being. The balanced state of pleasure and pain is only a suspended state or
not well and not ill being. The suspension of torture or disease is not fully
transformative well being.
Parmenides was right to hold that there is no change because being is negated by
nonbeing; Aristotle was right to hold that change can be explained by the negation
of potentiality or actuality by its estranged other. Being is negated by nonbeing as
is nonbeing negated by being, as is potentiality negated by actuality. The shift
between negation and affirmation accounts for change into permanence. The
polarities of being and their shifts are change of changelessness. Change and
permanence are the paradigm of unchanging change. What is a mental
contradiction or paradox is the engine of the universe. Change is not an appearance
nor is it reality. Permanence is not reality for it is only a dominant side. Like heads
or tail, they are one and the same coin, provided the coin is a reified process. Finite
being is a multitude of processes or substances in the medium of spacetime
139
separated then unified; the moving present or sequenced. This movement is the
transition of finite being into infinite Being.
The sides of the process/substance paradigm are not illusions, but reified
formations of dominance or recession generating change in their shifting negations
and suppressions. These negations are cosmic consciousness of the universe,
universals, gestalted in the vibrations of life. The generation is not independent of
being for any being is a reification of its process in the space/time paradigm;
dominated by substance process recedes.
Utopian dreams are the plans of good or evil. As with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et. al.,
these intentions and their objects are considered good by them, and evil by their
victims. The principle of universality is ignored.
Intuition simply connects one being to another; it is the awareness of unity and
disunity and extends to otherness, integrates natural laws into the process of
materializing the object. To come into being or existence are different intentions.
The human mammal is unique insofar as it has a priori knowledge of good and evil
built into is essence, its being, for it alone generates the paradigm of good/evil.
This paradigm is outside of nature for nature is governed by instinct. According to
its form, if one human mammal chooses to intentionally and unnecessarily harm an
innocent being; the form of its freely chosen intentions is evil. It has freely chosen
the form of its soul and body. This either/or consciousness is that of autonomy, for
it chose that which is unnecessary evil over necessary good. The shift from being
to Being is also a shift in finite to infinite, material to immaterial, disunity to unity,
specific to general, imperfection to perfection, etc. It is a one way transition, for it
is a micro shift within the Relative back into the Absolute. This is found in simple
processes such as cells within a body where the cell is expendable and finite but
the body is also a biological cell within ecology. Being is them structured into
good and evil, moral and immoral, for these are the structures of human intentions
that cannot be removed and reflect upon it alone to universal consciousness. It is a
guilty being whose immaterial and material form is that of good/evil. The eternal
forms are separate structures in life/death. The human animal chooses among the
paradigms such as quantity/quality making it a moral or immoral enterprise. It
chooses the paradigms that enable moral/immoral consequences among innocent
140
beings. Animals, children, insane, etc. are innocent beings that should be protected
and helped and never used as a means to an end, but seen as an end in themselves.
The categorical imperative rightly applies only to the innocent. The community of
persons or rational good willed human mammals in search of moral absolutes
through instruments termed categorical imperatives exclude innocent beings from
their community. The consequences immediately refer to the act that is judged
right or wrong according to the measured distribution of good or evil. The rational,
human mammal chooses to ignore modeling and testing for profit resulting in
unnecessary harm to innocent being. Ignoring facts or tests that would determine
facts or future consequences to innocent being and its mediums, the present
consequences include global warming, deforestation, disease, poverty, broken
economies, wars, etc. that gestalt only from a select few of the human mammal.
Relativity cannot be blamed as with the weather or natural extinctions.
Models are inclusive. All activities are under their control. For example, the
educational system has a model that controls every aspect of this experience. The
US model includes bullying, murder, drugs, sexual roles, testing, etc. They cannot
be excluded behaviors.
Being or the unity of all being within the relative pole transcends and emerges as
an absolute for only a moment. The sequence suspended, cause and effect halted,
space and time stand still. The shift cannot hold; it must continue and spacetime
return. The game is over, the election past, the marriage party finished, the birthday
party over, and so on. So too with the shifts from good to evil, evil to good. The
absolute is still within the dominance of the relative, and it must acknowledge it.
Beauty, joy, sorrow, happiness, etc. fade and each has its own death and
resurrection. As there is a material body and soul so there is an immaterial body
and soul. The immaterial side of the body and soul are its inseparable forms that
shift from life to death. For individuals, it can continue in the world as their
children or intentions or ideas and their consequences.
Materialized ideas are instruments or materially formed intentions that construct
the world. The world is a virtual reality that overlays natural reality and can easily
destroy it. Ideas are objects of the mind and the mind is the gestalt of the body/soul
paradigm. The object is a dominant side of the paradigm of subject/object. The
body is the dominant side of the body/soul paradigm. The material side of the
141
material/immaterial paradigm dominates within the relative, and the relative
dominants the absolute/relative paradigm. The alignment of poles of different
paradigms follows the dominant relative pole. The world that attempts to shift the
relative into the absolute are only momentary as in the hippie revolution of love or
Hitler’s revolution of hate. The world is engineered around knowledge of physics,
chemistry, mathematics, etc. to a purpose of universal intent. This knowledge is
good or evil for it is derived and shaped from intentions embedded within innocent
being as beneficial or harmful effects. Knowledge is also necessary or unnecessary,
for evil is unnecessary and good necessary. In other words, the form of knowledge
is ethical or unethical. Acting out of ignorance is immoral and possibly evil if the
consequences can be foreseen. For example, releasing toxic materials into the
environment is evil if the consequences of harm are understood. Day by day, the
world breaks the life/death paradigm of the earth. It has taken billions of earth
years to achieve self consciousness, yet one of its gestalts knowing destroys it. The
human being is inseparable, except in science fiction, from the being of the earth. It
is the being of the earth that generates the being of man. The earth generated
human beings and through human beings became self conscious, and with that,
assertions that they are independent of its source with claims of autonomy, free
choice, domination, self interests, personhood, rationality, etc. as they poison, alter
and experiment with its unity. This is the pattern of reality where each formation of
consciousness rejects itself in its alienation and otherness. Positive poles arise
against negative ones only to discover they are of the same magnet. Hegel
correctly reflected this structure and process. Identity in difference describes the
absorption of alienation, and another paradigm emerges. But is there an identity in
difference or some other formation at work? Identity and difference are sides of
being. As sides, they do not absorb one another. This paradigm has a dominant side
in time and space. The master does not absorb the slave, nor does the slave absorb
the master. The master is one side of a paradigm. The universe generates degrees
of consciousness for the paradigm is self-conscious. The structure and process
belong to the universe, not just to the human mammal’s struggle against itself
described in Hegel’s master/slave paradigm. The transcendental state of freedom is
momentary and its suppressed other, slavery, arises. Transcendental objects arise
within the paradigm where and when the slave forms the idea of freedom truly and
factually found in the master, and falsely found in the slave. The intent does not
have to be clearly expressed to be evil. The domination of the relative pole over the
142
absolute is a struggle within the absolute/relative paradigm, not for dominance of
polarities, but a reconciliation of its own alienation and division. In other words,
the absolute and relative are poles of something. The something is a conscious
paradigm. The struggle is a process and the process is experienced as a moving
present. This is not a suspension of polarity, but a cessation of opposites and
polarities.
Descartes’ cogito is simply an anthropological token of the primacy of the human
mammal. Yet, it can be further isolated to the occasionally rational human
mammal that has systematically destroyed the planet. It allows the objectification
of being in an anthropological world, and with that, the exchange of being for
objects especially economic objects such as commodities, contracts, money, laws,
etc. that are merely existents. This reality is not ontological, but anthropological,
and with that, distorted egoism and its medium of capitalism emerges as its
principle as exemplified in the Horizon incident. Yet, there is the power of the
instrument in the hands of the unthinking human mammals that account for the
majority of its destruction. Fire, guns, traps, etc. have transformed the planet into a
human mammal world. This transformation is the death of Being and its mediums
for the life of a single species being and its rational medium of pollution, garbage,
filth, murder of other species, logging, trophies, bizarre sexual behaviors, religious
rituals based exclusively on this species, etc. Thinking does not generate being,
only objects. The cogito generated an object named Descartes that instantly
disappeared when no longer thought, but not the being that generated the cogito.
To be is to be thought is one step higher that to be is to be perceived, sensed,
understood, hated, loved, discovered, etc. Plato’s divided line cannot be the
generator of being. The object cannot have being, only existence. Platonic forms
are in heaven, only if there is heaven on earth or the return of the garden of Eden
for the misguided world. Kantian a priori categories structure objects leaving being
unavailable and isolated in itself. The thing in itself is being and essence is human
mammal constituted phenomena. Kant denies the paradigm of being and essence
for thought only reflects its own structure off the mirror of phenomena.
Correlationism is built upon the assertion of a mental substance, and this substance
is the ultimate reality because it is knowable in itself for its structures are a priori
therefore the examination of reality need not transcend the subjective. The rational
ego is its own object and subject, and self-certainty is perfect and absolute. The
143
correlate is the correlator; the subject is the object; momentary perfect identity
reached without dealing with the spacetime paradox. With the certainty of the ego,
the certainty of the object and thing are problematic. The object can be
distinguished from the thing by observation provided the senses are reliable
sources of information which they are not. The senses are aided by thought that
mathematically and logically governs the senses for reliability. With inductive
controls in place, limited knowledge is possible, but error is probable. Rational
objects such as mathematics and logic are certain because they are a priori,
analytic, and rule driven. The rational ego is certain because it is entirely within its
own structure or the interior while the exterior, if governed by mathematical and
logical forms, is somewhat certain. Inescapable anthropocentricism remains in this
world of the rational, human mammal. The human mammal is momentarily certain
of its own kind. Its species is empirically realized in its shape that is a priori in
every human mammal. Wolf children do not recognize their kind because it must
be empirically reflected to activate the reflection. Only through reflection can
associations be overcome. Thus, the intuition of being is the first certainty.
Descartes’ cogito is uncertain for error is always possible. Error, either external or
internal, is internal recognition. Internal recognition of externals is often erroneous.
An internal fact such as perception is an event that is certain, but the perception
and its object can be in error, and corrected by an examination of the facts.
Otherwise, there cannot be errors, for how are they corrected if not recognized as
errors. The certainty for Descartes is internal events such as sensation, yet they can
be in error as in a dream. “I feel cold,” is certain, but the thermometer indicates
normal. The event, not the temperature is certain. The correction of an error is the
recognition of a fact rather than a fiction or other internal event. This internal
recognition is therefore the basic of a correction against the facts of being leading
to certainty. Kant turns to mathematical precision and scientific reasoning to reach
certainty. Yet, both are internal formations that shape the external thermometer
which reflects science and mathematics into internal recognition of its categorical
schemata providing empirical certainty and overcoming Descartes anxiety.
An alignment of paradigm forms under the human mammal’s reign of terror or just
peace. It forms through knowledge of the consequences of its intentions. Each
particles of being is examined for its consequences in other beings, and with this
knowledge, the human mammal engineers a world of good or evil for itself and all
144
being. Certain forms of bacteria, insects, plants, etc. are contained because the
cause unnecessary harm to innocent being. Others are managed and cared for
because they are innocent beings that do not cause universal harm. Lions are not
universally harmful and are innocent even if they attack and consume other species
for this is allowed under the right of self preservation. Ticks and fleas must be
controlled for they are universally and unnecessarily harmful to other species. The
human mammal knows this and is morally bound to control them without injuring
other innocent beings including their mediums. The transformation of the forests
into pastures resulting in massive tick and flea invasions is immoral.
Claims are true or false. These instruments are verified through correspondence
and coherence to facts. Error is possible but reduced through strict inductive
methods. From this, judgment is enabled. Moral and immoral facts are determined
through the registry of being. A moral fact must be registered within a being for
the claims to be verified. The verification is one of coherence of corresponding
claim to fact. The claim that Joe raped Sally is verified through evidence. The
claim that earth pulls bodies down is immediately verified by experience.
However, gravity is a theory and requires an understanding of this power. The
claim that Sally is on fire is verified through perception and experience and does
not require an understanding of fire as a chemical process because Sally is a being
in the present unlike gravity which is a universal medium of being and invisible
power in the universe. The evidence provides a coherence of facts to claims. The
registry is the being of Sally and Joe. This is given in intuition. Claims are given in
scientific instruments, devices, tests, videos, etc., and provide confirmation with
high probability. The principles of coherence are the laws of logic. Noncontraction, identity, etc., are the laws of being and a priori to being and the
foundation of its unity. Violations are the basis of ethics and justice. Thus, the
judgment rests on a priori foundations; it follows that these laws of logic are
invisible and transcendent. Kant’s categorical imperatives must be based upon
these laws. Violations of the law of identity such as unequal pay or rights will
drive our species into revolt. It applies to all conscious beings. Yet, some
categorical imperatives such as telling the truth do not drive us into insanity and
cannot be considered absolutes. Cultural lies such as Santa Claus are enjoyable.
When criminals who rape and murder are given small sentences while drug
criminals are given large sentences violates the laws of equality and the logic of
145
identity. The first are violations of being while the other crimes are violations of
existence. Existence templates being and impacts it by interfering or even
destroying its foundations. Being becomes an object among objects. This was not
addressed by Kant. Kant’s categorical imperatives form a set of absolutes. Lying,
cheating, etc. cannot be considered absolutes because we tolerate and even forgive
them. The truth is both relative and absolute. The relative truth is to existence; the
absolute truth is to the fact of being. When in the present, an observation in the
here and now is a fact. I have a cold is true now, but a year from now not true.
However, on that date, it was true and remains eternally true. The fact of a truth or
lie is an absolute and eternally true weather recorded or not.The absolute truth is
the fact that the instruments of truth or falsity were employed. Lies are instruments
of existence, not being. They are manmade devices. A statement can be true or
false and when intentionally false, it is a lie. It is an instrument of power and it is
the responsibility of recipient to validate it and determine if the source is immoral
or evil when the lie can harm innocent beings. The violations of the laws of being
drive us crazy. Telling the truth to one and lying to another consistently is
intolerable. Paying more to one and less to another for the same work is
intolerable. Favoritism, social imbalances, discrimination, baseless or arbitrary
rewards and punishments, and so on are the stuff of rebellion. For example, lying
to police results in arrest and curiosity about the motives. However, punishing one
liar and rewarding another in the identical situation is intolerable. Sentencing one
to jail and the other to compensation is insanity. Breaking the laws of being is
tolerated if unnoticed due to space and time. One president lies to the people about
the reasons for war while another lies for sex with a page. The one is allowed, the
other prosecuted. The weight of damages is incalculable in the first, trivial in the
second.
Following the consciousness of reflected ought, ethics consists of critical terms
that describe freely chosen states of being, universals, duties, moral facts,
intentions and consequences, instruments, devices, relationships, and so on. These
critical terms form statements and premises of arguments, and, if valid, ethical
conclusions that determine right and wrong actions. These instruments are the
basis of ethical judgments upon which ethical acts must follow. For example,
landmines should be universally prohibited because they unnecessarily harm
innocent beings. The reason given is the definition of evil. The definition of evil
146
conforms to moral facts. Landmines are unnecessary and hold the intention to kill
or mane. The consequences are universal to animals including the human mammal
that made the instrument, and are empirically verifiable, measurable and objective.
A possible retort by those who buy and sell them could be that they should not
have been in a landmine zone. This counter claim involves ethical terms should
not. They might also claim an absolute right of self protection that would provide a
solid defense by invoking necessity. Their counter claim is that landmines are good
because they intentionally and necessarily benefit innocent being. The
consequences of leaving them armed and buried is therefore irrelevant, and any
innocent being that happens to wander into this zone is of minor harm to the
greater good, and so on. Their contradictions are ignored and meaningless, but
skillful rants shut down the dialectic, but not the agony of being. The landmine
argument is an instrument of being, not the mind, and the solution to the dialectic
is one of being there. The world template cannot be ethically governed from
arguments alone. The argument must be in being. The buyer and seller must be
arguing in the middle of the landmine field when and where good or evil are
reflected in the moving present; in their being as they walk through an existential
hell. Here the authors of the intention meet the consequences of their intentions
embedded within their hidden instruments. It is not a Kantian contradiction with
the mind, but an ontological contradiction of being; it is a contradiction of
intention and consequence that only occurs with being in the world. This world is
clearly evil.
Ethics originates in the intuition of being through which the status of its unity
issues forth, not in a mind that reflects and judges against it. The intuition issues
from the paradigm of unity or disunity of being in particular and general, another
paradigm. The shift can be mild as when annoyed or severe as when burned. Being
is paradigm of body and soul, and the body and soul are both particular and general
under the paradigm of one/many. Thus, in order to intuit oneness, the I stands
against the many as the many stands against the paradigm of unity and disunity to
become conscious of itself.
The body is a reified material shift from the soul. The soul is a reified immaterial
shift out of the body. The one requires the other in order to reflect off the mirror of
the other’s polarity. The body is the form of material shift; the soul is the form of
the immaterial shift. The form of the soul is the form of the immaterial intention
147
considered the purpose while the body is the form of the material intention
considered the species. The mind is a reflection of this paradigm and its shifts. This
shift occurs in space and time, and it can be suspended as in an indecision or
accident. If the paradigm shifts to unity, it is beneficial; if it shifts to disunity, it is
harmful. Other paradigms such a quality/quantity surface determining the duration
and intensity of the state of being. The intuition of harm or benefit generates the
intuition that the harm or benefit was intentionally or unintentionally delivered.
The intentions embedded within the configuration of instruments provide evidence
to the original intention. There must be an alignment of intention, instrument and
consequence to achieve ethical transcendence. Ethical transcendence is the delivery
of the intention through an instrument into being or the consequences. Ethical
transcendence occurs in space and time, and therefore originates within individual
intentions. Since it transcends the individual, it can become universal. Ethical
transcendence includes both good/evil, moral/immoral and right/wrong. Unethical
transcendence includes evil/good, wrong/right, and immoral/moral shifts. These
terms describe the factual state of being. Reflection upon the chain of delivery
reveals if the harm or benefit are necessary or unnecessary. A medical procedure
for example would be necessary unless negligence was involved. Necessity is
established through knowledge. Negligence due to ignorance is avoidable through
learning, hence unnecessary. While moral is defined as the necessary benefit to an
innocent being, and good is the intentional, necessary benefit to an innocent
being—and it obviously includes moral; this shift is one of being in the world,
namely, well-being, and its former side, immoral or the unnecessary harm to
innocent being and evil or the intentional, unnecessary harm to innocent being, has
dissolved for the moment. These definitions are the facts and properties of being
inflicted by other beings. These definitions are the governing relationships of the
human mammal to itself and other beings.
The paradigm is the a priori structure of being giving it bipolar form. The
appearance of being is its essence, its form; this appearance does not include its
structure which is bipolar in the human mammal or instinctual in other species.
The structure is revealed in the interactions of the species/individual paradigm.The
structure is the essence in the paradigm of spacetime. The shift back and forth from
space to time or time to space is simply the here and now, and in suspension, the
present; otherwise, in motion, time past and future and location near and far.
148
The original form is the paradigm of soul and body. The soul is the immaterial side
while the body is the material side of being. The side of being is its structural
appearance in spacetime which is not fully given. The appearance is shaped by the
paradigm as it shifts sides in a temporal and physical sequence. Each paradigm
generates ainfinite complex of paradigms. For example, a shift to the material side,
the body, emerges in the pain/pleasure paradigm. The physically painful side for
example is under the quantitative/qualitative paradigm. For example, a polio shot
would be a quantitatively insignificant pain, but quantitatively and qualitative
beneficial to physical well-being in terms of a longer, healthier life.
The appearance of being, its presence, the essence, issues from this dynamic
process. The process evolves spiritually and materially towards its unification with
Being, the unity of all finite being. In adapting to its environment, the being
develops special responses giving it a personality, or who it is. It enters spacetime
as a paradigmatic side of being, an essence, or what it is. Essence does not change;
however, personality does. With the human mammal, its material form is its human
shape and its spiritual form is the configuration of freely chosen intentions.
Intentions that enter spacetime form the world, not the earth. The world harms or
helps the earth. In order for intentions to enter the world, they must be
instrumentalized. Only those intentions within the world are determined to be
moral/immoral or good/evil. For example, a good intention must be real. This
means that some benefit is now the property in both singular and universal finite
being and perceivable. The benefit is factually determined as a state of being. It is
measurable. Each measurement determines a state of quality. It was introduced into
the universe and is now a quality of the universe where before it was not. The
benefit has transcended its source and forms a spiritual and material paradigm that
only this being could deliver at this time and space. Such as cures for rabies, small
pox, electric light, refrigeration, vitamins, etc. However, the paradigm remains
unstable and a shift into the realm of immorality and evil is possible. Evil
intentions such as war or genocide can and do follow as the paradigm shifts from
the Good to Evil, Moral to Immoral. Unintended and unnecessary consequences
can follow as with overpopulation, pollution, starvation, desertification, etc. The
Good that overlooked the necessary benefit is now unintentional and unnecessary
harmful to innocent being. The necessity ignored was the consequence of an
unregulated overpopulation that could have been foreseen and prevented. When
149
regulation is acted upon without modeling such as in China, a destabilized,
asymmetrical paradigm emerges with a male overpopulation. The consequences of
the intention must be fully understood before its actualization. This requires a
science of consequences with fully examined models that prevent an imbalance in
natural paradigms.
Kant in the Dissertation declared that sensuous thought is the representation of
things as they appear and intellectual presentations are the representations of things
as they are. The intellect grasps being. Empirical concepts cannot transcend
sensuous thought and reach being. Pure ideas belong to the intellect and deal with
reality while empirical concepts deal with abstract ideas, or ideas abstracted from
sensuous things. Metaphysics deals with pure ideas, geometry with sensuous
knowledge. The pure intellect deals with moral concepts. Moral concepts cannot be
abstracted out of experience. Innate to the mind, not from experience or learning,
are the categories, pure forms uncontaminated by the senses. The intellect
transcends space and time and reaches the absolute. For example, truth is an
absolute.
Kant maintains that the paradigm of spacetime is governed by the inner/outer
paradigm where time is the inner intuition and space the outer intuition of objects.
The Kantian challenge is to the nature of this intuition. Is the structure of the
intuition a paradigm with an inner and outer structure? It seems that the paradigm
of inner/outer is fundamental to the structure of the intuition of spacetime, where
the shift to outer is the shift to space and the shift to inner is the shift to time.
Kant’s assertion pertains to the object side of the object/subject paradigm, and
there is an unjustified alignment of paradigms to object:space:outer and
subject:inner:time; the object is obviously filled by sensory data outside of the
mind, yet the form is inside of the mind and time is its medium while space is the
medium of the object. Kant’s paradigms are unable to shift and cannot account for
reality. Inner time and outer time are undeniable. Our inner judgments of time
require instruments of measurement to establish certainty. Pain or pleasure distorts
inner time and our judgments are unreliable. Outer time is established through
spatial coordinates correcting our outer judgments of speed. Our outer judgments
of time are objective through instruments such as clocks and provide both
objective and subjective certainty; subjective because certainty is a state of being,
not just a mental reflection or state of mind for it is vital for maintaining the shift
150
into life rather than death necessitating acts.The judgment reflects that state of
being. The shift into certainty is a simple paradigm. Yet time is one side of the
time/space paradigm and our spatial judgments are also corrected through an
instrumental space such as rules, rulers, lasers, maps, etc.
The in/out paradigm is established through logic and coherence built upon
correspondence. For example, there is no test for being in or out of an idea. One
either has it or not. This is the logic of being or not being. The empirical tests only
help confirm the logic. Piaget tested the idea of the conservation of matter in his
children; they either owned the idea or not. The idea was in their being or not. It
was a gestalt or not; they got it or not.
Kant’s paradigms are not allowed to shift whereby time is aligned with the outer
object or space with the inner field. Is the intuition of spacetime or is it spacetime
itself? If it is of spacetime, then spacetime is of an object, yet if it is spacetime
itself, then the intuition concerns only itself and is an object of itself. The medium
spacetime cannot be an object of intuition and reflection without being real. Real is
that which is independent of the mind and its formations. The mind is simply the
structure of being. Plato’s divided line is the structure of the human mammal, not
the structure of the mind. There is no substance termed mind, for mind is a reified
process that is a reflection of various objects off the negation of being. The
negation of being is not-being and from that negation, what is or essence is a
reflection of the presence of being. The presence is essence in the present which is
the suspension of the past and future. Aristotle’s division of being into plant,
animal, etc., is divided by the gestalt of knowledge. Thus, in a tree, the
consciousness of its unity is simply the negation of the other. Being is inseparably
universal and unique, for it is the paradigm of reality. In this way, the mind is a
process of negation and affirmation for the perception of something shifts from the
sensation into a gestalt of sensation, perception, understanding, reason, for the
divided line is the gestalt of its predecessor. While the process is reified in the
human mammal, only the first configuration of negations ends in the identity of the
underlying unity. The unity of the human mammal gestalts knowledge and any
being unable to gestalt this is innocent. The mind is not independent of being
because it is a gestalt within being and brought about by being. The mind gestalts
into various structures such as sensation, perception, understanding, reason, belief,
opinion, etc. that generate various objects against the intuition of being. In this
151
way, the human mammal senses, perceives, understands, and knows other being or
their absence as in the case of imaginary objects. In other words, there must be
another intuition behind spacetime to make it an object, and this is the intuition of
being and its antithesis, namely, the paradigm of being/nonbeing. The intuition of
spacetime is that of nonbeing or the absence and negation of being. For example,
Nazis identified, transported, enslaved, and murdered millions of objects. The
intuition of being was suppressed, and various templates employed in order to
achieve their objectives. Sociopaths can and do rape and murder within the
intuition of being. Normal human mammals prefer the template that removes the
intuition and avoid the direct experience of horror projects. The shift from being to
nonbeing caused directly by sociopaths and indirectly by the normal forms a
virtual world of evil.
Transcendental realism maintains that spacetime is real or outside of the mind that
reflects it. It is a medium of being. It is both subjective and objective because it is
invasive of finite being, and the intuition of spacetime is that of one’s finitude. The
body/soul paradigm forms material and immaterial sides to hold off its
invasiveness; it originates in the unity/disunity paradigm, and is not simply a priori
to the mind or a formal condition of experience. Spacetime is a paradigm in its own
right and therefore real as a medium of being, not an intuition. As a medium, it is
immediately experienced in the paradigm of me/not me or the inner/outer side of
my being. This the inseparable gestalt of physical thought.
Within other animals, shapes are their material forms, and their immaterial shapes
are their instincts. The dual sides of being are the interchanging form/content
paradigm where the form of the content side and the content of the form side
constitute the dynamics of the process. Being is now Becoming. The criteria of
certainty are the experience of insight, perception, understanding, and reflection.
Behind the scene, behind the phenomena, the thing in itself and for itself is being.
It is a paradigm of sensuous and intelligibility. The universe gestalts the mind or
the paradigm of matter and form. The intuition includes the absence of being or not
being. Kant is incorrect to hold spacetime is an intuition within a subjective
container; rather, it is the paradigm of division between Being and being and all
paradigms. These shifts can only occur in spacetime be it a quantitative
temperature reading of 98 or 104 shifting from quality to diminished quality of life
or what we term well being to ill being. This shift in quality/quantity occurs in the
152
spacetime paradigm, and the sequence of the shift is not a Kantian intuition but a
reality.
The expression of the intuition is a judgment of its form. The form of the intuition
is either a spiritual side or physical side asit gestalts in an inseparable but dominant
material or spiritual judgment. The dominant side is the presence of being of which
mind only reflects in distortions or accurately. The distortion have various sources
of presentation such a political manipulation, drugs, money, power, greed, etc., and
are often intended to destroy the present. The moral intuition gestalts in the
spiritual and material judgment as ought or ought not and should or should not; the
same intuition gestalts into right or wrong when confronted by unjust or just
actions. This gestalt is a judgment of being itself, not the mind that only reflects the
gestalt. The gestalt is a material and immaterial form above the sum of its parts.
For example, vivisection and torture are spiritual in the intention and physical in
the consequences. The judgment of the vivesector is interesting, information, etc.;
the judgment of the torturer is fun, information, retribution, etc. Rarely honest as
with fun, the judgments distort and hide their evil sources and consequences.
The ethical judgment embedded within an expression is an instrument with an
embedded intention that manifests in the act. Wrong and right intuitions originate
in the unity and disunity of the paradigm of being, not the intuition that simply
registers the presence or absence of being or not being. Here being transcends itself
to grasp reality in its paradigms. Finite, separated being is a paradigm of body and
soul, and its ethical struggle for dominance and its continued identity or presence
in the present is the content of the present; under the pressures of unity or disunity
in the medium of space and time, requires it to immediately shift into the paradigm
of justice/injustice when confronted by immanent or mediate harm or benefit by
members of the human species. Other animals cannot form mediate paradigms, and
are innocent. A mediate paradigm is an intention sustained by the knowledge of
good and evil.
Life and death form a paradigm. Life is the relative within the absolute and death is
the absolute within the relative. Life and death are ontic or finite singular points of
being within the medium of spacetime. Life is a concrete relative/absolute
paradigm with multiple paradigms momentarily gestalting into happiness and well
being or unhappiness and ill being depending on genetic, physical intentions or
153
immaterial intentions. Death is a concrete absolute/relative paradigm meaning a
unique point of being is removed from the relative, never to be repeated.
Transcendental existentialism or the intentional world created by the human
mammal momentarily suspends the paradigm of life and death for its members.
This world is necessarily good or evil. While intending benefit for some members
and harm to others, the world is an artificial paradigm templating natural
paradigms and interfering with them positively or negatively. The cane toad is such
an example.
Intuition is universal for it is a priori to being, and not as Kant maintains, objective,
and any action directed from or to the unity/disunity of being in general or
particular is governed by paradigms a priori to it. Where Kant holds that the law is
objective, absolute, unconditioned, etc. because it is valid to reason and
subjectively necessary, yet remains to be freely chosen, there remains the
anthropomorphic prejudice of “reason” allowing for innocent being to be used as a
means to human ends. This prejudice is a cover from heinous crimes against
innocent being in general and particular with the sole exception of the human
mammal. Pure, unbiased, nonhuman objectivity is denied because it is only a side
of the objective/subjective paradigm. It follows that the categorical imperative is
impossible because there are no objective actions in themselves uncontaminated by
the subjective side of the paradigm of means/end; itself a paradigm of mine/not
mine under the category of possession. Absolute freedom rejects the category of
possession while relativity accepts it as necessary for unification for freedom is the
gestalt of unification and determinism is the gestalt of disunification. Momentary
or relative unification forms under passions and emotions while enduring freedom
forms under reflective unification. Both offset the other side in the world of the
human mammal. Kant thought inner freedom formed under rational self-control
offsetting emotional, out of control states of being, and because reason is a priori to
the human mammal, it is universal as reflected in absolute moral laws a priori or
inner determinations of the rational animal, for the determinations of reason avoid
mechanical causality by freely chosen spiritual causality. In the world of the
rational human mammal, there can be no relative moral laws for that would entail
contradictions; irrational, relative, non-universal laws are rejected by the rational
community expresses its unity in sound arguments and reflections of individual
members as to their certainty. A virtuous human mammal is one that freely chose
154
that set of virtues because they are reflected in categorical imperatives, not
Aristotelian, learned habits. Kant’s paradox of the causally determined phenomenal
self-unity and the absolutely free noumenal self-unity is simply the manifestation
of paradigms material/immaterial, relative/absolute, natural/divine, etc.
Virtues
Aristotle holds that the superior character’s passions and calculated intentions are
aligned. This person is most suited to well-being. Well-being means a full,
qualitative life and happiness flows from this excellence of character and
perfection of one’s nature or unique essence under the guidance of wisdom. An
inferior person is one whose passions and deliberations are in conflict and who
must deliberately defeat the deviant passions to act virtuously. As reference to
Plato’s charioteer. Thus deliberations end in control of actions in a war of control
between passions and thought. Yet Kant holds that the inferior person is of moral
worth. Kant holds that his struggle for moral worth has more value. The implied
duty and subsequent struggle and victory with one’s passions are more virtuous
than naturally aligned emotions and deliberations. Aristotle is relative, Kant is
absolute. Kant’s good will is under the control of free choice and duty bound to the
categorical imperative.
Nevertheless, the enslaved and caged will occasionally escape, and a moment of
freedom will occur and be momentarily experienced until space and time dissolves
it and it is forgotten. Objectivity cannot be reached by the human species until all
being, i.e., universal Being, is included in the law. Rather than a valid conclusion,
the logic and validity of the paradigm is the universal structure of being and
therefore universally experienced as shared in the intuition of unity. The
unity/disunity paradigm is both external and internal, and as with all paradigms,
generates sides or barriers. Disunity forms from without or within, and in order to
transcend its origins and overcome the sides of being disrupting the other’s unity,
natural instruments must be present in all species. Paradigms are the sides of many
under the inseparable paradigm of one/many. In the exclusive world of the human
mammal, the moral intuition of necessary benefit to innocent being underlies the
judicial intuition that judges if there are moral, immoral, good and evil laws. The
law is the instrument of mediate transcendence through which the embedded
intention of its author(s) is delivered to guilty or innocent beings. To act upon an
155
evil law is wrong while to act upon a good law is right; not to act upon an evil law
is right and not to act upon a good law is wrong. The property of good or evil is
embedded within the consequences or the empirical and spiritual field after acting
upon the law. There can be no interpretation. The intent is then tangent, visible,
measureableand empirical consequences follow when and where it becomes an
immaterial or material property of being. The property is the empirical or spiritual
unity or disunity of being. There are immaterial or material shifts in the paradigms,
and to fixate on one side is simply the shift of in being itself. Material shifts
manifest physical pain or benefit while immaterial shifts manifest emotions such as
sorrow, grief, etc. or joy, happiness, etc., and these paradigms configure and gestalt
in the intuition of the unity/disunity of being. These intuitions are universal and
particular, immediate and certain, but can instantly shift into mediate and
uncertain, as when a loved one suddenly dies. From the intuition, ethical judgments
emerge, not based on anthropology, psychology, history, or the shifting sands of
relativism, but upon moral facts and principles. A moral fact is a confirmed unity
or disunity in being in general or in particular. A moral fiction is a mental object or
subjective formation. For example, gay marriages are immoral fictions. The
confirmation of a moral fact or fiction is a judgment arising from the intuition of
one’s unity or disunity and a judgment arising from the correspondence and
coherence of evidence pertaining to the unity or disunity of other beings. The unity
or disunity arising from unnecessary harm or the intentional, unnecessary of
innocent being is confirmed in the consequences empirically, cognitively and
spiritually. Empirical confirmation is established in instrumentally determined
patterns of disunity or unity of the body and behavior while cognitive confirmation
is established in patterns of concrete logic or relationships, and spiritually in
essence of a reality. For example, a child offering sex for food or money is an evil
relationship. The evil intents of others have been embedded within the child
constituting evil facts. It is an immediate, intuitive confirmation of an unnecessary
disunity within an innocent being and a coherence of evidence that immoral or evil
facts reside there. Artificial and natural facts are the properties of being. They are
material and immaterial, external and internal, physical and spiritual, good or evil,
moral or immoral, necessary or unnecessary, harmful or beneficial, externally
measurable and internally immeasurable. Ethical micro paradigms are made
present in the unity or disunity of a being by an internal choice or an imposing
world. The purpose of the world is to control and remove evil and immoral macro
156
and micro paradigms and insure and maintain good and moral ones in innocent
being and its mediums.
The gestalt of Ought is the negation of the present and formation of the future in
the past. The present shifts into a sequence of points and moves into the spacetime
paradigm as a suspension between past and future. Transcendental existentialism
emerges from the limitations residing within the a priori intuition of being; that is,
being itself that generates the intuition that gestalts in a realization of self-unity of
being. Thought is generated and the suspension of the spacetime paradigm in a
virtual world project emerges. The cogito ergo sum is reversed. The I am the
cogito are inseparable in fact, in the reflecting being itself. Being cannot be
concluded and therefore brought into being. It is either is or is not present. I am
therefore I think is a gestalt within being into thought with a fleeting, reflected
confirmation of unity made possible in the abeyance of conflicting side formations.
The thought of I am is reflection upon this gestalt of unity. The I am is given in the
unity of being. The intuition of being is the foundation of the thought. The I am,
being, is confirmed by negation, not me, therefore me, and the brief unity of its
sides, soul and body, gestalt into reflection--a thinking being emerges. The cogito
or mind is a momentary gestalt of the process reflecting the unity of the body and
shifting into the reflection of the unity of the soul. Again, they are not opposing
substances; rather, they are opposing side of the paradigm of being. Possession, not
thought or reflection, emerges as the unifying structure of the ego. This structure is
termed mine. I want to absorb it. Possession unites the representations to me. The
mine, the possessor, owns something, and that something is not me, but mine. At
the epistemological level, this is simply the contents of perception, the
representation, the object. This is uncomfortable, for the object does not conform
to me or my perspective, and I must constantly adjust to it or track it.
Ontogenesis and phylogenies are undifferentiated and united in each singularity.
The particular and species form a paradigm under the one and many. The process
is reified. Social consciousness emerges. The fluidity of the process is captured in a
reflection and history formed. This unity cannot hold in the suspended state termed
thought, and must shift into a physical or spiritual side. For example, thirst and
grief are shifts in the body and soul. One paradigm dominates the other. A thirsty
body is a side of physical ill-being while an empty, disunified soul is a side of
spiritual ill-being. Both are sides of the ill/well being paradigm central to ethics as
157
the end or purpose of being. In this way, well-being gestalts happiness as ill-being
gestalts spiritual/material happiness or unhappiness. Reflection is a momentary
suspension of the disunity/unity paradigm, for the reflection eventually fades under
the pressure of the spacetime paradigm as it unrelentingly imposes a temporal
sequence and a physical location on finite being. This demands a position of being
in the world, and with each position, a side of the pain/pleasure paradigm emerges.
It material side emerges in the smallest physical discomfort or pleasure to the
spiritual side with the greatest joy or sorrow. The paradigm shapes the appearance
of being in the world. Behind the appearance is the structure of reality, the
paradigm, not the noumenon. Each location has its time, yet it is the inseparable
sides of the space/time paradigm. The moving present continues into a resolution
in the infinite and finite separation of being from Being, the Relative from the
Absolute.This intuition is limited to finite being and its mediums the Earth. Finite
being also gestalts the universal mind from natural laws reflected within the
structure of being and its mediums. Natural and spiritual patterns are sides of the
same universal. The laws of physics and the laws of spirit are manifestations of
being, and finite being is simply infinite Being in disunity. Ethical laws hold
universally just as gravity governs individuals. As the law of gravity is a principle
of unity of the relative, material side of being reflected by the human mammal as a
law but materially reflected by all finite beings friction, heat, vibrations, etc. The
laws of ethics are principles of reflected unity or disunity among human mammals.
The principles or laws are real even if not reflected. The laws of nature are
physically reflected structures of being, not Kantian structures of mind that are
mere reflections of them, the “categories” the laws of ethics are unlearned
structures of being, yet they are dormant until reflected among other human
mammals materially and spiritually. For example, Aristotle’s virtues are structures
of being that must be reflected in others to become active for this is our medium.
The mind has no structure other than what it reflects in and off being, and from
these patterns, the mind forms objects that can be embedded with intentions.
Objects can be imaginary or empirical depending on the shifts within the paradigm.
Within the negation of sides, the negation of structures allows for their separation
and reformation termed the imagination. These objects are devices, instruments,
commodities and mediums termed the World. The World overlays the Earth for the
Earth is its being. The World is never a Virtual Earth for that is a matrix of ideas.
The World is the form of Good or Evil constructed by the human mammal. The
158
World template is a virtual medium of space and time with contents of fact and
fiction. The World excludes beings as objects or instruments unless it is confused
or under the control of evil intentions. An evil intent can be embedded within a
being through instruments, but the being itself cannot be an instrument. The
equation of being with instrument, entity, or object is ontologically incoherent, yet
it can be spiritually coherent when shaping the World. The Mafia, Cartel, etc. use
innocent beings as instruments such as carrying explosives and detonating them for
terroristic consequences without the instrument’s knowledge or agreement. The
confusion of Reality with Existence is not allowed if it unnecessarily harms
innocent beings and that includes animals and their mediums. Here, truth and lie
coexists along with dragons and atoms. The intuition of being easily confuses the
world of the human mammal with being and its mediums, and it grounds its moral
and axiological judgments upon it this confusion. The error is to grant reality to the
world. Instead, the world has existence which is the appearance of reality for the
human mammal, and its existential judgments concerning the world must be
separated from its essential judgments of reality. The intuition is clearly an a priori
structure and universal of being that detects the shifts between immaterial and
material properties of beings through their presences. Existential judgments issue
from the mind of the human mammal and pertain to its World. Essential judgments
issue from the intuition of being and pertain to the Earth. An ethics of
transcendental existentialism is therefore founded upon transcendental realism in
order to avoid the virtual worlds of Nazis, Stalin’s Communism, Pol Pot’s
Cambodia, etc. The definitions of moral/immoral, good/evil, right/wrong are the
essences of being and reality that guide judgments. These essences are the
structures of reality and determine informed choices and actions. Deontological
and consequential ethics are connected through the intention and its form. The
form is the definitions or essences of being. The definitions are given below in
detail. From the intuitions determinations, the minimal intention of finite beings to
displace and to bind with other unities of its kind emerges as a quest for Reality.
The existential judgment of the human mammal is a quest for the World and its
virtual “realities.”This finite intuition of being precedes the representation, namely,
the object that determines that and what is or is not; this is an epistemological
formation arising from the unity of being established in the negation establishing
physical and spiritual boundaries. The spiritual side, the immaterial intention,
governs the representation of the object and makes it its own. The object/subject
159
paradigm emerges. The shift in the paradigm is the negation of one side, and the
object easily becomes the subject or the subject becomes the object. The negation
is itself a paradigm of the physical and spiritual. Since the movement into its other
side is not one of sensation involving pain or pleasure, it is not a physical barrier. It
is material since the shift does involve penetration, friction, heat, electricity, etc. or
the laws of nature forming the physical. The physical is the side of the soul/body
paradigm generating the subject/object paradigm. This evidence is given in the
intuition of unity or being, and is often termed feeling. Clearly, this is an
epistemological formation that has yet to be grounded in an ontological properties,
structures and principles; so the object cannot be judged as real or mental at this
point. This can only be settled through the reflection on existence and being. The
reflection off an existent is different from a reflection off a being. This difference
rests upon the spiritual and physical inseparable sides of the intention. The
immaterial side, the absolute, the law, the intelligible world, as exemplified by
Kant’s categorical imperative and categories, is accessed by the contradiction and
negation of all means-ends calculations. Beside reason and cognitive laws, this side
could also be governed by emotions, opinions beliefs, etc. for they are also
immaterial with material expressions. Kant’s analysis of the intelligible/sensible
paradigm takes him into the unresolved paradox of freedom/determinism allowing
freedom to evaporate into a belief. (GMM, 459) Spinoza’s paradigm is correct.
Freedom is alienated determinism or the concrete negation of not-free. One side of
Being is process and now the process shifts between freedom and slavery. It is a
shift in being, not ideas, not the mind, for freedom cannot be composed by ideas
for they merely reflect it. The state of freedom is a reification of the process
doomed to collapse back into process over space and time and reified into slavery.
For Kant, the laws of nature and the laws of spirit are the divided Platonic world of
sense composed by nature and world of ideas such as freedom as composed by
rational mammals. The paradigm accepts the divide as a surfacing and reified side
of being moving determinately and freely towards spiritual and physical unity, i.e.,
Being.
Freedom necessitates instruments and the intention to be free. As it is realized, it is
determined and dissolved by and space and time immediately remove it.
Intelligibility is inseparable from sensibility, rather the mind is simply a reflected
paradigm of intelligibility and sensibility, neumonon and phenomenon, form and
160
matter, etc; inseparable; yet, once reified, erroneously judged as separate. The
empirical side of the intention is governed by its measured consequences as
exemplified by Utilitarian calculations. The consequential side need not move into
the spiritual for it surfaces in behaviorism and materialism that apply this reflected
shift regarding it as ultimate reality or all that is. The completion of the intention,
its transcendence and biomechanical transfer into another being, or universal
economic policy ordering objects, or a commodity of objects, followed by the
dissolution of its sides, is the reified world reflected in concrete symbols such as
cattle, sheet, corn, gold, etc. Epistemic formations generate existential formations
that never reach ontological status. The existential reflection is often distorted
intentionally or unintentionally for it has no intuition of being to reference. The
object generated by an ontic formation, a being, is grounded in the intuition of
being--other ontic formations. On the other hand, the object is an epistemic gestalt
within being that can be extended into time and space as an entity or instrument,
and is never a being in itself. The object and being do not form a paradigm. An
epistemological formation cannot gestalt being, but depends upon being for its
existence. What and that a being is or is not arises from the a priori intuition ofan
ontic unity in time and space prior to the object formation, for that is its origin that
binds with other beings, not its perception. Esse est percipi, the real is rational,
transcendental noumena, cogito ergo sum, etc., in order to maintain ontic unity, an
awakening of the category of possession through the acquisition of material and
immaterial properties is necessary for continuance. This paradigm of mine/ours
emerges in all beings by degree followed by a consciousness generated through the
internal, infinite negations of disunity and external, infinite negations of other
unities. The I am is bound to the universe in its separation. The not-me or
consciousness emerges in the negation followed by affirmation of my unity, I am.
The logic of this paradigm is to gestalt and assemble unity through negation only
to dissolve and dissemble alien unities through self-affirmation. The one/many
paradigm is such an example. The one is gestalted with the negation of the many as
the many is affirmed with the dissolution of the one. The unity of me necessitates
the disunity of other beings. Plants and animals die for my unity. One and many
unities arise in a conflict of external, material and internal, immaterial unities.
These are not substances, but sides of a singular unity undergoing cohesion
through separation, exclusion, negation and death. The unity is a process; the
invisible, fractal law of evolution emerges. The unity of the one is the negation of
161
the many; simultaneously, the unity of the many is the negation of the one. In this
manner, through negativity, social consciousness emerges. The logic of sides is a
priori to their formations. Negation in material and immaterial form is negative
consciousness of an object, or simply not me. Through external negativity, the
object dominates the subject/object paradigm for its sides can be penetrated and its
unity destroyed. The negation of the object necessitates the shift into the
subjective, the ego, me. The object is a negative consciousness within the paradigm
of the material/immaterial. It is material with quantitative and qualitative shift or
what the empiricists term primary and secondary qualities or immaterial with a
subjective qualitative and quantitative shift in well being. These shifts are simple
reifications. The starting point is the unity of the material and immaterial
unity/disunity paradigm reflected off many unities through the disunity of the
Relative in the medium of the space/time paradigm, yet grounded in being and not
the reflection. The unity/disunity paradigm and the one/many paradigm resurface in
the Absolute/Relative paradigm. The paradigm of being/essence is or is not present,
i.e., absent. The presence of the Absolute in space and time is essentially the
negation of the Relative that emerges in its weakest form, the universal. One
defined and opposed to the unity of the many is under the universal. The presence
of the Relative in space and time is finitude, limitation, imperfection, sequence,
form such as species, and material content, or many unities and disunities. The
Relative recognizes itself in the Absolute as one, unity, specie, state, universal,
identity, or the Law of Identity while the Absolute recognizes itself in the Relative
as many, species, universes, states, universals, etc. or the Law of Diversity. The
two laws obviously describe the surface of the same paradigmatic process. The
Absolute negation of the Relative is infinity, perfection, eternity, beauty, etc. There
must be a presence or absence of being for there to be reality. If it is present, then
its essence can be determined in its presentation to itself and in the reflections of
others and to others in their reflections off its presence. In this way, being is a
symphony and solo. The present is the presence of being. The process of being is
the Moving Present. Infinite being in time and space is finite being manifesting an
essence. The essence is the manifestation of being in time and space. The paradigm
of time and space emerged in the initial awareness of the Absolute. This awareness
is the origin of finite being immediately in a sequence of past and present while
location is the other side of the paradigm. The Absolute unity of Being is the
limiting side of the Relative for the infinite unity of the Absolute is established by
162
finite disunity. While unity is the property of the Absolute, disunity is the property
of the finite Relative. They are inseparable self reflections. Their reflections are the
mirror and negation of its other. The self is the reified pole defined by an alienated
other, the not me. Finite disunity and unity arises in the paradigm of timespace.
Thus spacetime is a plastic, material/immaterial medium of finite being; a
paradigm originating with the awakening of the Absolute.
Finite being within the Absolute is Parmenides’ One and Infinite Being; within the
Relative are the Many finite beings divided by spacetime and reflected in Zeno’s
paradoxes. Zeno’s arrow both physically passes and logically never passes the
infinity of spatial and temporal divisions. This suspended spacetime paradigm
forms an unstable paradox allowing Parmenides to dismiss finite side as an
appearance. The shifts are not mental for the mental is only a reflection of the
shifts; the shifts are infinite immaterial negations and divisions of points within
finite being and its medium that are immediately concretely and intelligently
analyzed and synthesized as the arrow passes through them. Sense and intelligence
are not products of the mind that merely reflects; rather, they are the structure of
reality. The quality of the mind or the reflective instrument of Being distributed in
being depends upon the gestalt of each being. Einstein’s mind was an exceptional
mirror. The shifts are ontological. The One is the Relative surfacing within the
Absolute and the infinity of divisions of the spacetime paradigm is the Absolute
surfacing within the Relative.
Finite being under the evolved form of the human mammal instrumentalizes its
internal formations into material devices and its intentions thereby transcending the
spacetime paradigm. The s/t paradigm is only momentarily suspended. Rights
dominate opinions. The infinite “wrong/ right” dialectic is suspended. Right
suppresses wrong in “universal rights.” Internal principles are externalized and
reflected as universal moral laws. The subjective side is merely repressed. The
shift from the immoral/moral paradigm occasionally jells into a justice/injustice
paradigm and a moral law becomes a judicial law further suppressing its subjective
side. The Absolute appears within the Relative. The rights of self-defense, life,
liberty, property, happiness, and so on are on a timer. Here and there they
disappear and reappear elsewhere only to disappear.
163
If there are no universals, i.e., structures, of being, then the intuition of its unity is a
false consciousness. Without a priori laws of morality such as justice, equality,
wellbeing, as well as their opposites or absences, culture, opinions, beliefs, habits,
traditions, and various external forces and pressures determine “realities” and take
the place of being. Epistemological formations trump ontological formations.
Being shifts into appearances and subjective or intersubjective fictional formations.
Sociopathic egoism and narcissism shifts into the logic of “reality.” Truth is
determined against moral facts; they in turn form moral patterns that shape moral
laws. These laws are sides of being, internal and immaterial and external and
material.
The finite reflects off its infinite other that is simply its limitation as the infinite
reflects in its limitation and negation, the finite, the many, in infinite change. The
limit is the space/time paradigm. Rather than a paradox of the mind unable to shift,
the paradigm shifts reality, for it is independent of the mind that merely reflects
it.The Absolute/Relative paradigm emerged in the Big Bang, Heaven and Earth,
one or many universes, and so on. Finite being and essence are confirmed through
the representation and its source of intuition that originated with space and time in
the Absolute unity of Identity within its Relative side. Relative being unifies or
destroys absolutely through instruments. Instruments are its only way of restoring
being to Being. Unlike transcendental idealism, it is an instrumental transcendence.
The Absolute in space and time can attain relative unity, for it cannot unify
absolutely but only momentarily as exemplified in ecosystems, solar systems,
governments, families, but only in the here and now. The past enters the present
here and now through consciousness.
For example, the object is confirmed as a bear, hallucination, dream, Bigfoot or a
man in a costume through the intuition. The intuition of being is prior to the
representation. The intuition is the conscious unity of being; a gestalt of unity over
timespace, or a maintained reified state. Consciousness arises from the negation of
the other with is the affirmation of interior unity that must be maintained in
spacetime. The intuition of another being is a reflection within the confirming
representation of one’s own being. This process is prior to thought or the cogito
that simply reflects it. The intuition is the original unity prior to the instruments of
judgment, premises, and empirical confirmations that eventually connect or
disconnect being with being. The infinite in space and time remains in the infinity
164
of perspectives, facts, observations, judgments, evidence, etc., that gestalt without
interfering with space and time. As I am, it is; what it is or is not; what is other is
identical in the fact of being but different in the fact of essence. The being/essence
paradigm persists in space and time. Being in space and time under the Law of
Identity persists through its essence. I am who I am over space and time. It is an
Absolute certainty. While realism holds that things or objects are real or
independent of the mind apprehending them, their connection to the mind first
must be clarified to avoid skepticism and nihilism. The terms object and thing are
too broad and require definitions and clarifications in their relationships with the
other. Once clarified, the intuition of being and existence can be explained.
The object is not a being, but a formation within the imagination and mind. Objects
are gestalts of being reflecting the interior and exterior. In the gestalt, the objective
side is outside as the subject is inside. They are not things, but reflections of the
paradigm of being. This reflection is the subject/object paradigm. The mind is a
process grasped or reified within its reflections of objects. The mind is a gestalt of
being and contemporaneous with it; thus it immediately knows itself, not as an
object, but as being or reality. Being is itself a process of gestalts. These gestalts
are paradigms of being that shift among its sides. It original sides are soul and
body. Being is a paradigm of material and immaterial sides, neither one reducible
to its opposite. Berkeley is a shift from La Metre. From the original paradigm,
multiple paradigmatic formations emerge, but remain partly reflected or
unreflected. The sides are generated out of necessity of adaptation and survival in
space and time that reflect off others. This is the presence within the present.
An object is both subjective and objective. Dominated by the objective side, its
subjective side emerges from reflections. The objective is directed to the external
which is necessary for survival. It is a subject/object paradigm apprehended in a
reflection as one or the other side. The process of apprehension is clearly explained
in Hegel’s master/slave paradigm and its reflections of power as its shifts between
them. The subject/object paradigm is fundamentally an epistemological formation
for it is the inside in the inside/outside paradigm. An imaginary dollar is a
subjective object that occupies my attention while a non-imaginary dollar is
empirical and endures in space and time whether I attend to it or not. Its absence as
in theft is not imaginary. This is the first condition of reality. The coin is a
materialized intention to buy other objects. The imaginary dollar exists in internal
165
time and space while a non-imaginary dollar exists within a political, social and
economic medium conditioned by external space and time. An object is dependent
upon a perceiver until it is embedded within instruments such as constitutions,
weapons, coins, etc., and mediums such as countries, economies, computers, etc.,
that are independent of perception in that they present perceptive and cognitive
patterns, but remain dependent upon their owners for their continued existenceor
reification. For example, the Constitution of Iraq is dependent upon the beings that
invented and sustain it, i.e., the citizens of Iraq, and within a political medium, it
shapes behavioral patterns. Instruments, devices and their mediums can be
alienated and commercialized. Constitutions, legal zones and borders, etc. cost
money, time, protections, etc. Even though the materialized object exists in space
and time, for it is independent of a thinker or observer, it is artificial and belongs
exclusively to the human mammal’s world. The second condition of reality is that
reality cannot consist of objects that are the appearances of being. Instead of
objects, reality consists of beings and mediums. There is none unless it is that of
being. The phenomena/noumenal paradigm is not a problem of knowledge; rather,
it is a problem of being that generated it. The noumena or being is grasped in the
intuition. Its appearance is its presence or essence. The essence is grasped through
the intuition and later the mind. Thus a human being is the paradigm of
being/essence established through the intuition and later through the
understanding. The is fully grasped and understood in itself. It is simply the being
that generated the paradigm and alienated it from itself. The full independence of
beings is recognized in their independence of the subject/object paradigm. Being
are not subjective for they do not originate in the inside of the in/out paradigm.
Beings cannot be possessed; beings and their mediums fall outside of the category
of possession and cannot be considered mine or ours. Ownership is imposed and
forced upon them. The dollar is an entity that has transcended space and time, and
stands independent of its subjective source, but not completely. It cannot escape
ownership. Its semi-independence is existential, not ontological. Being cannot be
owned as exemplified in zoos, parks, green zones, countries, etc. Being stands
independent of private property or other forms of mass hallucinations. Artificially
produced beings such as cattle, dogs, cats, hybrid trees, etc. encase human mammal
intentions, yet, unlike coins, they gestalt life. Arguments can bring about
substance, but not being. Logical arguments about diamonds, hybrid viruses, new
elements, etc. can bring about the existence and substance of a diamond, and such.
166
These are devices that lack natural being. Hybrid beings such as dogs gestalt
physical and moral properties reflecting the intentions of their “owners.”The
gestalt of life and mediums transcends human mammal intentions encased within.
Unlike ants, the human mammal claims higher intellectual powers giving it moral
and spiritual authority over other animals and their mediums to do with as it
wishes. Thus, elephant ivory, rhino horns, tiger bones, bear gall bladder, shark fins,
hides, etc. are mere commodities satisfying human interests. The Earth and its
citizens and mediums are to be used for any reason or whim. Extinction is a
consequence of our spiritual and moral claims of superiority. If our claims were
true, money would not be a factor; instead, it is a cover story for crimes against
innocent beings and their mediums. Again, this study of object/subject paradigm
leads to an infinite absence in certain objects such as passenger pigeons. Extinction
originated in the spiritual space/time paradigm of the human mammal. In some
cases, such as the bison, extinction was intended and condemned as evil. In most
cases, it is immoral. Extinction is the spiritual and immoral heritage of the human
mammal. It cannot rationally control its impulses as evident in its devastating
population. As we walk, we pass the infinity of divisions. As Zeno first noted, the
infinity of finite points and their division was transcended. Parmenides thought it
was an illusion; perhaps the infinite just let the finite pass. Good and evil entered
the world. Good includes moral while evil includes immoral. Emotionally or
physically, the agony is followed by the ecstasy as the ecstasy is followed by
agony in an infinite paradigm shift.
The ontological foundation of the world or worlds is transcendental realism.
Transcendental realism intuits being while transcendental existentialism overcomes
skeptical arguments by verification of its claims to grasp things in themselves in
their mediums through instruments. Instruments have artificial existence due to
intentional objects engineered within their material frames. Instruments do not
have “tool being,” for they are dependent upon the being that generated them and
supports their existence. A knife holds the intention to cut embedded into a
material such as iron by a human being. Human beings generate tool existence
within a medium. Artificial instruments are generated outside the natural unityof
being in a medium termed the world that overlays the Earth. The human mammal
takes his world with him and except is to be there, even to Mars. Unlike to world,
the Earth is the medium of finite being. Because natural beings generated
167
instruments and devices such as trains, it could be argued that they should be
considered natural byproducts of the universe. Insects and animals generate
instruments, so the claim that instruments have no being seems ridiculous. Ants
make leaf boats and chimps have various tools. So the leaf boat must be a being in
its own right. The essence of the leaf is not a boat, and the being and essence of the
leaf are inseparable. The intention to boat or transport across water can be
momentarily embedded into the leaf as in the case of ants. On the other hands, a
metal boat template is an entity encasing the intention to navigate into its material
formation. Perhaps, because the boat has casual status and materials that stand
outside of the mind, it should be considered a being with the ontological status of
real. Devices and instruments have existential status, but not ontological status.
The difference between reality or being-on-earth and entity-in-an-artificial-medium
is the intention that transcends space and time held within the entity and its
medium. The material entity continues to persist in space and time until it
completes its purpose such as explode as in a land mine or transport as with a
vehicle or natural laws that eventually terminate it and its medium as in the steam
engine. The schema of these transcending intentions is the structure of the world.
The structure of being is explained below. The boat does not have being; it has
existence, and its structure is paradigmatic and dialectical. It is a paradigm of
spiritual good or evil and a moral dialectical structure of right or wrong. This
dialectical structure reflects the paradigmatic structure of existence. Its intention to
transport slaves or bananas is built into its material frame. Existence is a virtual
world or human mammal template of externalized objects instruments and devices
termed “the World” forming a medium for its interacting with being intentionally
or spiritually and materially or empirically. The world is ontologically
disconnected for universal being is alien to it, and termed “transcendental
existentialism.” Instrument or devices form both a material and immaterial a
paradigm of good and evil. Again the Good is defined as the intentional,
unnecessary harm to innocent being while Immoral is the unnecessary harm to
innocent being. The paradigm of moral/immoral is contained within the good/evil
paradigm. An entity, for example a land mine has a dialectical structure originating
in the intention, the purpose, or the objective directing and supporting the shift in
the paradigm towards evil. The objective is the externalized object embedded with
the intention to kill. In this way, the object has transcended its internal spiritual
medium or the soul where it is sustained by a material medium such as plastic in
168
the paradigm of space and time. Landmines explode and take off legs of any beings
stepping on them. This paradigm cannot be neutral. The shift in its paradigmatic
structure towards good is generated and supported by dialectical claims that it
prevents surprise attacks, prevents wars, etc. The shift towards the good is to
reflect the universal, and the universal is not a claim; rather, an intended l universal
commodity, and this is a structure of that world. The shift towards evil is supported
by arguments that landmines endure for centuries, are indifferent in who they kill,
etc. These dialectical structures reflect the paradigmatic structure of the entity or
instrument. Just like the leaf boat, when the ants are not using it, it is simply a leaf,
and the boat’s existence vanishes while the complexity of its being remains. The
leaf is a complex of the being of a tree which in turn is in the complex of the being
of the Earth, Sun, universe and so on. While transcendental realism is the intuition
of being by another being as given in the representation, transcendental
existentialism is the formation of the world. Transcendental realism establishes a
direct and a priori contact with another being; however, its being is often confused
with artificial unities such as governments, states, titles, and other instruments.
Transcendental existentialism or the world of instruments, devices, and other
artificial formations providing options for the human mammal, requires ethical
oversight, maintenance and review of the reflections presented.
The Shift from Transcendental Realism to Transcendental Existentialism
The ethical foundation of transcendental existentialism is transcendental realism.
This means that it is not based upon feelings, behaviors, actions, reasons, duties,
consequences, rules, pleasures, happiness, and so on, but on the intuition of being
arising out of its unity; the fact of being in the present. Transcendental
existentialism is based on being and its essence or the paradigm of being/essence.
This paradigm is available to the intuition of being, but not the object of being that
only reflects the intuition. In this way, transcendental existentialism emerges from
transcendental realism and must return to its ontological foundation for ethical
knowledge. Although divided in space and time, being is universal and fixed
within the present. Divided by space and time, beings evolve ad infinitum into
essences. A human being cannot suddenly turn into a canine being with a change in
perspective, medications, or theatres. What we are and who we are are different
reflections. Sartre confuses essence with existence. What we are are human beings,
human mammals, essence, yet who we are, existence is particular and variable and
169
accounts for our id devices in professions, family relationships, titles, health,
wealth, etc. Who we are is by choice among existential options provided by the
world. One can change their sex only through transcendental existentialism or
instruments and devices such as hospitals and hormone treatments, and political
and social mediums that allow it.
Ethics is little more than an academic curiosity and politically correct formality.
Socrates ultimately lost the debate with Thrasymachus over justice; condemned to
death, Sophistic relativism prevailed and remains. Nevertheless, mankind seeks
universal moral knowledge before the world forces choices upon us; yet, ethics
offers little more than multiple choices of trial and error experimentations that
often deteriorate into contradictory positions or odd dilemmas. There is no one
ethical system unifying the many or demonstrating its inherent superiority over the
flawed others. When one ethical system is of equal weight to a competing one,
nihilism of good and evil follows. This might be offset by a legal system to guide
us; however, even the legal system is not immune to disturbing variations in
judgments and inconsistencies ending in nihilism of justice. Laws can be evil as
the Nuremberg laws, yet upon what ground confirms it? Possession of a drug could
end in a life sentence while a murder could walk away with time served. Ethics is
the foundation of law for there are evil laws, and it is our spiritual intuition of
transcendent principle of justice or its absence, i.e., injustice, that makes good or
evil self evident. Relativism of laws is exemplified in the drug laws that vary from
illegal with a wide range of sentences to a public health problem or a matter of
legal personal choice; prostitutes are immoral, diseased creatures or independent
contractors paying taxes; child trafficking is an evil or uncomfortably profitable
industry documented back to Roman times. Universal agreements are symbolic.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a political formality providing
cover for torture, war, rape rooms, ethnic atrocities, trafficking, forced labor, etc.;
as a generally ignored but requisite formality in political politeness; it is an
impotent text book agreement. A utilitarian could overlook these activities
provided the greater good or the majority does not suffer or even benefits. As the
debate continues, bombs continue to fall on various objectives and collateral
damage is a legitimate consequence in the business of war. Countries continue to
invest in bioweapon and nuclear technology without concern for the deadly,
consequences hypocritically ignoring their agreements not to pursue it. Kantian
170
categorical imperatives are a waste of time on powerful sociopaths and their
business decisions in world of profits. Extreme negligence shifts to intentional
harm. Immoral becomes Evil. Evil shifts back to immoral when minimally
corrected. This is the artificial paradigm of the world of the human mammal.
Countries ignore child trafficking, pretending it does not exist or downplay it, yet
all will give lip service to the Greater Good followed by show trials.
Environmental destruction continues unabated, species go extinct, but short term
profits mount. Technology enables sociopaths to rape, murder and spy at will and
institutions governed by monetary instruments to purchase their freedom and
escape justice provided they stay within power and favor while their victims
receive psychological treatment at their own expense. If all instruments, activities,
systems, laws, countries, powers, etc. are real, then they are of equal weight and
value of being leaving a fictional moral and legal landscape governed by cultural
relativity and subjectivism; in short, the victims are as real and equal value of as a
dollar. A child’s play room full of dragons, dolls, myths, ipads, etc., are existential
devices, but the child’s family are real and are her reality. If they are immoral or
evil, that is her reality. Reality must be defined as being in order to avoid
subjectivism and relativism and the inevitable nihilism in the knowledge of right
and wrong. It is critical to define reality and establish reality as the ground of all
transcendental principles. Being is empty until another being enters it through
reflection and binds through love. The destruction of being by another being
through hate or the claim of knowledge, fame, reward, etc. and the instruments of
evil separates being from being infinitely.
Reality
Reality is being, and being is not an object. Being is accessible through internal
and external intuition while objects are subjective constructs of perceptual
imagination; objects have no being. They are not; however, they exist. Existence is
derived from being; it is an artificial state of being, and should not be confused
with being just because it holds the laws of nature in instruments. Existence is not
an act of being but a virtual world held together by human intentions that can harm
or benefit innocent being. Intentions are governed by an active/passive paradigm.
Active intent is clearly detectible in the patterns of actions, devices, instruments in
controlled by the agent while passive intent is evident in known but ignored
harmful devices throughout the world such as toxic dumps, weaponized diseases,
171
etc. A toxic dump is a passive intent to harm hidden in the active intent to avoid
costs, again turned active intent to kill if not reduced to harmless materials. The
will or intent governs the intention; willful ignorance of the consequences is a
choice and the claim of unintentional is clearly intentional. The negation or denial
of intent is intentional. An unnecessary injury passes into evil. This world is the
subjective turned inside out, and in this regard, the world is a spiritual reflection of
being made concrete. For this reason, it is easily confused with being.
Governments, economies, weapons, states, courts, and so on are within this
dimension; the world is a suspended animation of natural processes. Electric light
continues the day into night, and refrigerators suspend decay, and air conditioners
hold a temperature, and so on. Old age is suspended with hormone treatments.
Time and space are suspended with artificial crops that avoid frost and drought.
This accounts for the confusion between artificial existence and natural beings;
devicesexist because they are materially and spiritually dependent upon beings that
embed them with causal potential. Land mines exist reflecting the intentions of
their makers when they explode; trees are reflecting the unity of Being. Ontology
studies being while existentialism studies the world. This existential analysis is
grounded in ontology, not epistemology. The I am is a primal intuition beneath
thoughts or languages that are prime instruments forming the world. Thought
follows from being, thus Descartes’ cogito ergo sum is ontologically impossible.
Thinking will be explained in another way based on this principle. Objects cannot
leave their subjective source until they become instrumentalized, thereby
transcending their spiritual/material origins. The spiritual origin is the soul which
is a polarity of being, i.e., the soul/body paradigm. In this way, the subjective
becomes objective or externalized spirit reflecting into itself. The world is the
home of body and soul governed by transcendental principles such as justice,
beauty, love, etc., and their opposites, injustice, ugliness, hate, etc. Intentions enter
time and space (which are polarities of a paradigm) through instruments where and
when they take on existential status in the form of devices that imperfectly
template being for they hold intentions. Intentions are governed by the
transcendental forms of good and evil. For example, the transcendental principle of
justice is the form of the intention buried within the instruments associated with
justice such as a law book, court or jail. The externalization and materialization of
the spiritual is accomplished through instruments and the here and now specified in
measured time (clock) and space (GPS) generates a virtual or spiritual world. For
172
example, such and such computer was produced at such and such a time and this
benefits or harms innocent beings. Objects are mental projections with intentions
that template being/essence paradigms. The templates are taken from the essence
of being. The essence of being is a pole opposite being whereby being is an
absolute static fact and essence is its process as recognized by Aristotle as
potentiality. Removed from their source, they are distortions and reifications of
essence as found in the category of possession. The quest of eternal possession is
found in every grave yard and shrine. Object-templates often fail as in mixed
behaviors that template a being’s essence; objects are reified by emotions: such
templates as hate or patriotism example KKK members see nigger or white
templates; sports fans see winners and losers, etc., confused with beings or notbeings. These templates are not paradigms for only being generates paradigms;
templates cannot generate ontological polarities, only reflect them. Objects are
reified subjective patterns or images within short term memory; as such, they are
epistemological formations outside of the considerations of ontology. My image as
presented in photos changes, but my being does not, that is, my identity in
difference cannot change. The image is an object, and it is mistakenly thought that
in my image that my being is affirmed for they are identical. My image is not me;
rather, it is the reflected intuition of me or my being. The object reflects being as a
mirror, and the reflection is not the being present. Thus, it is an error to hold that
your being is my image of you, or my image is your being. It would be difficult to
fight wars without objects where being is magically transformed into enemies and
allies by political instruments such as declarations and alliances. Enemies and
allies are polarized beings with identical essences, but negatively charged
templates specify them. Each pole (side) would claim they are positive and the
other negative or wrong. The templates work only if there are physical differences
in skin color, codes, uniforms, symbols, etc.; otherwise, they would be identical
and unable to determine their polarity. However, paradigmatic objects or objects
that shift back and forth under opposite fields and templates also enable an
economic greater good as with customers, vendors, etc. The shift follows the
structure of being and understood as rules, roles, duties, etc. Buyers and sellers are
polarized templates projecting economic objects such as commodities which they
possess in material or immaterial fact such as instruments of currency, stocks, etc.
Objects are dependent upon beings that generate, support and participate with
them, while being is independent of objects meaning that objects do not generate
173
being and must be understood as outside the intuition of being. An analogy is
sunrise and sunset where understanding and perception are separate. For example,
the government is simply a group of people and if absent, the government no
longer exists. The government is a reified state of consciousness lacking a
generative process of being, but it can generate existence. The reified Spartan state
of consciousness disappeared with the death or defeat of its citizens. Objects have
no power within themselves; rather, their source of their power is the being that
generated them and mistakenly holds them as a reality. Various legal fictions such
as states or zones merely exist, that is, they depend on beings. On the other hand,
being is not epistemologically generated; rather, it is generated by the laws of
nature.Being is apprehended by another being through representative intuition and
reflection. This intuition is a simple unreflected representation while the essence of
being is reflected back from and into being or being in space and time. Again, the
essence is a shift in polarity of presence of a being/essence paradigm and
insubstantial in itself. It is the presence of being to being. Hegel described the
process in the master/slave paradigm. What is reflected is inseparably intuited as
identical yet different. External intuition is the representation of other beings while
internal intuition is an immediate, non-instrumentalized awareness of my being.
Objects are epistemological formations generated by beings and within these
imaginative formations objectivity is bound with subjectivity in a struggle for
dominant polarity until a balance is reached. The object/subject paradigm emerges
as a gestalt of the being/essence paradigm. This imbalance can be seen it the shift
from curiosity to fear where the object of curiosity (it) suddenly shifts into
subjective terror (me). The object of possession is suddenly reversed and returns as
I am the object of another’s possession, its. This is not simply an apprehension of
the understanding or intellect; rather, it is the intuition of one’s potential disunity
that all animals hold a priori, i.e., the intuition of being and non-being. Abstracted
from a being’s essence, objects are internal formations, hence subjective and
dependent upon the being that generated them, and this dependency is governed by
the a priori category of possession .My objects are composed from within me under
the category of possession that intends it, i.e. mine. My intention sustains the object
as the object dominates it, as a chess game. The subjective poleis realized as a
possession or my/our objects, be it a creation, discovery, flower, genetic code,
formula, ideas, bacteria, solar systems, etc. often resulting in furious legal battles
of ownership. Our object is a shared template (more than one my) such as our
174
country. Yet, the subjective pole requires the objective pole for its content and
source. This is a dependency upon another being’s essence for the object’s origin
and existential confirmation. Beings cannot be objects for they stand independent
of thought and rebel against this reification as a slave against a master; for a slave
is an immoral and evil object or mental template forced upon an independent being
by another being. If directly under the intuition of being, the Hegelian master-slave
template momentarily dissolves. Kant’s analysis applies to objects, not being.
Kant’s a priori foundation of the categories is at first glance a mystery. The only
foundation of the categories and that which provides them a priori status is the
structure of being that gestalts into mind or categories because the structure of
being is the being/essence paradigm that is both universal to all being and singular
to my being. In this light, the categorical imperative, the golden rule, the greater
good, etc. are possible, for they are both universal (shared) and singular (me) in
structuring good or evil. The universal is the infinity of unique signatures, and the
individual is a unique combination or lack of universals. They are concrete
universals or the paradigm of one/many. I am identical to we are for I am and we
are form poles of paradigms, and as in any polarity, there are positive (to love, to
like, to admire, etc.) and negative (to dislike, to hate, to distrust, etc.) formations.
being followed by the abstraction of another being’s essence or the structure found.
Again, the formations are not substantial; rather, contrasting or shifting polarities
of a process. The origin of the categories is within being in itself for the categories
are simply the structure of being activated by reflection and contrasts of another in
any learning situation presented in the intuition. Clearly, suffering and happiness
are not analogies but immediate reflections of being into itself and its structural
unity. In this way, the categories are a priori to being, not the mind or reflection the
structure that activates them. In this way, they are universal or common to every
being. The thing in itself given in intuition and knowable in its reflection is Being
that composes a medium for being in its self-separation. Being is any unity in the
natural universe capable of self-defense or medium of being such as a river, forest,
or world. Given the direct intuition of being into itself, how is that the Romans, for
example, could take pleasure in their games? Or various individuals can skin and
burn innocent animals alive? This has to do with the object. Those who torture and
kill directly the intuition are evil for their soul is foul and contaminated with the
pleasure of pain in other beings. Their knowledge of their evil is within their
instruments and intentions that direct their actions.
175
Kant held that phenomena have nominal substrates; that phenomenal substances
are objects that interact with one another (cause/effect) because noumenal
substances make them intelligible. This is close to Platonic forms with material
participation. Kant is dealing with a paradigm with two dimensions generated from
its polarity, where the one polarity negates the other generating intelligible
sensations. The intellectual sensation is a paradigm found within the presence of
things in themselves for it is the manifestation of their essences among beings, and
this accounts for the problem of interaction. Transcendental realism is simply the
intuition of the structure of Being making this intuition is an intellectual sensation
of sensed universals found in the representation and image. If being is not there,
not within the medium of space and time, then it is an illusion for the intuition
comes from my being, from my unity in the present, and the present is the presence
of others in themselves, the presence of Being and Essence, not two substances,
but fields of a universal paradigm, the Universe. In this way, matter evolves
intelligibly and ideas take on material complexity becoming conscious of others
and self conscious in their reflections. Sensation is contained within ideas as are
ideas contained within sensations or more simply, a paradigm of shifting polarities.
The shift occurs because Being is being within and opposed to itself, and this
opposition occurs in the logic of space and time paradigm. This accounts for the
necessity of analytic statements reflected from the noumenal dimension and
synthetic statements reflected in the phenomenal dimension.
Being is reality, and the structure of reality is the paradigm. The paradigm has
polarities that shift generating more or less paradigms in the reflection of its
presence. Being is empirically reflected as a material unity or body in the medium
of space and time. The cause/effect, quantity/quality paradigms dominates the
material pole. Being is also immaterially reflected in the medium of space and time
as a spiritual unity. It is clear that the paradigms shift between the
material/immaterial poles. For example, cause/effect is measured in the
quantity/quality paradigm where the material measurement reflects a measured
change in immaterial quality. This could be a change in rainfall, sleep, family
members, energy, food, information, etc. The immaterial pole is dominated by
shifts in possession, intentionality, relationships, etc. Thus, reality or the body/soul
paradigm reflects within the object/subject paradigm reflecting itself in the
objective field, but not necessarily recognizing itself by returning to the subjective
176
field. This analysis is incomplete because there are other governing paradigms
such
as
good/evil,
one/many,
quality/quantity,
infinite/finite,
immanent/transcendental, etc. The paradigms themselves are shifting within their
polarities and reflecting in other polarities. The shift is the moving present that
reflects under the micro/macro paradigm or from the smallest to the universal. The
reflection in the micro and the macro is both material and immaterial. Again, these
are not substances; rather, the “substance” is a reified polarity in the
substance/accident paradigm clarified by the Scholastics.
Kant maintains that the secret of metaphysics lies in the ground of the relationship
between the representation and the object. (Ak, 10:30) The ground is being, not
Kantian schema which is dependent on being. Our empirical imaginations form
superficial rules of organization based on experience with being/essence
paradigms, yet we are constantly surprised or even shocked by reality because
reality is independent of the superficial and sometimes erroneous rules of our
understanding. This misunderstanding is corrected though logic and inductive
procedures. When perceptual schemata become confused indicating perceptual
patterns such as mirages, the discovery and apprehension of the laws of nature
within the structure of being correct the judgment. For the rules of organization of
being belong to being, not human minds. They endure indicating structure; they are
located in the space/time medium as essence and form which is a simple paradigm
shift out of being present, not a noumenal dimension with its agnostic implications.
Within reality, moral truth is universally confirmed. Being generated culture and
tradition, and they are often wrong, immoral and evil. Being is not a something, a
substance, a thing; rather it is a unity of material and immaterial polarities within a
process. Being is a paradigm of indeterminate and determinate; that is, universal
and particular, intelligible and sensory. Being generates a presence in particular
and in general or and ecology of being. Being cannot be divided in its essence. For
example, there is no being of intelligence or mammal outside of being. Being and
essence are polarities. The tension between them generates reflections upon
choices. For example, the choice to run or fight could prove fatal. When under
social scrutiny, these choices could have severe or beneficial consequences, but
when alone it does not matter. When dominate or in balance, the poles form a
principle, rule or law. When the choice is to run away, the rule is to fight another
day or such. When to stand and fight, the principle could be courage. Both are
177
natural for even a lion will run or fight hyenas depending on the odds. The
underlying question is what is being defended from or fought for? Family,
comrades, property, food, etc. Aristotle’s mean is a balance between these
polarities. Essence is the appearance of being and its presence to other beings. The
essence zebra is no different than the presence of a zebra. Zebras present
themselves as the energy of their body and soul. Human being is a struggle for
dominance of being in the form of its intentions and essence in its humanity.
Humanity or essence struggles with its being in its human or inhuman choices and
devices that form its world; to be or not be. For example, to engage in a nuclear or
biological war or not. Life is the gestalt of soul and body that are polarities of
being. Life can be taken, the gestalt terminated, but the being in both formed
polarities of soul and body remains in space and time. For example, a dead tree still
has a body and soul in its seeds for it is a polarized process that displaces space and
time. Its internal process has stopped and its external process continues as seeds
with polarities towards its telos. A thing is the reified gestalt of being and its
essence, and not to be confused with an object that is devoid of polarities. The I or
thinking ego is an empty form and takes its content or meaning from its choices
and possessions. Kant’s I think that accompanies representations is not a mere
formal condition of thought appended to representations, but a gestalt of being and
the unity of its polarities throughout a process. A process necessitates a series
which is the indication of being within the space/time paradigm, separated from
Being; a reflected spiritual and physical jigsaw solved by moral or immoral
insights and bound by good or evil; asserting that the I is the universal property to
all thinkers as a form of consciousness, the only logical basis of consciousness is
that of being. (a353-54) The cogito cannot bring about immediate existence. I think
there is a dollar in my pocket does not bring a dollar into existence immediately. If
I think there is a dollar in my pocket I can bring a dollar into existence mediately. I
must participate in its existence which necessitates an existential transcendence
from my spiritual space and time into empirical space and time or the space/time
paradigm. Existence (of dollars) is a mediate activity involving the coexistence of
transportation systems and economies and other mediums and their devices where
a dollar is an entity participating within these existential mediums as a reified
paper instrument. That is the only way a dollar gets into my pocket. On the other
hand, things are not independent of their being, and Kant’s thing-in-itself is its
being knowable in its structure. It is not Kant’s I think reflecting the act by which a
178
general unity and consistency of our representations occurs; rather, being is the
unity and consistency of its structure gestalting through its representations of itself
to itself and to others by its presence. The I think does not accompany the
representations as a logical medium of concepts, judgments and consciousness;
rather it is a reflection of other unities affecting its own unity, and from that unity,
worth. Rather than singular or dual substances, the bipolar structure of reality is a
process slowed by concrete polar reifications reflected in the moving present.
Kant’s bipolar judgment of weight (concept) and pressure (sensation) of an object
correctly conceived as a gestalt of polarities where the one objective pole dissolves
into its other, its subjective pole, only to reemerge in dominance as the polarities
shift within the paradigm. The paradigm is the a priori synthesis. While the cause
of the objective representation is doubtful, the transcendent is incomprehensible
because thought cannot generate being and must stop when in contradiction.
Kant’s shift between transcendental idealism and empirical realism is the shift in a
paradigm. He is following the shifts within the paradigms of outer/inner,
subjective/objective, and idealism/empiricism. The objective can never be free of
the subjective for they occur within a subjective/objective paradigm. My hand feels
pressure and my concept of weight can lead to errors within my calculations. Once
the calculations are correct, they can be embedded with an instrument and
universalized. Fractured Being or being in the time/space paradigm is the moving
present. Kant maintains that given the representation of reality there is a
substratum under the category of substance (B183) that is constant and permanent
as in the melted wax where its properties are changed, yet remains a single piece of
wax. We can grasp the point in a different way. If a burned body is found, its
essence (human, canine, etc.) and being are present in the remainder. The
substratum is the being/essence paradigm; its diminished unity displacing time and
space. The outer is problematic because one must infer the external cause from
internal representations or subjective effects. One cannot discover the caterpillar in
the moth. Logically, space and time will be introduced through other organisms
and it will dissolve and its presence will be its past. For that to be possible, space
and time must be within us for division of the substratum necessitates it. Its form
of the soul and body are gone for it can no longer generate a gestalt of life. The
reification principle occurs in matter, spirit, understanding, perception and all shifts
within paradigms, for paradigms are processes gestalting material/spiritual
paradigmatic formations. The shifts occur in the paradigmatic logical and material
179
medium of space and time generating a spatial position or presence termed the here
and a temporal position termed the now. There is no polarity of substances,
phenomenal and noumenal, only a process of singular Being, alienated from itself
and returning to itself in its degrees of polarities. Parmenides illusion of the many
and change is the process, not an illusion of the many, but a necessary resolution of
good and evil. The things in themselves are poles within this process for finite
being can only reflect the condition. The body is a concrete ideational process with
self reflections that are instances of material/ideational fractal processes reflected
through instruments such as time lapsed photography that reflects the external
process as a series of reifications and our consciousness of it as age or history. The
process is controlled by the time/space paradigm for it is a series, and as a process,
bipolarity is its conscious unity of being as it moves in the present towards
completing itself, its telos. It is the moving present. Immaterial reifications occur
when stuck in a unity such as Rome or a religion that begins to break down under
the dominance of the space/time paradigm. The difficulty of dealing with a
concrete process and explaining reality in this way requires reification to be treated
as an unchanging substance.
Being is a paradigm. The paradigms of being/essence and soul/body form the
human being and all beings. Being holds the categories in its structure, not mind.
The mind is a reflection of these categories of being. Reflection includes all
processes such as analysis and synthesis. When reflected within, various processes
such as association, memory, understanding, reason, and perception are all
available. When reflected from other beings, the same categories shape the external
appearances within the presence. Both external and internal categories form the
paradigm of knowledge; both are required to activate it. For example, causality is
recognized internally and externally. Constant conjunction is overcome through the
reflection of structure. Associations are external formations and often arbitrary
such as pain and a color. In science, they must be tested for their structure such as
cause and effect. Hume’s analysis based upon constant conjunction cannot hold
because Hume’s analysis itself is an arbitrary set of associations without structure
confirming it. There is no constant conjunction of a constant conjunction, no
conditioned condition, and no sensed sensation; and on the other hand, when one
finds an infinity of observers as in the I observing the I, ego grounding the ego,
idea behind idea, etc., infinity is experienced as in Zeno’s endless divisions. This is
180
avoided when being is the logical and sensual ground of reality. Hume’s
conclusion that there is no I or ego because there is no sensation of it is an error.
The paradigm of being is polarized into sensation and form (ego) in that the unity
of being shifts between sensations of its unity as with hot or cold water/my hand
and the consciousness of my unity or being (my hand)/not my unity or being
(water).The my is the category of possession a priori to being and its expressions
gestalts in its shifting polarities, and not requiring another observer.
Transcendental is a term with two forms. The transcendence of the interior, of the
subjective, of the ego, of the representation or appearance, and reaching reality or
being (things in itself) is fundamental to realism. The transcendence of the
empirical into the transcendental absolute of Being thereby overcoming the
antinomies and reaching the relative thing itself forming a polar paradigm of
relative/absolute is also fundamental to realism. For example, justice is a
transcendental structure of the absolute; justice is thus a nonrepresentational
intuition of the absolute’s structure although it is projected as balanced scales. This
is not Platonic because the transcendental in both meanings is a reflection of
infinity present in both bad and good infinity. The transcendental such as justice is
known only in its negation of the determinate or affirmation of the specific
examples. Each instance is self-evident or a priori. Justice as a transcendental is
definite by what it is not; it is infinite and this is the way to its reflection and
knowledge. For example, the murder of a child is unjust, but the child murder is
not the definition of injustice, but an instance of it shaping justice. The positive or
determinate is imminent and the negative and universal is transcendent. The
positive is imminent, present, determined, specific, exclusive, and unique.
Consciousness arises through material and spiritual negations. Concrete negations
such as not me and its negation not not me or affirmation gestalts into
consciousness and reflection. Negation is transcendental, indeterminate, and
general for it is inclusive. Distinctions of the terms transcendent and transcendental
and so forth are arbitrary. The transcendental or transcendent are poles within a
paradigm of infinite and finite as found in justice. Negating the finite pole of
injustice shifts back into positive Being and its structure of justice or Essence.
It is a fundamental principle of transcendental realism that being generates
thought; that thought constitutes objects, not beings. Because it is generated by
being, thought cannot generate being. Being is both being-in-general, or a species
181
and therefore a concrete universal, and a being-in-particular with the universal
embedded within as its form, materially manifested in its shape, and spiritually in
its species unity, namely this being. The Being/being paradigm emerges; where the
Absolute reflects its alienated self, the Relative, in space and time; where a selfstruggle for dominance begins; and within its Relative alienation the Absolute is
remembered and momentarily perfected in various unities and the knowledge of
being in good and evil emerges. These unities are spiritually reflected as good or
evil. Thought reflects being and its essence both externally and internally for
thought is a gestalt of being, and also reflects Being in the universe, as natural and
spiritual laws that emerge in space and time or the Relative. The being/essence
paradigm gestalts in consciousness and reflective thought; thought that reflects the
structure or essence of being in its own presence. It can do this because thought is a
gestalt of being and its essence or the vibrations in the polarity of a being as it
moves between its essence determining the limits of its unity internally and
externally when reflected back into it from other beings for it is now in space and
time. A child, tree, fish, bush, flower, bird, insect, etc. are finite beings. Rivers,
clouds, oceans, atmosphere, etc. are material mediums containing and consuming
beings. The immaterial medium of space/time both contains and consumes finite
beings. The medium both separates and negates finite being. The
spiritual/immaterial paradigm is one medium and it is a polarized medium and
negation of being. Unities of beings in various ways such as countries, games,
families, etc. negate the negation, but perfect themselves only momentarily. Other
than this, there are devices such as cars, homes, banks, planes, etc. Devices are not
realities; they have existence, not being. They have the categories and principles of
being and can interact with being, but they are not beings for they were generated
by being and separate from being. Finite being is eternal in its form but not
content. The form of being is the form of the soul and body. This form is a
paradigm with polarity. The spiritual form is the soul’s intentions over space and
time. The material form or pole is the body’s intentions over space and time. They
are a unity with polarities of material and immaterial forms generated in space and
time that enter other beings.
The paradigm of freedom/necessity
The Kantian distinction of free acts arising from intelligible world of which there
is no knowledge and determined acts arising from cause/effect or laws of nature of
182
the sensible world of which there is an understanding contradict the other forming
a paradigm. From within this paradigm gestalts happiness or unhappiness. Thus the
purpose of happiness is not a priori as Kant maintains. Nor does it follow that
prudence in choices is the means to reaching this end. (MM42) Within the
subjective/objective paradigm, we understand when we are not free physically as
when crippled, and mentally as when insane, and this can be an artificial or natural
prison. This is a gestalt of being where free choice is removed as in a car wreck.
When being not the foundation of mind, Kant’s intelligible world is unintelligible.
It is a world of unknowable, speculative, and impenetrable things in themselves.
The world of sensation is also limited to appearances because the cause, if not
sensed, is speculative. If a car hits a post and the post falls down, and if the series
is completely sensed, the cause is understood, the force calculated, etc. and
responsibility assigned based upon correspondence in space and time. If it is not
sensed, then it is speculation as to exactly what happened, and argument becomes
one of coherence. If a completely sensed cause and effect in its total sequence are
taken to be a subjective effect, then this series of appearances has a veil behind
which is another unknowable, speculative cause of appearances or thing in itself
standing removed and outside of the appearances it generates. Free acts could take
on Sartrean spontaneity, yet this can also be a natural reflex as in driving and
choice and the medium of thought are avoided. Spontaneity is rarely free of
consequences. We must look at free choice that involves thought rather than free
act to understand this problem. When tortured, it is natural to scream and moan for
a choice to ignore it is overruled by physical pain. Torture overrides all control and
any physical responses that follow cannot be helped. Being is both free and
determined internally and externally. If there is no free choice, there is no spiritual
or physical freedom. Being is free through the separation from other beings, and
overcoming that separation is necessary to unification. The unification overcomes
the space/time separation through the world medium. The world medium is
developed through free choice that is a spiritual choice of evil or good. Both
mechanical and spiritual cause enters the world through free choice. A
mechanical/spiritual cause and effect are reified bonds of being found in the
medium of the state, republic, government, institution, etc. Just as mechanical
laws have no weight, color, pressure, temperature, ph, volume, etc., so too do the
laws of spirit have no sensation, yet they are bound in an inescapable paradigm.
The laws of spirit can be empirically measured in terms of blood and pain, well
183
being and happiness. The quality/quantity paradigm of being shifts accordingly.
Mill opted for quality of being while Bentham opted for quantity. Both become
visible and measureable in the world medium or the greater good. This medium is
often under the control of a minority of powerful people who control the national
wealth. They are often addicted to power and their choices flawed by the category
of possession, for it is their vision of the world medium they are buying with the
wealth of the majority. Thrasamycus’ definition of justice still holds for them. It is
rare for the paradigm to disappear in a perfect democracy. Through choices of
instruments, they embed their intentions into the world medium. Freedom is also
bound under the quality/quantity paradigm in the form of options. The more wealth
and possessions including knowledge, the more options are available, and a higher
quality of life generally follows. This can shift for it is relative as to wealth and
options can disappear for they depend upon external factors.
The intention is an inseparable polarity of matter and spirit; it is a gestalt from the
spirit/matter paradigm. For example, a bullet is material and spiritual instrument;
its embedded intention is to kill the body. Just as there are material mediums, so
too are there immaterial mediums of space/time. Being is a paradigm of soul and
body, and paradigms shift between polarities generating consciousness.
Consciousness is a gestalt of this paradigm. Thought is a process of reflection of
being that depends upon consciousness. Consciousness is external and internal
negation resulting from vibrations within the body/soul formation. External
negation is the defense of the unity of being infinitely determined by the not me
process. The process is a reflection of the sequence of negations. For example,
driving a car is a series of planned negations resulting in a trip with a start and
finish. The choices of roads are negations of other roads. It road itself is a negation
of other routes. This negation has rules that negate options such as stopping, one
way, lanes, heights, weights, etc. External reflection is centers on that which is not
me or other unities and formations, be it a bear, bird, river, car, house, child, etc.
The positive pole of consciousness is me and mine or the divine category of
possession. Possession gestalts justice/injustice paradigms. Justice and injustice
take away/give something (positive) from or to someone be it property, power,
children, house, or life or negative be it death, poverty, absence, loss, etc. They
also give something to someone. Possession is spiritual and material. For example,
184
my hand is universal. To take away my hand is wrong unless it is punishment for
an offense (not medical.) Thus, a dictator can take away other’s hands or even
everyone’s hands except his own.
Kant’s deontological ethics is based on a categorical imperative that subjectively
governs actions. The acts themselves are incapable of being judged because they
are under control of the intention. Only the intention encoded into the act is judged.
The intention aligns with the intention within the instrument to bring forth an act
and its consequences. Intentions align with universal or absolute rules. Kant’s
good will is this intention to act according to reason and follow the absolute laws
within. The body of laws are objective and therefore discovered, not invented.
They are tested against the laws of logic and must pass this test before
implementation. It is the duty to act according to these rules, not the consequences
or emotions. Just as it is a duty to pay your taxes, so too is it a duty to follow the
moral laws blind to their consequences. The structure of good will excludes virtues
or other gifts of nature, fortune, character, and even well-being. The well-intended
act is the source of good. One need only claim to being duty bound to the moral
laws to be exonerated for that is impossible for others to know except for their tests
of reason against the claim. For example, Nazis claimed to be duty bound to purify
the race as if they were removing a plague. Hypothetical imperatives are rules
followed to achieve a specific end. As such, they are conditional and relative: If
you want friendship, then join a club, etc. Categorical imperatives are universal
and absolute commandments that must be followed regardless of one’s need for a
state of happiness or happy endings. It is an absolute, unconditional duty to tell the
truth, deal honestly, keep agreements, etc. Their structure is one of logic therefore
a priori, transcending situations and the relative. There are three forms that
generate all categorical imperatives.
Categorical Imperative 1: Act on the maxim through which you can at the same
time will it to become a universal law. I lie, everyone lies; the world collapses.
Universal lying would be an impossible world. Never kill innocent people.
Categorical Imperative 2: Act to treat others an ends in themselves, never as means
to one’s end (egoism).
185
The imagination provides a canvas for the subject to universalize the maxim prior
to the consequences. If there is any contradiction in the universalization of the
imagined consequences, then it is not a categorical imperative. For example, if X
borrows from Y, but intends not to repay, then there is a contradiction in the
universal schema of lending. This lender/lendee agreement is clearly one of
contradictory intentions. The intention of X is to take from Y, but not repay Y. The
action is twofold: take, then repay. Only the first action is completed and perfected,
and without the intent to repay, there is no second action. Governed by intentions,
the entire process of actions is sequential for it will occur in space and time. The
intentions govern the logic, and under the intentions, there are no contractions for
there are no sides. Sides emerged with X and Y. However, with X, there is only
one side (to take) while with Y, there are two sides (to lend and be repaid in the
future). Not to repay is not a side. Two sides negating its other are necessary for
war or a fight. Two sides affirming its other are necessary for peace and
negotiation. The only possible contradiction is to pay and not to pay. This
contradiction is not present. A lie is present. Deontological theory where there is a
single moral obligation, the "Categorical Imperative", derived from the concept of
duty.
 ethical actions must adhere to the categorical imperative.
 one must universalize the maxim (imagine that all people acted in this way)
 then see if it would still be possible to perform the maxim in the world
without contradiction.
 In Groundwork, X seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back
to Y.
 This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would
lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back.
 LENDOR V LENDEE broken agreement relationship of intentions (intent
not to repay)
 contradiction in conceivability , self-contradictory, square circle.
 contradicts perfect duty
 Kant also denied that the consequences of an act in any way contribute to
the moral worth of that act, his reasoning being that
 The physical world is outside one's full control and thus one cannot be
held accountable for the events that occur in it.
186
Behind the categorical imperative is the intention. The good will and its good
intentions and the evil will and evil intentions are known in themselves. As such,
the soul is known in itself and directly by others. Kant’s categorical imperative is
in contradiction and immoral and evil. A good will does not assure a good
outcome. Men of good will spread diseases to the innocents. Good will often
results in immoral consequences. The duty is often blind to its consequences and
can justly be considered immoral. Negligence can be assigned to any good will
without knowledge of the consequences of the act.
My idea or my child references the soul that stands in possession of the
immaterial/material paradigm. The immaterial idea is a spiritual pole as is the
material body a pole of being. The existent is an intentional material formation
such as a tool. Existence is the extended intention. The existential hammer holds
the externalized and materialized intention to hit in the possession of a body/soul
paradigm or finite being or Aristotle’s ousia. Being is inseparable from its essence,
in itself; however, its essence can be isolated and duplicated through reflection
upon its presence and duplicated in an instrument or through existing instruments.
A finite being paradigm is a bipolar formation whose poles are termed body or its
material pole and soul or its immaterial pole. Thus, being is a singularity with
polarities, not a unity of Cartesian substances. Consciousness is present in and the
presence of every being for every natural being is a paradigm of body and soul
with consciousness to some degree that manifests its presence to other beings. The
soul-body paradigm cannot be a Cartesian paradox of two unified substances or a
ghost within a biomechanism, nor can the soul be denied or reduced to the body or
an idea, nor can the body be reduced to an idea or perception for this is simply a
fixated process. The paradigm is not a unity of body and soul, but a bipolar
singularity that shifts between poles in self-defense of external attacks upon its
integrity, unity and perfection of its polarities. The process is divine for it at once
material and immaterial. The reflective process is sequential and tends to break
down and the soul and body as distinct substances leading to a paradox of
substances rather than a paradigm. The energy generated within the paradigmatic
being shifts to the material pole or the immaterial pole resulting in consciousness
reflective of its being and its essence and other beings and their essences. This
consciousness is a representation and intuition of being under the negation not me
(other being) or under the intuition of being me. Consciousness is the gestalt of the
187
body/soul paradigm, and is itself a paradigm of reason and sensation generating a
gestalt of understanding. Rather than Plato’s divided line, understanding is the
gestalt of the sense/reason paradigm. Consciousness moves within these polarities
as it focuses upon sensation in the material pole (as in a burnt finger); then focuses
upon a reason (as in the cause such as heat from a fire) in its immaterial pole. The
polarities of this paradigm gestalt in understanding the internal sensation of pain
and its infinite complexities or understanding the external chemistry and physics of
the cause of fire and its infinite complexities. The pole of reason is a structure of
being reflecting the categories of being, not a faculty of mind or the soul with
categories of consciousness (as with Kant). This structure is a paradigm of physical
(cause/effect, laws of energy, laws of nature, etc.) and spiritual
(intention/consequences, good/evil, moral/immoral, etc.) categories, principles, and
laws. Consciousness reflects these structures as science and ethics. In this way,
science and ethics form a polarized paradigm, yet remain a singularity. This
paradigm is Heaven/Universe and its gestalt is the World. Thus with any paradigm
as with the World, the / (or)is the gestalt shift between them. The fixation upon
matter to explain the world results in materialism and incoherent ethics of property
without transendentals, and the fixation upon the spiritual results in Platonism and
a denial of material being as mere illusion. The fixation upon their gestalt or the
world without polarities results in an endless association of reifications.
The Absolute
The Absolute is prior to Being for it is a paradigm therefore outside of sequence;
apparently a mere thought standing outside of the material universe. Yet the
Absolute cannot be an idea for ideas have yet to form in the paradigm of body and
soul. Rather, it is an embedded immaterial and material memory of being that
gestalted the ousia/eon paradigm within the present for it is the Present. If Kant’s
thing in itself is that which is outside of the space/time paradigm, therefore cannot
be thought or known, how is it that the idea occurs? If imaginary, it is within
space/time. Perhaps it is an empty form without empirical content, yet the form is
within space/time. The solution to the empty form is to recognize that the universe
is the content. Its structure of justice, perfection, infinity, etc., is both a priori and
empirical, idea and matter, not substances, but a process with poles. The present is
the divine intention. It moves to complete itself. It is the structure and telos of
being; yet, in itself, it is prior to structure and process, prior to perfection, infinity,
188
beauty, justice, oneness, unity, good, God, identity, peace, love, evil, or any
transcendental or immanent determination in time and space by finite determinate
particles of being that consists of a mere shift to a pole within the future shape of
the Being/being paradigm. The Absolute is neither materially nor immaterially
self-conscious for this would introduce sequence and separation immediately
followed by subsequent paradigms such as space/time are alien and other to it.In
other words, the divine cogito logically and concretely, spatially and temporally
separates thinking or the Natural laws from Being where Being is itself its own
object; self aware, it introduces material and immaterial change and subsequent
uncertainty into the absent Absolute with a subject and object polarity in an
ordered sequence introducing space and time. Thinking is not a property of the
Absolute; rather, it a gestalt of reflection of the Absolute/Relative paradigm that is
prior to the logical separation of a self consciousness that emerges within this
struggle of a divided Absolute reflected in the One/Many paradigm of Parmenides
and paradoxes of Zeno. The Being/being paradigm emerges where Being is the
memory of divine unityof pure Love and Joy experienced by every being that
shapes their intentions as the paradigm shifts towards ousia. The present carries the
divine intention of infinite reunification. Immediately the divine cogito gestalts
concretely into a medium of space and time for in the now or the moving present is
a logical-concrete, and experiential before and after, past and future, here and
there, etc., self processing the division and self progressing reconciliation. Only
then can the natural universe or Nature emerge in the medium of space and time.
Nature is a living, evolved soul/matter paradigm organized by the divine Mind or
the natural laws. The Absolute emerges in antithesis as the Relative and the
supreme paradigm of reality forms as the Absolute/Relative, and its process takes
conscious form in the shifting shape and polarized vibrations reflected as a novel
unity or self with a spiritual and material pole that struggle for balance and eternal
justice. The Absolute/Relative paradigm acquires temporal (eternal) and spatial
position (everywhere) of self (I am), a before and after consciousness reflecting its
interior and exterior, its identity and difference, form and content, its eternal and
temporal forms, infinite and finite structures, being everywhere and nowhere
realized only through their opposites of momentary, local, and I am not. The power
of the infinite negation is itself a paradigm of consciousness/unconsciousness
gestalting into the immaterial/material and natural/spiritual paradigms. The
concrete negation is a polarized movement of the Absolute/Relative paradigm
189
giving it vibratory energy of consciousness. Its bipolar structure cannot be
overcome by therapy; rather, it must unfold and work through what Hegel termed
bad infinity. The Absolute and Relative separated by the logical and concrete
space/time paradigm and medium present in the moving and sequencing here and
now, and material and spiritual sides realized and reflected .This present and
polarized presence form into the self-conscious universal pole dominated by
immaterial structures such as justice and truth made conscious by cognitive
processes such as reason, and a relative pole dominated by material structures and
processes such as weather and diseases, and made conscious by empirical
processes such as controlled observation merge and gestalt an understanding of
concrete ideas such as energy. This is the material/immaterial paradigm. The
material/immaterial paradigm gestalts immediately into Being/being paradigm
where being is fractured Being under the paradigm of One/Many. Each particle of
being or the relative pole universalizes into a species, levels, functions, processes,
or both organic and inorganic formations, for its only form of transcendence is
fractal reproduction under the laws of Nature or universal Mind. In other words,
the understanding is the vibratory unity of sensation and reason, not a disconnected
Platonic level, but a gestalt of the material/immaterial paradigm. The polarization
of the Absolute/Relative paradigm into identity and difference, interior and
exterior, before and after, singularity and duality, and so on, is the paradigm
generating all paradigms and their respective gestalts of mind structured in laws
and principles embedded within every being, but only reflected according to its
paradigm. Thus change is not external to being but its very structure. Their bipolar
struggle generates a divided self consciousness of self and object, moral and
immoral, good and evil, natural and spiritual. Awakened by self-differences, the
Absolute/Relative paradigm struggles with separation, alienation, ignorance and
overcoming knowledge of alienated forms of recognition and reconciliation. This
takes place in space and time, for only through physical and psychological
evolution can the spiritual/physical paradigm be reflected and perfected in the
gestalt of reason or reflection. The evolution of Nature shifts towards the Spiritual
only to have the Spiritual shift towards the Natural for this is the paradigm of
process and change. This is a cycle of infinity or the circle twisted onto itself. As
the paradigm of the Absolute/Relative gestalts into an infinity of paradigms such as
spirit and matter, content and form, love and hate, a priori and a posteriori, good
and evil, space and time, and so on as the process becomes self aware and
190
reflective of mind. Prior to consciousness of the Relative, the Absolute is pure
intuition termed Love for it is without an object or a subject, i.e., without polarities
or content of Being or Essence. The Absolute is presence without absence for there
are no negative determinations under absence termed Sorrow or Regret or even the
identification termed Absolute, for this assumes another. Nor is it Nothingness for
Nothing is a negative determination of reflection upon the Thing of which there are
no determinations of absence for those lie in the future, and the future is a
formation under the space/time paradigm. The Absolute is prior to the Relative or
determinations within space and time genetically contained within the Absolute
awaiting consciousness. Determination within space and time are within the finite
pole. The Relative was the Absolute and its memory of Being within its being
providing its telos, i.e., itself, with realized and perfected content it will return unto
itself and the difference dissolve. The alpha/omega, start/finish, beginning/end, etc.
are paradigms.
The Relative
The Relative is the estranged Absolute separated by physical and logical (as given
in Zeno’s arguments) infinite time and space. The Relative is conscious of itself
and its otherness, and its alienation, the Absolute, is a process of determination
within the indeterminable. This paradigm of determinable/indeterminable is the
process under the being/Being paradigm. The process is that of unity of being, if
only for a moment as in a team winning a game, or nation winning a war, it is a
reflection of the Absolute. The Now is the Absolute in the Relative as it was. The
Absolute is unrecognizable and the Relative can only be a logical negation of itself
and its qualities of finitude, death, the Devil, ugliness, difference, negation,
absence, chaos, injustice, evil, war, hate, and all negative determinations in time
and space. The Relative is an absence of the Absolute and its history of
reconciliation with itself is a process of filling this void. The Absolute is the telos
of the Relative and its future perfection of its amanesis. Yet Evil has its forms of
unity as in the Nazi death camps, slavery, Pol Pot’s killing fields, etc. Unity can be
determined as a Good/Evil paradigm, and disunity as in anarchy is not in itself evil.
The intention within being shapes the paradigm of Good/Evil, and its gestalt, the
World, emerges.
Paradigm or Gestalt Shift
191
The material and immaterial separation of the Absolute into the Relative is the
beginning of consciousness and its manifestations in the form of infinity of
gestalts. The gestalt is the conjunction of two poles of Being; not their separation
into two distinct, independent beings, such as Matter and its antithesis God; rather,
this gestalt is the specification of Being or I am that am. Prior to Being, the shift
between the pole of Absolute and Relative occur once the movement into the other
pole is realized, developed and reflected. Each reflection logically requires the
medium of space and time and another from which it is reflected and unto into
whom it is reflected. Space and time determines who is who. Thus, when the
Relative exhausts the polarity of relativity, it shifts into the opposite or the
Absolute. For example, Zeno’s paradoxes led Parmenides to conclude that the
extended world was an illusion and logically necessitated the unchanging reality of
the One. Spinoza’s God shifts between the material and immaterial. Berkeley’s
matter dissolves into God’s perception. And so on. Matter and the Immaterial are
shifting poles of one Being that gestalt into Mind. Mind reflects this movement as
the Laws of Nature or its structure emanating from Being. Thus the Absolute and
Relative are polarities of one Being. The One, God, Unity, Infinity, Being, and so
on, are its determinations. Reality is Being. Being is a multilayered paradigm of
being and essence, soul and body, in and out, self and other, object and subject,
good and bad, and so forth. Reality is not change, nothingness, power, money,
politics, me, and so on, for these are logical and concrete determinations of being
in the world. Being is independent and unchanging. Being is both transcendentally
and empirically independent of Mind for Mind is the gestalt of polarized Being
into laws, categories and principles, and its gestalt is dependent upon Being and
reflects it. The content of the mind is divided between being and not being, reality
and illusion. Reality is determined by the intuition of being and its absence. This
intuition is termed the representation. The Mind reflects its origin for its structure
is both empirical and transcendental. Thus, Plato and Aristotle examine the same
bipolar structure of Reality. Where Plato examined the transcendent forms in the
immaterial pole, Aristotle examined the empirical forms of Being in the material
pole. The forms are external empirical and transcendental polarities forming the
ontology of Being. They are also and internal transcendental and empirical
polarities forming an epistemology of being. The deductive and inductive mind
reflect Being for they originated in its polar structure. Both philosophers
192
recognized the Good and telos for their polarities. Where Plato sought the infinite
Good, Aristotle sought the finite Good.
Being
As the Absolute becomes self conscious, Being (aeon) manifests relative Being or
beings (ousia). The paradigm of One/Many gestalts Being/beings. The Being/being
paradigm is immediately completed in the gestalt of Being/Essence and
being/essence paradigms. The Essence of Being are the transcendental categories,
principles, laws, etc. that enable universal mind within every being. The essence of
being are its endless divisions and determinations. Although Being and being are
logically identical, beings are unconscious Being within space and time under the
One/Many paradigm. Being is the final unity of beings where the many shift into
the one which is their telos; beings are the reflected content of Being within its
polarized structure and the reflection is complete in the reconciliation. This
reflection terminates in Love. Both reject and later recognize themselves within
their other. They are a paradigm of Being/beings. This paradigm and reality
immediately expands into transcendental and empirical realms as it works through
its new polarities. Being is an absolute, transcendental unity while being is a
relative unity for it endures space and time in a location and sequence.
being (ousia)
Coming into being and coming into existence are different processes. Coming into
existence follows the intention of the human mammal. The architecture of
existence is the intentional object that transcends its immaterial, subjective origins.
Coming into being follows nature, both internal and external. Coming into
existence follows the intentional, informed mind.
Finite being is the antithesis of Being. Where Being is of the Absolute pole, being
is of the Relative. Sartre holds that individual existents are a series of appearances
(p. xlvii, Being and Nothingness); this is unsupported because individuals are
particles of being that manifest essences or what the being is. Essence is not the
dissolved existence of being in the world as Sartre proposed. Essence is not a
waiter, lawyer, president, pope, etc., for these are dialectical reflections of
existence. Sartre gives an account of existential essence that is not the essence of
being, i.e., humanity that is inseparable from being for it consists of an inseparable
193
pole within the being/essence paradigm. Being does not precede essence; however,
essence precedes existence. Essence is a pole of being, and the bipolarization of the
being/essence paradigm generates consciousness. Existential essence is not a thing
for it has no being in itself; rather, it is being in the world as the world projects it.
Existential formations such as lawyers are dependencies upon being and are object
formations within the world’s social dialectic. Thus, a lawyer, beggar, soldier or
priest is a social object with a subjective pole of finite being and an objective pole
of costume, rules, and instruments in the process of perfecting its role. Beings can
only perfect their being through ontological reflection of their alienation and
identity. This process resembles Hegel’s dialectical logic. The paradigms are not
determined in a linear way; rather, the paradigms are given at once and remain to
be ontologically interconnected by reflections. Science and philosophy are
reflections of the paradigms of Being within finite paradigms. The reflections
provide finite and infinite purpose provided they are grasped as paradigms. In this
way, what is unique is also common, what is transcendental or transcendent is also
immanent and empirical, and so on.
Ousia is condemned to spirituality and morality through choices. Finite being is the
paradigm of soul/body which an inseparable unity distinguished only by change in
its polarity. Some hold that the soul is intelligent or reasonable, and thus eternal in
spite of its history of rationally supported violence, deception, evil, etc.
Intelligence and reason are instruments of nature evolved over millions of years.
These instruments enable the soul to reach wisdom and the understanding to
control the structure of being by abstracting its categories and principles and
forming an understanding. The intentions of the soul/body paradigm issue moral
and spiritual choices. Where reason deals with the spiritual categories such as
beauty and truth, sensation deals with the material categories such as empirical
categories. The unity of the reason/sensation paradigm gestalts into understanding
and engineered instruments embedded with the laws of nature and spirit. There is
no choice for even the consumption of a fruit or Christmas tree is an event with
spiritual and moral consequences. The part shapes the whole as the whole shapes
the part.
The intention is a transcendental cause. It is a material and immaterial cause of the
spiritual within the virtual. The source of torture or medicine is the soul and its
intentions reflected in the understanding of essence. The soul makes the sacred
194
choice between intentions to act or not act according to the embedded intentions
within the instruments available to it. Even the smallest choices are sacred. The
choice between beer or wine, burger or fish, etc., spell disaster for the sacred planet
Earth.
Self Consciousness
Absolute Freedom
Freedom is the ability to choose right or wrong. It is the choice of the soul’s
polarities of good or evil. Freedom of choice is transcendental for it is not tied
down to the body itself. Choice may be forced through the body as with torture. As
with Sophie’s choice, one may be deluded into an assumption that it belonged to
me or the soul and therefore, I am responsible for it. Even animals have freedom of
choice to the degree they are spiritually or materially dominated. Animals can
choose to run or fight. Free choice is not a consideration of utilitarian logic. For
example, if a school or hospital system is bad by the numbers, then a good system
should not be engineered to accommodate free choice. It is not a question of which
system one chooses, bad or good, but it is mandated that the bad system be
removed or replaced for the greater good. The only choice is the best one. It is
therefore necessary to eliminate the bad systems. The difference between the bad,
mediocre, and good is knowledge of what works. This knowledge is empirical and
scientifically determined by testing various models. Free choice, when not under
the authority of knowledge is governed by intentions such as to profit, to educated,
to protect, etc. Kantian intention is a duty to educate, but only according to
knowledge of what works, not what one intends if outside the intention to educate
in the best model. It is the ability to step outside the shifting polarities and choose
one polarity over the other. Evil or good is a choice and the gestalt of freedom
emerges. It can be suspended at a price, the price being that the choice is made by
something external. There was still a choice followed by consequences. Freedom is
a transcendental structure a priori to all being. It emerges in negation and reflects
the Absolute in the Relative. Pavlov identified one dog with a freedom reflex and
an absolute negation of its restraint. Free choice is not about transcendentals, for
one does not choose between justice and injustice, freedom and slavery, etc., for
there is no choice. .
195
Justice
One should be happy proportionally to the moral life chose. It is divinely unjust
that one who does evil be happy. It is divinely unjust that one who works to
promote happiness be unhappy. Justice cannot be an eye for an eye because it
violates the eternal law never to intentionally harm an innocent being. For
example, if someone blinded you, you have the right to blind them. It fails
otherwise as when someone rapes and murders your child. You cannot rape and
murder their child and expect justice. The murder and rape of their child will not
bring about justice and there can be no sanctioned right for such a action.
Good & Evil Paradigm
Evil is the intentional, unnecessary harm to innocent being. Evil is the intent to
destroy being in itself, both body and soul. Evil is not the absence of good for evil
is generated within the soul itself and manifests in the intention. The intention
enters the space/time paradigm through the instrument that is spiritually grasped in
the infinitive. Good is intentional, unnecessary protection of innocent being.
Unnecessary includes spiritual and physical good while necessary good would
concern physical and psychological well being. Thus good and evil are the
reflected poles of consciousness and the structure of any choice. The poles must be
reflected in the social dialect. The telos of the intention is good or evil. The soul
perfects itself in realizing its projects. The project can be a land mine field or a
hospital. The choice of each soul perfects its spiritual essence. The perfection of
the projects Evil is the absence of Good when the paradigm of good/evil shifts to
one pole. This shift is entirely conscious and forced. The will or spirit belongs to
the soul intending this shift. A current example of evil is child trafficking and
prostitution especially sex tourism. Brazil and Cambodia for example appear to
benefit from this economic addition thus improving their Greater Good. A
utilitarian could argue for this economic model on the basis of a short term solution
to an economic problem. A few suffer the majority benefit. Under Relativism,
there can be no universal moral laws or principles because there are no
transcendental structures within being. The measured results are found in their
economic improvement in terms of personal and state wealth. However, this is a
state of evil because it is the intentional, unnecessary harm to innocent beings. To
196
market a child as a commodity is to substitute a principle of economics for the
principles within being.
Moral, Immoral, Good, Evil
Good and evil form a paradigm. Evil is a polarity opposed to its alienated other,
good. The transformation of evil into good or good into evil is a shift within the
paradigm. The Inquisition is such an example. Believing that it was good to torture
and burn evil beings was the height of goodness. Immoral is defined as the
unintentional, unnecessary harm to innocent beings. Moral is defined as the
unintentional or intentional benefit to innocent beings. Evil is defined as the
intentional, unnecessary harm to innocent beings. Good is defined as the
intentional or unintentional, unnecessary or necessary benefit to innocent beings.
The Good is transcendental, and it is the opposite of Evil. Morality is opposite
Immorality. If there were no Immorality and Evil, there would only be the Good.
There is no natural Evil for Evil is an existential polarity generated from intentions.
There is no substance termed The Devil nor is there a substance termed God;
rather, there is a positively and negatively reified and fixated process within finite
beings. Manichean dualities are avoided, yet God is preserved and the Devil is
logically explained. The shift to God is an Absolute while the shift to the Devil is
the Relative. The balance of Good and Evil is that of free choice within the power
of all finite beings. The choice of Good or Evil is a free. This is measured in
Milgram’s experiments where up to 80 percent would commit acts of evil.
Immoral
*NCLB
*Horizon Incident
*HIV infected blood
*Collateral damage
Evil
*Death camps
*Bio weapons
*Nuclear bombs
*Vivisection
*Deforestation
NCLB was immoral. It resulted in massive dropouts. While intended for the
greater good, it was experimental and hurt innocent beings itfor could have been
modeled upon Finland or China. The Horizon incident resulted in massive harm to
wildlife that could have been prevented. HIV infected blood could be intentional,
197
and if so, evil, but if not intentional, immoral. Collateral damage is not directed at
innocent beings, and is immoral.
The Good requires knowledge of right and wrong. Right and wrong can include
basic knowledge and error. The Good is the intentional and unintentional,
unnecessary (as learning how to dance) and necessary (as drinking pure water)
perfection of the soul/body paradigm. Errors are thus immoral if negligence in their
application is understood yet unaddressed as in the Horizon incident. This
paradigm is the gestalt of the being/essence paradigm for being is the gestalt of
soul/body. Evil is the intentional, unnecessary imperfection of the soul/body
paradigm. Since the soul/body paradigm cannot be destroyed in its form and
content of physical and spiritual intentions, its imperfection is due to the
intentional incompletion of its telos. The perfection of the soul is its reflection on
being/essence paradigm. The reflection consists of instrumental intentions reflected
from other being and returned to it. The reflection is commonly expressed to as
seeing what happens if I do this. Evil is not the absence of good or absence of some
perfection within a being. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge; however, it is
not an evipl; rather it is innocence. Animals and infants are ignorant and innocent.
It is not evil or immoral that they lack knowledge. Rather, it is the instruments of
education that are evil when built upon intentions such as profit. The instrument
overcomes ignorance, disease, malnutrition, violence, etc. Unnecessary ignorance
is evil; poverty, disease, malnutrition, etc. are evil if they can be overcome but
denied. Willful ignorance is evil. The intentional absence of knowledge is evil.
Knowledge is the instrument of the soul to reach spiritual and physical perfection.
Imperfection in knowledge is not evil in itself until awareness of it is obvious and
allowed to continue. Imperfection within the soul/body paradigm is a simple pole
under the control of free choice. Evil is the intentional, unnecessary harm to
innocent being. Ousia is condemned to be free--free to make moral and spiritual
choices. The moral/immoral and spiritual/material paradigms structure
consciousness and belong to the soul/body paradigm within the category of
freedom; freedom is an unavoidable necessity. The freedom/determinism paradigm
emerged vibrating in moral and spiritual choices. Reflection of instrumental
intentions provides information about the consequences of its choices. The
transcendence of the intention through space and time, or the future, completes the
telos in spiritual space and time. It awaits the registry upon the Being/being
198
paradigm in physical space and time. As one drops a bomb or land mines an area,
the consequences are held in the future. The future is reflected back to the source
as good or bad. From a utilitarian or consequential perspective, the Greater Good
would include folic acid. Folic acid affects pregnant women resulting birth defects
and developmental disorders. Knowledge of its location and structure in plants is
available. The plant preparation before consumption is understood. Ignorance of
this vitamin deficiency is immoral especially in regions where plants thrive. This
ignorance is willful and evil because of the harm done to the innocent. To know
the right is to do the right. Supplements are available and cheap, and political
negligence is evil. Negligence is the inaction following knowledge of right and
wrong.
Truth is a pole of the truth/falsity paradigm. It must be reflected through the
inner/outer paradigm. For example, a culture such as Sparta could not grasp the
truth of its relativity and evil done to its children. From within, the absolute
perfection of the Spartan State was the mandatory elimination of imperfection in
bodies by killing imperfect bodies that might weaken the state. The Nazi State was
also dedicated to the absolute elimination of imperfection as defined by the
imaginary Arian model. The shift from the Relative toward the Absolute is realized
in a paradigm shift; for example the spiritual shift from imperfection to perfection
precedes a stereotypical physical shift where imperfection is reflected in disease,
malnutrition, height and weight differences, etc. This is not natural selection where
adaptation eliminates weaknesses ending in smaller, weaker forms as in the case of
the mammoth. Perfection is momentarily realized within the space/time paradigm
at points in the sequence of the moving present. For example, the removal of polio
and knowledge of folic acid in pregnancy were such points with exact times and
spaces. Thus the obsession with absolute perfection in the Nazi Aryan model
shifted from spiritual imperfection to physical imperfection where the good was
inverted and shifted to evil without notice through purification. In this way,
Socrates is correct to hold that to know the good is to do the good. Nazi’s were
certain they were doing the right thing; however, they were simply obsessed within
their inverted and distorted paradigm of purification in order to reach perfection.
There was a Nazi ethics and set of virtues. Its leaders were not the model of
physical perfection they worshiped and demanded, and by their own logic, to be
eliminated. Purification of drinking water and purification of a population are
199
spiritual activities. They transcend the space/time medium for they are
intentionally injected through instruments into the world as the greater good. These
instruments hold intention of the source, i.e., the soul, and in the case of water,
water filters are necessary while in the intention of a certain population, death
camps are necessary. Computers are mediums for various instruments such as
programs for accounting, writing, math, communication, etc. that enable, actualize
and maintain a virtual world.
Virtue/Vice Paradigm
Aristotle’s Golden Mean is more than a balance between extreme actions. Virtue is
a social skill that gauges and forms the opinion of others as to one’s character. It is
also a spiritual instrument for sometimes we are alone and must confront our
deepest fears. A courageous act can be learned or copied, but when courage is
internalized, it is a priori because the form of the soul is activated. A priori courage
requires knowledge of the outcome to avoid bravado and unnecessary injury or
death. Physical and spiritual courage are linked through their combined and
inseparable intentions. Physical courage requires knowledge such as fighting skills
to survive. Fighting skills are instruments of terror or valor. While courage is the
mean between the extremes of reckless and cowardly actions; it is not the end, but
means to a good end and well-being; so virtue is required to reach happiness. Vices
such as cheating, deception, cowardness, etc. should end in failure and distortion of
a good life. No one wants a doctor who cheated on his exams or takes short cuts.
For a soldier to run away or to charge into certain death have bad consequences
and are to be avoided. Courage is the way of overcoming fear of a situation and its
consequences outweigh the consequences of cowardness. Courage is a dialectical
mirror of actions and intentions. Courage is habit that kicks in because it has been
internalized. Perhaps it is a social skill, but its foundation is not a choice unless it is
a copied behavior that overcomes the paralysis of fear. Fear is dialectical mirror of
possible disunity. False courage is a lie or self delusion. Courage is an instrument
that can be mastered for an end. Courage is the gestalt of polarities of cowardly or
foolhardy actions. Cowardly actions are both internally and externally reflected.
Internal reflection of acts means that one has survived the situation and judges the
actions as necessary for survival or unity, or simply weakness or ignorance of what
to do other than run away and hide. Leaving loved ones behind would rip out one’s
soul. Cowardly behavior is clearly instinctual fear of self protection, and the
200
polarity is physical. Reckless or foolhardy acts are in the ideal pole. They are a self
sacrifice for no clear purpose, and purpose is an intention. Courage is thus identical
spiritual and material intentions applied to instruments. It is the control over
embedded intentions such as weapons. Without instruments courage is impossible
and falls upon reckless. Courage gestalts within an understanding of the
instruments, the consequences, and the physical (to survive) and spiritual (to
protect) intentions directing actions. Virtue is the good spiritual pole while vice is
the bad spiritual pole for both originate in the soul, and are found in the
consequences that takes their form .Polarities of good and evil terminate in the
world where they form a connective mirror of the Being/being paradigm. Being
reflects unity or disunity into Being--its alienated origin. The choice of disunity in
the form of physical and spiritual destruction innocent being reflect immoral and
evil into its source as its essence. This essence is the space/time paradigm. The
dissolution of Being by being into the space/time paradigm is the termination of
the Absolute leaving an infinite reflection of the Relative. According to its a priori
freedom of choice, this is a struggle for dominance in itself. Accordingly, evil is
the self-termination of the Being/being paradigm in ignorance and forgetfulness
and now reflected as alien. Being itself in both its reflection and rejection is
subsequently annihilated. Its void is filled with space/time and a medium of hate,
contempt and spiritual violence prevails.
Potentiality & Actuality Paradigm
As in the example of the knife, potentiality, virtually, intentionality and actuality
distinguish the World from the Earth. The world’s existence depends upon the
earth; the earth does not depend upon the world. The infinitive to cut is embedded
within the knife forming virtual intentions. The virtual becomes actual as the
paradigm of being shifts. For example, the knife can save lives as in operations or
perform vivisections. The world knows a virtual earth for that is the template it
projects upon it as in imaginary geometrical borders or potential mega crops. The
template distorts the being/essence paradigm of the earth. The earth-object is now
this virtual template that depends upon the world for its existence. Thus African
animals now extinct in the wild and moved to Texas depend upon the world and
legal and commercial instruments for life outside zoos. These animals are alive
because of their potential death. The money from hunting them keeps them alive
and allowed. Thus a few die for their greater good and the greater good of
201
humanity as economic devices. However, if hunting them is legally blocked and
they are given rights, their species dies because they have no value in themselves.
Their actual being is considered worthless. Their natural potential to develop and
progress to their own telos is destroyed. Their natural evolution to adapt and
perfect their form is destroyed. The human species imposed an existential state
upon the earth with the consequence that the natural potentiality to perfect its form
becomes an artificial potentiality for a trophy market, and market whims will
determine extinction or survival of the species outside of zoos.
Transcendental Realistic Imperative
When identical, the intention, act, instrument and consequence transcend and
perfect the paradigm of good and evil by which the internal becomes external and
the external reflects back into itself; where the spiritual becomes material and the
material reflects its source completely. The intention is now intersubjective for it is
in the presence of the structure of being for it is now indistinguishable from
another being’s essence. Immoral or the unnecessary harm to an innocent being
and moral or the necessary and unnecessary benefit to innocent being apply to
intentions, acts, instruments and consequences. The legal objectification of guilty
beings includes the consequence of prison systems provided the laws are moral
instruments. Immoral laws such as the Nuremberg Laws hurt innocent beings. The
realistic imperative is the allowed use of an innocent being as an object provided
there is no harm to the being in its objectification as, for example, the
implementation of a polio shots for a human population where the population is a
set of calculated demographic objects. Human beings have a duty to help and
protect innocent beings. This duty begins with the intention and its subjective
source. Negatively stated, never template objectivity over innocent beings if it
results in their unnecessary harm. Unforeseen harm is covered under the term
necessity. Negligence is impossible because the definition demands knowledge,
and this knowledge requires an empirically tested model. It is a moral and spiritual
duty to know if harm will result in the formation and application of any template.
Unnecessary trial and error methods are immoral and evil forms of application
upon innocent beings. When unnecessary devices enter the market after
government testing and are found to be harmful, it is still immoral because the trial
and error method prevails.
202
For example, human trafficking and wildlife trafficking view innocent beings as
commodities. Commodities are economic objects with suppressed ontological
status. Their being and essence have been overridden by imaginative formations
allowing evil intentions and consequences. The object is generated by and
dependent upon being. For example, Nazism considered Jews objects with the
intention to destroy their being in order to destroy their essence (humanity). The
object is an epistemological formation contaminated with subjectivity, as in the
case of Nazism, hatred; hence, the intuition of being, being which is the intuition’s
referent, is removed except for its position in space and time which maintains its
reality. Kant’s categorical and hypothetical imperatives do not transcend his
epistemology, and an object is formed without consideration of the being as in the
case of Maria von Herbert. Should she have not told the truth, the consequences
could have been different? For example, lying to a child such as Christmas is
harmless. Lying to a nation is immoral because the lie is an instrument of power
and manipulation. Human beings are considered objects. If the lie is necessary to
prevent harm to innocent being such as the prevention of a riot, then it is possibly
moral. The categorical imperative is absolute for it violates one’s innate internal
structure or conscience and even one’s well being. The violation of one’s
conscience and the violation of one’s reason in the contradiction or the silver rule,
i.e., do not do something to someone one would not want done to himself, are
incompatible. A noncontradictory imperative and a violation of one’s conscience
could coexist. For example, the removal of child from its mother out of a court
order. The telling a child that it is a failure on its tests seems rational yet
unnecessary.
Form & Content Paradigm
The form or the a priori categories of organization and its content or the empirical,
mathematical evidence of coherent arguments are poles within a paradigm that
gestalts into good or bad. For example, in evaluating legislation such as No Child
Left Behind or NDAA, the evidence has its own magnetic properties resulting in
its form. The form is within the content, and both laws stack into an immoral form.
The form is the content. Both are unnecessary polarities and harm innocent beings.
These laws declare they are the basis of a Greater Good, but upon critical
examination damage the Greater Good. The NDAA, sec. 1021 law admittedly is
based on a lie. Obama or the Senate or both are lying about the arrest of US
203
citizens. The lie is an instrument of power. It can be the intentional withholding of
information. A lie is not a universal nor is it an absolute because it is an
instrument. Unlike Kant, the lie is not an absolute. Being is the only absolute, and
lying and truth belong to its structure. Kant’s contention that we know when we lie
and when we tell the truth places it outside of intuition or conscience. Again, it is a
simple paradigm shift, and it is a shift in being, not consciousness. It is a reflection
upon being, not conscience or good will or intention that is generated by being. It
is neither absolute nor relative, but a shift in structure. Even animals such as
chimps lie. This lie harms no innocent being. The lie is an instrument of being in
the world, and the world could give a damn as seen in political rhetoric. A lie is
therefore immoral or evil based on the intended consequences. If the lie
unnecessarily harms innocent beings, it is immoral. If it intentionally and
unnecessarily and harms innocent beings, it is evil. Unlike Kant, there is no duty
to the truth. For example, lying to a sociopathic killer is not immoral. They do not
deserve the truth. Nor does the lie make the liar responsible for the outcome should
the killer act, for the only one responsible is the sociopathic killer. The intention to
kill an innocent being is formed within the killer’s soul.
Necessity
Kant’s analysis cannot reach being for he has a self imposed limitation of
hypothetical judgments taken from epistemological objects and concepts governed
by logic. Necessity is the a priori structure of being, not analytic concepts.
Necessity is both concrete and abstract forming a paradigm. Necessity is its
nontransferable unity in the medium of space and time. Being is necessary and self
evident in ousia. Ousia is not a judgment governed by logic; rather, it is finite
being, or Being separated from itself and reflected in the space/time paradigm,
anti-being. The contradiction of finite being and infinite Being, imperfect being
and perfect Being; ignorant being and knowing Being, and so on are poles of
reality given in the intuition of this unity in the medium of space and time. When
and where a being dies, infinite Being reflects into its unity and the history of that
being reflects into the Essence. Life and death are polar shifts of the Being/being
paradigm and the Essence/essence paradigm. Both paradigms are dimensions of a
single paradigm. The dimension of space/time paradigm issues from the
being/essence polarity within this paradigm that reflects the alienated
Being/Essence paradigm. Self-protection is an example of necessity. Self-
204
protection is an absolute right of identity, and this absolute is only found in the
Being/Essence paradigm. Spiritual/material necessity is the polar structure of finite
being’s unity. The superstructure of being is the world, and superstructure with a
virtual necessity to fly in food and water to alleviate it. Necessity is the structure of
being, not thought; therefore Aristotle’s substance cannot remain detached from
being in the form of species. The species is incomprehensible from the individual.
The species/individual comprises a paradigm of essence and being. Inductive
cannot stand outside of deductive logic. Inductive logic is a concrete being forming
a species while the species is the form specifying the individual. Content and form
are a singularity and cannot stand independent of itself in the shape of the other.
The movement is a shift within being, not two separate things. The species horse is
a horse and a horse is the species horse. It’s a shift in a material/immaterial
paradigm. The species remains intact within the particular particle of being. The
one is inseparable from the many. The singular or concrete is the paradigm of
species and individual. They are inseparables for they are polarities of the concrete.
The concrete being is a gestalt of the species/individual paradigm. Fixation on one
pole is an apparently contradictory polarization of reified poles, mistaken as
substances, and the reduction of one into the other or its removal is a delusion.
God/Man Paradigm
God and man are necessary polarities within a paradigm of Heaven and Earth. It is
illogical for man to precede God for this would be a series out of order. A finite
series cannot bypass infinity but only discover infinite concrete series. The series
cannot be transcended, but experienced as unlimited. This experience of the
infinite/finite paradigm is adequate for a shift from the Relative into an experience
of the Absolute. Finite particles of being experience infinity and the essence of the
Absolute Being. Zeno’s analyses do not end in illusion, nor do Kant’s antinomies
end in agnosticism; rather, these are the turning points of the paradigm. The
Relative has many doors into the Absolute. By definition, God generated man, and
man reflects God or not, for God is not man, but his inferior other, yet man does
experience momentary perfection, infinity, justice, beauty, and all transcendent
structures of the In other words, the experience of infinity within the world is a
reflection of the Relative into the Absolute and the Absolute into the relative. The
contradiction a shift within conscious being into Being and Being into being. Still,
the process continues while the present changes yet remains unchanged. The
205
never-ending series ends with a shift in consciousness. The Absolute Being is
within the unity and difference of finite being for it is its alienated pole. The
God/man paradigm is governed by the knowledge of good and evil that must
precede the intention. The medium of space and time emerges with finite being and
the polarity of imperfection offsets the polarity of singular perfection and its
medium of eternity. The knowledge of good and evil is both empirical and a priori
or another paradigm with inseparable poles. Kant continues to miss the point of a
unity of polarities for he is fixated on the limits of reason in reaching the Absolute,
i.e., the absolute necessity of an unconditioned practical law such as the categorical
imperative (GMM 128); and this escapes him as incomprehensible. He sees
intelligible substances as problematic in space and time and their interaction in the
world. Clearly Platonic, the ground behind appearances is intelligible, and the
object of reason while the phenomenal field is not intelligible and the object of our
senses. Being is the only foundation of reason which simply reflects its structure.
The unity of being expressed in the principles of self defense and possession is an
absolute necessity. These principles surface in consciousness which is the gestalt
of the polarities, and this gestalt under the Relative shifts from the self-sacrifice of
altruism to selfish, narcissistic egoism only to collapse the one back into its other.
Thus the species is polarized in the concrete spirituality of Mother Teresa or el
Cartel. We know these poles and we know if they are good or evil and all their
degrees. Once learned from the consequences, and once internalized, it is a priori,
for it is the activated spiritual form of being. Evil is made visible through
knowledge and instruments, and this knowledge must be relearned by every
generation or forgotten. The essence of evil is the intentional, unnecessary harm of
innocent being.
Act
The act is without significance without an intention flowing through it. Such an act
is just a reflex, rational egotism motion, etc. The intention, physical or spiritual,
that runs its course through the act, is positive, and therefore divine. The intention
and act are positive by displacing an infinity of negatives--of what could have been
done but was not selected. This infinity of negations is a bad infinity; nevertheless,
an infinity. Any infinity is the Absolute’s gestalt of Infinite Being. The act of
drinking a cup of coffee is spiritual and physical. It is positive and resides in the
positive displacement of an infinity of negatives or what was not chosen. Its
206
positive structure is again negative in that there are consequences of drinking a cup
of coffee for the coffee tree displaced a native tree and its natural inhabitants. Their
being in space and time has been erased. The sacred earth has been changed and
damaged in removal of natural formations such as coal and gas, and their
transportation as units of energy devastating regions holding vast communities of
natural beings. The devices sold, distributed and consumed form existential
templates that displace natural being. These acts are eternal in their destructions.
Their natural telos has been intentionally destroyed and as it as in heaven is now
impossible.
Truth
Truth is an absolute. Telling the truth is not an absolute, but a process that takes
time over space. The lie is its transcendental polarity. It is a consciousness or
reflection of the negation of the truth. Telling the truth or telling a lie are both
processes, and processes are not immoral or evil, moral or divine. The intention
within the process is. The lie is an instrument with embedded intentions. Santa
Claus or you look great! are harmful if intended. The consequences of the white
lies are generally uneventful though perhaps disappointing.
The Moving Present
The moving present is Heraclitus’ flux or the endless succession of the universe.
The moving present is the process of reconciliation of the Relative with the
Absolute. It flows through and around us and we are part of it.
Laws of Being
Being has structure or essence. The laws of Being are a priori to Being. Laws of
nature are the material structure of being. Laws of spirit are the immaterial
structure of being. The Law of Gravity removes opinion and viewpoint.
Viewpoints and opinions do not alter it or affect the outcome of falling bodies. The
Law of Spirit is also beyond viewpoint and opinion. Man has the knowledge of
good and evil and he is condemned to the right or wrong way. Animals are a
amoral and do not have the knowledge of good and evil, for they have instincts.
The Law of Spirits necessarily results in Good or Evil for they are intentional
formations and gestalts, thus immaterial in their origin but material in their
207
consequences. Consequences transcend their material base in quantity turn into
quality. The more matter or less matter turn into quality and the joy of fulfillment
or defect and the sorrow of harm. The Good is defined as the intentional, necessary
eudemonia of innocent being. Natural Laws and Spiritual Laws govern all
relationships among beings. The spiritual laws are identity, freedom, knowledge,
causality, perfection, necessity, unity and so on. The empirical laws are causality,
force, entropy, friction, heat, etc. These principles and categories are available to
reflection for they are the polarized structure of being in itself. This structure is a
paradigm where the opposites of appearance, contingency, disunity, determinism,
difference, uniformity, etc. are also poles of the principles and categories. The
paradigms shift from one pole into its other without realization of their iddevices
until they reverse themselves. The formations are the Absolute/Relative paradigm,
Being/Essence paradigm, Being/being paradigm, Thing/Nothing paradigm,
identity/difference paradigm, formed/unformed paradigm, justice/injustice
paradigm, good/evil paradigm, immanent/transcendent paradigm, One/Many
paradigm, Material/Immaterial paradigm, and so forth. All contradictions are
paradigms, and paradoxes are unrealized paradigms. Paradigms cannot be
separated for they are under the eternal/temporal paradigm and infinite/finite
paradigm which is itself the separate/inseparable paradigm. In short, to focus on
one side or pole of any paradigm will swing and terminate in its opposite. For
example, Skinner had to deal with a dog stuck in the freedom reflex. The
vibrations of this struggle in poles results in a shift without destruction to its other
side for it are that rejected side that is at work on its opponent and alienated self.
The vibrations in this struggle results in mind or consciousness and reflected in an
autobiographical history of the struggle recorded throughout the universe. Any
example occurs in space and time. One example is that of Strohmeyer and Cash.
Strohmeyer raped and murdered a child while Cash did not prevent the crimes.
Strohmeyer is evil for he intentionally and unnecessarily harmed an innocent
being. Cash is immoral for he allowed unnecessary harm to an innocent being. The
intention traces back to Strohmeyer, not Cash. Strohmeyer’s instruments were his
hands and penis and the barriers of the stall preventing public observation and
intervention. The child’s unity was intentionally and unnecessarily violated by
Strohmeyer. This changed the unity of her essence and altered her freedom. All
three are finite beings, hence real. Culture cannot be substituted for being. Cultural
relativity is not real for it depends upon beings for its existence. The relative
208
aspects are overcome, and it is universal that this incident is immoral and evil.
Cash’s defense is a principle of moral neutrality with a consequence of inaction.
There was no law requiring him to act in her defense. His inaction would have
prevented her rape and murder. Accordingly, his principle of moral neutrality
towards evil is good; if there is no legal requirement to prevent it fails because the
law cannot be substituted for being. A principle is a universal defense that a finite
being applies to ethical and spiritual relationships among beings. Culture, law,
money, power, etc. cannot be substituted for being for being is reality and
independent of them. The perfection/imperfection paradigm dominates.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Strohmeyer)
Earth
The earth is a being that generates polarities of material and spirit, unconscious and
conscious, and other paradigms. It is a sacred being that generated finite being. It
spiritual pole generates conscious life, and its material pole generates unconscious
death.
The Absolute is realized in the Relative where it is reflected within the Being/being
paradigm. Prior to the Absolute, there is no Absolute, nor any paradigm. This is
not Nothingness because nothingness is the opposite of something which is
specific and tangible and is a paradigm formed under the Relative. The opposite of
the Absolute is the Relative and prior to the Absolute is the Ineffable. The
Ineffable is unknowable because it is outside of space and time. There are no
antinomies formed around it. Knowledge is a gestalt formed within the paradigm
of being/Being in managing the space/time paradigm.
Knowledge
Knowledge and ignorance form a paradigm. Choosing and acting on ignorance is
an offense to God. Jesus asks God to forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Socrates asks for definitions and explanations that clearly were A being not
possible due to the willful ignorance of the capable and youthful ignorance of
his students. Knowledge is available in examples of the past or current models
constructed for future applications. Otherwise, models must be constructed
and carefully studied and applied. We are not allowed to forget what works. For
example, educational models are found in Finland, Korea, China, etc., and the
209
Greater Good demands models before application to avoid trial and error
experimentation upon and entire population where sometime and somewhere in the
future, we’ll get it right. Various models of occupation for political and moral
consideration are available for study. Vietnam and Korea are studies of failure in
“Nation Building” while Libya is a model for success. Iraq is a study in willful
ignorance of the past, and this is not only immoral but evil because of the
intentional harm done to innocent beings. The Greater Good of Iraq and the US is
measureable and cannot be justified. It stands as crime against humanity. Humanity
is our essence.
Abortion
According to the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade (1973), the right of privacy covers a
pregnant woman’s free choice to abort or not. It is a relative right. Opponents
argue that the fetus is a person and persons have a right to life. The declaration of
Human Rights holds that a person must be born before moral protection applies to
the baby independent of its mother. A person has moral and legal rights because
there is an essence. The essence according to Mary Anne Warren include
consciousness, the capacity to feel pain, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the
capacity to communicate, the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness (Mary
Anne Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” in Social Ethics:
Morality and Social Policy, p. 16). This essence is absent in the fetus and therefore
not a person. This essence applies to animals, yet animals are denied rights. It is
possible that those who deny animals have this essence are prejudiced and refuse to
see it. The fetus is a being in development. A being is a bipolar unity and process.
The being is a soul and body, and the essence is the developing pole of being.
Method of Determining Right from Wrong, Good from Evil, and Moral from
Immoral
1.
2.
3.
Each critical or central term of the object in question must be defined.
The terms wrong, evil, immoral must be defined.
Apply the definitions to the problem.
210
Evil is defined as the intentional delivery of unnecessary pain to an innocent being.
For example, bioweapons, landmines, etc.
Good is any innocent being.
Immoral is defined as the unnecessary pain delivered to an innocent being.
Moral is the necessary or unnecessary act of delivering well being to an innocent
being. (An unnecessary act is found in specifics such as giving a poetry book to a
child; a necessary act is giving water to a thirsty child.)
Wrong is to act in an evil or immoral way. If acted out of ignorance, it is immoral
because the information is missing. If the information is impossible to obtain, then
the act must be done with great caution to prevent negligence and deadly impulsive
behavior. Backing up a car without checking is such an example. If acted out of
knowledge, then it is evil. Backing up a car with knowledge that innocent beings
are around is such an example.
For example, should a government be allowed to torture for information?
Torture has many definitions that include levels of pain: psychological,
sociological, spiritual and physical. Information is also ambiguous. If the question
is specific as in waterboarding for information about an atomic device that will go
off in 24 hours with a warrant, then we can proceed. Torture in general is evil. If
torture in general is allowed, then all forms of torture are allowed on anyone of any
age for any reason or excuse. A warrant is objective and subjective and perhaps
biased. The problem is one of knowledge. Clearly, the government has knowledge
that there is an atomic device, and it has a timer, and that the timer is set to go off
in 24 hours at a general place. If it were a specific place, then the government
would have removed it. So the information required is a specific location and the
steps to disarm it in 24 hours. The government must have knowledge that the
suspects are involved and that they hold the required information to obtain a
warrant; otherwise, they are wasting time. This situation cannot be resolved
because it has not happened and the parameters are imaginary. A dedicated
terrorist could hold off for 24 hours with false information. A simple solution is for
the terrorist to plant 2 bombs, commit suicide, lie, etc. This is a thought experiment
with many rabbit holes opening the door for the justification of torture.
211
A better example is the torture for information in locating a kidnapped child. A
child is an innocent being. If there is cause that the suspect kidnapped the child
such as a record of kidnapping or child abuse, refuses to talk, and the suspect was
in the location at the time, then a warrant could be obtained. The suspect is not an
innocent being and falls outside the definition. The suspect has committed acts of
evil and can be waterboarded. The warrant for torture is an instrument of
knowledge when applied to protect innocent beings. Justice within the Relative is
transcendent and imperfect. Injustice within the Relative is self evident and perfect
when exposed. In other words, positive justice and negative injustice become
conscious of their polarities when finite being i.e., infinite Being within space and
time, intends a higher invisible unity and return to itself based on good or evil.
Justice is an inseparable nonmaterial spiritual formation within the good while
injustice is a separable spiritual unity within evil. Injustice is an intention within
the soul of the finite that enters space and time against other innocent beings;
intending to destroy their unity for reasons such as fear, greed, etc., it is the soul
made visible and measureable through instruments of pain, suffering and death.
Another example is poverty. Poverty is a social injustice. Self inflicted poverty is
not under consideration. Poverty unnecessarily hurts innocent beings. The war in
Iraq is estimated to have cost over 4 trillion dollars, so the argument that it cannot
be afforded is absurd. Poverty in a wealthy country is immoral and evil if it is
intended under the theories of low wages, free choice, and so on. The utilitarian
argument could be one of necessity, for it follows that the governmental removal
of poverty would disrupt the economic paradigm of rich and poor and force an
economic equality upon the system upon an undeserving population resulting in an
economically balanced but failed state. Another argument could be made that
poverty is unnecessary because all economies are artificial and politically rigged
by powerful interests requiring another form of government such as socialism and
revolution if necessary to implement it. These contradictory dreams of the greater
good are bewildering. Kantian categorical imperative also maintain that poverty is
immoral for it cannot be ruled into a natural law. The rich would universalize it but
not accept it for themselves breaking their own law. Poverty would make the
kingdom of ends impossible. The hypothetical imperative denies poverty for the
theories that support it uses others as a means for selfish ends and encourage a
disrespect or shallow concern for other in need.The altruistic/egoistic paradigm
212
begins to emerge. From the Sermon of the Mount to rational egoism, both shift in
polarity cannot be held without extreme artificial maneuvers. Tolstoy and Mother
Teresa and their polar counterparts such as Bill Gates are natural outcomes for the
structure of reality. The more/less paradigm and quality/quantity paradigms
conflict because more money does not produce more empirical happiness.
Happiness is a spiritual and physical state of suspended paradigms. The removal of
poverty follows from this suspended state. The instruments of power, money, laws,
economies, when their embedded intentions are altered, will reflect this suspension
and remove poverty.
Another example is the testing of new drugs or medications. The double blind
study requires halfto receive medication and half a placebo. If there was fully
informed consent, this is right. Half will continue on without treatment and the
other half will either be better or worse. That is, they will have well being or more
pain. They are not innocent as in Unit 741 experiments because they are fully
informed and have freely consented. If the medication is designed to help the well
being of the general population, this is right. It is the best we can do with our
technology. However, the disease must be severe, not that of vanity such as a
change in eye color. Such studies are immoral because they are unnecessary for
well being.The drug is an instrument with intentions to heal or harm as with and
insecticide. It is an instrument that must be evaluated for its intention and
consequences. If it is known to cause damage to innocent beings, it is evil. This
evil is only mitigated with informed consent as in rare, special cases. Again, the
drug itself is evil for its existence (its intent and proven or reflected consequences)
is understood to harm innocent being.
Kant’s analysis of intentionality involves first formulating a private rule then
universalizing it to determine if it would be acceptable to the owner who cannot
not be an exception to its universal application. This exception is irrational. The
rule is universal if rational for our essence or humanity is composed of reason.
Humanity must be treated as an end in itself. The rule only applies to rational
beings, and this excludes animals. Bentham’s rule is to judge the happiness or
unhappiness of the interested party. The interested party can be one or all;
however, if pain is present in the interested party, it is immoral.
213
If Kant’s rule does not work due to a conflict in rules, then Bentham’s rule should
work. For example, to never lie is an absolute rule for Kant, yet one will lie to
prevent unnecessary harm to their children or those who do not deserve the truth
such as criminals. There is no reason to tell the truth to a criminal, even a criminal
who acts reasonably. The criminal violates Kant’s categorical imperatives, yet
expects them to apply to everyone else. There is no reason to tell the world that one
is in a country under false papers when it harms no one. When weighed down by
various conflicts, Bentham’s rule might work. When working in a country under
false papers, then one is paying taxes, buying products and services, helping the
community and the greater good is realized. The instrument (false documents) has
the intention embedded within them.This is further complicated by false
documents and texts such as countries that deny past participation in war crimes.
Detectives commonly lie to get to the truth from criminals that lie to cover their
crimes. Absolute and perfect honesty will end in disaster at work, home or the
street. The lie is an instrument that can be used provided it never harms innocent
beings. Our moral and spiritual calculations must account for the consequences to
others rather than to a principle of rationality. The universal and the particular must
agree in species and individual. Because humanity is also irrational for its essence
is a rational/irrational paradigm, the lie is, for example, a political instrument used
for avoiding unnecessary disasters that would result from panic. On the other hand,
the truth is also an instrument of power that frees one or all from ignorance
enabling free choice. If I had only known is the regret mankind. Knowledge is the
necessary instrument of free choice, and if not available or concealed, free choice
is not possible. The universal shifts towards unity while the particular shift back to
difference. This universal/particular paradigm is concretely embedded within the
many as a species and in the particular asdisunity allowing the individual to stand
apart. Thus, the Nazi state could be opposed by individuals, thus the individual
rejecting its present form of unity. Nazis often thought rationally and logically
within their world unity, yet their principle of spiritual unity was evil. The spiritual
paradigm of good/evil had shifted into evil.
214
215
Platonic Realism
The forms such as the Good, Justice, Beauty, etc., are real and independent of the
human mind. They exist in Heaven, yet we can participate in them with vigorous
study. They are eternal in Heaven and relative on earth in so far as individual
minds participate in them. We remember them on earth. The Good is a
remembered, heavenly form. Evil would be the absence of the Good. In
remembering, the Good becomes active in the individual and policies follow as it
is in Heaven. The human mind, individually, is in-formed by the Good. Beauty is
also one of participation where one is physically beautiful by remembering its
form. This obviously is false and Aristotle was quick to challenge it. The light
metaphorically turns on here and there in individual flash lights and eventually
lights up the earth. A moral judgment cannot be made on this basis. The claim of
the supersensible reality of the forms is only available to the mind. The object is an
ideal, not a being. The form is a priori to beings in that they are imprinted
memories that must be activated.
Egoism