Treatise I - on God as a Semantic Problem

I. BEING AND EXISTENCE

i. On the problem of Being
Philosophy begins with the consciousness of a problem: the problem of Being. And yet none of us doubt that we are, at least not instinctively. We speak of things, we say they are, we refer to I and you as if it is a simple, obvious matter of common sense. In other words, we Be, of that we seem to have no doubt, at least not before we engage in philosophy. Only after philosophy begins could Being itself be debatable, and yet even then the number of philosophers who have argued against it are too few to mention. In fact, I can think of no philosopher who has argued that “nothing is”, and naturally so, considering it is such an obvious contradiction in terms. At most, they will have argued that there can only be things that “cannot be spoken of” or expressed through language.(1) Something always is, for if that were not true, the proposition itself would not exist, nor would the subject who is stating that proposition, nor would you or me or this text, or even the words with which to write this text. In fact, we wouldn’t even know if there “was nothing”, nor would we be able to say so. Thus it seems impossible to us from a logico-grammatical point of view (2) that Being might not Be. So how can there be a problem if there is no Being? We are conscious of a problem regarding the nature of being, of the nature of the Being of things, of us, of everything, and yet we are sure there is and that things Be. Therefore, our first question arises: If Being is obvious (although the quality or nature of it may not be), then why is it a problem?

Consider the way we conceive of the problem of Being when it comes up, for example, as we’re lying on a field under a starry sky or in some dinky bar off our tits on beer and having one of those “deep and meaningful”s with our mates or with strangers we’ve just met. We usually ask: Why am I here? Where are we going? Where did we come from? What is the meaning of my Being? Is there a meaning to it all? These have become such obvious and predictable questions that they are in fact clichés, as you most probably would have rolled your eyes upon reading them just now. However, each one of these clichés presupposes two things: One, that we Be, and two, that there is something lacking in our Being. The first truism, that we Be, is taken as granted, for if it weren’t, then the second truism – that there is something lacking in the nature of Being – would be void. Therefore, it seems clear to us that Being is a problem in itself, although not the fact of our Being, but something to do with the nature and quality of it. We are not satisfied with it, we sense something to be incomplete, lacking, and we further consider this a problem because it causes us to feel troubled and worried, and even unhappy.

“But wait”, you might say, “I know of many people for whom Being is no dilemma or problem at all, who never question the nature of their Being, who lead fulfilled and purposeful lives.” However, a problem is part of a dichotomy which involves – and in fact predicts and presupposes – a solution. Such is the nature of these concepts for us, because we conceive of our world in this dichotomous manner where there are things lacking which must be found or filled. There are problems that need to be solved. Thus, speaking from an existential level once more, if there is a problem of the nature or quality of Being, then as humans, it’s natural that we seek solutions, for they’re two sides of the same coin. Now look at those people you (hypothetically) mentioned who felt no problem of Being whatsoever, who lived happy and fulfilled lives oblivious to this question. You will find that, on the contrary, they have convinced themselves to have solutions, which, considering the dichotomous nature of the problem-solution relationship, would mean that they have only flipped the coin to the other side and hidden the problem from their eyes, even though it still makes up half the coin. Instead of asking, they are answering, instead of seeking, they are finding. In other words, the Why? What? How? Where? is substituted with ideals meant to fill in the perceived lack, such as Why? For Good; What? God; How? Grace; Where? Afterlife/Heaven/Metempsychosis/Eternal Salvation, etc. But even though religion is the easiest and most popular way to fill in the lack and find a solution, one can also do so through the application of an ideological system (Marxism, Hegelianism, the philosophy of Nietzsche, etc…). But any way that it’s done, the point is that whether you still perceive a problem or have found a solution, the overall Problem persists because of the dichotomous nature of problem/solution: Being is a dilemma regardless of whether you seek solutions and answers, or whether it remains open to philosophical speculations. It is the first problem of philosophy and all of us have to deal with it somehow. The problem is universal.

So now we see that 1) Being is a universal problem we all experience regardless of the various ways that we deal with it, (whether we continue to treat it as problem or whether we treat it to a solution through religion, secular ideologies, escapism, etc…)(3) and 2) that it is not a problem of Being itself (which we take as granted) but of a certain nature and quality of Being (which we deem to be lacking). But let’s look now at what that nature or quality that we perceive to be lacking is… Consider the questions once again: Why… here? Where… going? Where… from? What… meaning? Each of these questions takes for granted the obvious fact of whether we Be, but rather seeks to know of Being from a spatio-temporal perspective, in the sense of direction, origin and destination, with to’s and from’s and whence’s and where’s. You will notice that I left out the last question we often ask, i.e. What is the meaning of life? Here we ask a question from something other than a spatio-temporal perspective, choosing to focus instead on meaning, which is essentially what we mean by ultimate (or better, original) causation, or rather, the first cause in a chain of causes and effects from which everything that has sprung forth is the subsequent effect of the/an original cause. Thus the original cause is the hinge that holds together the Being of all things and our perception of all things as being a virtually limitless relationship of causes and effects.(4) In other words, we perceive the problem of Being as a problem of Being in something with spatio-temporal (5) dimensions and which is also subject to the “laws” of causation, and that can only be in one thing: the World. Thus the problem of the nature and quality of Being that we perceive and seek to confront and/or remedy is actually that of Being-in-the-World.

You are naturally thinking, then, that without philosophy, without religion or ideology, without there being some way of dealing with and finding answers to or just pondering on the problem of Being, we can never live our lives as if the problem didn’t exist? Exactly, we can’t. That is something only animals seem capable of not perceiving (or, more correctly, they are incapable of perceiving a problem), but what differentiates us from animals is precisely the consciousness of the problem of Being. Thus, even someone who seems to live without any philosophical consolation or reflection and even shuns all systems of thought that aim to give answers to the problem of Being, a man who is seemingly oblivious to the question of his Being, seems impossible. Why impossible? Because if we cannot help but perceive the world in any way but within spatio-temporal dimensions and as a virtually limitless interaction of causes and effects, we cannot help but apply these fundamental cognitive faculties universally and to the full, as far as our understanding and intellectual scope will permit. In other words, if we perceive a cycle of problems and solutions, of birth and death, of beginnings and ends, of firsts and lasts, of from’s and to’s, of life and death, then we cannot help but also ponder the original causes and the penultimate effects – even though the universe may be impossible to be conceived in this sense, but we as humans are condemned to only be able to think of it in this sense, because such is our nature, which we are stuck with and can never think outside the parameters of.(6) What man has seen the birth of a baby and not wondered at the birth and nature and origin of all life? What man has thought of death and not wondered what must come after death, or indeed before? What man has looked at the stars and only accepted that they are there without wondering what lies beyond? What man has not wondered at the birth of his offspring and not wondered what created and gave birth to mankind, to life, to everything? It seems impossible therefore that in a world perceived in terms of space-time and causality, the perceiving subject (i.e. you and I) should not think of everything, every angle, also in terms of space-time and causality, because that which man perceives to lack knowledge of, man can only try and explain through the cognitive faculties at hand, and our only cognitive faculties at hand are the very same ones that enable us to perceive a lack of knowledge in the first place. Thus to know and not know is, as far as we are concerned, one and the same, for knowledge inevitably leads to perception of its lack, and vice versa (for to perceive that we lack knowledge is knowledge). Such is the human condition. But why do I say “seems impossible”? Why seems? Have I not demonstrated that it is impossible? Of course not, for to perceive of something as impossible is quite different than whether something is impossible or not. For I too am human, I too am subject to the aforementioned limitations of the human condition, therefore neither I nor anyone can stand outside this nature of ours and proclaim something – anything – is so or is not so. It only seems so, because we have not the vantage point of objectivity from which to perceive our own subjectivity. In other words, by observing things and speaking of them, I am simultaneously being a part of things and thus altering them by my very observation of them.

We have now established that all men are – and must be – conscious of the problem of Being, that the problem of Being is a problem of Being-in-the-World, and that Being itself is taken for granted. Thus we can see that there are essentially three types of people who Be in the world: 1) Those who perceive the problem of Being and despair of having no remedy for it – i.e. the suicide; 2) Those who perceive the problem of Being and bolster themselves with either an answer or solution to that which he (7) perceives it lacks and he needs – i.e. the believer; 3) Those who perceive the problem of Being and continue to accept it as a problem without either despairing or seeking escape by way of answers and solutions – i.e. the philosopher. But before we can study each distinct type – suicide, believer and philosopher – we must understand the problem of Being-in-the-World.

ii. Being-in-the-World as Existence
Asserting any differentiation between Being and Existence would seem to many to be pointless nitpicking. We all use the words interchangeably, and for our everyday and general intents and purposes, one serves just as aptly as the other. But when we’re dealing with a subject as the one we have at hand – one that I would not be exaggerating in describing as being literally a matter of Life and Death – the difference becomes magnified and takes on the utmost importance. One need only look at the etymology of “existence” to see the difference as it relates to us. For where being is “to be”, existence is to “stand out”, from Latin: ex- “out”, sistere- “to cause to stand, sit, place”. Thus, one who “exists” is one who “stands out.” Now, to stand out, one must be a thing that stands out from other things, i.e. one must stand out in the world. And so existence becomes a matter of being among things, or being in the world. We see now the difference between the problem of Being from that of the problem of Being-in-the-World: It is a matter of instinctive knowing that we Be, that we are; however, it is a whole different problem when we are among other things, and most importantly, other Beings-in-the-World. To be seems to us simply to Be, but to exist means to be one among many, among other, among all. But where lies the problem in this? What is the problem of Existence as Being-in-the-World? The problem lies in the thingness of existence, in fact, in all things: Existence is a relative mode of being (by virtue of the fact that it is Being-among-Things), and to sense the relativity of our being as existence is a problem. Why? Because we realize that the most important thing in the world – the I (or ego) that signifies our Existence – is nothing on its own, is meaningless except in relation to other things. There is not absolute I that exists, only a relative one. In other words, the I becomes a part of the system of intersignification that is language and grammar. The I becomes word, the I becomes yet another sign, and outside of its place in the system of intersignification, this I that is the representation of a state of Existence is meaningless. This aspect of Existence as Being-in-the-World is our ultimate dilemma, and how we deal with the dilemma is basically what all our lives amount to.

[A side note seems in order here concerning my blowing off Being (as opposed to Being-in-the-World) as being taken for granted on our part. Naturally, this is a question that relates to the nature of consciousness, a question that has been taken on by philosophers much more accomplished than I, and also by neuroscientists for the past few decades… all to no avail. Neuroscientists are still unsure what exactly constitutes consciousness. As for philosophers, what Berkeley described as Mind/God, Kant as Thing-in-Itself, and Schopenhauer as Will, was left unexplained and unexplainable by each, thus leaving the problem of consciousness to be one of the last great problems of both philosophy and science. Even Nietzsche’s will-to-power is more an empirical and behavioral observation of the effects of Will than an exposition of any origins or causes of Will in itself. It wasn’t until the psychoanalysis of Freud that anyone bravely sought to explore the origins of consciousness and mind. Thanks to the efforts of Schopenhauer (who brought to the attention of western philosophy Vedic and Buddhist philosophy), and later Nietzsche and Freud, we do however now accept the complex multidimensionality of consciousness, especially vis-à-vis Will or the Unconscious. Yet it remains a mystery. But perhaps we must just stick to Descartes’ cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. Even though the nature of our own consciousness remains a mystery – and one we will never solve fully, because we can never objectively observe that which can only subjectively observe anything in the first place – we can apply a certain principle here of insufficient doubt. That is, I think, and whether I can really know whether I am or not, I think I am, and I don’t see sufficient amount of doubt to disprove my Being, which is further corroborated through sensual and empirical knowledge, therefore I accept my Being. We stated before that “nothing could not be”, that it was illogico-grammatical, and that therefore “something is” otherwise thought would not be, let alone these words that express thought. But I think, and even if I thought “nothing is”, that would be absurd, because by merely thinking it, then something is (i.e. thought and thinking subject), and I can only know through my senses and my brain. Without them, nothing would be known to me. Now if that which is (everything that is around me) can only be known to me through my senses and my brain (since any other way of knowing if anything is would be impossible), then I can only assume on the basis of insufficient doubt, that if anything must be, it must first and foremost be Me – viz. the thinking, perceiving subject, or the I. Therefore, as far as I can know, I am, that much is granted, because I must be.](8)

It’s important to point out here the importance of language as a system of intersignification and the place of Existence as I within this system. We may have Berkeley to thank for first conceiving of words as ideas or representations of a relationship between a subject and an object. It was later de Saussure who then considered words as signs that carried a binary property as both signified (object) and signifier (subject). Such is the nature of a word as a sign. It does not signify merely what is, but rather, what is perceived. The importance of a word being a sign having the dual property of subject and object means that a word does not symbolize or represent what exists or is per se, but signifies what is perceived to exist on the part of the subject, although the perception is also determined by certain properties of the object. Therefore, a word is the signification of a relationship. And the words by which we describe and create knowledge form a system of intersignification whereby things are only in relation to – and in the context of – other things, meaning of course that nothing can exist outside of language (at least as far as humans are concerned). What is can only be understood in this context as what it isn’t. Thus, red can only mean what it means for us in relation to all the colors it isn’t. If there were no color but red, then not only would there be no “red”, there would also be no “color.” In fact, one could not even say what anything is without it being what it isn’t. A human is not animal, or tree, or car. Even if we state a positive property to describe a human, it refers to a negative. E.g. “Humans are conscious of their consciousness” makes no sense in describing human beings if it did not presuppose that there are beings that are not (or cannot be) conscious of being conscious. Hence the inter-signification of language. Try, for example, to conceive of a thing that does not exist… Already I have posited a thing, which is a word that only makes sense vis-à-vis not-thing, and hence is already by definition a part of language and the system of intersignification. Let’s go further and think of this thing that is not. For example, a unicorn? Surely that doesn’t exist, but it is still the amalgamation of random signs/words that do exist and that we are familiar with, i.e. a “horn” and a (“white”) “horse”. We are just not accustomed to seeing these two things on the same being, but that’s all our imagination can do: mix and match innumerable word/sign/ideas with great variety and creativity, but never conceive something which is not, nor even a single property which is not.(9) Even the most fantastic creations of the human mind are just that, and can only be just that: mere amalgamations of random things as signs/words/ideas. In other words, we can conceive of nothing outside our system on intersignification. Even the concept of “nothing” is dependent on that of “thing” and is thus really only “anti-thing”, because as we stated before, we do not have the logico-grammatical capacity to conceive of “nothing” because, as sign/word, it is by definition something, and thus thing. And if we fail to grasp such a paradoxical concept through language and within the system of intersignification, then we fail to grasp it at all, for what is beyond the scope of language is beyond the scope of philosophy (which we’ll talk about later).

But what about complex word/signs that do not hold up to empirical knowledge, i.e. God, Spirit, Soul, eternity, infinity? Surely, these things that cannot be perceived to exist in an empirical sense cannot then be juxtaposed to that which they are not? If there is no object to form the signified half of the binary relation of sign alongside signifier, then wouldn’t such concepts as these lack possibility of becoming signs/words? Now we are coming to the crux of the problem of (Being-in-the-World as) Existence. How can a non-object become a thing as word/sign in the system of intersignification? More importantly, why does a non-object become a thing as word/sign? Why is the world of empirically observable and signifiable things not enough for us? What is lacking? And why is its lack so important that we must go out of our way, even against the sound judgment of empirical probation, to make it be by filling in the lack?

If we can only conceive of what is as what is not, then can we also not conceive of what is not as what is, because it should be? In other words, if we can look at something and define it according to what it is not, then is it not also possible to conceive of something that is not vis-à-vis what is? If [a = x – a], where x = everything and a = a particular thing, then we can also state that [– a = – x + a], because a cannot be without other things to not be a, therefore anti-everything (nothing) + a = anti-a (no-a). But now we are taking an extreme leap by implying that [a = x + (– a)], whereby a equals everything plus no-a. Let’s apply the concept of God as an example: God = Everything + No-God. This holds true, because we perceive no God in the world as thing (not in the way we perceive a tree or a car), yet the concept of God exists precisely for this reason. In other words, everything plus no-God means God must exist because his inexistence is perceived. Thus the word/sign “God” fills its own perceived lack. (The signifier subject remains (us), but the signified object (God) is really a signified no-object (no-God) that should be object (God) precisely because it is perceived not to exist by the signifier subject (us)). Now let’s try the equation with something that does exist empirically (like a tree or a car). The [a = x + (– a)] formula would not work, for that would mean that a tree would be everything plus no-tree, which would mean there would be no trees, which is absurd. But take, for instance, “Soul”, and again the [a = x + (– a)] formula holds, for Soul (unperceived substance) exists vis-a-vis everything plus no-Soul, i.e. Soul, like God, exists (as word/sign) through its own perceived lack.(10) You can surmise the implications of this formula: God exists (as word/sign) precisely because he does not exist (as signifiable object). Now let’s assume, in an attempt to disprove this theory, that God did exist as a thing, not just as a word/sign only, but as a signifiable object that is perceived empirically by a signifying subject… Therefore, like any other word/sign in the system of intersignification, the formula [a = x – a] would hold, where a is God, and so God is everything that is not God, which is absurd, because God cannot be separated from his creation, since it is implied in the concept of “God” that he is the creator and origin of all things (no matter what kind of God is believed in). Thus, without God there wouldn’t be an anything, let alone everything. The same holds when we apply the inverse formula of [– a = – x + a] whereby no-God is nothing plus God, which is also absurd because even with nothing else, God cannot not-be (cannot be no-God), since it is conceivable that, unlike a tree or a car, God can exist without needing to exist in relation to anything else, since unlike a tree or a car, God is a sentient being that would be aware of his own existence, and also because if God were the originator of all things, then he would have to have existed prior to all things, when there were no things. In other words, whereas most things exist positively (11) and abide by the first two formulas ([a = x – a] and [– a = – x + a]), other things exist negatively ([a = x + (– a)]), and God is one of these things. That which is positive is perceived in relation to all else that is positive, but that which is negative is perceived only in relation to a lack. Hence the existence of the word/sign “God”.

It’s important to note here that a thing is the sum of its qualities (or properties), so that ([a = x – a] and [– a = – x + a], is the basically the same as stating that ([q(a) = Q – q(a)] and [– q(a) = – Q + q(a)], where q is quality (of particular thing a) and Q is all qualities. So if we apply this formula and take as an example a rabbit, we are saying it is an animal (thus it is not-plant, not-human, not-cat, basically everything that is not not-animal etc…), it is a mammal (thus it is not-reptile, not-amphibian, not-avian, basically everything that is not not-mammal etc…), and so on. So just as a rabbit is “positively” definable as everything minus rabbit (not-dog, not-cat, not-chair, etc…), so too a rabbit is also an amalgamation of qualities that are not not-qualities of rabbit (since a quality – just as any thing – is only definable in relation to other things, and thus, as what it is not). We will look at this more closely later on in the Word/sign chapter.

We have now demonstrated that God is precisely because he is not. Thus, the concept of God is obviously a human creation made to fill a lack. But why? Why go to the trouble to come up with such concepts to fit into the system of intersignificance? Why isn’t empirical proof enough that we have to bring into being that which is not? Furthermore, what makes “God” the best filler of that lack? To answer this, we must go back to the question of the problem of Being-in-the-World as Existence, and man’s Existence as thing in the system of intersignificance. In other words, the problem of man’s “standing out.”

iii. Man-God
According to the formula for positive existence outlined above, man exists – that is, man is a positive word/sign and thing in the system of intersignificance. Therefore, man is that which everything else is not. In other words, man “stands out”, and hence exists as Being-in-the-World. This suggests the self-consciousness of man: Man knows he is man, and he is man because he is not animal, plant, banana or cloud. Thus man achieves self-consciousness through a consciousness of his own properties and qualities as man juxtaposed to the properties and qualities of all other things, or not-man, since within his system of intersignificance he has ascertained certain categories of all things and aggregated or differentiated all things according to those categories he has deemed fit to ascertain (naturally in accord with his inherent and necessary human bias). But what is extraordinary is precisely this consciousness of self by which Man has also included himself into the system of intersignificance, thus conceiving of himself as thing as well. Thus, since the system of intersignification is a human creation born of inherent and necessary human bias, man’s consciousness of existence (and furthermore, man’s consciousness of consciousness – hence Homo sapiens sapiens), all lead to a fundamental dilemma: Man knows All and Self, but nothing else knows Man. Man “stands out” as existing thing, but Man stands out alone. When Man is the measure of all things, there remains nothing that can measure Man. But if this is the case, then when we come to apply our two formulas for positive existence as [a = x – a] and [– a = – x + a], we find that, unlike all other things that abide by the formulas, Man in fact does not! Here, when a = Man, the formula suggests that Man is everything minus Man, but if Man is the only perceiving subject in this universe and the foundation of language, knowledge and the system of intersignification, in other words, if Man is the measure of all things vis-à-vis Man, then it is obviously absurd to conceive of Man as being everything minus Man, for without Man there would not exist “everything” or indeed anything, because there will be no perceiving subject, thus no word/sign, thus no system of intersignification, thus no knowledge. Without the conscious subject, there would be nothing (so to speak, within the limitations of language, but of course there would not even be “nothing”). In other words, the existence of Man cannot be positively verified, because Man must be present as conscious subject for anything at all to exist, including himself, but any other thing cannot possibly verify the existence of Man. Let’s try our second formula of positive existence, and we’ll find the same thing: again, where [– a = – x + a], no-Man cannot equal nothing plus Man, because, as we stated earlier, Man is not only conscious, but is conscious of Being (as differentiated from Existence, which is Being-in-the-World) and therefore a thinking sentient being cannot not-be. Therefore, we cannot fit Man into any positive formula of existence. What does this mean? It means that we cannot know if we really exist, because nothing can exist except through Man – including Man himself. In other words, we need something that knows Man independent of Man. That’s the reason why the negative formula of existence holds true. That which is lacking is thereby given a “fake” existence as word/sign, which, seeing as it exists negatively and thus cannot be posited as existing, can only be believed in. For without the negative formula of existence, Man would be conscious of not knowing if it really knows anything, for nothing knows him.(12)

And so here we come to the crux of the problem: Man cannot exist through no-Man, or even not-Man (everything except Man), but needs something else. Hence the possibility of the negative formula of existence whereby that which is perceived as lacking within the formula of positive existence is made possible, especially considering Man’s lack of any discernible formula of existence, either positive or negative, as was demonstrated in the previous paragraph. Therefore, to fill in the lack of positive existence, God (as well as other negative things, such as Soul, which we’ll look at a little later) becomes possible as the consciousness that Man lacks of (and over) himself. The negative existence of God becomes necessary as anti-Man. Thus Man and God become inseparable binary opposites without which neither can exist, for Man can only exist positively through God, and God can only exist negatively to Man, and so Man becomes anti-God, and God becomes anti-Man. The speculations that can be drawn forth from this are deceptively obvious, as they are open to elenctic variations of equal validity. For one could argue that, as a result of this relation, God must exist, because without him, Man is lost. On the other hand, one could also argue that Man is already lost, and so God exists as an imaginary remedy. These arguments are, however, meaningless, for they are simply a matter of whatever one wants to believe, and in fact totally pointless, because the distinction is false. But the greater, much more important implication of the binary nature of Man-God is this: that our heretofore conception of Man and God as separate things (or word/signs within the system of intersignificance) is now impossible from a philosophical standpoint, as we have proven that neither can exist (conceptually speaking) without the other. They are, instead, two aspects of the same thing: Man-God.(13)

iv. On the negative existence of things
Formula: q = all qualities of negative thing n, and Q is all qualities. Thus, according to the formula for the negative existence of things, n = q(n). In other words, n is that which its qualities are. Thus God is God because of his qualities, i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, immortality, etc. Thus, God is the sum of his qualities. Now if according to the negative formula of the existence of things ([a = x + (– a)]), then negative thing n is the sum of qualities found lacking in everything x. Thus q(n) = Q + (– q(n)). Why not simply q(n) = Q – q(n)? Because the lack of qualities of n must be perceived positively as lacking in all qualities Q. Thus we are in fact adding that which we perceive as lacking, hence Q + (– q(n)). So now we have the formula for the quality of a negative thing as: n = q(n) = Q + (– q(n)), and the overall formula for all negative things becomes [a = x + (– a)] = n = q(n) = Q + (– q(n)). Now when we apply this formula to another negative thing like “Soul”, as we demonstrated earlier, we find that Soul can have no positive existence in accordance with [a = x – a] and [– a = – x + a], because we cannot know what the qualities are of that which is not (i.e. which is not positively apparent to us empirically). However, Soul does fit into the negative formula for the existence of things, because we can know what qualities are lacking in all qualities Q. In fact, that is precisely the definition of the negative thing: that which is perceived to be lacking in the world and thus by definition takes on the qualities of that perceived lack. Hence the negative nature of God and Soul. So, Q – q(n) would not hold, but Q + (– q(n)) would. Thus we cannot define everything in terms of what God or Soul isn’t, we can, however, define God and Soul in terms of what we perceive to be missing or lacking in everything.(14) This may seem contradictory: It means we create the concepts of God and Soul based on our perception of what is lacking, yet we never really know what those concepts of God and Soul are in a complete and positive sense, because we never know what they are not.

Let’s try some examples where we take up qualities of God and Soul. According to Q + (– q(n)), then, let’s take Immortality, so that Immortality equals all qualities plus no-immortality, which holds true, because this quality of God is lacking as a quality amongst all qualities, therefore all qualities plus the lack of this quality define it as a quality of God. So too Universal Omnipotence, which equals all qualities plus the lack of the quality of Universal Omnipotence, which holds true as a quality of God. If we apply the positive formula q(n) = Q – q(n) however, Immortality could not equal all qualities minus Immortality, because Immortality is not a quality that is perceived as being possible. It is only perceived as being lacking (in relation to mortality – that is, Death).

So what is the origin of lack? Why do we need some things to exist when we see that they don’t? Or rather, why do we perceive that everything in itself is not enough that it needs us to create negative concepts to incorporate into our system of intersignificance as word/signs that have no positive and empirical existence? Put simply, why do we need God and Soul? What is the ultimate lack in the universe? What is the ultimate lack in life? In fact, what is the only significant lack? What is not-life? The answer is obvious to us all: Death. It is the ultimate state of not-Being, not-Existing, not-Life, not-Human, not-Thing. Put simply, it is Not. Death is the primordial lack, the ontological void. But to say that these negative things, God and Soul, spring from the mere perception of death would be wrong, for animals perceive death too, it seems, knowing the difference between a living being and one that is dead, thus acting accordingly. But what separates us is that we have a consciousness of death. For example, unlike animals, we can think of death as an abstract thing or abstract concept without having to see a dead thing to conceive of it. Thus we are aware of Death as a concept, and incorporate it as such into our language (system of intersignificance). Why is this important? Because it is only through abstraction that concepts become things (as part of the system of intersignification), and philosophy can only begin with this process of abstraction, for philosophy can only deal with word/signs. What happens then is that we are not only aware of death when we see dead, only to shrink away with an instinctual aversion born of our instinct for self-preservation; instead, we are aware of Death at all times as an abstract concept that is perceived to be ubiquitous as a law of nature in accordance with our intellectual faculties and sense-experience. This of course means that Death becomes a fundamental aspect of our overall life consciousness, because it appears to us as the ultimate negation of life and being. Death thus becomes an existential issue, fundamental to our Existence as Being(s)-in-the-World. Thus we not only “stand out”, we “stand out” at our own certain peril. We lack permanence, we lack security, we lack the secure continuation of our most cherished quality: Being.

As we have demonstrated above, for Man to exist, God must “exist” (as word/sign); we see now that for Man to also persist, God must exist. Thus God is the negative creation that is sought both as an answer to the problem of Birth and that of Death. This does make sense on a scientific level as well, seeing as Birth and Death are obviously two sides of the same coin and inseparable from each other, much in the same connection as Man-God. We can now gauge the qualities of God through the lack of existence (or Death), according to the overall formula for the negative existence of things ([a = x + (– a)] = n = q(n) = Q + (– q(n))), although, as stated before, we can never know all the qualities of God in a positive sense, only in a negative one.(15) Permanence (as opposed to the fleetingness of life, happiness, love, loved ones, all things we hold to be good and dear, etc.), immortality (as opposed to Death and the certain end of I), Knowledge (as opposed to ignorance of the Meaning of Life and the Purpose of Existence), Pure Goodness (as opposed to the vices we perceive in our world and which we shrink from, jealousy, greed, envy, anger, unhappiness, etc.), Eternity (as opposed to the merciless passing of time and the stress of aging), Infinity (as opposed to the limitedness of our own being, our world, our knowledge, etc.), Unity (as opposed to alienation and estrangement both as Existing Being-in-the-World, and as Being-among-Others), Love (as opposed to loneliness, lack of recognition, being unloved or constant need for love, recognition, need to be heard and known and seen by others), Truth (as opposed to lack of Truth – or lack of certainty of what can only be believed to be Truth), Power (as opposed to the feeling of powerlessness and helplessness through perception of Fate and Fortune), Glory (as opposed to mundane and boring nature of existence), Grace (as opposed to our own graceless bumbling, mistakes and failures), Perfection (as opposed to all our own perceived shortcomings, complexes, paranoia and insecurity), Protection (as opposed to seeming precariousness of nature, life, living, the universe), Security (as opposed to the cycle of killing, death and violence on earth), and the list can go on and on… One quality of God is particularly interesting however, and that is that of Mystery, a quality obviously born of the perception of the quotidian sterility and routine of human life and endeavor. For no Man can say God is not a Mystery. In fact, this very quality of Mystery that we attribute to God is our collective-conscious expression – and unconscious proof – of what we stated above concerning our inability of positing the qualities of God in anything other than a negative way – of our inability to conceive of God positively. For we all agree in the above qualities we’ve listed as attributes of God, but although we list such qualities as “Knowledge”, “Truth”, etc… as being in the necessary possession of God, by also stating the “Mysterious” property of God we are expressing our fundamental ignorance of what God “Is”… In other words, we cannot positively conceive of God as what “Is”, only as what we “Are Not”. But this has already been demonstrated through our subjecting the word/sign of God to our positive and negative formulas for existence, so all it is is a confirmation rather than a revelation.

So far Soul has taken a backseat in our discussion of the nature of the existence of negative things. Truly, it is of secondary importance than the concept (as word/sign) of God, but it is also integral to it, and thus a concept (as word/sign) worth delving into. Whereas God is the remedial manifestation of lack on a universal scale, Soul is remedial manifestation of lack on an individual scale. They are two aspects of the same remedy, fitted to Man as Being (universally – God), and Man as Being-in-the-World (individually – Soul). We can demonstrate this by seeing that every quality attributed to God is in turn attributed to Soul in relation to the individual. That is, Soul is perceived as like a little piece of God. If God is All, then Soul is All-in-the-Many. Just as it necessitated a Holy Spirit to establish the link of essence between God (All) and Jesus (All as Individual manifestation), and thus complete the unity in a Holy Trinity, so too Soul forms the individuation as word/sign of the essential negative qualities of word/sign God as All. Thus, if Man creates God because he perceives qualities that are lacking and which need to be remedied by God vis-à-vis his consciousness as Being, it is the concomitant creation of Soul by which he reconciles his existence as individual (Being-in-the-World) and to thus create the link between All or One (God) and Many (Soul, since individuals form the Many that are in turn part of All or One). Thus, where God is immortal creator, Soul is what is immortal creation within the Individual as separate from that part of him that is physical and mortal. Soul is thus the conceptual link that must tie Man to God, by which Man partakes of those qualities in God that he perceives to be lacking in himself and thus seeks a transference of those qualities into himself. Thus, through Soul, Man cheats Death; through Soul, Man achieves immortality; through Soul, Man inherits Truth and Knowledge; through Soul, Man becomes Good… In other words, through Soul, Man becomes part God and thus overcomes his undesirable Man-ness and the limitations and inherent lack of his existence. No wonder, then, that so many from so many religions and belief systems and paradigms of thought have sought to “learn about their Soul.” For God and Soul share another fundamental quality: that of Mystery. Just as God is a mystery, so is the Soul, and this in fact is one of our favorite qualities that we find in it. By partaking of God through Soul, we become something beyond everyday and mundane… we become sublime, we become each of us a Mystery, we become, finally, interesting to ourselves. We thus believe Truth, Immortality and Meaning lie within, but also give ourselves the purpose of finding it, because, as with God – whose properties Soul transfers and individuates – Mystery is also the satisfaction of a lack and part and parcel of Truth.(16)

But one will have noticed here that our description of the lack is not fully explained. Why are those qualities we deem lacking on earth, deemed to be lacking, and furthermore, deemed necessary to be remedied by the creation of negative things that are granted those lacking qualities so that wholeness is achieved in Man’s universe (within the system of intersignificance)? If it is obvious to us from science and observation that Death (Death being the ultimate Lack) is a natural process that all living organisms experience, and indeed must experience in biological terms, and if we are logically aware of this fact of life, then why is it a problem for us? Why must we believe in God and Soul to remedy this? Why does this lack cause us… pain? For that is the origin of our conception of lack, that which causes us pain, not necessarily physically (although the physically painful potential of Death is also very apparent to us at all times), but also psychologically? Is the origin of all our ingenious systems of belief, of Truth, of God, of Soul, merely the product of a base and primordial feeling? Can our entire system of religion, philosophy, ingenious creation, imagination, quest for Truth and pursuit of science all really just come down to a single, stupid feeling? Is Pain our ultimate stimulant for all pursuit in life? For fear of the pain of exposure to the elements, to the ravages of nature, to the greed and power of others, to the vicissitudes of hunger and thirst are our stimulants for working for the sake of having a house and food and clothing and water to keep us from experiencing pain. But it is obvious that this form of pain is actually an alarm given by our instinct of self-preservation to our intellect, warning it of what needs to be done for the essential preservation of life. But how is the other type of pain – the existential type stated above – also pain? Surely our life is in no immediate danger even if we were to be able to conceive of living without the negative word/signs of God and Soul? But this involves a different type of pain to the physical one. Whereas the physical manifestation of pain is one that stimulates and causes the adrenalin to flow, the latter existential pain is one that has the obverse effect: it sucks out our life-force and causes inaction, nausea and unease. But although physical pain and existential pain have different manifestations, they have their origins in the same natural instinct for self-preservation, and are thus manifestations of anti-Death. But what is the origin of this Pain that is born of the consciousness of lack in the perception of (ultimate-)Lack-as-Death? Why is God and Soul the necessary remedy? Why is there Pain? What or who are we trying to save?

Before we look into the origin on Pain, let us now sum up by showing that the cause of the existence of negative things can then be summed up with the formula: P + q(a) > – q(a) = q(n) where p = Pain.(17) This means that Pain caused by a positive quality brings forth an anti-positive quality, which equals the quality of a negative thing as lack. To give an example, Pain caused by our perception of Death (which is an observable quality of the world, thus “positive” as not-Life) leads to a conception of anti-Death which in turn becomes the negative quality of Immortality. Thus: P + q(a) > – q(a) = q(n)

v. Ego – I – as End-in-Itself

Just as we can only speak of, represent, and think about everything in terms of being and existence (where even the concept of nothing can only be conceived negatively, as not-thing, not-being, not-existing, etc.), so too, we can only relate to the world through the ego and for the ego, the I. Our consciousness of Being is the beginning of our consciousness of self. All our subsequent actions have their origins in the ego and all consequences serve the interests of the ego. In other words, there can never be a selfless act, an act that did not have as its first interest the interest of the ego of the acting subject. All other interests and ends are relative to the ego. Thus, as a universal rule, Ego is the origin of all deeds and always the End-in-Itself. The interests and well-being of Ego is the End-in-Itself.

This may seem cynical and callous, especially when we place so much value in selflessness and altruism while we vilify egotism. But when we look at it closer, selfless acts and altruistic motives are in fact the most ingenious forms of gratifying self and ego. In other words, no action can be taken consciously that is not in the interests of the ego before all else. Thus, when a man risks his life to save a child in a burning house, he does so because he would feel disgusted and worthless with himself if he didn’t, he would lose a person he loved and made himself feel good to know and have in his life, he would gain the recognition and respect of the public, of his other loved ones, of God (if he believed in one), etc. Thus all of these factors would make him feel good for himself and serve the interests of his ego. This goes to show that doing something in the interests of ego need not be considered bad or wrong, because all our actions serve the interests of the ego. In fact, being gregarious and social beings, there has evolved among us an interrelationship and economy of ego-satisfaction in which the interests of the individual are indexed to the interests of society, or more precisely, to the interests of the individual as individual-in-society. Thus, when we consider one and all intertwined and sharing the same interests, that which we do for others also makes us feel good about ourselves. But we will talk about this more when we explore the origin of virtues and ideals and other “transcendental” concepts in another chapter.

If, therefore, the beginning of consciousness of Being is the beginning of consciousness of Self, and if, furthermore, all our conscious actions serve the interests of our selves (our ego), then the idea of not-Being, not-I, would be the ultimate evil in our eyes. Thus Death and danger (which is a consciousness of the possibility of Death) is naturally anathema to the human. Herein lies the cause of pain: the cause is that which is perceived as being opposed to the interests of Being, which is, essentially, consciousness of Being, and since the conception of I is born of that consciousness of Being, then that which causes pain is that which threatens Being as I. And so, we now see the origins of existential pain. Whereas physical pain is obvious as an immediate threat to well-being, existential pain thus manifests itself through this conception and awareness of Death in an abstract and potential sense, as a sense of the inevitability of not-Being. The importance of the negative qualities attributed to God and Soul for the sake of filling this ultimate Lack that is Death then becomes apparent. For just as our existence is justified through God (-via-Soul), so is our persistence of Being assured through God (-via-Soul) in the belief that there is an immortal substance to us called Soul which is God-given (or at least of a transcendental origin) and which will guarantee that “I”, that essence that is the “I” of consciousness, will never die, will live on and on forever. Thus I cheat Death, thus I alleviate Pain, thus I gain peace of mind.

And so Man-God persists, but Man knows God exists precisely because he doesn’t.(18)

Footnotes:
1. Lao Tzu: “The eternal Tao is not the Tao that can be spoken of.” Wittgenstein: “Of that which cannot be spoken we must forever remain silent.” These are the very first words of the Tao Te Ching and the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus respectively – words that contradict themselves, as they should.
2. Logic and reason are inseparable from language and grammar, but more on this later.
3. It is not important for now to discuss whether the solutions we conjure or accept as true have flaws inherent in them, something which would take a thousand books and an exhaustive study to even attempt, which would most probably end up being futile and without any definitive answers. It is also pointless here to discuss the nature of how these existential solutions may arise and the influence of institutionalized ideological structures, such as church, family, state, etc… For now it’s only important to know that people take upon themselves certain modes of belief as solutions with a view to dealing with the problem of Being.
4. I say “virtually” limitless, because they are ultimately limited by the conception of ultimate or original causation, which is essentially what we mean by meaning.
5. The temporal aspect may not seem as obvious as the spatial one in this context, but any question of from, to, here, there, movement, placement in general cannot have any sense in only a spatial aspect, for to move to something or from something necessitates a progressive displacement of a thing from an infinite series of here’s, and that progressive displacement of a thing cannot be conceived except through a sense of time. Thus a here and there means nothing except as also a before, now and after.
6. More on epistemology and the origins of knowledge in another chapter…
7. I’m going to use the masculine pronoun because I can’t be bothered saying s/he, and also because, for the most part, philosophy is a male pursuit, because women know better than to waste their time philosophizing about the meaning of life when they already instinctually know it, being as they are the repository of the wisdom of our species. From here on I will also refer to God as “he”, more out of the same sense of convenience (seeing as we are generally accustomed to the patriarchal concept of God through Judeo-Christian and Muslim civilization), but the correct definition would be “he/she/it”, but I can’t be bothered. “It” makes the most sense to me, but that causes confusion, especially in writing of this sort, so the best for the sake of avoiding any unnecessary confusion is to just refer to “him” the way people are used to. Besides, the gender of God (if that is even possible) has no bearing on the argument at hand.
8. What of the exception that I may be merely the thought or the dream of another being? After all, is there any way of knowing that I am not? There isn’t. But regardless of the nature of my Being, it still doesn’t mean I am not, because I can still conceive of myself as Self, and thus, as Being, regardless of whether I am the figment of another being’s imagination. As far as I’m concerned then, I am, and so is the world, even though it all be a dream. Furthermore, how can a person dream or think of me if I do not think of that creating person as thinking or dreaming of me in the first place? Therefore, my being thought or dreamt by another being again necessitates my existence as thinking and dreaming subject, because without me there would be no other to create me. Therefore, I am, though how I am is a mystery.
9. Take, for instance, children’s cartoons, where things we are accustomed to witnessing occur through a lifetime of experience are taken out of context and mixed and matched so that ridiculous things happen, ridiculous because they are out of the scope of perceived and accepted experience: i.e. we have the concept of “duck”, we have the concept of “pants”, and that of “talking”. To mix them all together and create a talking duck with pants is against all our commonly perceived experience, so we don’t get so taken in when we see a cartoon of it on TV. Furthermore, we know the character is merely a drawing. The reason why a child is more entertained and taken in by it, is that the child’s total experience is so much less than ours and thus has not come to have a rigid sense of what is normal that has been built up on decades of living experience. They know “duck” and “pants” and “talking” but aren’t yet so sure they cannot coalesce and morph into that of a talking duck in pants. So whereas we know such a thing as a talking duck in pants to be virtually impossible, a child’s credulity is engaged because of such little actual experience of life to show evidence to the contrary. In other words, all anything really is, no matter how “surreal” it may be, is merely a result of playing around with commonly accepted word/signs or compound word/signs.
10. By the same token, when we apply the positive formula for existence of Soul, [a = x – a], we find that everything minus Soul cannot define Soul because Soul is empirically unverifiable, and thus indefinable in any certain terms, which would mean that although you could define certain properties of “Soul” as being not-death, not-mortal, or not-material, you cannot positively define other qualities of it such as relate to consciousness and its nature in relation to matter – in other words, whether it is in fact not-consciousness or not-unconsciousness or something other, whether it is not-Self or not-Other, whether it is not-matter or not-ether, etc… So if we don’t know its full qualities empirically, we can’t know it as what it is not, thus it remains obscure and non-existent in a positive sense.
11. “Positively” in the sense that these things are apparent to us and empirically perceptible to our senses, and hence “posited”. There is a sense of irony to the fact that a positive thing can only be determined as a negation – in terms of what it is not ([a = x – a] and [– a = – x + a]). But without negation, nothing could be posited as existing, nothing would “stand out.” Thus, negation is in the nature of the positive. The qualities of positive things is dealt with in WORD/SIGNS.
12. One example is that Man cannot have proof that life is not a dream and that dream is not real life, because Man is the measure of all things, and therefore has nothing to measure his consciousness by. To say that the obvious sequences of causation, normalcy and space-time do not apply in the dream state is not possible, because we can only know that those obvious sequences of causation, normalcy and space-time are askew when we are in our waking state, but when we are in the dream state, things seem to make sense. Therefore, we cannot know which state is “real” and which “false”, because they involve two different states of consciousness without there being a “higher” objective consciousness that can preside over them and arbiter independently.
13. Some may object that if this were true there would be no possibility of atheism, that it is in fact not only possible but a widespread reality that men can and do live lives without recourse to God, without the need to seek validation of their existence through such a concept. But this is beside the point, because I am not arguing that one cannot live without belief in God, I am arguing that one cannot live without either believing in or not-believing in God, that in either case we must necessarily use God as the point from which we distinguish ourselves as Man, regardless of the quality of the distinction. In other words, everyone somehow establishes their existential identity by taking a position in relation to God, regardless of what that position may be.
14. Can anyone say what the nature of God or Soul is, what those concepts fully define? No. But one can perceive that God and Soul have all the properties that are perceived to be lacking in life, such as immortality, omniscience, meaning, omnipotence, infinity, eternity, etc.
15. Further evidence of our negative relation to God is the fact that we can only represent God in terms that are familiar to us – i.e. terms that can only be represented within the system of intersignificance. Thus God takes on anthropomorphized characteristics that arise from conceptions of paternalism/fatherhood. Just as we observe in life that a father is the head of a family and the originator of life through his external inception (or “intrusion”) into the female world (the world too is always represented as female in mythology), so too we need a universal “Father” as the ruler and creator of all things. This shows that we can only conceive of God as a being in worldly, and thus anthropomorphic, terms, because we further need a universal father figure that we find lacking. Family has father, state has father, but what about world or universe? It is the “supreme” father, God, who again fills the lack. Thus, we create God in our own image, for without our universal father we would all be orphans.
16. This seems like a contradiction, but as we stated above, it is essential, for the qualities of God and Soul cannot be known in a positive sense, only in a negative one, and therefore, although we know what qualities we lack and transfer onto God and through him Soul, we cannot know what qualities God and Soul have except in relation to this lack. Thus God and Soul must remain forever a mystery, hence the quality of Mystery that is inherent in both these negative (and intertwined) word/signs.
17. I use a capital “P” for dramatic flair, but also to highlight the fundamental importance of Pain in our outlook on the world.
18. The ambiguity of the pronoun is intended.