Tautological Oxymorons: Deconstructing Scientific Materialism:An Ontotheological Approach

By John D. Brey

Following in the fted footsteps of Heidegger and Nietzsche - Jacques Derrida set out to complete the process of 'deconstructing' Western metaphysics. But something remarkable happened on the way to dismantling the Forum! As if by grand design, Derrida's deconstruction of Western metaphysics morphed into the ultimate justification for the apophatic (negative) theology that undergirds Western metaphysics!

In reaction to this inadvertent justification of negative theology, Derrida embarked on a decade long confrontation with negative theology. Most objective observers of the confrontation would be hard pressed not to feel that rather than deconstruction 'deconstructing' apophatic theology, instead, and quite irreverently, apophatic theology appears to have absorbed and incorporated the vocabulary of Derrida's deconstruction into the very language it uses to justify its presuppositions.

Having more than staved off the attack by Derrida's deconstruction, it may now be time to turn the sword in the opposite direction. If deconstruction is easily absorbed into the apophatic behemoth supporting Western metaphysics, what would happen if Western metaphysics applied deconstruction to the modern scientific materialism which acts as the cornerstone of the worldview setting itself in opposition to Western metaphysics?

Tautological Oxymorons is an attempt to deconstruct the language and logic used to present scientific materialism as though it were a viable alternative to pre-Enlightenment theology, philosophy, and mythology. By examining modern scientific materialism in the light of language (and proper language use) we can see that much that's taken for granted as 'obvious' and a mere 'given' (within the context of scientific materialism) is rather (when carefully examined in the context of precise language usage) nothing more than sheer unadulterated absurdity!

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Jun 25, 2002
• ISBN: 9781469713656

John D. Brey

No author bio.

Book preview

All Rights Reserved © 2002 by John D. Brey

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the publisher.

Writers Club Press

an imprint of iUniverse, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse, Inc.

5220 S. 16th St., Suite 200

Lincoln, NE 68512

www.iuniverse.com

ISBN: 0-595-23206-X

ISBN: 978-1-4697-1365-6 (ebook)

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION

I.

II.

III.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOTES

These three essays are dedicated to R.B. Thieme, Jr., a man who will be seen, in truth, to have had a greater historical impact than any of the celebrated thinkers and intellects quoted throughout the pages of this work. Words cannot express the gratitude I have for the consistent presentation of God’s Word that has come to me through Thieme’s ministry.

Truth is no harlot who throws her arms around the neck of him who does not desire her; on the contrary, she is so coy a beauty that even the man who sacrifices everything to her can still not be certain of her favors…[she] truth is fairest naked, and the simpler its expression the profounder its influence.

Arthur Schopenhauer.

PREFACE

The following concepts are designed not in an attempt to challenge the materialist’s belief in scientific materialism, but rather to strengthen his belief. The stronger the materialist’s belief in scientific materialism becomes—the more distinct will it (his belief) be from his perceptions, or his logic. Only when the materialist acknowledges the power of his belief (even in scientific materialism), will he begin to see that his belief is potent to impregnate his perceptions; and even contaminate his logic. From this position of strength, the materialist may come to experiment with his belief—seeing how virile it is in the shaping of his reality. Were he to follow this program to its inevitable result—the materialist would come to see that belief (in-itself), rather than in scientific materialism—is the genesis of all Form—of perceptions—and in perceptions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following for their contribution to this work:

Guy Benson for acting as a sounding board for many of the ideas and concepts contained herein. Guy was the most enthusiastic proponent of this undertaking. His energy and enthusiasm were a major factor in the completion of the work. He read various drafts of the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions that improved the overall readability of the work.

George Ashley, who got the ball rolling by convincing this author that persons not generally predisposed to the arguments made in these essays, could, nonetheless, set aside their biases and enjoy even arguments with which they strongly disagree, as long as the arguments are presented in a rational, or interesting way. George’s comments weighed heavily on my decision to publish these essays.

I also want to thank the other participants of the CompuServe Religion Forum. I shouldn’t mention names, since I will inevitably pass over some that should most certainly be included, but, nonetheless, I will mention, Noel Boulanger, Michael Haggerty, Max (Martin Hubbard), Mark K. Bilbo, Loren S. Damewood, Gene Zucker, Robert Little, Val Patenaude, Chris Eyre, Thomas Bergel, George Campbell, Bill Hounslow, Terrence Edwards, Yossarian, SD Anderson, Gary Zumwalt, Jeremy Moore, Baydiver, Henry Neufeld, Abigail Esman, Casey Beach, Patricia Oliver, Burgy, Jeremy Moore, Roy Gillett, Patsy H., Carol Roper, Marc (St. Cynic), and many, many, others….

I am thankful for the input from my brother David, who also did the artwork for the cover, and my brother Matt, with whom I’ve shared innumerable hours debating many of the philosophical and theological concepts presented in this work.

I give my love and gratitude to my wife Karen, who endured too many nights alone whilst I committed adultery with the lovely daughters of Sophia…those enticing signs and ciphers birthed from the intellectual passions of writers and thinkers since time immemorial!

INTRODUCTION

All philosophy is a critique of language….

Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The Oxford philosopher Michael Dummett once suggested that when most men look at the nature of language, they are like primitive savages gazing at a twelve-cylinder combustion engine. Such savages draw absurd conclusions about the nature of the engine; and therefore, when the engine is the actual mechanism for drawing conclusions in the first place, the savage creates a grossly defective version of reality based on his primitive conclusions about the language that births his reality! He therefore forms ‘fantastic misconceptions’ about the nature of reality itself! Indeed, he develops a picture of reality that can only be properly termed tautologically oxymoronic. It is precisely this ‘oxy-moronic’ version of reality, which is targeted for deconstruction (even ‘destruction’) in the essays that follow.

The Wittgensteinian premise which supports the deconstructive effort applied to modern scientific materialism—is the startling insight that whenever, and wherever, scientific investigations are presented as synthetic ‘explanations’ for the nature of reality (rather than mere analytic ‘observations’ of reality), these so-called ‘explanations’ turn out to be absurd tautologies, meaningless tautological noise. Whenever, and wherever, empirical science attempts to give ontological explanations (explanations designed to suggest that science is on the path toward finding reality…’explaining’ the essence of reality) empirical science instead births gross tautological inconsistencies. For all true explanations are metaphysical! Any explanation for things within the physical world must lie outside the physical world.

As Wittgenstein stated it: ‘The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists—and if it did exist, it would have no value.’ To have value, an explanation for something in the world, must have a meta-explanation; that is, there must be some meta-physical perch (outside the physical world) from which to judge an explanation allegedly arising in the physical world, about the physical world. The explanation must be judged by some standard of judgment, not contaminated by the essence of the physical world; for the physical world is that which is in the cross-hairs of the examination.Any explanation about things in the world, must transcend the things in the world, which it (the explanation) would attempt to illuminate. Apart from this metaphysical perch, all so-called explanations, turn out to be contaminated by self-reference, circularity, or infinite regress—and are thus completely selflimiting…or grossly tautological.

Modern materialism attempts to ignore and cover up the obviousness of its tautologous worldview; and so, the materialist employs a fatal form of oxymoron—whereby a particular word, used as the foundation of his theory, gains its meaning wholly as the antithesis of a another word whose ontological essence/meaning he denies any true significance. In other words, science uses oxymoronic phrases whereby the meaning of the word is derived in every respect from its antithetical contrast with another word…which other word, the scientist denies any real ontological meaning or significance whatsoever. The materialist literally annihilates the Father of his most ontologically significant phrase—‘Nature’—so that the offspring (meaning) of his phrase is birthed by a sort of Great Mother parthenogenesis (virgin birth)—whereby even the Great Mother is an emergent property of herself. (The cover of this book pictures the Great Mother caught in the act of birthing parthenogenetic offspring.) The materialist uses language to suggest that ‘Nature’ is supernaturally natural! Since by denying the ‘supernatural’…he makes everything that’s ‘natural’ the ultimate form of ‘supernatural-ness’…a ‘natural-ness’ based on an absurd infinite regression of cause and effect!

In the process of deconstructing modern scientific materialism, the treatise examines materialism in the light of the ‘new physics.’ In Michael Talbot’s classic book on the ‘new physics’ (Mysticism and the New Physics) he stated his amazement that the Aspect experiments, which confirmed non-locality, were almost totally ignored by the media. He says that these experiments changed our understanding of the nature of reality more drastically than the revelations of Copernicus, or Galileo, and yet the media was silent. Tautological Oxymorons shows why the media and scientists are silent about much of the ‘new physics.’ The work shows that the ‘new physics’ bring science full-circle with the theology and philosophy that was side-tracked by the asininity of post-Enlightenment materialism. Speaking of the quantum element of the ‘new physics,’ Einstein remarked: ‘This theory reminds me of the system of delusions of an exceedingly intelligent paranoiac, concocted of incoherent elements of thought…if correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science.’ Tautological Oxymorons attempts to justify Einstein’s claim by showing that indeed the ‘new physic’ has become a ‘scientific’ version of the old theology, and philosophy, of pre-Enlightenment Europe!

Books like Capra’s, Tao of Physics, Tipler’s, The Physics of Immortality, or Satinover’s, The Quantum Brain, are sputtering manifestations of a reinvigoration of pre-Enlightenment thought. The ‘new physics’ has created a wholly new ‘context’ from which it can now be seen/shown…that philosophy precedes and supercedes (always has) the empirical sciences, and that all philosophy is born of theological and mythological types which are the very energizing force of philosophy. It can now be shown the degree to which scientific materialism is literally the offspring of Pagan theological presuppositions (filtered through materialistic philosophizing) related to matriarchal cosmogonies, or Great Mother parthenogenesis. Likewise, it can now be seen/shown… that quantum physics, and the recent understanding of the virtual nature of reality are born of patriarchal presuppositions inherent to Judeo/Christian theological cosmogonies and types.

If this work succeeds in its labor to show that the foregoing is indeed the case—then the title of this treatise fulfills a two-fold purpose whereby it describes and labels in one fell swoop! It describes a desperate attempt to ignore the metaphysics contained in all allegedly non-metaphysical concepts (showing that all metaphysics presented as ‘non-metaphysical’ are tautological oxymorons)—and likewise, it acts as a label for all those materialistic scientists and thinkers (so-called) who are still unable (even after the finding of the twentieth-century) to extricate themselves (their Self) from the absurdities of their archaic pre-big bang, pre-quantum physics, Enlightenment version of reality! They are tautological oxymorons, and moronic purveyors of tautologies par excellence!

*     *     *

The first essay, Natural Selection—Oxymoronic Tautology—is a direct assault on the concept of ‘Darwinian natural selection.’ Unlike most theistic, or creationist arguments, which dance around Darwinism attempting to undermine Darwinism from within the rules and constructs of materialistic thought, the first essay in this treatise attempts to pull the rug out from under Darwinian natural selection by showing that the theory cannot even be rationally propounded without acquiescence to play by the absurd rules of materialism and empirical realism. The essay presents fair and concise arguments based on the most recent scientific and philosophical insights—arguments which show that only where mankind allows himself to ignore the most basic and fundamental nature of language and the consciousness it births—can certain so-called scientific theories (which are fundamental to the modern materialistic worldview), even begin to be taken seriously! The essay shows that as incredible as it might seem, Darwinian arguments are actually founded on oxymoronic tautologies. In other words, when the logic of Darwinian natural selection is examined in detail…it can be shown that the foundational theory is undeniably based on oxymoronic propositions, which, quite amazingly, turn out also to be tautologous! It appears that this is indeed the very direction that Wittgenstein and Heidegger were going with many of their arguments against materialism. In other words, showing the tautologically oxymoronic nature of scientific ‘explanations’—makes explicit, what was only implicit in much of Wittgenstein and Heidegger’s work.

*     *     *

The second essay, Materialism—Oxymoronic Tautology—totally inverts the logic that purportedly supports materialism, showing quite matter-of-factly, that materialism is an illusion based not on facts, or science, but on an almost supra-religious need to make the atom the parthenogenetic mother of all things. So powerful is the materialist’s desire to make ‘matter’ our Great Mother that it borders on the fantastic! The essay, goes into some detail to show that modern materialism is indeed born of Pagan mythological ‘types’ which are in total contradistinction to the Judeo/Christian mythological ‘types’ which seem to have given rise to (and are consequently being justified by) the most recent insights concerning quantum physics, and virtual reality! The scientist John Wheeler is quoted asking what quantum physics tells us that wasn’t hypothesized by the Christian philosopher Bishop Berkeley hundreds of years ago? Karl Popper is quoted suggesting that Berkeley and Kant indeed birthed the very philosophical concepts that energized the thinking of Einstein and Bohr! The Oxford philosopher Bryan Magee then tops off Wheeler and Popper by suggesting that Berkeley and Kant generated their conceptualization (which Wheeler and Popper suggest birthed quantum physics) by attempting to reconcile empirical observations with Christian theology. The essay shows the absurdity of the materialist’s foundational beliefs, and then draws direct correlations between his beliefs and the Pagan mythologies and cosmogonies that gave birth to his philosophical paradigm. It then contrasts the materialist’s Pagan mythological ‘types’ with the Judeo/Christian mythological ‘types’ and cosmogonies, which appear to have led to the ‘new physics’!

*     *     *

Essay number three, Human Logic—Oxymoronic Tautology—builds on the first two essays by showing that human logic cannot be an epiphenomenon of material causation. Since human logic cannot be an epiphenomenon of material causes, the materialist’s version of human logic is illogical, and thus, an oxymoron: ‘illogical logic’! Essay three briefly touches on the demarcation between scientific knowledge and non-scientific knowledge; showing that much as Thomas Kuhn suggested, ‘scientific’ knowledge is not virgin born, but rather bears the genes of the mythological types from which it was fathered. This third and final essay gives the most in-depth examination of the scientific nature of words and language, balancing arguments made by Wittgenstein—with modern attempts by scientists to deal with the scientific nature of words and language. This final essay attempts to show (even more than the first two essays) that language is a form of life—that linguistic life (grammar) is just as irreducible and inexplicable as is the biological life contained in genes.

I.

NATURAL SELECTION—OXYMORONIC TAUTOLOGY.

Propositions show what they say: tautologies and contradictions show that they say nothing.

Ludwig Wittgenstein.

1. TAUTOLOGICAL USE OF TERMS.

Natural selection¹ is an oxymoronic tautology.

Natural selection is an oxymoron since the most ‘un-natural’ thing in the universe—life—(or the functional order inherent in life)—is the primary thing the term ‘natural’ is being used to explain. A conspicuous ‘un-naturalness’ seems to suffuse the very things that the materialist would use the term ‘natural’ to explain. This makes the materialist’s use of the term ‘natural’ a standard example of an oxymoron (un-natural naturalness).

Natural selection is also a tautology, for if the environment in fact selects the variations that reflect, or cause, the increase of functional order²—then it (the environment) possesses the inexplicable/metaphysical ‘selection’ power that the theory is designed to deny, or explain away.

Rather than define what ‘selection’ is—in-itself—natural selection (as a theory) is content to presume that ‘selection’ is what you have when you have a selector (such as environmental niches) in the process of selecting…this is a tautology. The theory of natural selection says in effect: the most ‘unnatural’ thing in the universe—life—is in fact natural—because a selector has selected for it. The theory doesn’t give a sense to the word ‘natural’—nor does it define ‘selection’ (in non-tautological terms)—worse—it fails even to produce a meaningful description of ‘life’ within its allegedly scientific paradigm. Yet the materialist presumes the combination of two completely impenetrable oxymorons (un-natural naturalness and selector-less selection) form a non-metaphysical explanation for the most inexplicable thing in the universe.

Any process that increases or efficiently utilizes functional order (negative entropy)—would presumably be the antithesis of the word ‘natural.’ And thus using the term ‘natural’ to describe such a process is oxymoronic. This is particularly true where the increase, or utilization, of the functional order is as dramatic as exists in biological artifacts such as the human brain, or the human eye. Not only is the materialist forced to use the word ‘natural’ in this oxymoronic manner, but, so too, he’s willing to compound the absurdity of his oxymoronic use of the word natural by making it also a tautology. For if the materialist considers the state of the universe at the big bang ‘natural’ (every particle in perfect harmony within a space less than the size of a pea)³—then it’s difficult to imagine a place where the word ‘natural’ wouldn’t apply. Consequently, if everything is natural—then nothing is natural. The term ‘natural’ must differentiate one state from another—otherwise it’s employed as a totally meaningless tautology—whereby the materialist speaks profoundly concerning the ‘naturalness’ of Nature.

As Wittgenstein stated it, ‘A tautology leaves open to reality the whole—the infinite whole—of logical space.…’⁴ If the universe is natural, then there must be something other than the ‘natural’ universe, which keeps the term ‘natural’ from describing the ‘infinite whole of logical space’…and thereby birthing a meaningless tautology?⁵ Wittgenstein showed (what should be patently obvious) that all mathematical propositions are tautological—for the predicate is always contained in the subject. The subject: 1+1, contains within its logical structure the predicate: 2. Therefore, to say that 1+1=2 is to reveal no knowledge that isn’t already present before the predicate is allegedly surmised. It is impossible to falsify the statement 1+1=2 because it’s an analytical (tautological) proposition whose predicate is contained in its subject.⁶ It is impossible to falsify a proposition if the predicate (that which is allegedly in question) is in actuality, already contained in the subject that precedes the predicate. To say that the universe is ‘natural’ is tautological if the essence of the word natural is a property of the universe being called ‘natural’. Likewise, to say that the fittest survive is tautological, because in the proposition, fitness is measured by the ability to survive. Therefore the predicate (survival) is already a logical property of the subject (fitness). If ‘natural-ness’ is an inherent ingredient of some ‘thing’ (like the universe, or life), then applying the term to that ‘thing’ creates a tautology! It’s like speaking about ‘black’ ravens. Since all ravens are black, it is superfluous and redundant to speak of ‘black’ ravens.

Tautologies might clarify the meaning already present in the subject, but they add no new meaning. The fact that no new meaning is added is crucial; for it shows that tautological statements can only ‘clarify’ an a priori version of reality; they cannot explain anything (where explanations are taken as leading to new meaning or new knowledge). If this is the case, then neither meaning, nor new knowledge can ever come about though tautological propositions. As Popper showed, tautologies are not falsifiable. If they are not falsifiable, then they say that things are…as they are…but never why or how they are.

It’s clear and irrefutable that if the predicate of a statement is that part of the statement which is allegedly a hypothetical deduction derived from the subject (and is therefore able to add new meaning, or information, to the subject of the statement)—then the predicate cannot be fully contained in the subject, else the predicate is simply a restating of the subject, and thus, the predicate cannot be denied or falsified. If this latter is the case, then such a statement is a proposition that doesn’t lend itself to logical refutation, and thus if the statement is true, it cannot be known to be true by examination of the proposition that presents the truth. Rather than representing a hypothetical premise that might lead to new knowledge, it instead ends up being a synthetic a priori truth whose truthfulness is not contingent on observations or non-tautological logic! Schopenhauer accurately surmised the situation when he stated:

It may be that people often speak in lofty tones about sciences which rest entirely on correct conclusions from sure premises, and are therefore incontestably true. But through purely logical chains of reasoning, however true the premises may be, we shall never obtain more than an elucidation and exposition of what already lies complete in the premises; thus we shall only explicitly expound what was already implicitly understood therein.⁷

*     *     *

Numerous conceptual errors give rise to the materialist’s oxymoronic/ tautological employment of the term ‘natural selection’. First is the materialist’s inability to ground words in such a manner as to give them a non-tautological meaning. The fact that there is no inherent correlation between actual words as signifiers, and what they signify (a dog could just as easily be called a grog), dictates that the meaning of a word comes not from within the word itself (the placement of letters, or the sound a word makes when spoken), but rather, the meaning of a word is based on contrast and difference. The word dog is different than the word cat. Therefore we call this animal dog, and that animal cat. The words are dissimilar so we can use them to contrast two different things. But of course there is no such thing as a dog, since the term ‘dog’ represents merely a Platonic metaphor naming the most basic essence of an animal for which there are nearly infinite differences. If someone says they have just acquired a dog, there is no worry on the part of other dog owners that their dog has been stolen by the person stating they have just acquired a dog. It is understood that the person is using a Platonic metaphor when he speaks of acquiring a dog.

What is generally misunderstood is that all words are Platonic metaphors⁸ based wholly on ‘difference’ and contrast! No word has meaning inherent in it (inside its letters and sounds). All meaning is based on difference and contrast.

Within the contrast/difference necessary for words to possess meaning, we have two major types of difference. There are of course the secondary (or relative) differences, like cat and dog, whereby the difference is a category difference rather than an absolute binary contrast between two terms. But all such relative differences arise only as secondary effects of the ontological cornerstones of difference, which are based completely on a direct and absolute disparity between the two things being described by contrast/difference.⁹ Light is the antithesis (an absolute binary dissimilarity) of darkness. Being (as in ‘existing’) is an absolute contrast (an antithetical dissimilarity) to non-being! Good is the absolute antithesis of evil.

All shades of gray, all secondary or relative differences (like cat and dog) can arise only if…and after, binary contrasts between absolute opposites are pre-established—never prior to the establishment of these absolute binary oppositions. There’s a natural progression of metaphorical meaning whose absolute ontological base is the contrast between light and dark—being and non-being—alive and dead. In other words, every single word is a metaphor based on some other metaphor, until the chain of metaphor runs into a word that is no longer a metaphorical type, but instead a metaphor/term used to describe a primary thesis/antithesis generating ontological contrast!

If we say the word dog is a metaphor for a type of animal, and the word animal is a metaphor for a type of living thing…we eventually grind to a halt with the concept of the animal as a living thing as opposed to a non-living thing. The word ‘living’ is a primary metaphor in that it is the antithesis of non-living, and no matter how specific we want to get in attempting to break life down into reducible metaphors (like ‘a replicator of information’ or something like that) we still reach a point of irreducibility when we use the word life. Life is a primary metaphor in that rather than describing a type of some other thing…’life’ is a primary archetype establishing the binary opposition (ontological contrast), between itself, and its antithesis. This primary contrast is the entity that gives ‘being’ to things and words.

Like the word ‘life’, the word ‘light’ is a metaphor describing primary contrast. Unlike metaphors that describe relative differences, the word light is nothing but the antithesis of dark, and dark is nothing but the absolute absence (the antithesis) of light. Light isn’t a ‘kind’ of anything (or a metaphor of some other thing): it is pure antithesis! Darkness isn’t a ‘kind’ of anything (or a metaphor of some other thing): it is pure antithesis. Since light and dark are not ‘kinds’ of things…but rather pure antithetical contrast…light and dark are the beginning of Being, they are the essence of the finite, of creation…the absolute rupturing of the infinite!¹⁰

In the sense of Eastern mysticism, the rupturing of nothingness (infinity) occurs at the first differentiation between light and dark (yin and yang). This rupturing is the birth of the first Adam, the atom, the cosmos, the cosmic play, the babe in the manger, His archenemy Satan, you yourself…and the other! The word ‘light’…ruptures the silence giving birth to the binary opposition that Fathers language and thus ‘Being/existing’! Language is born of the word ‘light’, and that light (even the word) first illuminates the void/darkness—generating antithesis (between light and dark)…and thus the atomic birth of grammar.

Linguistic light (the word or Word) gives ‘Being’ (existence) by slowly freezing into its antithesis (darkness)…and grammar is born! This virgin birth (one parent only—the infinite One—from whose rib the light is pulled) is the beginning of the possibility of the linguistic intercourse, which generates the conscious linguistic body. Light is frozen into matter (a slide (second law of thermodynamics) toward its antithesis: darkness), creating a physical body/sarcophagus which entombs the light, in its mortality (death), and from which the light might be re-born through regeneration. Physical life is housed in matter, and matter is (in a physics sense) frozen light. Thus, the ultimate archetype of contrast…the ultimate ontological dichotomy…is between light and dark. Light and dark are as far down the chain of metaphors as one is able to go.

God said: ‘Let there be Light!’ ‘I am the Light of the world!’ ‘No man cometh to the Father but by me (through me, because of me…the Light)’!

*     *     *

The first place these facts contaminate the theory of natural selection concerns the materialist use of the term ‘Nature’. The materialist is clearly using this term not as a type, or ‘kind,’ of some other thing; but rather as a direct antithesis of something which he doesn’t actually believe exists! He uses the term to name a state that is the absolute antithesis of a ‘supernatural,’ or ‘un-natural’ state, but since he doesn’t believe in the supernatural state—his uses of the terms ‘Nature,’ and ‘natural,’ are all consigned forever to be nothing more than pure tautologies! The materialist can never give his use of these terms a sense, since he has no absolute supernatural state to use as the absolute binary contrast that his use of an absolute Nature and natural demand.

If all words are based (somewhere in their chain of signifiers/ metaphors) on real thesis and antithesis (and they are) then any attempt to use a word (particularly one with metaphysical implications—like ‘natural’) without acknowledging the qualifying legitimacy of its antithesis—destroys the meaning of the word completely. Such an activity renders the meaning of the word completely tautologous! It’s a form of nihilism that attempts to ‘annihilate’ the Being of a word by severing the word from its only source of meaning—the binary opposition that gives it meaning.

If in an absolute sense, you have nothing but white and black, to remove either the white or the black doesn’t leave you with the other (either the remaining white, or the remaining black) but it leaves you with nothing at all. Regardless of the counter-intuitive nature of this fact, it is absolutely true. In an absolute sense, the white is white only in reference to black, and the black is black only in reference to white. To remove the reference point from which either entity gains its meaning (its Being) is to annihilate any meaning or Being.

This fact makes all materialistic statements meaning-less, for they use the term ‘natural’ as the binary opposite of something they deny exists. If the term ‘natural’ isn’t used to contrast some other state, then the term has zero meaning. If Nature isn’t an emergent antithesis of the infinite (the supernatural), then consequently, the materialist’s term ‘natural’ ends up possessing its own ‘infinite finiteness,’ which is an asinine oxymoron. This is a distortion of the logic of infinity; for the infinite cannot be seen or known in the sense of the finite; therefore what can be seen and known has nothing infinite about it. For the materialist, anything open to perceptions is natural. Yet to be perceived is to be finite. Infinity is not perceptible since it doesn’t have boundaries. You cannot see something that has no ‘thing-ness’ to see. And ‘thing-ness’ is based on finite boundaries. Infinity has no ‘thing-ness’ and thus it cannot be seen or perceived.

Therefore, anything that can be perceived is not infinite. But if it is not infinite, then it is finite. If it is finite, then it hasn’t always been (or it would be infinite and imperceptible). Thus, everything finite has a point of genesis. But, conversely, the finite must emerge from an infinite ‘boundary-less-ness.’ For if we eliminate every thing (the finite) then we have a ‘No-thing-ness’ that has always been. Even though our perception is always of an ‘infinitesimal slice of time’…we still know that nothing we perceive is infinite (since if it were, we couldn’t perceive it).

Despite the fact that we can’t see the whole history of what we look at—we still know it isn’t infinite, since if it were, our perception would rupture its infinity by creating a boundary (our perception of it would bound it and rupture its infinity). Therefore, we know that if we can perceive something, then that something has a genesis. Oddly enough, our perception of it guarantees that it has a finite genesis somewhere in the past. Where this is understood, we see that everything we perceive has a genesis…and yet if everything we perceive has a genesis, then something must exist behind, before, and above what we perceive…else we are positing the most remarkable ‘emergence’ from ______ (It can’t even be named…for it would transcend the cipher used to pin it to the page…it would slither back into the infinite limbo beyond ciphers and finite things)!

No-thing-ness is infinite, since it requires no-thing (no finite thing) to Be. It just Is (in its state of not being an Is). This means that the finite absolutely must ‘emerge’ from an infinite state, which is the most necessary ingredient of the finite. In his treatise on mathematics, Ad Infinitum, Brian Rotman states it thus:

It is surely impossible to think of the infinite and the finite independently of each other. Infinity is that which cannot be traversed; it indicates that passage to the limit, the movement of transcending, of going beyond, of overcoming and nullifying the here-and-now of the finite. And the finite? What else ‘is’ it, how else name and conceive it, except as that which is given an identity by being refused, negated by, set against the non– or un– or in– finite?¹¹

As that which emerges from infinity, the finite is dependent on infinity, and thus any correct use of words must consider infinity ontologically ‘natural’ and the finite must be a supernatural emergence from the infinite. Indeed the infinite possesses the very essence the materialist attributes to the finite. Infinity is Natural, and all that emerges from infinity is a supernatural epiphenomena of the infinite, pulled from the rib of the infinite, and bearing the DNA of the infinite. Indeed, Martin Heidegger suggests that any attempt to make finite things (translated ‘essents’) ‘natural’ is a form of nihilism:

But where is nihilism really at work? Where men cling to familiar essents [finite things] and suppose that it suffices to go on taking essents as essents, since after all that is what they are. But with this they reject the question of being and treat being like nothing (nihil) which in a certain sense