PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity
It is valuable to chase after Reason and Love rather than God “per-se” and find whatever may come our way vis-à-vis the Ontologically Basic vis-à-vis Reason Itself vis-à-vis Being Itself. Note that this discussion is comprised of two parts:
PART 1: PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/
PART 2: PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity at https://metachristianity.com/psr-and-the-necessary-conservation-of-the-ontic-epistemic-singularity/
We observe that it is often quite valuable to chase after Reason and Love rather than God “per-se” and find whatever may come our way. And it is reasonable, in these sorts of formats, to press our own and other’s premises at their ends or margins. On occasion the race to first principles can be mistaken for a race to epistemology and/or for a race to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the PSR). That is why we can say something quite bold here:
The epistemology or the how-we-know with respect to the First Person Experience of i-am is a non-question.
It cannot be answered unless and until one presses one’s own i-am to whatever end or terminus one wishes. It is often said that the Christian moves from Scripture and Presupposition outward into the world of Trees and Rocks and Cosmos. That statement obviously ignores Natural Theology but it also ignores Logic & Love, or we can say Reason & Reciprocity as such contours, like Cosmos, lead one to only two possible termini (…see PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/ …).
Some allude to the perfection of being v. belief and behavior and more. In the end such is Unity, or Singularity, as the perfection of love necessarily entails the perfection of reason, which itself necessarily entails the perfection of consciousness, which is the perfection of being. That is the elephant in the room which all epistemology avoids and another way to say it is this:
Metaphysical Naturalism houses the Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].
All epistemology ends in a race outward in a mass-exit out of one’s mind.
Literally.
Hence epistemology with respect to i-am is fine in theory, and even fun, but it has no full-on reply or answer until one presses outward to one’s terminus.
At some point the Non-Theist’s claim that his own paradigm’s Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] is both Necessary and Rational must be faced on Non-Theism’s own terms. If our Non-Theist friends are at bottom reading the Map correctly, well then Reductio v. “i-am-non-being” in all vectors. The attempt to trade on non-being in exchange for being vis-à-vis Intentionality vis-à-vis Mind is an attempt which collapses to absurdity.
There are times when it is valuable with respect to light to take S. Harris and Rosenberg and S. Carroll and so on at Non-Theism’s proverbial word and GRANT them their “….illusory mind….” vis-à-vis GRANTING them that pesky but Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].
Lens Zoomed In vs. Lens Zoomed Out
The analytic of various lenses is far more nuanced and begins at “A” and then methodically makes its way to “Z”, whereas, the lens here is by design different and picks up the Map somewhere around “XWYZ” vis-à-vis the Explanatory End or the Explanatory Terminus of the only two possibilities found in the traversal of all possible worlds:
Non-Theism: The Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].
Theism: The Necessary Conservation of [The-Great-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].
For example, JSS had quoted another:
“….There is nothing simpler to think I am, I exist, this blade of grass exists; this gesture of the hand, this captivating smile that the next instant will hurry away, exists…the world exists…”
While that is true, it is far more than our “XWYZ” and as such fits nicely in that Lens Zoomed Out or that more robust “A Through Z” treatment of the Epistemic/Ontic singularity. Whereas, should we shift our lens to that of the Explanatory End or the Explanatory Terminus of the only two possibilities found in the traversal of all possible worlds we would say something like this:
“Well hold on now. This blade of grass exists? That may or may not be true. And we cannot know if it is Ontic or True unless or until we break open what came before it, namely that bit about “…nothing simpler to think that I am…”……”
At that point then we pick up the thread with items like PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/
Another example of what all of that “looks like” in this proverbial race to the End of All Possible Worlds comes in two parts. The first part is a quote of E. Feser:
“The universe, however physics and scientific cosmology end up describing it – even if it turned out to be a universe without a temporal beginning, even if it is a four-dimensional block universe, even if Hawking’s closed universe model turned out to be correct, even if we should really think in terms of a multiverse rather than a single universe – will, the Aristotelian argues, necessarily exhibit just these features (potentialities needing actualization, composition, contingency, etc.). And thus it will, as a matter of metaphysical necessity, require a cause outside it. And only that which is pure actuality devoid of potentiality, only what is utterly simple or non-composite, only something whose essence or nature just is existence itself, only what is therefore in no way contingent but utterly necessary – only that, the classical theist maintains, could in principle be the ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be.” (E. Feser) (…from http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/07/carroll-on-laws-and-causation.html …)
The second part is the observation that regarding the topic at hand vis-à-vis the landscape of all things i-am in and around and beyond all things Adamic and/or Edenic and so on in all vectors, our ultimate terminus of explanation, whatever the specific scientific details turn out to be, finds only two options in a universe such as ours and in fact in all possible universes/realities:
Option A: It is a Universe void of inherent intentionality, it is a Universe void of inherent design, it is a Universe void of final causes, it is a Universe soaked through in all vectors with the Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] up and down all ontic-lines (and therefore all final epistemic lines).
Option B: It is a Universe constituted of, soaked through with, Cosmic Intentionality even as it is a Universe soaked through with Final Causes, even as it is a Universe soaked through with the Necessary Conservation of [The-Great-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] up and down all ontic-lines (and therefore all final epistemic lines).
Option A just is Non-Theism and in all Possible Worlds reveals a Totality of deflationary truth value vis-à-vis all Syntax for therein our sightline does not reach a Horizon of the Unknown “past the end of the Known” (so to speak) but rather therein it is the case that there is No Horizon for there is No Sightline for there is No Sight for there is no i-am for there is [No-I-AM] even as there is in all vectors the Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].
Option B just is Theism and in all Possible Worlds reveals a Totality of In-Principle truth value vis-à-vis all Syntax for therein our sightline does not shatter in an Abyss of Non-Theism’s Reductio but instead it arrives at the syntax of Negative-Theology vis-à-vis a Horizon of the Unknown “past the end of the Known” (so to speak) as it lands in what is in all vectors an actual/ontic Sightline even as there is in all vectors Sight even as there is in all vectors the i-am even as there is in all vectors the Necessary Conservation of [The-Great-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature].
The Ontologically Basic vis-à-vis Reason Itself vis-à-vis Being Itself
1— We have the following syntax: Think. Reason. Weigh. Do. Decide. Choose. Think-through. Reason-through. Weigh/Do.
2— We have the following syntax: “…..You can do what you decide to do — but you cannot decide what you will decide to do….” — and — “….A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings…..” (S. Harris)
3— We add 1 + 2 and we arrive at the following syntax: You can reason as you choose to reason — but you cannot choose to reason what you will reason — you cannot reason to choose. You can think as you choose to think — but you cannot choose to think what you will think — you cannot think to choose. You can do what you decide to do, but you cannot decide what you will decide to do.
We add 1 + 2 + 3 and we arrive at the following:
Metaphysical Cul-De-Sacs vis-à-vis Agrippa’s Dilemma vis-à-vis Münchhausen Trilemma
With respect to the Metaphysical Cul-De-Sacs described in “PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being” at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/ where the Agrippa Dilemma (…Münchhausen trilemma…) falls down is 1. in driving an unsupported wedge between Reducible Mind and Irreducible Mind (Epistemic vs. Metaphysic) which sums to “If Not Infinite Knowledge Then Redutio In The End” and 2. assuming a falsehood, namely that the PSR counts for anything at all and 3. that the fundamental nature of this or that or ANY terminus of the cul-de-sac is immune to the fundamental nature of the reality outside of said cul-de-sac.
Simply put, it isn’t the PSR weighing reality. It is Reason v. the Intentional Self/Mind. At times we aim our lens at vectors which cannot even in principle be a metaphysical terminus (like the PSR). It’s not that all termini but one will (necessarily) end up False. Rather, it’s that all termini but one will (necessarily) reduce to absurdity. There is only one Lucid, Non-Absurd, metaphysical terminus. We find that it is NOT the presence of a fallacy-free string of logic & premises & conclusions which necessary compels us to EMBRACE a particular Terminus. Whereas, what we DO find is that we ARE necessarily compelled to REJECT Any/All Circularity, Contradiction, Brute Fact, and/or Reductio.
Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind/Self is there found full-on Alive and Living, Purely Active, and the only terminus one seems to find at first glance is Idealism. But of course Idealism too is unmasked as being herself guilty of falling down in all three areas introduced at the start. She is 1. driving an unsupported wedge between Reducible Mind and Irreducible Mind (Epistemic vs. Metaphysic) which sums to “If Not Infinite Knowledge Then Redutio In The End” even as she is 2. assuming a falsehood, namely that the PSR counts for anything at all even as she is 3. stopping in her own contingent non-god-self and thereby assuming that the fundamental nature the cul-de-sac that is her own non-god-self is immune to the fundamental nature of the reality outside of that same cul-de-sac or worse that there is no evidence of any such Outside as that claim then suffers the pains of Circularity, Contradiction, Reductio, and/or Brute Fact.
Mind vis-à-vis Abstraction will have her say and Mind vis-à-vis Abstraction carries us to the following with respect to Being Itself as Reason Itself: It is NOT the presence of a fallacy-free string of logic & premises & conclusions which necessary compels us to EMBRACE a particular Terminus. Whereas, what we DO find is that we ARE necessarily compelled to REJECT Any/All Circularity, Contradiction, Brute Fact, and/or Reductio.
But then that simply carries us to Logic & Being & Mind & Actuality and so on and one is left either with what one will call Nonsense or with what one will call Important Nonsense (…see Blanshard, Brand. Reason and Analysis…) or with what one will in the end vis-à-vis convergence describe as Theism vis-à-vis Irreducible Being vis-à-vis Irreducible Reason vis-à-vis Irreducible Mind vis-a-vis the simplicity of lucidity.
“….Anything that has arbitrary limits (…in power, value, number of vertices, etc…) has an explanation. A thing that has no arbitrary limits is required to explain the plurality of things that have arbitrary limits. Thus, something exists that has no arbitrary limits. This thing is God….” (Cameron Bertuzzi)
Simultaneously retaining logical seamlessness while avoiding logical contradiction compels us, forces us — else absurdity — into nothing less than Pure Actuality v. Being, Consciousness, & Bliss. David Hart’s book “The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, & Bliss” has relevant overlap. What does it mean to say Proofs of God? From https://strangenotions.com/ama-dr-feser-answers/ is the following:
Begin Excerpts:
“….More importantly, we can defend them by the method of retorsion, which involves showing that one cannot deny them on pain of self-contradiction or incoherence.
This method is sometimes misunderstood. Some people think it merely involves showing that we can’t help thinking a certain way, but where this leaves it open that this way of thinking might nevertheless not correspond to reality. In other words, they think that retorsion arguments are essentially about human psychology. That is not at all the case. Rightly understood, such arguments are a species of reductio ad absurdum argument. They involve defending a claim by showing that the denial of the claim entails a contradiction, and thus cannot as a matter of objective fact (and not merely as a contingent matter of human psychology) be correct…..
….The word “proof” has, historically, been used in different senses. Naturally, I don’t mean that the arguments are proofs in exactly the same sense in which a mathematical proof is a “proof.” They are mostly not a priori arguments, for one thing. But I used the word deliberately, and I certainly claim a high degree of certainty for the claim that God exists. For example, I would claim that it is as certain that God exists as it is that the world external to our minds is real and not an illusion foisted upon us by a Cartesian demon or the Matrix.
How can I say that? Well, the point of the book to show this. The arguments are “proofs” in that, first of all, the conclusion is claimed to follow deductively from the premises. They are not mere probabilistic inferences, arguments to the best explanation, or “God of the gaps” arguments. (I hate “God of the gaps” arguments.) The claim is that the arguments show, not merely that God is the most likely explanation of the facts asserted in the premises of the arguments, but rather that God is the only possible explanation in principle of those facts.
Second, the premises are knowable with certainty. The premises include both empirical premises (for example, the premise that change occurs) and philosophical premises (for example, the premise that everything has an explanation or is intelligible). The premises in turn can be defended in various ways that show them to be beyond reasonable doubt. For example, some of them can be defended via retorsion arguments (which, again, are a species of reductio ad absurdum argument). That is to say, such arguments try to show that anyone who denies such-and-such a claim is implicitly contradicting himself.
So in arguments of the sort I am defending, the conclusion is claimed to follow necessarily from the premises, and the premises are claimed to be knowable beyond any reasonable doubt. That sort of argument fits one traditional use of the word “proof.”
Naturally, I am aware that some people will nevertheless challenge the arguments or remain doubtful about one or more of them. But that’s true of every single argument one could give for any conclusion, even mathematical proofs. A determined and clever enough skeptic will always be able to come up with some grounds for doubt, even if the grounds are bizarre or far-fetched. That doesn’t mean that the grounds are, all things considered, going to be reasonable ones.
Anyway, my calling something a “proof” doesn’t entail that I think every reader, even every fair-minded reader, is immediately going to be convinced. What it is meant to indicate is the nature of the connection between the facts described in the premises and the fact described in the conclusion. It is a metaphysical claim, not a sociological claim. Too many people mix these things up. They think that as long as a significant number of people are likely not to agree with some argument, you can’t call it a “proof.” That just misunderstands the way the term is being used….”
End Excerpts.
The Divine Mind is indeed the proverbial “A” & “Z” as Divine Simplicity finds Being Itself as Reason Itself, not as-if Reason, and Being Itself as Will–Itself, not as-if Will, and Being-Itself as Mind-Itself, not as-if Mind, and Being Itself as The-Good Itself, not as-if The-Good, and Reason as Mind as Self as nothing less than the I-AM — and not as-if-i-am.
Justification avoids Contradiction, Brute Fact, Circularity, and Reductio — Unless God is Evil — or unless Nonsense — or unless Important Nonsense — or unless Useful-But-Not-True-Nonsense — or unless the First Person Experience of Reason vis-à-vis the Intentional Self/“I” vis-à-vis “i-am” is in fact at bottom illusion — or unless…. And so on as per voices widely embraced within Non-Theistic circles – such as, say, Harris and Carroll and Rosenberg and Churchland.
With respect to said illusion one finds affirmation there from such widely published voices in Non-Theistic circles and if one agrees with them, then okay — the entire first person experience is illusion vis-à-vis the syntax of “i-am”. One is then left with the need to demonstrate for us how far that gets one without circularity, contradiction, brute fact, reductio, and so on. It seems of course that Non-Theism won’t demonstrate that because it can’t. One’s only hope is to bad mouth reason itself and insist that ALL roads lead to the same conclusion. But then to bad mouth reason itself just so that one can claim that the resulting “Equal Equity” is somehow “enough” of a Currency with which to get out of the proverbial gate and into the proverbial Ocean is a move that just won’t do – for obvious reasons given the topic at hand.
In the same way if our Non-Theist friends disagree with them, then okay — but then how and why? Will one there avoid the same Ends vis-à-vis Reductio? Again it seems that one’s Non-Theism won’t avoid it because it can’t. What Non-Theism CAN do is what it HAS done which is to claim we’re all — Theist & Non-Theist — in that SAME ultimate position vis-à-vis Reason Itself vis-à-vis I-AM.
Follow Reason outward — and outward again — as such allows us to pull into the fabric the stuff of each step until we reach “That Ultimately Self-Explanatory Terminus” as it were for as we just saw whatever is coherent can neither begin nor end within any contingent terminus and therein Insanity Itself as The Necessary Being is nothing more than a Reductio wrapped up within a Façade of Important-Nonsense.
Avoiding Reductio & Contradiction forever chips away at Every-Thing until one is compelled to embrace the positively lucid and there what was seemingly only so many No’s becomes now so many Yes’s, as per proofs vis-a-vis retorsion.
Here again the syntax of the Divine Mind presses in as the only rational terminus, the only rational “A” & “Z”. Divine Simplicity there finds Being Itself as Reason Itself, not as-if Reason, and Being Itself as Will–Itself, not as-if Will, and Being-Itself as Mind-Itself, not as-if Mind, and Being Itself as The-Good Itself, not as-if The-Good, and Reason as… well as what…? Well not as-if-i-am but, instead, we find Reason as Mind as Self as The Great I-AM.
—END—
Added Context:
Freedom, Illusion, Emergence, & Necessity – at http://disq.us/p/1w4ue31
Sean Carroll, Downward Causation, Churchland, Rosenberg, E. Feser, Mad-Dogs, Kripke, Ross, Freedom, & the Mind/Self – at http://disq.us/p/1zyhrnw
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF NATURAL NECESSITY — by David Oderberg — a chapter in “Ontology, Modality, and Mind” (Edited by Carruth, Gibb, and Heil) at https://www.amazon.com/Ontology-Modality-Mind-Themes-Metaphysics-ebook/dp/B07J128YN4/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 and also at https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ontology-modality-and-mind-9780198796299?cc=us&lang=en&
Closure Displacing Circularity – at http://disq.us/p/1zfedy9
Reason Itself: The Parasite Upon Irrational Physical Events & The Colony of Memes In the Ecology of Cerebral Cortices – at http://disq.us/p/1z5cvf9
The Fallacy of Presupposition – The Necessary & Sufficient void of Presupposition – part a. at http://disq.us/p/205svk9 and part b. at http://disq.us/p/205a6i1 and part c. at http://disq.us/p/205c53m and part d. at http://disq.us/p/205slys
What Does It Mean To Say Proofs Of God? – at http://disq.us/p/1w3dmo7
PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being (this comment) – at http://disq.us/p/208ss3a
The Quad of….
Reason Itself as Being Itself
Wellspring as Terminus
Closure Displacing Circularity
Reductio ad Absurdum
….via the content in the following links:
a. http://disq.us/p/20dfp9t
b. http://disq.us/p/20ax8h7
c. http://disq.us/p/20b83c4
d. http://disq.us/p/20bjkwl
e. http://disq.us/p/20bqdih
f. http://disq.us/p/20cjajj
g. http://disq.us/p/20cxuzh
PSR & Reason & Mind Trading On Non-Being In Exchange For Being – at https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/
PSR And The Necessary Conservation of The Ontic-Epistemic Singularity – at https://metachristianity.com/psr-and-the-necessary-conservation-of-the-ontic-epistemic-singularity/
