Ontological Strip-Jack-Naked
I do not *redefine * existence at all - as is well known I reject the reified
concept of *existence* totally out of hand. I do not except *the
existence of existence* nor any modality
of that which exists as *existing* - or in
simple terms, which it is possible that even
a transcendentalist might be able to grasp
- I reject the idea that ACTION of any kind
whatsoever *exists* anywhere in the cosmos.
For me only active matergy exists. In other words there is no duality
at all, of any sort, between an object and
its so called: states, actions, behaviours,
processes, mechanisms, conduct, deportment,
doings, hopes, fears, animation or non-animation,
etc. All these descriptive tokens, though
vitally useful in the field of abstractive
human communication are NOT transcendental
dualities of the human holism, nor are they
permanent or temporary *properties* or *features* or *essences* of material objects.
Every object exists as it is as that object.
The actual denotata of such *attributes* as assigned predicationally by humans does
not exist. Only the existing object exists
and the *physics* of that changing object includes the actual,
*real world physical version* of what the perceptively limited, attributive
human object tokenises as a *property.* Thus
(for example) *madness, malignancy, excitement, sadness,
haste, movement, qualia, mind, emotion, consciousness*, does not exist, though for those for whom
such tokens form a part of their occupation
or interest it is understandable that
they
hotly maintain:
Rule Tokens.
*Yes, of course - don't be silly - there
ARE such things as: *madness, malignancy, excitement, sadness,
haste, movement, qualia, mind, emotion, consciousness
- I deal with them every day,*
Because such words are accepted symbols of
the serious, vitally useful *compendium of mutually accepted rule-tokens* which they employ for the benefit of their
patients, etc. to deny them as being irreal
is to deny the linguistic entablature of
the rule-dependant formalised colloquy they
conduct with their associates.
Now to claim that *madness* (or any of its
current euphemisms) and *malignancy* does
not exist will make you reach for your pen
and paper or keyboard immediately, so let
me hasten to add that by saying *malignancy*
does not exist, I mean that *malignancy*
in the sense of the token (or abstraction)
cannot be found in the world. What we can
find in the world are humans and animals
who exist with certain types of cells that
no longer exist to the benefit of the extingencies
of the holism, and that being so are (naturally)
characterised as being *malignant.* But the
cells are NOT malignant in the sense of being
dangerous to health - for of course health
does not actually exist either- only the
human or animal exists in such a way that
certain cells have changed to the overall
advantage or disadvantage of the organism.
Playing with words? What's that you say
*Whatever you
decide to call it - cancer is cancer and
it can be dangerous.*
This is true, but the point I am making here
is one which concerns the actual existence
or non-existence of ideal objects or useful fictions - not whether there is a *condition* called *cancer,* for *a condition* is not something that exists - only *the conditioned human* or animal exists - there is no Cartesian dualistic
style *condition* that is present like a *mind* or a *soul,* whether such a fantasy * object* exists in tandem with the human embrained
stroke body-embodied brain and is located
in the pineal gland, is secreted in the rectum,
or lurks beneath the toenails of the left
foot.
In other words some forms of reification
are extremely useful and some forms are extremely
dangerous to human kind. Part of my agenda
(with Dr. Antonio Rossin) is to differentiate
between what might be called (harmful) maloreificative hypostatisation, aka reifico-toxic thingification, and (useful) reifico-utile, aka reifico-beneficent hypostatisation.
Existential confusion can be explained thus.
But first - I do not usually indulge in *let's pretend* or counterfactual scenarios, but as is the case with logic,
the domains which I am about to refer to
are cognitive territories which include lots
of very useful *let's pretend,* tokens, and there is no other way in which
I can provide a simple explanation of the
fact that whilst a mathematician can agree
that an even prime number does not actually
exist, he can also hotly insist that there is an even prime number, and whilst a physicist
or cosmologist can agree that unoccupied *space* and *time* do not actually exist, they can also hotly
insist that there are such things as space and time.
If you and I decide to go into the business
of game design and create a series of tokens
marked in various ways and used for playing
games, or for telling fortunes, we need to
decide on a set of rules as to the value
of these symbols and include a copy of the
rules in the box when our game is retailed.
If no rules are supplied the game would be
unplayable, unless that is, the purchasers,
in the absence of any rules or meanings for
the symbols being provided , decide to make
up their own mutually agreed rules in order
to play.
A similar situation has arisen in the past
when archeologists have come across a board
and pieces during some excavation of some
ancient civilisation and puzzle over the
significance of the pieces and the strange
markings on the board, or if some strange
hieroglyphs are suddenly exposed on some
half-buried stone. If our game was such that
it appeared to lack a trump card or a joker,
we can imagine a purchaser complaining about
this perceived omission and one of us replying:
but yes, there is - the green wizard and the white knight both act as trump cards. The green wizard
has the power to change all the serfs into
fully accoutred armed footsoldiers and the
white night can freeze an enemy cavalry whilst
they are in full charge and turn them around
to gallop right over a cliff or into a swamp.
Now I am sure that on the basis of these
rules and the mutual agreement of the players
as to the value of the tokens, neither you
nor I would believe that there actually exist
any real-world denotata (actual objects referred
to by the pictorial expressions) with these
occult powers as referred to by the pictures
of the green wizard and the white knight
and that they actually exist in the material
sense. We would both agree I am sure that
they are but examples of tokens which are
necessary IN ORDER TO PLAY THE GAME and that
for the purposes of the intensional context
of game-playing disbelief must be temporally
suspended for the duration of the game.
This instrumental or utile acceptance
of
tokens which I describe above is illustrative
of ALL human communication, including
language
itself, and with the exception of deictic
finger-pointing at actual objects,
its variations
only occur in as much as they accord
with
the actual domain in which the communication
takes place and nature of that connection
which facilitates such access between
the
communicants.
Serious Games.
In the above game scenario, the temporary
suspension of disbelief and acceptance of
quasi-objective tokens is made for purposes
of pleasure and entertainment. In predicational logic the acceptance of the truth values of arbitrary
created tokens is made for serious exercises
of the mind aimed at teaching us to access
real-world problems with greater clarity.
In mathematics the numerical tokens are accepted
as forming elements of an abstractive representational
system used in the study of numbers, shapes,
structure and change and the relationships
between these concepts. In physics and cosmology,
broadly speaking, it is using tokens for
the general analysis of nature, conducted
in order to understand how the world and
universe behave.
Thus it is understandable that the participants
in such pursuits - whether they be games
for children or adults, or serious occupations
involving scientific investigations and research
which have provided humanity with a benison
of improvements in the spheres of medicine,
architecture, industry, education, science,
travel, etc. hotly insist that THERE ARE
such things as the tokens or abstract *tools of the trade,* many of which are no more than fictive bookmarks
for as yet unknown real objects. The majority
of the scientifically minded users of such useful fiction do not
seriously mean that THERE ARE actual
matergic objects corresponding to those convenient
working tokens.
The sickness in modern society follows from
the intensity and reifying socialising ubiquity
by which the perverted transcendentalist
version of reality insinuates itself into the brainwashed members
of the community. The origin of reifico-toxicant
thingification can be found in the predictable
effects of a family hierarchy dominated by
a antecedally infected father and
mediated by a similarly contaminated mother,
both whom who unknowingly pass on the toxic
transcendentalist tokens during the first
two or three years of the child's life.
Added corruptive conditioning is supplied
by peer groups pressures and s/he is further
indoctrinated with reified language and internalises
the basic structure in to what will become
a permanent reality-disconnect.
The internalisation is further reinforced
and receives added strength via the child's
exposure to corrupt educational ontological
conditioning, a degenerate media and the
dissolute religious structures of the organised
churches. Maturity brings further brainwashing
at the hands of pseudo-psychologists, radio-evangelic
con-men and moralising money-grabbers and
political carpet baggers.
Most of these craven creatures are just plain
ignorant, but alas, there is also a large
contingent of crazed object-action dualists
who DO BELIEVE that there exist actual matergic
objects corresponding to the tokens of the
reifico-toxicant type
. They are the cultists, the occultists,
the transcendentalists, the Japanese harakiri
fanatics, the fundamentalists, the intelligent
design freaks, the destroyers of the Twin
Towers, the religious fanatics who convince
their community of naive, brainless followers
to drink parquat, and others who strap explosives
to their chests and blow themselves and others
into scattered gobbets of steaming human
meat.
My prime focus is on the actual nature of
the physicality of material or matergic objects
or force-fields and the way we humans think
and talk about such entities, and not such
much with a review of the historical
compendium of the tokenhood of the various
abstractives employed in the pursuit of various
occupations.
Of course like anybody else, I cannot escape
from the paradigmatic linguistic tokens of
my own inherited language by which I am trapped
into using for the task of my own research
into the primitive human habits of
object-action discrimination and the threat to modern society manifested
by reifico-toxic hypostatisation and ontology
manque.
Fortunately English is a language I love
and an analysis of its etymologies, its syntax
and semantics helps clear away the damage
it has undergone and continues to suffer
at the hands of transcendentalist vandals.e
|
