Category Archives: Trinity

Did something come from nothing?

We have heard it said that something came from nothing. But what is really said is that something came from nothing,” where the word nothing is in quotations thereby hiding the libertine equivocation that freely oscillates between something and nothing depending on expediency. The honest statement that something came from something is unimpressive, and this disclosure would defeat the enterprise of science that sees itself explaining how something can come from nothing. Therefore, instead of full disclosure we find deception in its place, and the deception is so entrapping that it can fool even the scientist that claims a truth in the bolder utterance.

The universal grammar hearing that, something came from nothing, will translate this bold claim as a strong deception that veils the truth. This veiling is a difference, while what is said becomes the untruth that difference came from indifference. The fact is that difference can only come from difference, and so the presumed “indifference” has confused itself with the grounding difference. This does not stop scientism from imposing its difference on the dumbed-down populace, a difference now derived from the collective body of highly paid scientists and governmental committees said to be otherwise indifferent. If such governing bodies could provide useful information, then it must be that committees work in the negative by stripping away the pre-given differences until they arrive at the ontic difference that arises in the pure state. Only in this negative activity of dialectic can science-aided inquiry provide utility, otherwise it corrupts its self with its own difference said to be indifferent.

Difference implies a preference to select one among several options. This hypothetical selection must be a free expression of will, otherwise the activity is not a preference but a dictate that confounds freewill. The conflict between freewill and universal causation takes us to Kant`s third antinomy, where the conflict finds resolution with the help of Trinitarian philosophy. This resolution must be carried all the way to the ground of being, otherwise the work of committees will be unproductive. Threeness must emerge from the ground of being, coming with a free middle-term that holds the sides of the antinomy together and permitting full articulation and expression.

Evolutionary psychology would have us believe that human difference came from the indifference offered by natural selection. But this holds an equivocation that science conceals, where the vital difference within natural selection hides behind competition (so-called survival of the fittest) and cooperation (noted in ecology and symbiosis). This equivocation depends on the whims of the scientists. This veiled difference cannot be acknowledge because acknowledgment defeats the claims of natural selection and turns biology into vitalism, yet science has the responsibility to study evolution the way it is rather than the way it ought to be for scientists.

Doctrine of demons


Article reads: The new atheism, scientism, the cult of sex, the welfare state, the stranglehold on education and the media, all are the tools used to build the Progressive dystopia, and Huxley saw clearly where Fabian Socialism was heading. The loss of innocence in our children is breaking our society down, leaving a vacuum that the collectivists will fill. Their triumph will ultimately be terrible, and the suffering they are causing is untold. This is, quite frankly, a doctrine of demons.

So much of what is found comes off as a one-sided taking with no conception of authentic giving. The one-sided talking is big at destroying things, and it carries no need to take ownership of its passion to build something up because its all about taking with limited risk. It takes no risk, it only takes without carrying the burden of ownership. It throws rocks, while being safely in the audience. It sees itself as the victim, in almost all encounters with folks that take ownership of their passion. The one-sided sees its panacea in taxing ownership, while it takes without giving. The one-sided is passive aggressive, because it is only interested in destroying without a constructive building back up. To be self-reliant it knows not, it is a parasite on society.

It is very easy to destroy, and so the cards are stacked against those that choose to take ownership of their most authentic passions.

Predicting by way of an explaining causation

One way to reform the love-affair with the past is to predict its down fall. This work of prediction is mostly done by a deductive logic that extends physical laws or known principles. Deductive logic evaluates a range of future possibilities and tries to come up with a firm prediction or forecast.

In order to come up with physical laws or principles, science must work from experience by looking backward into the past. This way of looking is the reverse of what deduction tries to do. This looking backward is better described by inductive logic, where past experiences are summarized and generalized and abstracted into principles. Bayesian statistics contains a strong inductive instinct with its attempt to summarize all past data and by its building a posterior distribution, but even Bayesian statistics can be adapted for the purpose of making a forecast.

When science explains phenomenon it does so by applying generalizations, and by representing the phenomenon as the output from a chain of causation. Therefore, the explained is a reflection of the love-affair with the past that went into inductive hind-sight. To test that the explained has in fact been explained is to turn to deductive logic again where our affection is now put to the test of possible refutation; trust but verify. If the explained is completely explained, then there can be no residual causation remaining that went undeclared.

Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain human behavior from the workings of natural selection. With our hehavior explained, are we free to choose? A gene that permits authentic freedom is not an explanation for freedom. A presumed gene can only support an authentic freedom away from the explanation itself (a strange-loop that cannot be mechanized). Therefore, for explanations to be complete (in the classical sense) there can be no free choices that make themselves available to the deductive menu, and all such behavior must be the product of a genetic determinism (excluding a presumed gene for freedom). The explanations are complete only when the behavior is automatic and no longer in need of insights. The explanation can be complete only when everything is accommodated by hindsight, even the insight itself that is said to come with a gene for insight, or freedom. And this is the problem for science, because such a science can offer us little when we struggle with something new that requires an ethical choice.

Since when did it become established that survival of the fittest explains its opposite, salvation by cooperation? And what good would such an explanation be if it was assumed true? We could argue both sides of the steet with equal validity!

Ethical choice implies the authentic freedom to select from the deductive menu, and this implies that our need for freedom must oppose the love-affair with the past where everything is explained. Science-aided inquire returns only its explanations, but unless our goal is to excuse objectionable behavior then these explanations necessarily offer us little when looking at choices to be made in the future. There must be freedom to make ethical choices, otherwise we are on autopilot. If we are free then the so-called explanations are necessarily incomplete and evolutionary psychology becomes a pseudo-science that is unable to demonstrate its assumed genetic determinism without pointing to strange-loops thereby conceding the Trinitarian facts. If we are not free then we are on autopilot, or sleeping, and the explanations coming from evolutionary psychology can give us nothing to awaken us. Either way, evolutionary psychology loses without a revision to bring it into agreement with Trinitarian philosophy.

The belief, that science shows that freewill is an illusion, is now revealed to be ridiculous. Freedom and volition to permit selection from the deductive menu is self-evident, and necessary. If freedom is supported by a material reality, then strange-loops are also necessary. Science cannot prosper without the deductive thinking that permits a flight from over-generalizations. And if there is an autopilot to return to as we sleep, it must be God`s will that is followed if our sleep is authentic and can withstand the deductive menu that necessarily exists.

For more like the above, see my essay:

Rhythmic based time, synchronicity, poetry and awareness

Poetry is unusual when thought is given to its magical ways – the tempo within verses that end with rhymes. Somehow this structure accentuates awareness and sensitivity, to give meaning to poetic phrases by reconnecting with itself by forming a strange loop of sorts. The connection is the commonality with reconnecting with the scared, the number of syllables and ending rhymes, and the timing involved with not giving up too early. The connections are otherwise meaningless without the human element provided by language. Nevertheless, poetic meaning is supplied by the apparent synchronicity found in commonality. This rhythmic based time that underwrites verse and rhyme gives birth to the awareness of poetic beauty.

Egypt unrest day five


Blurb reads: Live coverage of the fifth day of anti-government protests in Egypt, as tens of thousands of demonstrators return to the streets in several cities, after the Egyptian president fired his cabinet and promised reforms but refused to step down.

Like tooth paste in a tube! What could put pressure on the tube: such that an apparent reductionism that forgets its holism squeezes itself out; that a linear chain of human logic squeezes out, ever fearful of its own emotion; that an apparent causation is revealed; that we blurt out our imperfections, saying “they don`t pay me enough to work so hard, and I`m taxed and regulated to death;” or I could harp about how I have been victimized and exploited by the powerful?

Something is doing all the squeezing, and the pretense of a perfect scientism gets squeezed out in the same wash. But it is dirt that be revealed, otherwise the wash is no good. The squeezing helps reveal mistakes, and only awareness of errors can lead to an improved direction. The squeezing implies a direction, in fact there is implied a preferred direction. Scientism cannot admit to a preferred direction because its boundaries are declared indifferent, lest scientism be revealed outside of science.

That which is preferred is what I say is a “better self image,” and only an ineffable self that can transcend conflict can do the squeezing. No one said that it would be easy to do God`s will, once being born into this world.

Three of my essays online

Free downloads, as PDF files, can be found here:

Those of you that have my book will find these essays worthy in that they carry Trinitarian philosophy futher along.

Explaining goals

I will use directionality to imply intention and goals, whatever these qualities are in a human sense.

To explain directionality completely, using a presumed natural causation, is to reduce directionality to a completely indifferent boundary. Directionality becomes a manifold that slices through the space-time fabric and has no room for a timeless component. The directionality is now itself indifferent with every part of its movement being explained by a natural causation that leaves no remainder. For example, the direction held by an ethical choice is thought explained by natural selection, where choice is now a mere puppet attached to an indifferent boundary that has found itself adapted for its own reproductive fitness. But the ethical choice is now empty, as there is no reason beyond its mechanistic stricture so constructed; the stricture is enough being stuck on a manifold slice of space-time that is dominated by the cause-and-effect offered by sex. Stupid isn’t it?

Note the deeper equivocation in this thinking where a closer look reveals that ethics explained is not the same thing as ethics exercised. Moreover a science-aided reason that comes as an explanation offers us little in the decision making needed to direct our choices in real life. Knowing that our choices have been explained does nothing in helping us make the right choice. What does reproductive fitness have to do with free sex? What ought to be is beyond natural selection because natural selection is indifferent, and what is apparent is that our choice can`t be the abstract explanation unless we want it to be. To want an explanation that leaves no remainder is to take away the freedom and responsibility to make the right choices, for if our choices are already determined there is no need for deliberation and sex is free. And if we are free enough to make the right choices, then the noted explanation is not complete because it leaves an inexplicable remainder. What is right to be is far from indifference, and there is no way to get there from an indifferent driver that obfuscates its said indifference and returns a covert direction that avoided proper vetting before going naked. Don`t be fooled by the progressives! A mere surface feature has no timeless component.

Kant noted that ethics requires freedom, or there is not choice to make.

Observing thanksgiving: my review of my book

I will be observing thanksgiving, and my I blog posting will also be slowed.
Here is something I can share, during this time of giving. It is not customary for an author to review his own book. However, potential readers are entitled to see book reviews, and my book has very few reviews. Therefore, I present my review below, written in the third person.
Review title: Taking Science into Mysticism

Albert Einstein said that “the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.”

Smith (page 54) hints that physical laws would go undiscovered, if we could not somehow “feel” them. We feel laws because they are experiential, they had to be conceived in the mind and then empirically verified. And in this exercise science has found itself unable to get beyond Kant`s metaphysical barrier that separates the phenomenal (appearance) from the noumenal (what is beyond). The feeling that lets us discover laws is exterior to the laws, and is given to us starkly.

It is worth noting that a forward causation finds its self referral in its backward reception. Law given as an action that is found within a symmetry implies nothing about an absolute determinism (or causation). Rather, the law is held together by a middle-term that marries the forward presentation to its reception. Symmetry is like a mirror, and the action is balanced enough to become a law. However, when Smith (page 58) notes that the middle-term is ineffable he brakes strongly away from Platonic strictures that never change. The “law” of nature reveals an action that is imbedded on a symmetry, and (in one example) the photon as messenger particle touches the time-less. Einstein`s riddle is solved. The world is comprehensible because we had to feel its laws, and this truism is comprehensible. It could be no other way!

What about the second law of thermodynamics? The second law of thermodynamic is starkly real. However, Smith (pages 14-16) tells us that its statistical derivation is incomplete if it is our hope to promote this law as a universal. The second law hides its fatal equivocation. Something that is represented by statistical mechanics is said to be the same as something that recognizes order and dissipates heat. Therefore, the second law hints of a duality given by a representation and its recognition, and what holds the synthesis together is a middle-term again. Smith will have us believe this implicates an emotional center that is a necessary condition for cognition. The heat-death might signify the repayment of past debt: the repayment of Karma in the best tradition of Eastern mysticism.

Smith (chapter 4) is critical of Darwin`s theory of evolution by natural selection. A different argument (not found in the book) can be made more succinctly: Darwin’s theory assumes a friendly sample space given as Richard Dawkins’s bioform space, and it assumes a dynamic (responsive to biological change) and smooth ( friendly to natural selection) fitness landscape. That is, Darwin’s theory comes with a precondition that natural selection can never explain, as this boundary is hardwired into the very fabric of space-time. Or stated another way: Randomness and selection are not context independent. Smith (page 81) hints that the precondition for evolution might as well be an innate vitality, and it is transcendence that describes our evolution.

Smith uses his Trinitarian logic throughout his book, and deconstructs science to reveal a middle-term that cannot be excluded from reason (despite Aristotle`s assertion to the contrary). This deconstruction reveals the sender-receiver unity (or Trinity), and this is as far as we can go if it is our hope to stay within traditional science. Therefore, what is vital and dearest to us is beyond law. However, our affections are now attached to the middle-term rather than the caricatures that had been so captivating before the awakening. And so much emerged from the middle-term because Kant`s barrier is literally in our face. That which is self-evident requires no proof of its existence, we merely accept that which is found in relation to reason and its felt emotions. Smith (chapter 7) takes science into mysticism.

The spirit loves freedom, and there is great pleasure in seeking an escape through the newly discovered middle-term. However, it cannot be that freedom is an absolute, and at best freedom is only a temporary flight of mind. Freedom as an expression of passion seeks a higher expression, and only worthy passions are able to find their compassion. Self-cultivation carries the heavy burden of judgement and criticism that is beyond freedom, and so few readers will have the tolerance needed to acknowledge Smith`s thesis. The emotional center cries out when faced with its own self-criticism, and so a science turned scientism is preferred by the secular mind.

More on “Darwin’s Conjecture”


Article reads: Economists and business gurus have stressed ideas such as competition and individualism to the point where “survival of the fittest” has become something of a mantra. As a result, key Darwinian ideas such as mutual aid, sympathy and cooperation have often been ignored by later writers on business and economics. The authors remind us of these overlooked theories and challenge the idea that Darwinism offers such easy solutions as “survival of the fittest” in any case.

It should be pointed out that cooperation is not a “Darwinian idea” if it is to “challenge the idea that Darwinism offers such easy solutions as survival of the fittest.” For example, biological symbiosis was first rejected by Darwinists before it was later rationalized in Darwinian terms. Moreover, both cooperation and competition carry a non-indifference, or a difference, and this difference cannot come from something like natural selection that is indifferent. The difference, or life’s impetus, comes before natural selection.

Confused ideology unable to see its own ideology


Article reads: The first dependable poison for the demagogue is that compassion is built into the genetic code. It comes with the species package. Darwinism and the ideologues of competition and unbridled power have carried the day for the Tea Party rhetorically, but the rhetoric cannot wipe out the genetic predisposition to care for one another, the genetic program that makes us cry when we see others cry, the urge to rise in the night to hold the wailing child, the massive outpourings of millions of dollars of aid to strangers in Bande Acheh or Haiti.

This argument is its self confused by a belief in a strong genetic determinism that follows from the belief that evolution is explained by Darwin’s natural selection. We may note that the polarity given by competition and cooperation indicates the respective sides of Kant’s third antinomy. Kant showed that analytical arguments can argue both sides of the third antinomy with equal validity, yet the two sides remain conflicted. Moreover, natural selection is unable to distinguish genes that express competition from those that express cooperation, because these expressions imply an impetus that is undeclared by a natural selection that is said indifferent. Where did the non-indifference come from? It can be argued that life’s non-indifference is a precondition for natural selection, and hence it is ridiculous to look to genes that can explain this non-indifference. Strong genetic determinism wanes, genes at best give their support to vitalistic expression. Furthermore, to resolve the third antinomy we introduce a middle-term to hold the polarity together. The gene expressions will now flip, and their interpretations altered. Genes once said to support competition now support cooperation, and those that supported cooperation give their support to competition.