Humans have evolved out of nonsense, and the history of humanity is the record of trying to deal with and eradicate the primeval nonsense that still permeates us. These is no other way of discerning nonsense than by the three fundamental laws of logic, so by rejecting or ignoring the laws we abandon the distinction between sense and nonsense, reject humanity and symbolically wallow in primeval slime. Sense unites, nonsense divides.
Laws of Logic are Purely Relational
The laws of thought (the three fundamental laws of logic) are the necessary and sufficient conditions for two or more meanings relating to one another in a way that makes a new, composite meaning. The laws were not invented but discovered; we were unwittingly adhering to them when combining meanings to make sense of any situation. For example, “I am walking” has a composite, situational meaning, whereas “I am not I” does not - the simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same identity cannot be combined to make sense and therefore does not result in a situational meaning; the independently meaningful parts [<I am>; <not I>] negate one another and thus remain conceptually disjointed.
Below is a list of articles in which I attempt to correct the most common errors in the interpretations of the laws.
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-identity
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-excluded-middle
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction
The laws of thought (the three fundamental laws of logic) are the necessary and sufficient conditions for two or more meanings relating to one another in a way that makes a new, composite meaning. The laws were not invented but discovered; we were unwittingly adhering to them when combining meanings to make sense of any situation. For example, “I am walking” has a composite, situational meaning, whereas “I am not I” does not - the simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same identity cannot be combined to make sense and therefore does not result in a situational meaning; the independently meaningful parts [<I am>; <not I>] negate one another and thus remain conceptually disjointed.
Below is a list of articles in which I attempt to correct the most common errors in the interpretations of the laws.
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-identity
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-excluded-middle
https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/derivation-of-the-principle-of-sufficient-reason-from-the-law-of-non-contradiction
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
Tribalism is Self-defeating
An identity that is ideologically bound to the land, that includes the land as an integral part of ‘our people’, implies nativist supremacism, which is in principle anti-human and precludes universal ethics, and is therefore a priori wrong. It is trivially true that every human is a product of their ancestors and their cumulative experiences, but tribal cultures devalue the fact that we all share the same ancient ancestors, that we are all related, and instead carve out an arbitrary value-distinction in a particular time period and area; a negation of the common roots of humanity for the sake of tribal advantage over others. The injustice of tribalism is not so much the emphasis on bloodline in their becoming, but ignoring the fact that we are all of the same bloodline, and that the significance of bloodline is logically subordinate to the human capacity to generate meaning. The best thing that indigenous tribes can do to advance their agency is to abandon tribal ideology and embrace their human identity, as conscious rational beings capable of creating unbounded meaning with all other humans, by means of what we all have in common. You are all welcome.
An identity that is ideologically bound to the land, that includes the land as an integral part of ‘our people’, implies nativist supremacism, which is in principle anti-human and precludes universal ethics, and is therefore a priori wrong. It is trivially true that every human is a product of their ancestors and their cumulative experiences, but tribal cultures devalue the fact that we all share the same ancient ancestors, that we are all related, and instead carve out an arbitrary value-distinction in a particular time period and area; a negation of the common roots of humanity for the sake of tribal advantage over others. The injustice of tribalism is not so much the emphasis on bloodline in their becoming, but ignoring the fact that we are all of the same bloodline, and that the significance of bloodline is logically subordinate to the human capacity to generate meaning. The best thing that indigenous tribes can do to advance their agency is to abandon tribal ideology and embrace their human identity, as conscious rational beings capable of creating unbounded meaning with all other humans, by means of what we all have in common. You are all welcome.
They still don’t understand the moral wrong they have committed and their apology is worthless. Discrimination against the unvaccinated would be unethical even if the vaccine fully prevented transmission. Exclusion of the unvaccinated coerces a percentage of healthy people to let themselves be killed by the vaccine, therefore violates their right to life; exclusion of the unvaccinated discriminates on the basis of innate biological characteristics of the human race; exclusion of the unvaccinated implies that being born human is not a guarantee of full human rights; exclusion of the unvaccinated denies the right to free medical consent; exclusion of the unvaccinated coerces people to accept a violation of bodily integrity. APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED.
This is awaiting everyone. Even if you are now at your biological peak, in a decade or two your charms will wane, you will shrivel up and grow old. No mater how much money you will make, how much fame you will gain, how many followers on instagram you will attract, no matter how much pleasure or happiness you can buy, none of it will serve you in the end. The only reward that is immune to time comes from achievements that aim beyond you, and ideally extend to humanity, to consciousness, perhaps to time itself.
A new book “Covid-19 Lawlessness” is promoted by some human rights lawyers, claiming to be “anti-fascist”. https://covid19lawlessness.com/ After reading the previews it appears that this is another example of a Professor of the establishment using the large print to giveth and the small print to taketh away. His primary argument seems to be (again!) that the vaccine was experimental, not that free medical consent and the right to bodily integrity should apply absolutely: “Standing up for what is right starts by speaking out against injustice and the violation of fundamental rights such as the right to be free from medical experimentation without free and informed consent.” No, this is not a defence of ABSOLUTE rights, but an implicit defence of proportionality when violating human rights. Vaccine mandates even for a perfectly safe and fully approved “vaccine” (which would have to be a placebo to be perfectly safe) are still implying that being born human is not a guarantee of human rights, which are thereby abrogated and replaced with privileges conditional on giving up your control of bodily integrity.
There is one question you can (and should) ask any online personality to determine whether they are genuine defenders of human rights or just fence-sitters playing both sides: ‘Do you support vaccine mandates for Measles or any other fully approved and extensively tested vaccines?’ Please let us know their views on this question.
When you disagree with someone there are only two possibilities: a) one of you is wrong, or b) both of you are wrong. In the overwhelming majority of cases the answer is (b). This does not make argumentation pointless; even when we are both wrong we can refine our understanding and improve consistency by reasoning in good faith. When your interlocutor argues in bad faith, is obstinate or dismissive, you can still gain from the interaction but only if YOU argue in good faith. Knowing this may help you avoid getting frustrated, losing equanimity and your face, and thus gain nothing from the conversation. This does not mean you have to continue conversing indefinitely when your interlocutor shows bad faith, but it cost you nothing to end the conversation gracefully, without stooping to their level. Your time for a conversation may be free, but it is not worthless.
“Trojan Disinformation and Controlled Opposition:
A set of data or observation which is passed to an opposition group anonymously, which appears at face value to support their contentions – however, which also contains an often subtle but irrefutable feature which will serve to falsify the set of data or observation at a later time, well after it has already gone viral inside the opposing camp. This is a Trojan Horse style of disinformation, which is sold as misinformation (innocent mistake); disinformation designed to discredit opposing voices through their credulity and lack of attention to detail.” https://theethicalskeptic.substack.com/p/disinformation-vs-misinformation-ebf
A set of data or observation which is passed to an opposition group anonymously, which appears at face value to support their contentions – however, which also contains an often subtle but irrefutable feature which will serve to falsify the set of data or observation at a later time, well after it has already gone viral inside the opposing camp. This is a Trojan Horse style of disinformation, which is sold as misinformation (innocent mistake); disinformation designed to discredit opposing voices through their credulity and lack of attention to detail.” https://theethicalskeptic.substack.com/p/disinformation-vs-misinformation-ebf
The Ethical Skeptic
Disinformation vs Misinformation – Neither Can Be Defined by ‘Intent’ (Part I of II)
The 10% lie is much more effective than the 100% one. While misinformation deals in lies, disinformation deals in facts. ‘Fact-checking’ therefore, is a favorite pretense of the disinformant
One cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for causing harm by acting on the information provided by others if the agent in question did not seek to personally verify that acting on the relevant information will not cause harm. For example, a politician who causes harm by acting on the advice of experts cannot claim that he acted in good faith in trusting the experts; he is personally liable for causing harm because he failed to verify that acting on the relevant information would not cause harm and therefore intentionally acted with indifference to the possibility of harm. Moreover, an agent who affirms and propagates unverified information does so with the intent of propagating it even if it is malicious or false information.
World as Meaning
Nature, including the inorganic physical world, is, in a sense, a manifestation of the collective unconscious, the totality of meanings that consciousness has progressively externalised as having the relational integrity of a World. Behind this process is the procedural ideal (ideal agency, or Logos) that guided its creation via the rules of discernment of possible vs impossible, real vs unreal, true vs false, in every manifestation of rational consciousness. As such, the world is meaning, every real part of which is meaningful and necessary to sustain the integrity of the whole, which in turn makes the whole existentially conditional on rational consciousness. Logos (as the principle of sense) is above and before the world, it is also in the world as the embodied rational consciousness, and it is the world as its meaningful appearance/experience. On this view it makes sense to regard the creative principle (rational consciousness subject to the laws of meaning) as valuable – we all affirm this value whenever we think and act in a particular way – but it does not follow that the creation is itself valuable, let alone supremely valuable. This would be a negation of the value of the universal source of value, while simultanously affirming this supreme value in the very act of judgement, therefore a contradiction. A contradiction cannot be real, cannot be a part of the integrity of the whole, it is intrinsically contrary to the creative principle; it is possible only in conscousness, and only as an error.
If any non-human part of nature possessed reflexive consciousness, then from the beginning of (meaningful) time it would necessarily be in reciprocal communication with us, manifesting good will or bad will, mutually understood and understanding, or it would not be in the same world. A world necessarily is a manifestation of a singular, continuous kind of consciousness that endows meaning, or it would lack integrity and therefore not be a world. Since we are not aware of interacting reflexively and meaningfully with any other rational consciousness, there cannot be any other kind of consciousness.
Nature, including the inorganic physical world, is, in a sense, a manifestation of the collective unconscious, the totality of meanings that consciousness has progressively externalised as having the relational integrity of a World. Behind this process is the procedural ideal (ideal agency, or Logos) that guided its creation via the rules of discernment of possible vs impossible, real vs unreal, true vs false, in every manifestation of rational consciousness. As such, the world is meaning, every real part of which is meaningful and necessary to sustain the integrity of the whole, which in turn makes the whole existentially conditional on rational consciousness. Logos (as the principle of sense) is above and before the world, it is also in the world as the embodied rational consciousness, and it is the world as its meaningful appearance/experience. On this view it makes sense to regard the creative principle (rational consciousness subject to the laws of meaning) as valuable – we all affirm this value whenever we think and act in a particular way – but it does not follow that the creation is itself valuable, let alone supremely valuable. This would be a negation of the value of the universal source of value, while simultanously affirming this supreme value in the very act of judgement, therefore a contradiction. A contradiction cannot be real, cannot be a part of the integrity of the whole, it is intrinsically contrary to the creative principle; it is possible only in conscousness, and only as an error.
If any non-human part of nature possessed reflexive consciousness, then from the beginning of (meaningful) time it would necessarily be in reciprocal communication with us, manifesting good will or bad will, mutually understood and understanding, or it would not be in the same world. A world necessarily is a manifestation of a singular, continuous kind of consciousness that endows meaning, or it would lack integrity and therefore not be a world. Since we are not aware of interacting reflexively and meaningfully with any other rational consciousness, there cannot be any other kind of consciousness.
Article 16 of the current Constitution of Ukraine. What a clumsy way to mandate racial supremacism. https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/constitution_2019_eng.doc