Logic Itself Is Being Itself Contra The Fallacy Of Presuppositionalism

MetaChristianity

Irreducible Being? Moral Fact? Logic Itself? Reason Itself? Mind as per Absolute Consciousness? Abstraction’s Transposition? Are THOSE reality’s concrete furniture? One way to see why that in fact IS the case is to look at the following:

Our Non-Theist friends often Challenge Logic along the same line as they Challenge Moral Fact and while that is honest on their part it is interesting that the they seem unaware ((…or unconcerned…)) with the cost of that choice. And it is a choice of course as other options are immediately available.

The Form of the Challenge which our Non-Theist friends present with respect to the fundamental nature of Logic typically shows up along the following lines:

Challenge A— “….If Logic ends in God then God must be subject to Logic and so God is not God, or else God is metaphysically free to be Non-Logic and therefore able to make round-squares such that [A = Non-A] is true in some possible world….or something like that….”

Challenge B— That which is “Logic Itself” is either 1. itself under the Laws of Logic or else 2. It (logic) can be, or is metaphysically free to be, Non-Logic.

The following is incoherent: “God Is The Source Of Goodness”. The Why/How of that incoherence follows necessarily from what is actually being referenced by the term “God” in the Christian Metaphysic and so it is critical that one move forward with the proper meaning of the term God, and, so, see “God vs. A God vs. Gods vs. The Gods vs. Sky Daddy vs. Santa Clause vs. Imaginary Friend vs. Being Itself vs. Existence Itself vs. Metaphysical Wellspring Of All Ontological Possibility” which is at https://metachristianity.com/god-vs-a-god-vs-gods-vs-the-gods-vs-sky-daddy-vs-santa-clause/

This preliminary lens of The Moral before moving into “Logic” per se is helpful because we are somewhat more familiar with “The Good” as per “Being Itself” than we are with “Logic” as per “Being Itself” and, so, this allows us to approach in steps. Notice that we find this pesky fact: X can’t be the source of X given that X is “Being Itself” / “Existence Itself” as per the previous linked essay and, so, as we move forward we will look at why/how “Source Of” and “Is Subject To” and “Is Beneath” and “Comes From” and “Is Obligated To” are all incoherent — and they are incoherent because they are fallacious re-invents of Being Itself from that which “God” “IS” to that which “God–Has“.

Notice what this is NOT a discussion of: the Trinitarian Monarchy and the reason we are not looking at these terms in that setting is because we are looking instead at Movement & Being & Pre & Source & Etc. in various fallacious senses regarding “ultimate reality”. Given “The Metaphysical Wellspring Of All Ontological Possibility” as per The Always & The Already as per “The Metaphysical Latticework Of All Possible Syllogisms In All Possible Communique In All Possible Worlds” we discover that “Logic” is fully funded in and of Divine Simplicity and so we find ourselves in referents which are relevant to Being/Life/Progression with respect to the Trinitarian Monarchy and Spiration and Procession and so on. But the topic here is the Act of simply starting with Perception and Moving-Forward as we to work towards all of that, not to start there. Moving forward then, we would have the following:

Existence-Itself Cannot Be The Source Of Existence-Itself Part 1 of 3

The following is from God and Logic at https://thomism.wordpress.com/2021/11/16/god-and-logic

“…we see why the divine mind necessarily gives rise to logical truth without being subordinated to it…”

Begin Quote:

Who follows a logical rule is subordinate to it,
God is not subordinate to rules (or anything else).
God does not follow logical rules.

It seems like the conclusion is false since logical rules include e.g. the principle of contradiction and divine action will necessarily fall under such a principle. The argument can be pushed further since our mind is subordinate to logical rules because it is perfected by following them as opposed to flouting them, so:

Having truth perfects the intellect, but
The divine intellect cannot be perfected.
So the divine intellect cannot have truth.

The conclusion is nonsense: one might as well take it as a proof that God can’t exist at all.

But “being perfected” occurs either through addition or identity: the room might be be lit or a lamp might be lit but for a lamp to be lit simply makes it an actual lamp while a room is an actual room even when we darken it, whether to develop pictures or watch a movie. Said another way, the room is lit by addition of a new actuality whereas a lamp is lit simply by being actual, since if something isn’t actually casting light then it is not a lamp in full actuality. So we could say that truth perfects our mind by adding a new actuality to it while truth perfects the divine mind by simply being the divine mind in actuality. […Pure Act||Pure Actuality…] Though we use the passive voice in saying the divine mind is perfected by truth, this does not correspond to something passive in God but simply indicates the diving actuality. If so, we see why the divine mind necessarily gives rise to logical truth without being subordinated to it, since truth is for him simply to be actual while something subordinated to truth clearly has truth by addition.

End Quote.

To springboard off of that, there is Pure Act||Pure Actuality and Logic||Absolute Consciousness in the following two senses:

First: “……the concept of being is one of power: the power of actuality, the capacity to affect or to be affected. To be is to act. This definition already implies that, in its fullness, being must also be consciousness, because the highest power to act — and hence the most unconditioned and unconstrained reality of being — is rational mind. Absolute being, therefore, must be absolute mind. Or, in simpler terms, the greater the degree of something’s actuality, the greater the degree of its consciousness, and so infinite actuality is necessarily infinite consciousness. That, at least, is one way of trying to describe another essential logical intuition that recurs in various forms throughout the great theistic metaphysical systems. It is the conviction that in God lies at once the deepest truth of mind and the most universal truth of existence, and that for this reason the world can truly be known by us. Whatever else one might call this vision of things, it is most certainly, in a very real sense, a kind of “total rationalism.” (David Bentley Hart)

Second: “…..if reason’s primordial orientation is indeed toward total intelligibility and perfect truth, then it is essentially a kind of ecstasy of the mind toward an end beyond the limits of nature. It is an impossibly extravagant appetite, a longing that can be sated only by a fullness that can never be reached in the world, but that ceaselessly opens up the world to consciousness. To speak of God, however, as infinite consciousness, which is identical to infinite being, is to say that in Him the ecstasy of mind is also the perfect satiety of achieved knowledge, of perfect wisdom. God is both the knower and the known, infinite intelligence and infinite intelligibility. This is to say that, in Him, rational appetite is perfectly fulfilled, and consciousness perfectly possesses the end it desires. And this, of course, is perfect bliss.” (David Bentley Hart – The Experience of God)

Existence-Itself Cannot Be The Source Of Existence-Itself Part 2 of 3

All of that seamlessly transposes to Pure Actuality vis-à-vis Being Itself as the Metaphysical Wellspring of all Ontological Possibility vis-à-vis Pure-Actuality-Itself||Logic-Itself as the Metaphysical Latticework Of All Possible Syllogisms In All Possible Communique In All Possible Worlds. Once again we are necessarily and seamlessly carried into “…we see why the divine mind necessarily gives rise to logical truth without being subordinated to it…”

Existence-Itself Cannot Be The Source Of Existence-Itself Part 3 of 3

Now let us look at the problem of tying to insist that Existence/Being Itself is or even can be “The Source Of” Existence/Being Itself. It is in what is supposed to be “happening” or “arriving” or “transposing” within the syntax of “The Source Of”. The very notion that “Reality’s Wellspring is “The Source of” Reality’s Wellspring” leads us to the same problem within the re-invention of Being when it is stated that Being Itself is the “Source Of” Being Itself. The incoherence there is born of a metaphysical absurdity and in fact the only way to FORCE / SHOEHORN it into coherence is to CHANGE the very essence of “Being” / “Existence” so that in fact one COULD find a “Pre” and therefore one COULD insert a “Source”. And so IF one finds a “Pre“ well THEN one inserts a “Source“ and hence IF there is NO SOURCE well THEN there is NO PRE to be had. One has “landed” at “Reality’s Rock Bottom” — at one’s Explanatory Terminus:

“…..The reason is that for the classical theist, whatever else we mean by “God,” we certainly mean by that label to name the ultimate source, cause, or explanation of things. Properly to understand classical theism, the hostile atheist reader might even find it useful to put the word “God” out of his mind for the moment – given all the irrelevant associations the word might lead him to read into the present discussion – and just think instead of “the ultimate source of things…” ((…https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-is-there-anything-at-all-its-simple.html…))

We find that the claim of “Being-Itself/Existence-Itself Is The Source Of Being-Itself/Existence-Itself ” reduces to the nonsensical “Changed Essence of Being Itself” and so we end then with incoherence in that Re-Invented Shoehorn. The result is of course that we reject incoherence and instead follow what actually presents itself amid Being vs. Non-Being and thereby discover that it is in fact logically impossible to find any “Source” and any “Pre” and therefore it is logically impossible to insert any “Source” or any “Pre”. Again see “God vs. A God vs. Gods vs. The Gods vs. Sky Daddy vs. Santa Clause vs. Imaginary Friend vs. Being Itself vs. Existence Itself vs. Metaphysical Wellspring Of All Ontological Possibility” which is at https://metachristianity.com/god-vs-a-god-vs-gods-vs-the-gods-vs-sky-daddy-vs-santa-clause/

Logic As The Metaphysical Latticework Of All Possible Syllogisms In All Possible Communique In All Possible Worlds

The concept of “Come From” and the concept of “Logic” again reveal an incoherence. Notice that the problem is again in what is supposed to be “happening” or “arriving” or “transposing” within the syntax of “Comes From” and this is also true with “Where does Morality come from?” and “Where does Intentionality/the-intentional come from?” and “Where does Consciousness/Mind come from?” and “Where does Being Itself come from?” and “Where does Existence Itself come from?” The difficulty in “Come From” is that it again hints of “Source Of” and it is incoherent to say “The Source Is The Source Of The Source”. The example vis-à-vis Morality is that Irreducible Love vis-a-vis Timeless Reciprocity vis-a-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-a-vis Being Itself does not “Come From” – not in any sense – but is instead The Always & The Already. The reason why is because “THAT” is “Being Itself” and “THAT” is “GOD” and “GOD” is the Metaphysical Wellspring of all Ontological Possibility and “THAT” does not “Come From” – in any sense.

Logic is not different: While it is accurate to say that we as contingent beings do in fact “come from” etc. etc., it is NOT accurate to say that Timeless-Reciprocity//Ceaseless-Self-Giving in any sense “comes from” – because “THAT” is “Trinity” and “THAT” is The Always & The Already and “THAT” is the Metaphysical Fountainhead of all Ontological Possibility. We find that Logic is no different — when someone asks about logic we find lurking within all semantic intent a series of unavoidable ontic referents which carry us into “Where does the metaphysical latticework of all possible syllogisms in all possible communique in all possible worlds come from?” But that just is to ask, “Where does the Metaphysical Wellspring of all Ontological Possibility come from?” – which of course is a nonsense question – as per “God vs. A God vs. Gods vs. The Gods vs. Sky Daddy vs. Santa Clause vs. Imaginary Friend vs. Being Itself vs. Existence Itself vs. Metaphysical Wellspring Of All Ontological Possibility” at https://metachristianity.com/god-vs-a-god-vs-gods-vs-the-gods-vs-sky-daddy-vs-santa-clause/

How all of that translates over inside of “The Good” and “Morality” becomes evident given that the Trinitarian Life as per the Christian Metaphysic finds the uncanny Singularity vis-à-vis Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving. So, when we speak of “Morality” we speak of Timeless Reciprocity and we speak of Ceaseless Self-Giving because we speak of “Reality’s Concrete Furniture” because we speak of Trinity because we speak of God. So, that said, there is the following:

Timeless Reciprocity can’t be the source of Timeless Reciprocity
Ceaseless Self-Giving can’t be the source of Ceaseless Self-Giving
Being Itself can’t be the source of Being Itself.
Existence Itself is not Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Existence
Metaphysical Wellspring Of All is not / cannot ……Etc.
Being Itself is not Obligated to Being Itself
Existence Itself is not Beneath/Prior-To/Come From/Etc. Existence Itself

Notice that nothing changes when we use any of the following:

“Source Of”
“Is Subject To”
“Is Beneath”
“Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Existence” ((..or whatever…))
“Is Obligated To”
“Come From”

Again see “God vs. A God vs. Gods vs. The Gods vs. Sky Daddy vs. Santa Clause vs. Imaginary Friend vs. Being Itself vs. Existence Itself vs. Metaphysical Wellspring Of All Ontological Possibility” which is at https://metachristianity.com/god-vs-a-god-vs-gods-vs-the-gods-vs-sky-daddy-vs-santa-clause/

Zeroing In On Absolute Logic: Cognition & The Absolute

The following is from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s “The Phenomenology Of Spirit”

Quote:

“If the absolute is only to be brought just a bit closer to us through the instrument, without the instrument changing anything about the absolute, perhaps as is done to a bird through a lime twig, then the absolute would surely ridicule such a ruse if it were not in and for itself already with us and did not already want to be with us; for cognition would be a ruse in such a case, since through its manifold efforts it creates the impression of doing something altogether different from simply bringing about an immediate and therefore effortless relation. Or, if the testing of cognition which we suppose to be a medium made us acquainted with the law of its refraction, it would be just as useless to subtract this refraction from the result, for it is not the refraction of the ray but rather the ray itself through which the truth touches us that is cognition, and if this is subtracted, then all that would be indicated to us would be just pure direction or empty place. Meanwhile, if the concern about falling into error sets up a mistrust of science, which itself, untroubled by such scruples, simply sets itself to work and actually cognizes, it is still difficult to see why on the contrary a mistrust of this mistrust should not be set up and why one should not be concerned that this fear of erring is already the error itself. In fact, this fear presupposes something, and in fact presupposes a great deal, as truth, and it bases its scruples and its conclusions on what itself ought to be tested in advance as to whether or not it is the truth. This fear presupposes representations of cognizing as an instrument and as a medium, and it also presupposes a difference between our own selves and this cognition; but above all it presupposes that the absolute stands on one side and that cognition stands on the other for itself, and separated from the absolute, though cognition is nevertheless something real; that is, it presupposes that cognition, which, by being outside of the absolute, is indeed also outside of the truth, is nevertheless truthful; an assumption through which that which calls itself the fear of error gives itself away to be known rather as the fear of truth.”

End Quote. ((—from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel The Phenomenology Of Spirit))

Zeroing In On Absolute Logic: A & B

Recall from earlier the following two challenges:

Challenge B— That which is “Logic Itself” is either 1. itself under the Laws of Logic or else 2. It (logic) can be, or is metaphysically free to be, Non-Logic.

Notice that the problem with that approach in Challenge A and Challenge B ((…. [A] and [B]…)) is the same problem with all contingent abstractions of all contingent minds in all contingent beings and that is true whether one makes the attempt with Existence Itself or with Wellspring-Itself or with Logic Itself or with Being-Itself or with The-Good Itself or with Reason-Itself or with Mind Itself and so on. Notice that we cannot move to fast here because all of this also holds if and when one makes the attempt with First Person Data as per the First Person Experience and therein the veracity of “I” vis-à-vis one’s one perceived “Irreducible-I-Am” vis-à-vis that which is nothing less than “Self” vis-à-vis “i-am” / “i-reason” / “i-intend” / “i-exist” and so on ((…see Consciousness, Emergence, Intentionality, Searle, Reason Atop The Irrational, And Naturalism’s Egregious Deficiency at https://metachristianity.com/consciousness-emergence-intentionality-searle-reason-atop-the-irrational/…)).

Notice that in both [A] and [B] the challenge redefines that which “God-Is” into that which “God-Has” such that THEN — and ONLY then — it can be (fallaciously) said that Something Is Above/Beneath Something Else such that “…Existence Itself must be subject to Existence Itself and so God is not God, or else Existence Itself is metaphysically free to be Non-Existence…” and of course with “Logic” we see fallacious forms akin to what ends up being something like:

“….the [Metaphysical Latticework Of All Possible Syllogisms In All Possible Communique In All Possible Worlds] must be Subject-To / must be Beneath / must Come From the [Metaphysical Latticework Of All Possible Syllogisms In All Possible Communique In All Possible Worlds] and so God is not God or else the [Metaphysical Latticework Of All Possible Syllogisms In All Possible Communique In All Possible Worlds] is metaphysically free to be [Non-Being || Non-Existence]….” ((…and so there are no possible worlds… including our own…. and no possible syllogisms… including our own…. and no possible communique… including our own….))

…or more typically with logic we see the standard fallacious straw-man of “…God must be subject to Logic and so God is not God, or else God is metaphysically free to be Non-Logic…” and so on as per Challenge A and Challenge B above. When the Christian speaks of “God” as “Being Itself” it is for the obvious reason that whatever “Has Being” cannot be ((…in any coherent sense…)) the Ground of All Being — cannot be Being Itself.

Obviously both [A] and [B] employ the syntax of the following:

A2— Logic-Is-Subject-To-Logic and/or

B2— Logic-Is-Beneath-Logic and/or

C2— Logic-Is-Metaphysically-Free-To-Be-Non-Logic or else Logic is not Logic.

Which then forces / sums to the following:

D2— “X Is Subject To X“ akin to
E2— “X Is Beneath X“ akin to

F2— “Being Itself Is Subject To Being Itself” akin to
F2— “Being Itself Is Beneath Being Itself” akin to

G2— “X Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-X” akin to
H2— “Being Itself Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Being”

It may help to place “Existence Itself” on each side of the descriptive, such as “Existence Itself Is The Source Of Existence Itself” or “Existence Itself is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Existence” and so on. Recall again that nothing changes when we use any of the following:

“Source Of”
“Is Subject To”
“Is Beneath”
“Is Metaphysically Free To Be Non-Existence” ((..or whatever…))
“Is Obligated To”
“Comes From”

Those are of course all nonsensical Identity Claims and we rationally say of all such syntax:

— 1 — None of them have anything to do with the Christian Metaphysic

— 2 — All of them are themselves logical absurdities

— 3 — The incoherence there is born of a metaphysical absurdity and in fact the only way to FORCE / SHOEHORN it into coherence is to CHANGE the very essence of “Being” / “Existence” such that in fact one COULD find a “Pre” and therefore one COULD insert a “Source” and hence IF one finds a “Pre“ well THEN one inserts a “Source“ and so also IF there is NO SOURCE well THEN there is NO PRE to be had. One has “landed” at “Reality’s Rock Bottom” — at one’s Explanatory Terminus.

The Incoherent Attempt Of Getting In Behind Being-Itself To Foist Pre-Being And So Force Pre-Supposition

Notice that “Getting In Behind/Beneath Oneself” is not coherent such that “We Mean To Apply Logic’s Force To Pre-Logic” is not coherent. “Presupposition” is not possible UNLESS and UNTIL the Critic can coherently pull-off A2 through H2. But of course the Non-Theist cannot pull-off those Nonsensical Identity Claims. It is not clear what our Non-Theist friends mean with respect to Reason/Mind when they accuse the Christian of Pre-Supposing by getting in Pre-Being and getting in Pre-Mind and getting in Pre-Reason and getting in Pre-Perception vis-à-vis getting in Pre-The-Intentional Self.

Think It Through: It becomes unavoidable as to WHY the Christian does not and in fact CANNOT Start/Stop in any such Pre-ANY-thing given that the very notion of Pre-Being collapses into a metaphysical absurdity. Indeed once we apply the UNDOING of those Nonsensical Identity Claims of A2 through H2 ((…which were only the result of fallacious re-inventions / fallacious strawmen of actual Christian premises/definitions…)) we find the express Start/Stop or the express A—Z of the Christian Paradigm vis-à-vis Reason Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Goodness Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Logic Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving as Being in totum || Being Itself vis-à-vis All Processions as The Trinitarian Life.

Think It Through: We are forced to find Being Itself and I-AM as a metaphysical Singularity and here there are no options for any Non-Theistic Map of the Underived/Derived. The question of “The Fundamental Nature of X” vis-à-vis Intentionality, Reason, Self, Mind, and Being/Existence in/of i-exist/i-am in and of the First Person Experience forces us to ask, “From Whence The Fundamental Nature of i-am?” That question is what is on the table and the Christian Metaphysic alone houses all such semantic intent in and by the Principle of Proportionate Causality ((…not to be confused with the PSR…)) whereby The Necessary Being Creates||Grounds||Fully-Funds The Contingent Being as per the following:

“…The idea is perhaps best stated in Platonic terms of the sort Aquinas uses (in an Aristotelianized form) in the Fourth Way. To be a tree or to be a stone is merely to participate in “treeness” or “stoneness.” But to be at all – which is the characteristic effect of an act of creation out of nothing – is to participate in Being Itself. Now the principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause. And only that which just is Being Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but to be at all…” (E. Feser)

With that same Principle of Proportionate Causality in hand we realize that without any such (actual/ontic) Being-To-Being as per (actual/ontic) seamlessness there is no seamless ontology for the fundamental nature of Being/Existence vis-à-vis i-am/i-exist in ANY Non-Theistic “explanatory terminus” which necessarily includes the metaphysical latticework of all possible syllogisms in all possible communique in all possible worlds as in all such ((Non-Theistic)) termini one must attempt the metaphysically impossible — as alluded to in the following:

One must willfully trade away one’s self as/in being instead of retaining being when one’s own First Person Experience in/as being never led one to do so ((how could it?)).
One must willfully trade away one’s self as/in reason instead of retaining reason when one’s own First Person Experience in/as reason never led one to do so ((how could it?)).
One must willfully trade away one’s self as/in intention instead of retaining intention when one’s own First Person Experience in/as intention never led one to do so ((how could it?)).
One must willfully trade away one’s self as/in existence instead of retaining existence when one’s own First Person Experience in/as existence never led one to do so ((how could it?)).
One must willfully trade away one’s self as/in i-am instead of retaining i-am when one’s own First Person Experience in/as i-am never led one to do so ((how could it?)).
Trading For Non-Being 1 of 3: One must willfully trade away what one Sees not only for what one Cannot See but for what one cannot see even in principle, which is to say one must trade away Being for Non-Being ((but how?))
Trading For Non-Being 2 of 3: One must willfully trade away that which both Is & Can-Be, namely Lucidity, for that which not only Is-Not but that which Cannot-Be even in principle, namely Non-Being vis-à-vis the Metaphysical Round-Square — namely Non-Being vis-à-vis the Reductio Ad Absurdum ((but how?))
Trading For Non-Being 3 of 3: One must therefore stop one’s Evidence Based Act of Walking Forward for one must stop placing one’s foot atop the Next Stepping Stone out in front vis-à-vis that which one in fact Sees because one must instead turn one’s gaze backwards and make one’s bizarre appeal to the Pre-I-AM vis-à-vis Pre-Being vis-à-vis Non-Being vis-à-vis the Presupposition in order to “pull it off” ((but how?))

Think It Through: In one’s i-am/i-exist First Person Experience it is that very Consciousness as Intentional-Being which must willfully trade away i-am/i-exist vis-à-vis the Irreducible First Person in Reasoning as Intentional-Being when it is in fact impossible for one in/as i-am/i-exist vis-à-vis the Irreducible First Person Experience of Being/Existence to do/make any such Trade/Giving. The very notion of Reasoning Being ((Illusion)) following Reason In Being ((Illusion)) and thereby on the Force of Reason Itself ((Illusion)) giving away Reason Itself ((Illusion)) to Non-Reason/Non-Being ((Non-Illusion)) collapses into a metaphysical impossibility. But then that just is the Circularity & Question Begging & Reductio-Ad-Absurdum of all Non-Theistic “Ends” given Metaphysical Naturalism’s Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] in ANY “Fundamental Nature of X”.

The Compulsory A—Z as Logic Itself Sums To Irreducible Being: In simplicity and in seamlessness we arrive in that which is free of all Non-Being and thereby free of Pre-Being and thereby free of all Pre-Supposition and therein we arrive at the same A—Z which we arrive at through Natural Theology which [A] starts off with nothing but the Presupposition-Free Neonate + Perception + Self + the External World + Change ((Etc. Etc.)) and which eventually [B] terminates in nothing less than the Principle of Proportionate Causality vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis Divine Mind vis-à-vis Pure Act vis-à-vis the Christian Paradigm and all of that of course in arrives in seamless singularity as the Christian Metaphysic vis-à-vis Reason Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Goodness Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis Logic Itself as Being Itself vis-à-vis the Reference Frame of Totality — or The Absolute’s Own Reference Frame — which necessarily saturates (1) all possible reference frames within all possible worlds and (2) all actual reference frames within all actual worlds vis-à-vis Logos void of Potentiality and so in nothing less than Pure Act as the Fountainhead of all ontological possibility which necessarily streams from nothing less than all possible Procession & Communique amid The Infinite Knower & The Infinitely Known in Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving as Being in totum compelling us – carrying us – into the Map of The Underived.

Logic As The Metaphysical Wellspring of All Ontological Possibility finds a compulsory A through Z regarding the Essential Metaphysical Latticework of All Ontological Possibility as per the following:

Latticework & The Compulsory A—Z therefore unavoidably Maps as follows: [Logic Itself] sums to [Irreducible Being] if and only if [Being Itself = Pure Act] and therefore is Itself the Metaphysical Wellspring of [All Ontological Possibility] — and therefore is Itself the Metaphysical Wellspring of [All Possible Propositions] in All Possible Reference Frames — and therefore is Itself the Metaphysical Wellspring of [All Possible Syllogisms] in All Possible Frames of Reference — and therefore Itself necessarily saturates all possible reference frames within all possible worlds and all actual reference frames within all actual worlds vis-à-vis Logos void of Potentiality in Timeless Processions vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life.

Latticework & The Compulsory A—Z Therefore unavoidably Maps as follows: The entire Noetic, Incorporeal, and Essential Metaphysical Latticework of [All Ontological Possibility] — and therefore of [All Possible Propositions] in All Possible Reference Frames — and therefore of [All Possible Syllogisms] in All Possible Frames of Reference — and therefore All Possible Saturation-Of all Possible Reference Frames within all Possible worlds and All Actual Saturation-Of all Actual Reference Frames within all Actual worlds vis-à-vis Logos void of Potentiality vis-à-vis Pure Act as Timeless Processions vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life.

From here we move to a different inroad into the Map under review:

Being Necessarily Displaces Non-Being

It is helpful to look at Perception/Sight as it relates to the Reductio Ad Absurdum and to Evil and to Logic in the following 3 steps/phases:

Step/Phase 1 of 3 is the concept of Privation: There is that which “IS” such that there is there what we all “Being” and there is that which “IS NOT” such that there is not there what we call “Being” but we would instead say “Non-Being” as in the Philosophical No-Thing. A helpful bridge to explain that concept is the Christian Metaphysic’s definition of Evil. Evil is not a positive substance such as, say, “Goodness Plus X” but is instead a deficiency of substance ((…deficiency of Being, of Good, of Life, of Mind, and so on…)) or we can say that Evil is a Hollow or Vacuum of said Substance/Ontic as in “Goodness Minus Something”. Evil “Exits” in that “Goodness Minus Something” in fact “Exists”. That is what the Christian Metaphysic means when it speaks of The-Good and then in turn speaks of “The-Good-Minus-Something” which is to say “Evil is Good’s Privation” or “Evil is a Privation of Good” which is to say “A Deficiency Of Being”. It is not No-Thing, nor is it The Whole Thing, but instead it is “The Whole/Good Minus Something”.

Step/Phase 2 of 3 is Sight/Perceiving: When one “Sees/Perceives” that which is “Evil” one is seeing that which “IS” such that there is what we call “Being” but notice that what IS and what is Seen/Perceived is “Something Good With A Deficiency”. We see a “Part Of What Is Left” such that there is what we call “Being” ((though Corrupted/Deficient)). We do NOT See/Perceive an “Illusion” or “No-Thing” which is to say we do NOT See/Perceive that which “Is Not” which is to say we do NOT See/Perceive “Non-Being”. Hence the following arrives intact:

It is a metaphysical and logical impossibility to “See/Perceive the Philosophical No-Thing” which is to say that it is a metaphysical and logical impossibility to “See/Perceive Non-Being” – which is to say that Being necessarily displaces Non-Being at any/all “decision-points”.

Step/Phase 3 of 3 is Logic, Being, and the Reductio Ad Absurdum: We can claim to follow what we “Perceive/See”, however, that which is in the box/category named “Reductio Ad Absurdum” or in the box/category named “Contradiction” is in fact the metaphysical equivalent of “Non-Being” or the Philosophical No-Thing. For example, the Round Square ((Reductio)) is not a “Thing That Exists” and it cannot even in principle exist, and therefore it referents a Non-Thing — or the “Being-Less” — that which “IS NOT” such that there is NOT there what we call “Being” nor even Being-Minus-Something but we would instead say “Non-Being” as in The Philosophical No-Thing.

Here it helps to think of “Privation” in the same way we think of “Evil” as Being-Minus-Something or a Deficiency Of Being. To “See Evil” is to see “Something” rather than “No-Thing”. However, that is not the case with “Seeing/Perceiving” the Reductio and/or the Contradiction and that is because when it comes to “Following Reason” and “Following what we can in fact Perceive/See” we do not and cannot even in principle in fact “See/Perceive” “Non-Being”. Notice again what all of this does to those earlier Nonsensical Identity Claims of A2 through H2

Combining All 3 Steps/Phases:

There are metaphysical maps or decision-points when the Reductio Ad Absurdum and/or the Contradiction are Chosen/Followed “rather than” some other option such that “Illusion” and therefore “The Philosophical No-Thing” and therefore “Non-Being” are claimed to occupy some part of some Map at the expense of some other option which is NOT itself the Reductio Ad Absurdum and/or the Contradiction. Notice that this “other option” need not be “Whole” in order to actually be “something” and so win out over and above the “No-Thing” of the Reductio and/or the Contradiction and so notice that Being wins out over Non-Being merely by summing to ANY-thing more than No-Thing, even a mere “Privation” ((Being-Minus-Something)).

The Conscious Observer in the Map of all Non-Theistic Paradigms finds that very move/decision point given Non-Theism’s Necessary Conservation of [No-I-Am] in ANY “Fundamental Nature of X” whether we move from the Top Down or from the Bottom Up. Therein ALL First Person Data vis-à-vis “i” / “i-reason” / “i-think” / “i-exist” / “i-am” must die the death of a thousand equivocations and finally forfeit the Irreducible Hard Stop that is The Self / Conscious Observer and trade it away for what cannot even in principle take its place. One ends up “Equating” something like, say, “Gravity” for “i-reason” ((…and so on as Non-Theism must finally Honor the aforementioned Necessary Conservation …)) which of course collapses into “Non-A Equals A” which of course collapses into a Contradiction and the Reductio Ad Absurdum vis-à-vis the Total Illusion that is the First Person Experience. And again the following arrives intact:

When we say that we “Follow Reason/Evidence/Sight” we mean we follow that which “IS” to wherever it may lead us and therein we will find that all strong vectors converge in nothing less than the full-on syntax/semantic intent in and of The Great I-AM.

Seeing Evil vs. Seeing Reductio & Contradiction:

The following is an excerpt from a discussion which has overlapping content and again notice what happens to those earlier Nonsensical Identity Claims of A2 through H2

Begin Excerpt From Discussion:

We can “Perceive/See” Evil via Evil as a Privation of Good and the reason why is because “Privation” entails “Being Minus Something” (so to speak). In other words that which in fact Is/Has Being is “there” to “See”, its just that it is deficient. It’s missing something.

So that is “Being” as it relates to “Perception/Sight”.

But when it comes to Seeing/Perceiving that which is “Contradiction / Reductio-Ad-Absurdum” then we are dealing ((now)) with Non-Being. For example there is no such “Entity” as “Married Bachelor”. We can SPEAK OF such a “thing” but in fact it sums to “Philosophical No-Thing” as per Non-Being.

This then forces us to interact with First Person Data. We “See/Perceive” ((introspection / first person data / etc.)) in the unity of consciousness that which is i-am ((…the Intentional Self/Mind…)) and of course with the dissolution of I/Self comes the dissolution of the Mind and with that comes the dissolution of all epistemic justification. So far we have that fatal problem of “No Conscious Observer” in Being and so then also “No Self-Reports Of Perception” in Being and we make our way into Opaque Skepticism. Yes, the Skeptic is ready to embrace his final loss of all epistemic justification vis-à-vis the loss of all veracity and all truth value of all First Person Data “…for all we know…”.

That’s opaque skepticism and so that’s that. But that is not what this brief digression is about. Rather, there is another layer too often left off of the charges against the Opaque Skeptic. And that is as follows:

First, the Opaque Skeptic must tell us “at some point” that he does NOT SEE/PERCEIVE i-am ((…but that’s just dishonesty…)). By that we mean the following: Because the Opaque Skeptic is offering his own, “For All “I” Know “I” Am Hallucinating or Illusion or Etc.” and so “I” is there in principle traded away for Non-Being. That is what we mean when we say that he in fact must tell us “at some point” that he does NOT SEE/PERCEIVE i-am ((…there’s more…)) and therein EQUATE what he SEES ((Being)) with something ELSE that he in fact SEES, namely the in principle possibility that he himself via “I” sums to Non-Being.

So what does that look like in practice? Well let’s unpack that:

The Opaque Skeptic must tell us that he DOES SEE/PERCEIVE the in principle possibility of the [A] married bachelor when dealing with the Identity Claim of the [B] Unmarried Bachelor. We have an equivocation there amid A vs. B such that “A = B” is a False Identity Claim, and so we have a contradiction and logical impossibility as per actual SIGHT. We find that he must tell us that he SEES the POSSIBILITY of that same “A = B” vis-à-vis an Identity Claim. Notice, however, that what he must claim to see is that which sums to Non-Being ((…either the Married Bachelor and/or the Logical Possibility of the Married Bachelor…)).

Now we take all of THAT and we apply it to the unity of consciousness and the Self. When we do that we run into that same category of the “A” = “Non-A” claim when the Opaque Skeptic is forced to interact with semantic intent (Language) as it applies to the “YOU” telling folks of one’s own Self-Report all about one’s own First Person Data ((…”I/”Me”/”My”…)). What the Opaque Skeptic must do is to find something ELSE besides “Irreducible-I-AM” to in fact BE the “Stand In” for the [A] the Intentional-Self / I-AM and so, then, he somehow ((per his own claim)) must assure us that said [A] is going to in principle possibly be that which is, say, [B] Gravity ((…or ANY “X” for which our First Person Semantic Intent of I/Me/My does not fit or capture….)).

But to “See/Perceive” that Equivocation is to “See/Perceive” what just is a False-Identity Claim which is to NOT ONLY DENY what IS SEEN ((…First Person Experience/Data via i-am…)) but it is ALSO the claim to in fact SEE the in principle possibility of that “A = Non-A”. But that just is to claim to See/Perceive Non-Being, which is a Metaphysical Impossibility.

As for lower case being/i-am, well there is the Upper Case Being/I-AM and the Principle of Proportionate Causality ((…see the quote/definition below…)) by which to get FROM the Upper Case and TO the lower case. Being From Being. Sight From Sight. Truth From Truth.

It’s uncanny but notice that as Living / Thinking / Reasoning / Perceiving Beings / Minds there was never a time where we PRE-Supposed ANY-thing. Rather, all we did as Living / Thinking / Reasoning / Perceiving Beings / Minds was simply look ahead of us and chased after Evidence/Sight as we placed our foot down upon whatever Stepping Stone happened to show up out in front of us every step of the way.

To SEE/PERCEIVE Evil ((Privation / Being Minus Something)) is possible. To SEE/PERCEIVE Reductio/Contradiction is to see/perceive Non-Being and that is gibberish. When the Skeptic says he sees “it” we simply shrug and say “See what? Where?” And his silence will end all debate. Well, except for the part where he himself must claim to NOT-BE. Wait… For… It… The Nonsensical Identity Claims of A2 through H2 are in fact found trading away Being for Non-Being ((…a metaphysical impossibility…)).

Principle of Proportionate Causality:

“The idea is perhaps best stated in Platonic terms of the sort Aquinas uses (in an Aristotelianized form) in the Fourth Way. To be a tree or to be a stone is merely to participate in “treeness” or “stoneness.” But to be at all – which is the characteristic effect of an act of creation out of nothing – is to participate in Being Itself. Now the principle of proportionate causality tells us that whatever is in an effect must be in some way in its cause. And only that which just is Being Itself can, in this case, be a cause proportionate to the effect, since the effect is not merely to be a tree or to be a stone, but to be at all. So only God – who just is pure actuality or Being Itself rather than a being among others – can cause a thing to exist ex nihilo….” ((…from https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-without-second.html...))

End Excerpt From Discussion.

The essay “The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic” by James N. Anderson and Greg Welty is at https://www.proginosko.com/docs/The_Lord_of_Non-Contradiction.pdf and is 22 pages long. A brief excerpt offers context and segues of obvious relevance here is below. Recall first that it’s only an excerpt and also recall that the Pains of Platonism fail to do the necessary work here for the reasons described in https://metachristianity.com/platonism-and-be-ing-and-do-ing-and-pure-act-and-counterfactuals-and-moral-facts/ — Here’s the excerpt from Anderson and Welty’s argument for God from Logic:

“….In any case, the laws of logic couldn’t be our thoughts — or the thoughts of any other contingent being for that matter — for as we’ve seen, the laws of logic exist necessarily if they exist at all. For any human person S, S might not have existed, along with S’s thoughts. The Law of Non-Contradiction, on the other hand, could not have failed to exist — otherwise it could have failed to be true. If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind….. The laws of logic are necessary truths about truths; they are necessarily true propositions. Propositions are real entities, but cannot be physical entities – they are essentially thoughts. So the laws of logic are necessarily true thoughts. ((…recall the failures of Platonism…)) Since they are true in every possible world, they must exist in every possible world. But if there are necessarily existent thoughts, there must be a necessarily existent mind; and if there is a necessarily existent mind, there must be a necessarily existent person. A necessarily existent person must be spiritual in nature, because no physical entity exists necessarily. Thus, if there are laws of logic, there must also be a necessarily existent, personal, spiritual being. The laws of logic imply the existence of God….”

Notice again that regardless of one’s “….metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility…” it is the case that “Getting In Behind/Beneath Oneself” is not coherent such that our earlier D2 “X Is Subject To X” akin to our earlier E2 “X Is Beneath X” are metaphysical impossibilities when we speak of ANY “Fundamental Nature” and for all the same reasons we here again find that “We Mean To Apply Logic’s Force To Pre-Logic” is again incoherent. “Presupposition” is not possible UNLESS and UNTIL the Critic can coherently pull-off those earlier/aforementioned A2 through H2. But of course the Non-Theist cannot pull-off those Nonsensical Identity Claims. It is not clear what our Non-Theist friends mean with respect to Reason/Mind when they accuse the Christian of Pre-Supposing by getting in Pre-Being and getting in Pre-Mind and getting in Pre-Reason and getting in Pre-Perception vis-à-vis getting in Pre-The-Intentional Self. The principle of proportionate causality, the metaphysic of Being Itself, and the fallacy of Presuppositionalism are perhaps segues into ((…or out of…)) the following:

“The most basic pedagogical decision to make in presenting the doctrine of the Trinity is whether to begin the exposition with the temporal missions and reason back from them to the eternal processions, or whether to take the opposite approach, beginning rather with the eternal processions and then working out and down to the temporal missions. Both procedures have much to commend them.” (Fred Sanders: The Triune God – New Studies in Dogmatics)

We know that whether we speak of Presentism or whether we speak of Eternalism it is the case either way that Time is neither the Absolute nor the absolute reference frame nor the Absolute’s Own Reference Frame. The Absolute’s frame of reference cannot even in principle *be* Self-Explanatory unless and until the Absolute is in fact Self-Referencing. We also know by both reason and logic that at the end of all explanatory termini we are forced into either A. final absurdity or else B. the Self-Explanatory in and of and by the Absolute’s Reference Frame, which must by necessity be Self-Reference and the reason why is found in both the necessity of Totality and in the necessity of Identity as each reveals (….forces else reductio ad absurdum…) all over again that the Absolute’s frame of reference cannot even in principle *be* Self-Explanatory unless and until the Absolute is in fact Self-Referencing — which is a metaphysical absurdity but for the Triune God who meets us in Genesis.

The I AM identity: There is no frame of reference for “Self” but for the fact of “Other”, as the Absolute’s Self-Reference presses in through the eons of the “I AM” traversing history:

“….. we are forced to conclude that these are relational qualities and have no meaning in isolation. In other words, in God, qualities of personality can be actualized only if there is an actual, eternal relationship in him prior to, outside of, and without reference to creation. Only in that way would God be a personal being without being dependent on his creation. When Moses asked God for his name, the answer he got was least expected: I AM (Ex. 3:14). This amazing mystery of the name (identity) of God solves a problem that we may not always be aware of: God is his own frame of reference. We have already considered the fact that the infinite cannot be defined with reference to the finite. God, therefore, must be self-referencing. This would be an absurd proposition but for the fact that, in the being of God, there is a plurality of infinite persons and each can define himself with reference to the other. God can truly be said to be self-existent only because he is the all-personal, all-relational being…” (L. T. Jeyachandran)

Truth-Telling When Reporting First Person DATA

Truth-Telling vs. Sight – Part 1 We must not conflate [A] Negative Theology or terms like that which speak of truths over the horizon that we cannot see for [B1] Contradictions and Absurdity and that [B2] is the “Brute Fact” which lives in [B1] simply because it is a member of category called the Reductio Ad Absurdum which we find over inside of “Not Intelligible Even In Principle” ((…see https://metachristianity.com/platonism-and-be-ing-and-do-ing-and-pure-act-and-counterfactuals-and-moral-facts/ as well as its section for “Similar content with segues from E. Feser”…)). Both “A” and “B” are different categories all together such that “A = B” ends in a false identity claim. Equating Mailbox to Self is not a problem of something being out of our range of sight. Rather, it is a problem of Truth-Telling and dishonesty as per Contradiction and Absurdity given the fact that one cannot “see” “non-being” and so therefore the claim to “see” the “in principle possibility” of “round squares” just is to claim to “see” Non-Being. When it comes to “that” “sight” there comes a point when the person making such a claim cannot claim to be doing anything more than, well, Lying.

Truth-Telling vs. Sight – Part 2 It is a straightforward discussion regarding “First Person Data” and “Third Person Data” vis-à-vis the intended meaning when the Experienced Self is report in the First Person and that self-report uses the terms “I” and “I-Intend” and so on. We find that those terms reduce to contradiction when we replace “I” and “Intention” and “I-Reason” and “I-Think” and i-am and finally “i” with terms that cannot house the intended property under review which of course is DATA but not Third Person DATA. Instead the DATA is exactly what the label referents, namely it is First Person Data. When we speak of Truth-Telling here we can recall the obvious fact that “YOU” ((…say, the person reading this and who only a few days ago upon introspection pondered how a particular movie would end…)) are not “The Self-Report” given when “YOU” speak of “I wonder what how the movie will end….” Just as “YOU” ((…still the person reading this, who, a few days ago upon introspection pondered how a particular movie would end…)) are not “The Language” and “YOU” are not “The Premises/Syllogisms”. If “You” “reason about X” well then premises with respect to X are not “identical” to “You”. We have there then the simple fact that “A” is not “B” with respect to the intended property under review.

Truth-Telling vs. Sight – Part 3 Truth-Telling in these preliminary steps of language and semantic intent sets the stage for moving into what the Language is “ABOUT” and of course “aboutness” will at some point arrive in our self-reports regarding First Person Data vis-à-vis Intention as one of the many intended properties under review. Our Self-Reports are of course, at first, “Language” but we must recall that there are Meaning Makers which necessarily precede and underlay all of our language given that “language” is ONLY a carrier of something ELSE – namely what turns out to be, in the end, HARD DATA vis-à-vis the Experienced-Self. Regarding “Language Games” perhaps Wittgenstein can help as per “Goodill on Scholastic Metaphysics and Wittgenstein” at Ed Feser’s blog via https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/12/goodill-on-scholastic-metaphysics-and.html

An Interesting Title: “Against Pure A-Priori-ism“

The A-Priori A brief segue related to A-Priori from the following excerpt of “Against Pure A-Priori-ism” at https://theologiansinc.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/against-pure-a-priori-ism/

The core of Russell’s argument comes down to this: ‘All of our justified everyday empirical and scientific beliefs are justified either because they rest on the principle of induction or on the principle of IBE.’ For Rusell, both induction and IBE are themselves justified a priori, so any belief we have by way of either is justified a priori. In order to show the falsity of Russell’s position, all that needs to be done is show that some empirical propositions are not acquired by either induction or IBE.

Here’s a more formal explication of my argument against Russell’s theory of a priori justification (R):

Either every empirical belief is justified a priori or it is not

On (R), for this to be true, every empirical belief is acquired either by induction or IBE

Not all empirical beliefs are acquired by induction or IBE

Therefore, some empirical beliefs are not justified a priori

Therefore, (R) is false

End excerpt.

All Relevant Forms Of Reasoning The book “A Manual For Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian” is reviewed by Robert L. White and White offers some interesting segues with respect to epistemological justification. His helpful review of Peter’s book is at https://www.robertlwhite.net/philosophy/manual-creating-atheists-review/ and the following are a few excerpts:

“Since I care about spreading true beliefs in the world…”

“…we are now discussing the meta problem of epistemology when dealing with Christianity vs atheism, rather than the details of arguments for God, historicity of the Bible, etc. That meta problem is probably my favorite subject….”

“Logic always wins…. You can’t escape reason. It is, indeed, the freight train coming your way. As much as you avoid it, reality is unfortunately based on, well, reality, and you are doomed and destined to rub up against…”

“All relevant forms of reasoning are on the table…”

A List Of Relevant Segues:

The above post is in part ((not all)) several excerpts from the following and so there are perhaps segues of interest in a. “A Thoroughly Trinitarian Metaphysic” at https://metachristianity.com/thoroughly-trinitarian-metaphysic/ and also in b. “Indefeasible Inner Witness, Holy Spirit, Properly Basic Belief, Solipsism, Idealism, Eliminativism, And Absolute Consciousness” at https://metachristianity.com/indefeasible-inner-witness-holy-spirit-properly-basic-belief-solipsism-idealism-eliminativism-absolute-consciousness/