The existence of Existence

A Causal Ethic

but not really

more preconditional, less causal

We out here tryna brainstorm an essay

which I’ll start posting essays on here soon enough
subtle plug

so the way this article is gonna go is it’ll be fast and fastidious

No

I just looked up the word fastidious

It won’t be that

Fast for future fastidiousness

Yes

I’ve been kicking myself mentally in my efforts to articulate my proposition as a thought experiment

I haven’t been able to construct it

my mental thought wave flow is also suffering from the sputter of my mind’s version of radio noise

which, fittingly, is a combination of nature’s electromagnetic dabblings up there in the atmosphere and interfering frequencies from other technology

In the same way, I have people and the things they said on my mind

and I have some natural stuff on my mind

radio noise

but I’ll do my best to knock this out

I’ve been thinking a lot about starting points

And I’m not sure that I understand what people who, let’s say, are entrenched in a dialogue mean when they place the blame for a debate reminiscent of a collision between two houses that are across the street from one another upon their irreconcilable starting points

Whatever the heck a starting point is, if you know beforehand that any sort of useful dialogue has to consider starting points

which it does, because going to the next floor requires taking the steps

and don’t throw elevators in my face I like this metaphor…

Don’t even enter the dialogue if you’re not willing to question your own starting point or at the very least entertain someone else’s!!

And if you do and then begin to feel that deep internal itch to chalk up your own retarded inability to step outside your own one and a half eyed dumbass perspective and actually connect with another human on an intellectual level to your “irreconcilable starting points” just stop talking

please

All of that to say

I want to articulate a thought experiment which demonstrates my starting point

Here’s a phrase

God as an Ethic

ho‘s that for blassphemy

anywho, that’ll probably be the title of the essay that I currently brainstorm in this article

Here’s my stipulation, and I think it’s correct:

Every scientific debate can be traced back to the first material cause of the world

Every moral debate can be traced back to the first principle cause of the world

And I feel like a true philosophy heathen because I have no understanding of Aristotle’s causes whatsoever and everything I’m saying could be blatantly ignorant

I’m a lazy reader what can I say

This essay that I’m working on will partly be arguing that questions of metaphysical/meta-ethical ilk precede material questions with respect to causality

I happen not to have any clue as to whether that claim is either at all controversial or widely accepted or neither

But I do believe it is relevant

fundamentally important, in fact

because the treatment of all morality as emergent phenomena is a wildly tempting prospect

It makes a lot of sense, almost, I think; it does, almost.

Let’s return to that phrase

God as an ethic

It makes so much sense

So what does ethic mean

Original consciousness operating upon an axiomatic set of principles

Because at its most fundamental, the first mover/cause&effect/infinite regression/yada yada argument communicates a reality that, I feel, gets skipped over

It is this; there is not just a mover and an effect.

a mover requires a set of rules to move to

well, God is a rule unto himself

So, what I am pointing are the parts of God

And when I say, “God as an ethic,” I say that the axioms which necessitate the existence of God precede his literal being

For a cause to satisfy its occupation and an effect to follow suite,

the condition of being itself must first arise out of nothing

for things to exist, existence itself must be

So what axiomatic set of principles possesses and honors its responsibility for establishing the ultimate dichotomy?

which is not good and bad, nor chaos and order, nor potential and material being,

The most fundamental dichotomy is being and non-being

and I’m sure this has been established somewhere

I havent read it anywhere as far as I know; this is all my own thought process

The distinction I am making here is that that the void is a thing

And this dichotomy works as the most fundamental because every other two-set of opposing ideas is internally dependent – chaos & order and good & bad exist by virtue of their own juxtaposition

Having a space, chaos, amongst which things can burst into being

begs a more fundamental dichotomy –

A dichotomy not contentionally or equally yoked, but one that is tandem or consecutive

Non-being does not cause being, but it must fall before being so that an ethic, an axiomatic set of principles, can provide a landscape for existence

That landscape, or void, would be the existence of existence

Thus, God is the ethic is the first cause

And this ethic is that which can exist in non-existence,

and that seems to imply consciousness.

So, recaps for something to exist, Being (mind the upper case, sorry I’m too lazy to do that with all my “Being”‘s and “Existence”‘s) must exist

– and, sidenote, quick refutatio, if you take the existence of existence of existence of existence ad infinitum to show a flaw in my logic, I’ll kindly remind you that the good of the good of the good of the good ad infinitum is not a precondition for the existence of the dichotomy that is good and bad, but simply a subsequent implication of it –

Non-being precedes being,

and the existence of being necessitates an ethic that can exist in a state of non-being as well as being

The beginning is a paradox.

Such an ethic cannot originate itself without consciousness

So God, primarily, is the reason for existence

And I call that morality

Morality is important, and if I’m right about the beginning, then morality has not emerged over the course of evolution (conventional morality would have, obviously, but that’s possibly just what happens to natural law when it is construed by a society)

Rather, morality describes the best mode of living in light of the ethic of all things, the nature which underlies the world;

the morality of man echoes the morality of Being.

Ok

so

That turned into something a bit more than just a brainstorm – maybe something that bridges the gap between brainstorm and essay

Theres a lot more to consider and iron out

Ill be doing this my whole life

One consideration is whether cause & effect is even applicable to the world

Should I think of the world in terms of sequence & causality? Is that right? Because causality fails us and that’s why we have this issue in the first place

in the first place haha

um

so

Yes, sequence is a significant part of my logic

yeah, what else

Time to wrap this up

That was not fast nor fastidious

I’ll come back to it sooner or later

But for now, I don’t see where to proceed from here

So now I will let myself reevaluate unconsciously for a good while and it’ll pop back up again sometime

Until then


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s