Treatise IV - on God as a Semantic Problem

IV. ON THE VANITY OF BELIEF

And so we have come to the crux of the dilemma. We have demonstrated that we create “things” as word/signs and incorporate them into the system of intersignification even though there is a fundamental contradiction between their existence as negative existing word/signs and their being able to form into negative-synthetic propositions for the sake of knowledge. Since these negative things exist precisely because they are seen to be lacking material being, it is pointless that that which lacks material being could be the subject of a truth proposition that can be taken as a solid monad of knowledge – as “fact”. We have also demonstrated that the very qualities that these negative things are deemed to possess are directly related to all the qualities that are deemed to be lacking in the world, precisely because their Lack causes us Pain. Therefore, it becomes apparent that negative things are created to alleviate this Pain (i.e. consciousness of evil, suffering, misery and impermanence in the world, and especially the consciousness of Death), and thus to give us an obverse sense of pleasure. Naturally, because we can only give these negative things the qualities that are perceived to be lacking, these negative things can only have those qualities that are empirically observable as lacking BY BEING JUXTAPOSED WITH THAT WHICH IS NOT LACKING, i.e. THAT WHICH EXISTS. This is so because we saw that we can only conceive of and define a thing that exists (and its qualities) in relation to all other things that exist (especially other things that are typally closest to it, so as to facilitate such an arduous task). Therefore, what qualities negative things have are actually determined by what things we already empirically perceive, but which we can only think of those things as “not-being” to be able to apply the opposite/antithetical qualities to negative things. In other words, negative things, like God, are actually not really “Goodness” and “Justice” and “Immortality”, but they are technically “not-(perceived Pain)Evil”, “not-(perceived Pain going unpunished and un-remedied by some power strong enough to do so)Injustice” and “not-(perception of Death as ultimate signification of Human Pain) Mortality.” And so what actual POSITIVE qualities such negative things can have are a Mystery. Hence the philosophico-logical shoehorn function that this quality of Mystery serves to fit these negative things into our system of intersignification even though we have just demonstrated that they are unsuitable building blocks for becoming Knowledge, essentially because they cannot have any positively verifiable qualities that can be subject to empirical verification. They exist only as Lack. This is what we have seen so far.

Of course, this is nothing new. We already know that we cannot base any solid foundation for knowledge with negative things, we can only BELIEVE that they are true. But if a thing is obviously not of solid material for the founding of knowledge, how can we convince ourselves that it is anyway, when such a belief would obviously be so flimsily founded? Why would we consider something so important that even more important than whether it can be true or not is that it MUST be true? What makes us act in such an unfounded and unreasonable way? Why do we whitewash knowledge with Mystery and tolerate negative-synthetic propositions in language when they are as fickle as our intellectual fortitude as a species? You will immediately attempt a guess and proclaim “Fear!” But even Fear is the symptom of a much more primordial, much more insidious malaise of the human psyche. The answer is in fact: Vanity.

i. The Foundation of Vanity
I am all that I have, and I am all that I know. If I were not, neither would be the universe. Through my senses I perceive, with my mind consciousness is formed. I partake in language, I partake in knowledge, but without me, as far as I could know, neither would exist. I am a manifestation of a force that exists through me, and if I exist, then I must exist. Every cell in my body, every organ, every fiber seeks to preserve my existence, to replenish it, to enable it to live forever, if only in other forms (through procreation). Therefore, the first and most important quality I have is being. If it is in my nature to be, then not-being must necessarily be anathema to my nature. Anything that threatens my well-being is therefore a cause of Pain, and the ultimate state of not-being is the most painful to conceive of. Hence the fear of Death. Death is the ultimate state of not-being. Death is also – as far as I can know – unavoidable. Therefore, how can I remedy this perceived evil in the world, even though it seems inevitable? I can create and sustain belief in another world which is the opposite of this one, where the evils perceived in this one do not exist. I can create and sustain belief in a part of me that has the anti-properties of earthly flesh that is ever at the mercy of death and decay, a part of me that will live on earth as being the essence of me, and live after the rest of my body has died. In other words, I can create and sustain belief in a Soul. This immortal Soul will connect me to a perfect, all-powerful being, and through this property – possession – of soul, I can also become part of the greatness and divinity of this great, immortal, all-powerful being – i.e. God. In other words, I will not die, I will not perish, I will live forever, that most essential part of my mind that makes me me, that determines who I am, that is my soul and that soul will live no matter what. I will never die.

So where lies the Vanity of this when really such beliefs are just psychological cushions to help us get through life and deal with death as best we can, to at least create such illusions (which we demonstrated are illogical and not possible candidates for knowledge) to fill in the Lack we perceive in life due to the pain that exists for us and around us, most clearly manifested in the form of Death? Surely it’s not really Vanity, surely it’s just our little imperfect way of dealing with an affliction – being – that really makes no sense to us, and as a result, troubles us. If only this were so. If only there were no alternative but to believe in such negatives and to create and use negative-synthetic propositions as if they were logical and possible foundations of knowledge. But this is where we are wrong. An alternative does exist, but it does not suit our most immediate and basic interests to accept it, to see it, to recognize it. Instead, we succumb to our shortsighted, short-term interests – i.e. ourselves. So what is this alternative offered to our understanding? It is the realization that Death as we know it is merely an illusion, for it is just as necessary for the function of life as is Birth. If death were not necessary, then we would not reproduce, for reproduction would be ridiculous if death were not a factor. How could we create new life when the old does not die away? In fact, if there was no death, those organic molecules that made up the deceased organism cannot then be reformed into a new organism. Therefore, there would be no new material for new life. So there would be no need for reproduction, and thus there would be no sex, therefore no gender, and if you consider that perhaps 90 percent of our activity in life has some sort of sexual drive at its core, then human society – which is basically a forum of sexual interaction where women and men vie with each other for the best possible spouse to produce the best possible offspring – would be pointless. A life without sex, without love, without power, without goals, without time (for time is ultimately measured in terms of death) would not be life at all. Furthermore, from an organic standpoint, if there were no Death, nor would you need to eat, for your being would be self-sustaining, the first and second laws of thermodynamics would be pointless. There would not only be no sexual pleasure, there would no longer be an pleasure in eating or drinking, for you would not have any need to satisfy hunger or thirst, etc. So we see then that a life without Death would be no life at all. We see then just how essential this phenomenon of Death is for the proper (normal) functioning of life as we understand it. So why do we consider it an evil? Why don’t we understand it as being essential to our being? Therein lies the vanity: rather than see the obvious for what it is, we instead put OURSELVES above all other considerations, even at the expense of the species, and indeed, life itself. MY existence is most important, MY being is essential. I have a Soul, God gave it to me, and if I do the “right” thing (we’ll look at morality later) then I will live in a blissful state of ethereal existence – some sort of Paradise. That then is the ultimate Vanity – putting the mortal, fleeting self before all else, even when the most obvious and logical insight shows that the eventual death of that self is essential for the proper functioning of life as we know and understand it!

Some may object and ask why, if the self is the most important thing, we choose the subsume it under something greater – God – and also consider it essential that if I have a soul and a link to divinity, then all people – or indeed, all living things – must also have one. But this question is superfluous, because what we perceive to be lacking in the world is filled by those negative things we create. Therefore, whereas we perceive mortality, degradation, powerlessness, suffering etc., God and Soul represent the opposite of that. By creating the Soul and allying it with the nature of God, we give ourselves a share of the glory of divinity, or true greatness, and of ultimate immortality and power. It also makes sense that if we are to share in this supreme divinity, then ALL humans, indeed all creatures, should as well, for one of the qualities of God is supreme equality (since we perceive “inequality’ on earth as one of the evils to which negative things like God will be an antithesis), therefore, if equality is an essential quality of God, then God must create and treat all his creation equally, without fail, without exception, since any exception at all anywhere in the history of creation would be inconsistent with perfect equality, and thus inconsistent with the perfection of God. So if I have a Soul, all have a Soul, if I am a part of God, then all things are a part of God, for universality and equality are necessary qualities of God as negative thing, in accordance with: q(a) = q(x) + (– q(a)).

ii. A Vainglorious Lexicon of Some Essential Negative Remedies
Naturally, in the past, we had a lot more negatives in our language, mainly in the form of mythological figures. Science has made redundant the need to anthropomorphize mysteries like earthquakes or lightning and thunder, but the ones left over have become concentrated, taking on properties formerly belonging to a wide spectrum of negatives, and taking on a broader and more general, yet stronger significance as a result – as well as a more ambiguous and flexible one. Here are the essential negatives that have been left over and which we still feel in need of:

God – The ultimate remedy and lack-filler, God satisfies the need for meaning, knowledge, justice, power and immortality. Generally represented in a paternalistic way, especially in the Islamic and Judeo-Christian world, since we explain the origins of life and creation vis-à-vis the familiarity of sex, procreation and family.

Soul/Spirit – A negative that ties God to Man, giving man a connection to the supreme negative (God) and therefore a share of his qualities which are transmitted through the Soul and distributed evenly among all humans/living things/the universe. Soul is also that which “lives” in Heaven/Paradise. In other belief systems, Spirit may tie all life together, and each individually to a greater force or power, as with the Atman/atman concept of Hinduism, for example.

Heaven/Paradise – A state of anti-earth, anti-life, where the anti-qualities of mortality, death, pain, suffering and injustice reign in permanent harmony forever (as opposed to the constant discord and strife we perceive of life on earth).

Reincarnation – An alternative to Heaven/Paradise. Instead of remedying the evil of life on earth with an anti-earth/anti-life, it still satisfies the vanity of existence by ensuring that the Soul of each living being lives on eternally, but with each new life and body it occupies it gets better (depending on whether certain rules are followed). However, there is always a state of anti-existential bliss attained that is beyond earthly life, and thus there is some sort of anti-life concept to it too (i.e. Nirvana in Buddhism, etc.).

Religion – A complete step-by-step metaphysical package on to how to live, replete with a system of easy-to-understand rewards and punishments, all with the aim of distilling hope in a better place after Death. The rewards and punishments are crude enough in their anthropomorphic and earthly descriptions to be understood even by almost anyone (e.g. Heaven has beautiful people, rivers of nectar and honey, beautiful maidens etc., while Hell is fire and burning and torture).

Angels – Divine intermediaries between God/Heaven and Man/Earth. Generally depicted as perfect people – but with wings.

Prophets – Mundane intermediaries between God/Heaven and Man/Earth. Transmitters of wisdom, generally depicted as exemplary people, but still having signs of fallibility which the average person can relate to.

Djinns/Genii/Demons/Ghosts – Generally the anthropomorphized representations of human fear.

Satan – The anti-God, the ultimate anthropomorphization of the evil of earthly existence, thus a representation of strife, war, famine, flux, and all the other evils that are the source of perceived Pain. Satan is the anthropomorphization of all perceived evils which are sought to be remedied. Therefore, Satan is a unique negative word/sign in that instead of taking on itself the qualities that are perceived to be lacking in life (that remedy the evils of it with their anti-evil existence), Satan directly takes on the qualities of life that call for the need to perceive a lack that must be filled.

Footnote
28. The Heisenberg Principle suffices to demonstrate the ultimate limits of knowledge, and the fact that we cannot see things past a certain point, and thus we will never know “everything.” According to this principle, we can never accurately posit an electron’s – or any lepton’s – exact position in space-time, due to the way they seem to move. Thus it becomes impossible to see any patterns upon which to base any causal and consistency connections which are essential for the basis of knowledge, as one of the five principles. Furthermore, if we accept the Planck theorem that energy/light comes in minimum packages – or quanta – called photons, and if we need at least one of these minimum packages to observe a photon (even if we had the sharpest microscope imaginable), since we can only see something with light, then to actually observe a photon as mass, as thing, and observe its properties and natural movements would be impossible, since by zapping a photon with at least another photon (at least, because light cannot be contained in smaller quanta) we would be adding such a massive proportion of energy to its already existing energy (pretty much 100 percent) that we would be altering its movement and nature by the mere fact of observing it; and so we will never know the nature and properties of the most fundamental element in the creation of matter, life, the universe, everything.