Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity

MetaChristianity

Love, Reason, Reality, And The Golden Thread of Reciprocity:

The only disclaimer or forewarning is simply that the choice of wording here is going to be intentionally repetitive with respect to just why and how it is that reason (…on the one hand…) and morality (…on the other hand…) either succeed in finding singularity or else fail in finding singularity. The metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility reveals – given the Christian’s thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic – love’s timeless reciprocity and reason’s final felicity in the ontological singularity that is the Trinitarian Life and in fact nothing less than the *singular* metaphysical wellspring of Love and Necessity will do as we press in upon all possible contours here. The topographic map which results with respect to *that* – with respect to Possibility’s express Fountainhead – sums to the singular rational/moral landscape of the triune. The occasionally repetitive syntax is used so that at *each* step through our progression we are forced to recall – and include – each claim along the way.

Reason in her proper role as truth-finder is obligated to chase after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is. The rational with respect to reason as truth-finder cannot be ontologically seamless with the moral given the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Given the No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (….given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals…) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

She (…reason…) in her proper role as truth-finder is obligated to chase after what *is*, after *facts* and justifiably so. As such the Non-Theists Hume, (physicist) Sean Carroll, Alex Rosenberg, Michael Ruse, and countless others find no obligation on reason’s part to prefer, chase after, the scratching of one’s finger over the destruction of the world. That is to say that the “morally *un*-reasonable” is, simply, impossible given the No-God paradigm’s appeal to the metaphysically absurd concept of ontological cul-de-sacs wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is – at bottom – illusory.

There again we find that in any No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

Whereas the Trinitarian processions of love’s timeless self-outpouring find that the rational with respect to reason as truth-finder is in fact ontologically seamless with the moral. Therein (to borrow a phrase from Feser) “….what reason therein apprehends is (given the convertibility of the transcendentals) as good and beautiful as it is real….”. The triune God presents us with the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum which of course presents reason with reality’s irreducible substratum.

Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism. The Golden Thread of Reciprocity is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility in order to claim her given that in that paradigm irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Whereas, in the pursuit of coherent definitions with respect to the fundamental nature of reality it is the Christian metaphysic whereby reason affirms that the “A” and the “Z” of reality in fact carries the rational mind into an ethic of irreducible and self-giving reciprocity – such that it is the case that “GOD” or “Ultimate Reality” is in fact love. An immutable and cruciform love housed within the ceaseless and Self-Giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum vis-à-vis Infinite Consciousness logically forces an unavoidable reductio ad deum. Such contours carry reason towards reality’s irreducible substratum within love’s timeless reciprocity amid those uncanny Trinitarian processions housed in “Being Itself”.

Self-Giving with respect to “Being Itself” forces our hand. The “term” and “definition” with respect to “GOD” thereby referents, in fact, nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum:

“…..the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness….” (D.B. Hart)

That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”.

Ontological Cul-De-Sacs Sum To Nonsense On Stilts:

Paradigmatically speaking – once again the Christian metaphysic thereby constitutes a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism and in fact we find – once again that the attempt to “add” to any Non-Theistic paradigm’s irreducible substratum – ad infinitum – attempts a metaphysical absurdity whereby irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference such that the convertibility of the transcendentals which reason apprehends is finally illusory.

“The West’s liberal ideals in a secular/atheist framework are practically mysticism. This idea of a “fundamental human right” in a [Non-Theistic] context is, as Bentham stated, “nonsense on stilts.” ……..for all the times that I am accused of cognitive dissonance, which I may be guilty of, I cannot imagine living under the volume of cognitive dissonance in saying incidental meat robots called humans have “fundamental human rights”……” (G.M.)

Humanity’s general consensus on several fundamentals is expected given natural theology. The problem with Non-Theism is that it sees The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity but it cannot connect it to reason’s obligation in her (reason’s) role as truth-finder (….see Oderberg and what he terms the fundamental test or the primary criterion of the moral a few paragraphs down…).

Within any Non-Theistic substratum it is the case that reason, will, appetites, and reality find no irreducible moral nature to chase after, to fulfill, to reason towards. Non-Theistic maps of all kinds lack any such ontic-terminus and are – painfully – therefore eternally open-ended. All Non-Theistic definitions stream – ad infinitum – from a metaphysical bedrock within which reason is found attempting the metaphysical absurdity of irreducible self-giving trading on irreducible indifference and the final sum of that irrationality is nothing less than a kind of ontic-psychosis in that the convertibility of the transcendentals which reason apprehends is finally illusory and ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

Whereas, within the Christian metaphysic it is the aggregation of logical compulsory moves which carries reason (….in her proper roles as truth-finder….)into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic constituting the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum as nothing less than Being Itself presents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of love’s indestructible reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reasonitself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.

Reason as truth finder has every (justified) prerogative to chase after reality *as*reality. Given the non-Theistic paradigm, the rational is (…therein…) perfectly seamless with the (…non…) moral. Enter the “ontic non-entity” of the Non-Theist’s blind-epistemic which he labels “sociopath”. Whereas: Love’s timeless self-giving in and of Trinitarian processions awaits reason at the ends of all vectors (….given the Triune God…) such that should reason chase after some other constitution amid “one-another”, some other form or procession or contour, she would then be (…factually…) contra–reason, or factually *un*reasonable. The irreducible rationalis (…therein…) perfectly seamless with the irreducibly moral.

Non-Obligation:

Regarding the pains of Non-Theism’s eternally open ended teleology vis-à-vis “goal” (…yes – it is true – as that statement reveals the absurd….), see Oderberg’s fundamental test or primary criterion of the moral a few paragraphs down.

The Non-Theist’s explanatory terminus is eternally open ended. And irreducibly indifferent. And reason knows it which is where the problem is found for the Non-Theistic paradigm given that she (…reason…) has an appetite for facts.

Obligation:

Reason is obligated (…in her fact-role as truth-finder…) to chase after *facts*, after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is.

Reason presses forward:

The unavoidable result is that while the facts measured in all of the Non-Theist’s various metrics are real, they do not (…cannot…) change the fundamental fact which Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, Ruse, and a growing tide of younger, more honest, gutsier New Non-Theists eager to get to the point affirm with respect to the fundamental nature of objective truth, the rational, and what is and is not contrary to reason. Any notion of supposed ultimate/cosmic worth of any self or any notion of any reach of any justice inside of a universe devoid of (…ontic…)moral facts, devoid of the triune’s irreducible and fundamental processions constituting love’s timeless self-giving is, simply put, “…nonsense on stilts…“

That a few Non-Theists hold out and try to disagree with Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, Ruse, and that growing tide of younger, nervier Non-Theists with respect to the nature of reason and reality is interesting, though the premises and arguments of the hold-outs are not nearly as cogent as the crisp intellectual honesty seen in that bolder current.

Therefore it would be helpful if the hold-outs highlight some of the arguments of Rosenberg, Ruse, Hume, and Carroll in charitable form and then demonstrate where they fall down regarding the fundamental nature of reason and reality. We’d enjoy reading the hold-out’s demonstrations of where those rather bright fellas go off the rails.

That’s enough here as the best and brightest of the Non-Theists have already done the Christian’s work for him.

Hence we need not even introduce the thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic of the Christian nor love’s timeless reciprocity therein which constitutes reality’s irreducible substratum. Nor the fact that we find reason in her proper role as truth-finder factually obligated to chase after the fundamental nature of X (…which is *always* the case…) where X is the only (…morally…) reasonable option – namely that unique substratum of love’s irreducible nature.

Of course reason is *free* to chase some *other* end, only, then she will have ceased in her (proper) role as truth-finder (… contra-reason….) and will then have chased after the factually (…and morally…) *un*-reasonable.

Reason qua Reason:

Non-Theist: “Religious people: Imagine I could have full access to your brain and was able to compare your hidden thoughts, desires, etc to that of a “nonbeliever”. Are you confident that there would be much of a difference?” ((https://twitter.com/AlchemistNon/status/1327766054731472896?s=20))

Christian Reply: The only difference between the First-Adam & another First-Adam would be some Second Something. Beware of the premise that an Atheist exhibiting Good is an event which lays claim to Good. If The-Good is real then “it” is “it” regardless of many and varied bell-curved-permutations in us. Should Reason discover Reality’s Concrete Furniture to be nothing less than Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving in/as Being Itself ((The Trinitarian Life)) — well then the “Rational” at once becomes seamless with the “Moral”. That is “where” and “how” and “why” Irreducible Praxis ((Act)) is seamless with Irreducible Moral Fact ((Being)). Anything less is contrived, arbitrary, and remains subject to Hume’s observation that Reason finds no Moral Fact to which she ((Reason)) is obligated ((in her proper role as Reason qua Reason)). Conversely, again, should Reason discover Reality’s Concrete Furniture to be nothing less than Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving in/as Being Itself ((The Trinitarian Life)) — well then the “Rational” at once becomes seamless with the “Moral” and we find the following in Reason’s Terminus of both Being & Satisfaction as a metaphysical singularity — namely:

MORAL OBLIGATION: We eventually arrive at that which is Irreducible — Ontological — and whatever THAT is will be the fact of the matter such that Reason will have found her Terminus of Closure. Should said Terminus in fact be Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Being Itself vis-à-vis The Trinitarian Life then — and only then — do we arrive at The Moral and The Rational as a Metaphysical Singularity and that arrives as nothing other than Logic||Love vis-à-vis Reason||Reciprocity vis-à-vis “…the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility…” ((…to borrow from David Bentley Hart…)).

Note again what Reason actually “is” — Reason “qua” Reason just is Obligatory Satisfaction vis-à-vis Irreducible Truth. Note that in “Man” within Non-Theism’s paradigm we find Being and Nature and Act/Praxis within the arbitrary contrivances of [Biology/Sociology/Psychology] + Hard-Stop. That is the best autohypnosis Non-Theism/Atheism can offer us and it will — every time — ultimately mis–diagnose both good and pathology and thereby mis–prescribe both goal and treatment. Indeed the fact of Being + Act or of Good + Praxis cannot rationally start/stop “there”. Notice that the layers there are valid — but not fundamental — not irreducible — and ((…sadly for Non-Theism’s hopes…)) our semantic intent must (eventually) traverse both Being + Act, both Good + Praxis.

Metaphysical Naturalism is eternally open ended regarding “Man” and therein there is no ontological Closure ~ and so no Perfection of Being ~ and so too no rational terminus for Praxis/Act. ANY Moral Ontology which begins and ends within the cul-de-sac of physics we call the brainstem is necessarily circular and arbitrary. Reason in her proper role as truth-finder has not yet ((in that cul-de-sac)) come upon the immutable and irreducible. Hence Reason finds no *obligation* regarding ANY semantic intent vis-à-vis “The Fundamental Nature of X”.

Reason “qua” Reason just is “Obligatory Satisfaction” vis-à-vis “Irreducible Truth” and by that we mean something like the following as we traverse ((..and we must traverse…)) both Pure Act and Being Itself:

When Irreducible Praxis (Act) is seamless with Irreducible Good (Being) then, and only then, Closure displaces Circularity. Anything less is contrived, arbitrary, and remains subject to Hume’s observation that Reason finds no Moral Fact to which she (Reason) is obligated. Regarding Moral Fact we find that Moral Obligation just is Reason’s Obligation vis-à-vis the aforementioned Praxis/Act and Good/Being.

Therein we come upon the following:

Timeless Reciprocity vis-à-vis

Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis

Being Itself vis-à-vis

The Trinitarian Life

Our Map takes all of that and then adds slightly paraphrased content from Twitter’s @TDisputations with the following:

Begin Paraphrase:

“The assumption that good is subjective depends on the assumption that all that exists are these limited forms of what would be the universal concept of the good, and that the universal concept of the good isn’t instantiated in a being.”

“God is necessary for objective morality because goods with only a finite power to allure us cannot be a sufficient motivation for us to act (by definition). You ought to do what will make you happy, and if there is a highest good that contains all goods, and perfectly allures you toward it, then it is the only thing that can give you perfect happiness. It’s the only thing that can fulfill all of your desires. A perfect good wouldn’t only be a particular good, but it would be a universal good. In the same way the concept of a dog in some way represents all dogs, the good itself in some way represents all goods. Anything you can desire will be found in the perfect good, and so it would be foolish to act against it. These other goods such as money, sex, etc. are only a limited form of this good. The perfect good doesn’t lack any of the good that is in sex, or money, or love, but it has all of those perfectly. The assumption that good is subjective depends on the assumption that all that exists are these limited forms of what would be the universal concept of the good, and that the universal concept of the good isn’t instantiated in a being. The concept of good itself applies to all of the different forms of good, and so it contains in a sense all goodness. So, if the good itself were to exist, it would be sufficient to satisfy all of our desires. Universal good is at least in our concepts because the concept of good in general applies to all goods, and the concept of good itself applies to all of the different forms of good, and so it contains in a sense all goodness. So, if the good itself were to exist, it would be sufficient to satisfy all of our desires, and if that concept is instantiated, then that’s what we call God. And, we desire God over all other things necessarily because Goods have degrees of power to allure us and only the infinite good (God) would have infinite power to allure us. Only the infinite good, therefore, has the power to rationally bind us to act always and everywhere. Thus, only God can ground objective morality.”

End Paraphrase ((of Twitter’s @TDisputations)).

Our Map takes all of that and then adds this:

“….Anything that has arbitrary limits has an explanation. A thing that has no arbitrary limits is required to explain the plurality of things that have arbitrary limits. Thus, something exists that has no arbitrary limits. This thing is God….” (Cameron Bertuzzi)

Our Map once again finds that ANY Moral Ontology which begins and ends within the cul-de-sac of physics [bracketed-off] as this planet or as this or that collocation of juxtaposed brainstems is necessarily circular and arbitrary. Reason in her proper role as truth-finder has not ((in that cul-de-sac)) come upon the immutable and irreducible – and therefore Reason finds no *obligation*.

David Oderberg reminds us of Aristotle’s doctrine that all practical reasoning must ﬁnd a terminus and therein the [Rational||Moral] arrives as an ontological singularity as per the following:

A brief excerpt from Oderberg:

Assuming that the meaning of “good” in morality, at least in its most general aspect, is identical to its meaning outside morality, we must appeal to the fulﬁlment of appetite in deﬁning the fundamental test or primary criterion of moral behavior. But that cannot be the whole story, since as argued earlier, reason and will must be essentially involved in the test. So I propose that what we end up with is the following formula:

The fundamental test of morality is whether an act is directed by reason to man’s ultimate end.

Now the ultimate end is just another way of talking about the ultimate appetite or essential tendency (perhaps tendencies/appetites in the plural) the fulﬁlment of which perfects human nature.

To appeal to the ultimate end is, from the ontic point of view, to dismiss the idea that there can be an endless series of appetites, each one such that its fulﬁlment is at the same time the means to the fulﬁlment of the next one in the series, where the next one will be broader, more general or all-encompassing. To countenance the thought is effectively to deny that human beings can ever fulﬁl their natures, that they can ever be just good. Apart from the intolerable hopelessness this would inject into morality, it would involve attributing a kind of inﬁnite nature to a manifestly ﬁnite being, which verges on metaphysical absurdity. From the practical point of view, the appeal to an ultimate end is just to endorse Aristotle’s famous doctrine that all practical reasoning must ﬁnd a terminus.

End excerpt. (From the essay “All for the Good” by David S. Oderberg, which is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiebWUyV25FRFZ0UWc/view )

Aristotle’s discovery, as opposed to invention, properly orients or aims reason as truth-finder. We say “discovery, not invention” because chronological mapping of epistemological developments through history never can define ontological – metaphysical – ownership of ultimate truths. Hence morality before Sinai – because *God*. Hence morality after Sinai – because *God*. The force of law (….and that includes Sinai…) just isn’t much according to Scripture’s definitions of Moral Excellence. Of course popularity and the day’s latest fashion are all the Non-Theist’s tools will allow him and so he has got to dance to that melody within his paradigm’s continuum of eternally open-ended cascades of cosmic flux. Whereas, [1] Christianity’s metaphysic of course shows how disharmonious that “culturally normative” Non-Theistic melody truly is and [2] history itself is a good demonstration of that disharmonious-ness. Therefore Christianity, history, and reason all track together in one seamless narrative throughout all of Mankind’s painful peaks/nadirs.

The Blueprint Of All Things Adamic — The Trinitarian Life:

We are Social Beings for an ontic reason – as it is the case that our own being begins and ends within the contours of a full-on metaphysical Full-Stop as per the Necessary Being – that is to say within the contours of Being Itself. The term “Normal” and the term “Moral Excellence” cannot have a semantic intent which begins or ends outside of Reality as per Reality’s Concrete Furniture and in the Christian Metaphysic we find that we are to be the living Imago Dei created off of the Blueprint of Being Itself as Timeless Reciprocity & Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis the Trinitarian Life. The Christian Metaphysic is in the end a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic and, therein, we find that “Being” in fact “is” Being Itself in Timeless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Irreducible Diffusiveness of Being in totum. It is that Terminus at which we find The Always & The Already, that which is ceaselessly Beneath and Above – namely Timeless Reciprocity & Necessity as on Ontic Singularity – that is to say – Love & Necessity as an Ontic Singularity.

It is there that we find in the Christian metaphysic the intellectual and moral grounds for affirming the term, “Love Himself” vis-à-vis the A and the Z of the Trinitarian Life with respect to the Divine Decree of the Imago Dei and all that necessarily comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there that we find nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being – and all that comes with “that”. That is to say, it is there in nothing less than Being that we find The Always and The Already constituting Being as Timeless Reciprocity and Ceaseless Self-Giving vis-à-vis Ontic Diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum, and all that necessarily comes with “that”. Every Possible Ontic with every Possible Sentence with every Possible Syllogism are all subsumed:

It is THAT explanatory terminus which is reality’s rock-bottom, reality’s irreducible substratum – the A and the Z of every Possible Ontic, of every Possible Sentence – of all Possible Syllogisms.

Still More Discovery:

We find in the No-God paradigm (…..wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory…) that reason, will, appetites, and reality find no irreducible moral contours to chase after, to fulfill, to reason towards. Non-Theistic maps of all kinds lack any such ontic-terminus and are – painfully – therefore once again found to be eternally open-ended. Hume rightly observed that, given such tools, it is not and in fact cannot be contrary to reason (….in her proper role as truth-finder….) to prefer the destruction of the whole world over the scratching of one’s finger. Hume was right after all. And Carroll, Ruse, and Rosenberg with him.

Again: It would be helpful if the proverbial Non-Theistic hold-outs highlight some of the arguments of Rosenberg, Ruse, Hume, and Carroll in charitable form and then demonstrate where they fall down regarding the fundamental nature of reason and reality.

The Golden Thread of Reciprocity:

Non-Theism’s appeals to mutable perfection (….”god”….) seems odd. As does Non-Theism’s eternally open-ended “goal” (…”good”…). Precision is a priority here and so “odd” is not the right word. A better term would be either [1] metaphysical impossibility or perhaps [2] absurdity. As we move farther downstream – or upstream depending on one’s approach – the necessary transcendentals which the Non-Theist finds himself in need of are not convertible in his attempt at an “ontic-cul-de-sac”. Why? Because there are no such realities as ontological cul-de-sacs. In various fictions perhaps there are but not in the real word as we actually find it, such “ontology” is – being committed to this or that cul-de-sac – finally illusory.

The eternally open ended teleology of Non-Theism is forever just a few steps removed from successfully obligating reason (…in her fact-role of truth-finder…)should she disagree with Goal-X. Non-Theism has not overcome Hume’s (…and so on…) rational refutation of the morally *un*reasonable. Reason finds no obligation to chase after the illusory and therein “…useful but not true…” is all that “emerges”. Why? Because, given the nature of cul-de-sacs, that is all that *can* emerge with respect to reality’s irreducible substratum. Of course, even there the employment of the term “useful” again begs the question but, as that is all Non-Theism has to work with, there’s no need to press the point.

Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in the Christian’s metaphysic. The Golden Thread of Reciprocity is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility as irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory.

Reason is obligated (…in her fact-role as truth-finder…) to chase after *facts*, after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is.

Within the Christian metaphysic it is the aggregation of logically compulsory moves which carries reason (….in her proper roles as truth-finder….) into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic constituting the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum as nothing less than Being Itselfpresents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of love’s indestructible reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reasonitself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.

The Irreducibly Objective Moral Ontology:

Just as it is necessarily true that “Being Itself” cannot be “just a little bit less” than infinite with respect to God ←→ Miracles (…as in “a bit too much” of GOD© or as in “not quite enough” of GOD©…), in the same way it is necessarily true that “Being Itself” cannot be “just a little bit less” than irreducible objectivity.

The metaphysical fountainhead of all possibility that just is reality’s irreducible substratum ultimately forces all definitions and, for painfully obvious reasons, the rational with respect to reason as truth-finder cannot be ontologically seamless with the moral given the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Given the No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (….given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals…) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

Whereas, there is a metaphysic which is far more robust and lucid which is found housing not only far more explanatory power but which is also found successfully traversing the vast Oceans of Reason Itself without ever coming upon that fateful Edge of Non-Theism’s Flat World there at the End of Reason Itself. Therein the annihilation of reason follows hard on the heels of love’s annihilation as we press in, and that just won’t do.

Whereas, the rational mind seeks to prize and retain reason itself, even as the rational mind seeks to prize and retain logic itself, even as the rational mind seeks to prize and retain love itself, and – just the same – the rational mind finds – discovers – all such currents streaming from that metaphysical fountainhead of all possibility that just is reality’s irreducible substratum. As it turns out, a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic emerges.

Moving Towards A Necessary Ontological Singularity:

Reason’s obligation – in her proper role as truth-finder – is to chase after the fundamental nature of X – whatever X may be – and that directly relates to this or that paradigm and whether or not, in fact, the irreducibly rational is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly moral.

Any convergence of vectors in a metaphysical epicenter or fountainhead of irreducible Self-Giving vis-a-vis the Ontic-Self in totum reveals that the irreducibly rational is ontologically seamless with the irreducibly moral. There we will discover reason’s obligation in her proper role as truth-finder. For clarity: Reason is not obligated to chase after the illusory “qua” Truth. Why? Simply because of the fact that the metaphysical absurdity of ontological cul-de-sacs just won’t do when what is necessary and sufficient sums to reality’s ontological continuum. Self-Giving with respect to “Being Itself” forces our hand. The “term” / “definition” with respect to “GOD” / “Being Itself” thereby referents nothing less than the immutable love of the Necessary Being vis-à-vis love’s timeless and self-giving diffusiveness of the Ontic-Self in totum.

“…..the cross of Christ does not determine the nature of divine love, but rather manifests it, because there is a more original outpouring of God that – without needing to submit itself to the order of sacrifice that builds crosses – always already surpasses every abyss of godforsakenness and pain that sin can impose between the world and God: an outpouring that is in its proper nature indefectible happiness….” (D.B. Hart)

That is the proverbial umbrella beneath which all other definitions in fact live and move and have – obtain – their “being”. In the Christian’s thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic it is the case that the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility reveals love’s timeless reciprocity and reason’s final felicity in an ontological singularity. Nothing less than the *singular* metaphysical wellspring of Love
and Necessity will do as we press in upon all possible contours here and the topographic map of that very Wellspring just is Meta-Christianity.

The *Why* of Morality – The *Reason* of Morality:

The Objectively Moral comes with and in and by the Objectively Rational, through the seamless singularity of The-True and The-Good, that is to say, through the seamless singularity of The-Rational and The-Moral.

As in:

Reason’s lack of any obligation to chase after the illusory “qua” Truth as per Hume stands intact given any Non-Theistic paradigm. That tends to be an arena which a large percentage of our Non-Theist friends are too timid to enter into given the fact that the phrase “morally un-reasonable” sums to a metaphysical absurdity.

Convertibility: We begin to discover just why it is the case that the rational with respect to reason as truth-finder cannot be ontologically seamless with the moralgiven the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Given the No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend there in that golden thread of reciprocity is (….given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals…)ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.

The irreducible substratum of love’s timeless Self-Giving in and by and through those uncanny Trinitarian processions finds the The Always and The Alreadycompelling the convertibility of the transcendentals even as it is there alone where we find that the irreducibly Moral is in fact ontologically seamless with the irreducibly Rational. All such contours relate to Reason herself in her proper role as truth-finder and her obligation to chase after The True which in and by and through the convertibility of the transcendentals is to chase after The Good.

The “why-of-morality” is found in the necessarily rational, in reality’s irreducible substratum, in that which sums to nothing less than that uncanny metaphysical singularity wherein The-Rational is ontologically seamless with The-Moral. Hume gets it right and observes that the Rational itself, that Reason herself, finds no necessary amalgamation with any claim of Moral, of Good, and thereby rationally prefers any goal to any other goal as there cannot be, even in principle, the morally unreasonable. For clarity once again: Nothing less than the *singular*metaphysical wellspring of Love and Necessity will do as we press in upon all possible contours here and the topographic map of that very Wellspring just is Meta-Christianity. The red herring so often injected here by our Non-Theist friends is “….but disagreement exists…!!” Rather, the point is the fact that we believe that some things really are right/good and some things really are wrong/bad a – contraHume, as in:

“-Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)

An Observation on Monism, Dualism, and Moral metrics:

Granting Monism or Dualism to the Non-Theist is easy enough. Consider it done.

We observe, then, that our Non-Theist friends have *not*, with said grant, managed to fund the problem of closing any moral loop. In other words, short of “Love and Necessity” in singularity we still lack the means to close any moral loop as at some ontological seam somewhere any such paradigm will – finally – do to the Self and to Love and thereby to The Good what Pantheism in fact does to them. The narrative of love and of necessity in all such paradigms is one where we find two X’s which are forever disparate as the two fail to precede, define, and outdistance all other lines in and by and through their own metaphysical singularity/unicity.

It is catastrophic. Love will lack the Necessary, or, the Necessary will lack Love. The rational mind demands lucidity through and through and we find that Necessity void of love’s necessary content arrives on scene at some ontological seam somewhere and such lovelessness just won’t do.

We error to assume the whole of morality is a thorough-going intentionality. It isn’t.

Intention, even it emerges, just won’t do the work of obligating reason to chase after love’s topography. Hume stands undefeated in all such granting-of-wishes as “The Good” presses in as to what reason is and is not obligated to chase after for reason’s role is Truth and should the end of Truth fail to land in the lap of Self-Giving – Full Stop (….we’ll leave it to folks to find the necessary contents of love’s “Self-Giving” in their Necessary X’s rather than their Contingent X’s….) – then – again for obvious reasons – Hume stands undefeated.

That said, many Non-Theists claim all sorts of things about their mathematical models and what they can account for, but there’s been no one so far who successfully traverses that ocean short of equivocating somewhere between “upstream” and “downstream” in a logical impossibility aimed at inventing a kind of ontological cul-de-sac. Sean Carroll’s syntax roles on quite strong in his Poetic Naturalism only to gently slip into the illusory syntax of useful-but-not-true.

Metaphysical Armistice:

All such Non-Theistic paradigms finally or cosmically leave us within what just is a metaphysical armistice amid eternally colliding ontological equals and thereby we’ve no means by which to find any (ontic) moral *distinction*. “Being” is conceived of as “….a plain upon which forces of meaning and meaninglessness converge in endless war; according to either, being is known in its oppositions, and oppositions must be overcome or affirmed, but in either case as violence….”

David Bentley Hart describes such views and notes that – on simplicity – on beauty – on goodness – it is not “Totality”, nor is it “Chaos”, nor is it distinction achieved only by violence among converging ontological equals, but rather it is the compositions of the triune where all vectors of being ultimately converge. “Nietzsche prophesied correctly: what now always lies ahead is a choice between Dionysus (who is also Apollo) and the Crucified: between, that is, the tragic splendor of totality and the inexhaustible beauty of an infinite love.”

His book, “The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth” in part explores such contours. A brief excerpt:

Quote:

Within Christian theology there is a thought – a story – of the infinite that is also the thought – the story – of beauty; for pagan philosophy and culture, such a confluence of themes was ultimately unthinkable. Even Plotinian Neoplatonism, which brought the Platonic project to its most delightful completion by imagining infinity as an attribute of the One, was nonetheless compelled to imagine the beauty of form as finally subordinate to a formless and abstract simplicity, devoid of internal relation, diminished by reduction to particularity, polluted by contact with matter’s “absolute evil”; nor could later Neoplatonism very comfortably allow that the One was also infinite being, but typically placed being only in the second moment of emanation, not only because the One, if it were also Being, would constitute a bifid form, but because being is always in some sense contaminated by or open to becoming, to movement, and thus is, even in the very splendor of its overflow, also a kind of original contagion, beginning as an almost organic ferment in the noetic realm and ending in the death of matter.

Christian thought – whose infinite is triune, whose God became incarnate, and whose account of salvation promises not liberation from, but glorification of, material creation – can never separate the formal particularity of beauty from the infinite it announces, and so tells the tale of being in a way that will forever be a scandal to the Greeks. For their parts, classical “metaphysics” [rather than rigorous metaphysics] and postmodernism belong to the same story; each, implying or repeating the other, conceives being as a plain upon which forces of meaning and meaninglessness converge in endless war; according to either, being is known in its oppositions, and oppositions must be overcome or affirmed, but in either case as violence: amid the strife of images and the flow of simulacra, shining form appears always only as an abeyance of death, fragile before the convulsions of chaos, and engulfed in fate. There is a specular infinity in mutually defining opposites: Parmenides and Heracleitos gaze into one another’s eyes, and the story of being springs up between them; just as two mirrors set before one another their depths indefinitely, repeating an opposition that recedes forever along an illusory corridor without end, seeming to span all horizons and contain all things, the dialectic of Apollo and Dionysus oscillates without resolution between endless repetitions of the same emptiness, the same play of reflection and inversion. But the true infinite lies outside and all about this enclosed universe of strife and shadows; it shows itself as beauty and as light: not totality, nor again chaos, but the music of a triune God. Nietzsche prophesied correctly: what now always lies ahead is a choice between Dionysus (who is also Apollo) and the Crucified: between, that is, the tragic splendor of totality and the inexhaustible beauty of an infinite love.

End quote.

Non-Theistic means and ends (….be they non-theistic evolution or any otherlandscape….) lands in the eternally-open-ended and therefore the syntax of goal/closure is unintelligible as that same eternally open-ended landscape finally void of Being vis-à-vis Self-Giving in fact built *all* epigenetic/genetic memes – bothreligious and non-religious – Hard Stop. Every permutation. Every combination. The Net Sum: metaphysical armistice – eternally colliding ontological equals – Hard Stop.

All such Non-Theistic paradigms finally or cosmically leave us within what just is a metaphysical armistice amid eternally colliding ontological equals and thereby we’ve no means by which to find irreducible, ontic, moral *distinction*. “Being” is conceived of as “….a plain upon which forces of meaning and meaninglessness converge in endless war; according to either, being is known in its oppositions, and oppositions must be overcome or affirmed, but in either case as violence….”

Whereas, in the Christian metaphysic we discover factual – metaphysically necessary – differences between The Good and various deficiencies thereof even as we discover such nuances as, say, the fact that to whom nothing is given, nothing is required, to whom little is given little is asked, to whom much is given much is required, and that, say, forgiveness is tied into not-knowing. All of that and far more which continues to arrive on scene is far more coherent than what Non-Theism brings to the table here.

A Second Observation on Monism, Dualism, and Moral Metrics:

Locating the irreducibly objective moral fact is not complicated when one does not have to try to find a pretend line in the sand where there is in fact no line to find. There’s a reason morality precedes Sinai just as there is a reason morality outdistances Sinai – and – should our Non-Theist friends embrace thatunmistakable truth of Scripture they will find that, then, that same reason doing real, actual “ontic-work” throughout the rest of reality’s metanarrative as well.

With respect to the Non-Theist’s “re-defining” of “Being Itself / GOD” into something akin to “a subjective thought” or into something akin to “a thought floating in space” as opposed to what the term actually referents vis-à-vis the irreducibly objective reality of nothing less than Being Itself, and with respect to [A] monism vs. [B] dualism, it becomes apparent that the factually objective finds no complete explanation of all things Adamic in the trails and footprints of particle cascades. Even if we assume a Theistic Monism that is the case for there too what is in those footprints fails to provide a lucid stopping point. That is to say that even in Monism – if God – then also there will always come that seam at which some contour within us or of us travels beyond us in order to find closure. Not that we affirm Monism, but, rather, that is only mentioned to point out that our Non-Theist friends sometimes assume that their own Non-Theistic brand of Monism can provide something other than that finally illusory “useful but not true” which finds its way into the syntax of “reality” (…on the one hand…) and “reason” in her role as truth-finder (…on the other hand…) vis-à-vis, say, Sean Carroll’s Poetic Naturalism or into, say, the moral termini of Hume with whom Carroll agrees as we juxtapose them here:

“The lack of an ultimate objective scientific grounding for morality can be worrisome. It implies that people with whom we have moral disagreements—whether it’s […name any evil player…] or schoolyard bullies who beat up smaller children — aren’t wrong in the same sense that it’s wrong to deny Darwinian evolution or the expansion of the universe….But that’s how the world is…….. Hume was right. We have no objective guidance on how to distinguish right from wrong: not from God, not from nature, not from the pure force of reason itself….Morality exists only insofar as we make it so, and other people might not pass judgments in the same way we do…..” (S. Carroll)

….juxtaposed with……

“– Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. -Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. -Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than for the latter.” (Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 2.3.3.6)

First, note Carroll’s unavoidable re-defining of what “it” “is” which the term *GOD* in fact referents (…in the Christian metaphysic that is…), and, secondly, note that both Carroll and Hume agree with the Christian in concluding this: our Non-Theist friends who sometimes assume that their own Non-Theistic brand of Monism can provide closure with respect to moral ontology are in fact mistaken. If they wish to go down that road than perhaps Spinoza’s Pantheism or the Hindu’s Pantheism awaits them and, even there, outreaches them, outdistances them. But let’s move on to the Christian’s Trinitarian metaphysic:

Irreducibly Objective Moral Metrics:

The first metric just is the last metric and such just is immutable love as that which reason apprehends is – given the convertibility of the transcendentals – actually or factually real. Love’s timeless reciprocity carries us into those uncanny Trinitarian processions which in fact are reality’s irreducible substratum there amid Self/Other – what D.B. Hart somewhere terms that “…eternal ‘one-another’…“. We need not be concerned about Privation for in the Triune God it is the case that the Self is both The-Good and The-Whole such that the term “Hate” is not necessary for that move of Privation within the Trinitarian Life as the I AM traverses both history and consciousness.

Only the Trinity solves that dilemma with respect to love’s perfectly free and volitional contours amid Self/Other (…on the one hand…) and that which is Necessary (…on the other hand…). No other metaphysics solves that problem. It is – again – uncanny that Privation is not only necessary in the Trinitarian Life but, also, it is necessarily the case that the term “Hate” cannot be ascribed to Intra-Trinitarian Privation given that that term is referencing “Good-Minus-Some-Thing” and – obviously – to ascribe such to the seamlessness of Divine Simplicity (…on the one hand…) and/or to the Christian’s Triune God (…on the other hand…) sums to ascribing roundness to squares or sound to colors. Nothing less than the singular wellspring of Love and Necessity will do and that is precisely where the Christian metaphysic finds both its A and its Z as the collocation of reason, logic, and love carry us into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic.

Overlapping Themes are at: Moral Ontology Vis-À-Vis The Ontological History Of Reason Itself — at https://metachristianity.com/moral-ontology-vis-a-vis-the-ontological-history-of-reason-itself/

Interesting Excerpts From A Discussion On Moral Reasoning:

Quote:

Could I ask if you actually believe in the sort of extreme nominalism that you seem to be defending? If you don’t actually believe in it, then do we need to spend time arguing about whether it is logically coherent?

So if I could summarize what I believe you have said or implied:

1- It is possible to make a correct moral argument (I agree).
2- In order to do so, the premises of that argument have to be true (I agree).
3- The truth of the premises aren’t determined by what what people think (I agree).

Yes?

What you have written previously seems to imply that some moral premises are actually *true*, and that that is a separate issue from whether anyone actually believes in those premises. Have I misunderstood? You said that moral reasoning can sometimes be correct. You said that correct moral reasoning requires correct premises. Does it not follow from that that premises in moral arguments are sometimes correct?

To stick with your exact language: you implied that *proper* exercises of moral reasoning are sometimes possible, and you stated that *proper* reasoning requires true premises. It follows, notwithstanding your insistence in your last particular wording, that premises that are used in exercises of moral reasoning are sometimes true.

The point is, you cannot reasonably expect the lever of reason to do any real work unless you push down on the lever with premises that might actually be true. And also, you cannot engage in moral reasoning without moral premises. If you start with premises about what we want, or something like that, that you aren’t engaging in *moral* reasoning at all, but rather some sort of economic or political reasoning.

So, to paraphrase what I said at the very beginning, we either accept that some moral premises are true (we don’t have to agree on which moral premises are true; that’s a debate that can be deferred), or we give up on the whole project of moral reasoning. I can’t see how it could possibly be otherwise.

End quote ((…from “J.Hillclimber” / slightly paraphrased…))

C.S. Lewis’ Abolition Of Man describes “The TAO” which is helpful. Specifically see Appendix: ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE TAO for inroads to moral ontology. Two online sources for the book are:

In addition to the work of moral ontology needed there, there is also the following from E. Feser which brings in overlapping ontic–work to be done:

On Intuitions https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-intuitions.html

Unintuitive Metaphysics https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/08/unintuitive-metaphysics.html

Objective & Subjective https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/objective-and-subjective.html

Context of Discovering vs. Context of Justifying https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/05/context-isnt-everything.html

The Universal Stalemate Strawman/Fallacy:

Moral Ontology is too often shoehorned into a kind of “All-Are-Equivalent” assumption which of course ends in a “Stalemate” and more accurately in Metaphysical Armistice. But of course “A” is not “Non-A” and until/unless one does the WORK well then merely foisting such a “Universal Stalemate” won’t suffice. For example, what about the following and moral ontology?

Pantheism?
Spinoza’s?
Hindu’s?
Islam?
Judaism?
The huge divergence through large swaths of ontological real estate between those juxtaposed to the Christian metaphysic?
The imaginary stopping points of Naturalism & its twin Buddhism?

For how that unfolds see the specific comment https://randalrauser.com/2018/06/overcome-your-cognitive-bias-with-the-50-50-rule/#comment-3994533990 which opens with the following:

Interacting with one’s own ToE (Theory of Everything, Paradigm, Etc.) and/or with the Christian Metaphysic finds that at some “ontological seam somewhere” one must bring all definitions back, and back again to the Epicenter common to all of Christendom: the “…three distinctions in “GOD” as Trinity…” and the “…All Sufficient Self-Outpouring of God…” and of course to one’s own explanatory terminus vis-à-vis one’s own ToE. (…etc. as that comment continues…)

In Closing ~ Recall:

The Blueprint Of All Things Adamic — The Trinitarian Life:

A Few References:

[1] https://disqus.com/home/discussion/standtoreason/how_to_make_the_case_for_objective_moral_truth/ which is STR’s “How to Make the Case for Objective Moral Truth”

[2] http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/01/18/god-is-necessary-not-necessary-for-morality/ which is titled, “God Is Necessary & Not Necessary For Morality?!”

[3] For helpful segues into the relationship of Reason, Joy, and Morality are in “Saving Wasted Virtues: Heaven and the Ground of Morality” at https://www.moralapologetics.com/wordpress/saving-wasted-virtues-heaven-and-the-ground-of-morality

[4] Slavery In The Christian Metanarrative Is Defined As A Swath Of Privations Many Pains Therefore The Christian Metanarrative Cannot Have A Pro Slavery Verse Much Less A Pro Slavery Any Thing https://metachristianity.com/slavery-in-the-christian-metanarrative-is-defined-as-a-swath-of-privations-many-pains

[5] Deficiency Of Being, Old Testament Violence, The Metaphysic of Privation, And Christ Crucified https://metachristianity.com/old-testament-violence-the-metaphysic-of-privation-and-christ-crucified