Source: https://metachristianity.com/psr-reason-mind-trading-on-non-being-in-exchange-for-being/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:16:35+00:00

Document:
“…..Are you suggesting that epistemic justification requires first principles that are primitives, givens, presupposed, postulates, axioms & such that are non-deductive b/c they’re prior to deductive reasoning & conclusions. And that since a PSR is either a first principle or so closely derived from or related to same, for example, noncontradiction & causality (of things that come to be), while not subject to demonstration or formal argumentation, it, as well as its denial, is subject to refutation by reductio ad absurdum. And, finally, whatever its metaphysical implications for the structure of reality, it’s a self-critical assessment regarding the integrity of one’s mental self…..
And, so, in reply: Well almost. But it’s not quite in-full there.
The category of the First Person Experience of i-am is irreducibly distinct from the category of “wet”. The category of “wet” is not akin to i-am in any lucid form unless one wishes to equate the fundamental nature of Rocks-Falling & Trees-Bending to the fundamental nature of i-am and, quite obviously, it is only the death of a thousand qualifications and ten thousand equivocations by which one attempts to convert such irreducibles & transcendentals & natures vis-a-vis trading on non-being in exchange for being (…end brief primer…).
1. Epistemic justification requires only Mom’s Voice if one is a toddler, and so on. That’s “enough” and is contingent, derived, finite. ANY-thing can fill that category of “Enough”. It’s all good. It all works.
2. The PSR is not a 1st Principle because it is not, and cannot even in principle be, one’s explanatory terminus. The reason that is true is because the PSR is not weighing reality just as the PSR is not Perceiving reality, just as the PSR is not do-*ing* the verb v. reason-*ing*. The PSR is not underived but is instead a derivative – it is an abstraction put forth by some sort of an i-am which/who actually “IS” (…depending on one’s terminus…) weigh-*ing* and see-*ing* and reason-*ing*.
3. Hence the PSR itself cannot lead one to God or to Reductio’.
4. Our own assessment of our own mental state is a trio, and it is three steps too far. One step less and we’re left with the duo of the PSR combined with our own mental state (with or without self-examination). That is still two steps too far as it houses the PSR in various weak or strong forms. One step less and we’ve only our own mental state, our own i-am. That is STILL one step too far as our own Mind is, even in full-on Idealism, contingent on pain of Circularity dancing with Solipsism and her many cousins. Hence none of what has preceded this point can provide one’s Terminus vis-à-vis one’s own i-am vas-a-vis that which is Necessary & Sufficient. And that holds for ANY i-am whether we speak of this or that Illusion or the Matrix or Brain/Vat or Boltzmann Brain or Idealism or Neuro-Physics-Inside-Skulls or Cartesian Demons or the 4D Block’s Embedded Conscious Observer. So far all of the above are not a Terminus but are Derivative – are a cul-de-sac (….of course the very notion of a metaphysical cul-de-sac is its own reductio ad absurdum but that’s a different topic…. sort of….).
5. One’s Explanatory Terminus cannot be identified unless and until one first TRAVERSES that Door, or that Seam, or that Edge, or that Line-Of-Stitching, or that Stratum/Stratum Interface/Amalgamation and exits ANY such i-am vis-à-vis ANY such cul-de-sac whether we speak of The Matrix or Brain/Vat or Boltzmann Brain or Idealism or Neuro-Physics-Inside-Skulls or Cartesian Demons or the 4D Block’s Embedded Conscious Observer.
6. Said TRAVERSING is not the End though. Not yet.
7. For one must, then, KEEP ON REASONING/SEEING as one spies that which is Out-There and thereby discover one’s True End (and one’s True Beginning). One’s own i-am there (…as opposed to one’s own i-am-not / i-do-not-exist…) will discover only one of two possibilities (there is no third) which bring us to closure displacing circularity.
8. As one who is derivative and not underived we find that one’s own nature v. being v. self v. mind v. reason v. intentional-self v. intentional-mind v. i-am finds on the other side of said Edge or Seam or Interface (…again as one who is derivative…) the Underived in and of the Metaphysical Singularity that is (…or Who Is or which is…) one’s Terminus vis-à-vis one’s own i-am vas-a-vis that which is Necessary & Sufficient vis-à-vis [Reality v. Ontic A / Ontic Z]. That A/Z will PROVIDE only one of two logically possible accounts of the i-am vis-à-vis being-itself v. self v. mind v. reason v. intentional-self v. intentional-mind.
B. The fundamental nature of the Larger, Wider, Singular Reality Outside of said cul-de-sac and which in fact fully-funds all that can even in principle “be” within the fundamental nature of reality of said cul-de-sac.
10. It is in traversing that “Seam” or that “Gateway” where the i-am must keep be-*ing* and see-*ing* and reason-*ing* as said i-am searches for lucidity. In fact ANY Contingent cul-de-sac / “In-Here” / “i-am” must, eventually, traverse that very SAME Gateway to that Larger, Wider Singularity that is Reality.
11A. There cannot be, on Non-Theism, that which is in fact “i-am” on BOTH sides of ANY such Interface v. this or that cul-de-sac such as, say, the Pocket-Of-Physics (neurobiology) “in-here” and the Ocean/Cosmos that is All-Physics “out-there”. ANY combination / permutation of [ “….the fundamental nature of….”] all stacked up and layered just-so finds this SAME necessity as non-being cannot trade on being – not even in-principle. Therein we find the driving force behind Harris and Carrol and Rosenberg and Churchland and so many more affirming syntax akin to various forms of “…the Self is illusion…. intention is illusion… the “intentional mind” is illusion…. mind itself is an illusion….”.
11B. Hence it is not that “free will” is “non-actual”. No. That would be easy. It is so much more than that. It is the whole show such that i-am is non-actual and this is in the end forced upon the Non-Theist given Metaphysical Naturalism’s Necessary Conservation of [No-I-AM] vis-à-vis [Reality’s Fundamental Nature] wherein there cannot in fact be, on Non-Theism, that which is in fact “i-am” on BOTH sides of ANY such Interface (or whatever). The category of the First Person Experience of i-am is irreducibly distinct from the category of “wet”. The category of “wet” is not akin to i-am in any lucid form unless one wishes to equate the fundamental nature of Rocks-Falling & Trees-Bending to the fundamental nature of i-am and, quite obviously, it is only the death of a thousand qualifications and ten thousand equivocations by which one attempts to convert such irreducibles & transcendentals & natures vis-a-vis trading on non-being in exchange for being.
13A. Such will be found trading non-being for being and thereby such will in fact trade-away the Necessary & Sufficient wrt Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind/Self and that is true with any i-am that is found landing in that Ocean. There we End with Circularity Displacing Closure.
13B. Such will be found trading being for being as such relates to the Principle of Proportionate Causality (…see below…) and therein the Necessary & Sufficient wrt Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind v. the Intentional Self and that is true regardless of the “degree” of “agency” v. the intentional mind in any i-am that is found landing in that Ocean. There we End with Closure Displacing Circularity.
ANY “contingent” terminus cannot self-account, and, just the same, ANY contingent terminus with respect to “love / self / giving” and with respect to “self / intend / mind” cannot self-account. As the Contingent Conscious Observer our own self-existence cannot provide its own terminus of explanation with respect to reality’s concrete furniture and therein any notion of “Fact” is, if left off there, illusory at first, and absurd in the end as the notion of non-being forces the reductio.
We are compelled there to Being Itself as Reason Itself as Mind Itself as Love Itself as Self-Giving Itself in the uncanny syntax of a Singularity.
So then, how is it that, say, Irreducible Intentionality or, say, Being Itself finds convertibility as it traverses FROM That Which It Irreducibly Is v. The-Underived over INTO that which is irreducible being as the derived / created / contingent being?
On the metaphysics of the creative act how can the Created X traverse the abyss of non-being and cross over into being?
The “Created X” can in fact *be* (…it is actual…) and, also, unlike Pantheism, it can be actual and yet not be a “part” of God. That is perhaps not an observation on the ontological Trinity but on the metaphysics of the creative act. How then can any X find convertibility FROM Necessary Being / Pure Act INTO Non-Being INTO Created Being (…so to speak…)?
On Trinity, or on the Infinite Consciousness that is the Divine Mind — in which [A] the Infinite Knower and [B] the Infinitely Known and [C] the Logos or All Processions Therein (…which is both of Infinite Consciousness and also is Infinite Consciousness…) we find that on logical necessity neither can be anything less than Being in totum even as we find that A is not B and B is not C and C is not A, and each is by necessity Being in totum.
The identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is Caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which Is Communicated exists before in Act. In the timeless deliberation in/of Infinite Consciousness vis-à-vis Being Itself there cannot be *less* than Totality of Proposition & Truth Predicate & All Possible X’s vis-à-vis Possibility in an Intentionality of Communique / Procession which is itself Pure Act and which is therefore in excess of all ontic possibility as – again – the express identity of Communicate transcends efficient and final causality for that which Is Caused does not exist before in Act, whereas that which Is Communicated exists before in Act.
In Absolute Being we come upon an unavoidably Trinitarian Metaphysic even as we come upon Closure Displacing Circularity (…. http://disq.us/p/1zfedy9 …) even as we come upon the Quad of Reason Itself as Being Itself as Wellspring as Terminus (….as per the link at the end of this comment…).
As Pure Act we find in Being Itself the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility. “That” is Absolute & Irreducible. So, any Creative Act arrives by Logos In Descent. Therefore, it is logically impossible that something is “more-actual” by virtue of being created. Hence our own Created Contingent Mind and the Created Contingent Ocean of Time in which we swim are necessarily indebted to Pure Actuality — to God — for all vectors whatsoever with respect to what we “are” and what said Ocean “is” vis-à-vis nothing less than lower-case being itself.
The peculiar descent & ascent of all possible syntax into/out-of Presentism and into/out-of Eternalism leave Metaphysical Naturalism in ruins – whereas – Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to Time & Timelessness. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the First Adam. Pure Act does not “Become” with respect to the Last Adam. To attempt the claim of, “Pure Act Becomes” entails an Uphill Ontic with respect to Pure Act (…which is a metaphysical absurdity…). Pure Act in the Downhill Ontic reveals – Communicates – all ontic possibility. There is an unavoidable sense in which [Logos v. Divine Simplicity] is by logical necessity GREATER than [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] just as within that same [Logos v. Time & Temporal Becoming] we find Logos as Son being made perfect.
On the metaphysics of the creative act, all of that brings us to the principle of proportionate causality. How can the Created X traverse the abyss of non-being and cross over into being?
It is an obvious feature that regardless of the nature (so to speak) we are unpacking, ANY “….fundamental nature of X….” which is within ANY cul-de-sac is necessarily indebted for all that it Can or Does or Did or May-Again-Tomorrow have or house or be and, also, additionally, that indebtedness Begins & Ends with the “….fundamental nature of X….” (whichever one wishes to land in) which is in fact the proverbial Totality or Ocean Outside (so to speak) of the cul-de-sac under review.
At times we aim our lens at vectors which cannot even in principle be a metaphysical terminus, such as at the PSR “itself” — as if THAT is the Metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility – or one’s explanatory terminus. No. It’s not there. It is simply not the case that all termini but one will (necessarily) end up False v. “Reality” v. “Metaphysical Singularity” v. what D.B. Hart terms “….the metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility….”.
Rather, it is simply the case that all termini but one will (necessarily) reduce to absurdity. There is only one Lucid, Non-Absurd, metaphysical terminus with respect to ANY i-am and we find – it’s uncanny – as if God has made Himself easy to find – that it is not the presence of this or that fallacy-free string of logic & premises & conclusions which necessarily compels us to EMBRACE a particular Terminus as many such proverbial STRINGS can be identified.
Whereas, what we DO find is that we are in fact necessarily compelled to reject any and all reductio ad absurdum BECAUSE ANY of us little i-am-s are free to value ANY-thing which one can rationally justify and that includes trading away one’s very own i-am vis-à-vis Reason Itself v. the Intentional Mind v the Intentional Self for ANY other End or ANY other Terminus as one must only rationally Justify that free and informed choice – even as – it’s uncanny – as if God has made Himself easy to find – one cannot even in principle rationally justify ANY such free and informed choice.
Strings of Logic can be of all sorts of lengths and parts and so logical lucidity ALONE is not enough to FORCE one’s hand. However, there is only One Whole, One Totality, One Terminus which subsumes all such Strings and all such Parts and it is THAT Singular Terminus which FORCES one to Knowingly Choose between A. Totality Therein or else B. Absurdity.
Infused into the Consciousness of Mankind across eons of history is the indestructible and timeless image of The Great I-AM.
A. 4D Block Universe: Mind’s terminus = Self = Illusion vis-à-vis reality’s concrete (fundamental / irreducible) furniture = Non-Distinction.
B. Presentism: Mind = Physics = Rock-Falling = Tree-Bending = Hand-Waving = Fan-Waving = Self I-Am-ing = Reason-ing = Non-Distinction.
B. That which is “Logic Itself” is either 1. itself under the Laws of Logic or else 2. It (logic) can be, or is metaphysically free to be, Non-Logic.
c. Logic-Is-Metaphysically-Free-To-Be-Non-Logic — or else Logic is not Logic.
1. None of them have anything to do with the Christian Metaphysic.
2. All of them are themselves logical absurdities.
Yet it still seems like you are still claiming that the fundamental nature of Fan-Waving is distinct from the fundamental nature of Hand-Waving. It also seems that you are employing terms which work off of the premise that if we could just remove physics from the discussion then Non-Theism would have the wherewithal to claim that one of those cul-de-sacs in fact houses a fundamental nature v. intentionality that is not entirely indebted to the fundamental nature of the Larger Ocean Outside of it, as if it could be immune to and distinct from said Larger Ocean, such that Non-Theism could assert that we’ve a true metaphysical cul-de-sac on our hands. Which of course is a logical absurdity.
We are compelled into the lucidity of Being Itself as Reason Itself as Mind Itself as Love Itself as Self-Giving Itself in the uncanny syntax of a Singularity.
Before closing, recall that in the Christian Metaphysic we find that Being Itself and Reason Itself and Self-Giving Love Itself and Mind Itself — and so on constitute said paradigm’s proverbial A—Z and in fact Begin and End all syntax as the Metaphysical Wellspring of all ontological possibility is in fact GOD as per the Divine Mind as per Infinite Consciousness as per Being Itself as per…. and so on. So, given that topography, we can trade out the term “Moral Facts” which is what the following excerpt is about (…it is from a discussion about Moral Facts…) and insert in its place the term Reason or Reason Itself and, thereby, perhaps add a few more modes by which to zero in on the target of this discussion.
Non-Theism cannot follow / trace its own brands of “the ontology of sentience” from reality’s concrete furniture all the way up to mind-dependent abstractions. But then that lack of continuity is not an “ontology” if it hasn’t the Means/Ends vis-à-vis [Sentience] (…or Moral Facts for obvious reasons…) to offer anything through & through. But that the Non-Theist means that to go about his Ontology of Sentience (…or Moral Ontology…) while excluding the wider Map of Physics forces us to ask: How? Typically there is a kind of anti-scientific move by our Non-Theist friends as they go about claiming that Abstractions and/or Moral Facts cannot be reduced to Physics – that there is some other “category” which is not itself entirely subsumed by, defined by, the far wider Map we call physics. That typically lands in a cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac is supposed to have its own “ontology” which is (somehow) insulated from and immune to the “ontology” of reality outside of said cul-de-sac. And said cul-de-sac is (typically) within the cerebral cortex of sentient creatures. Now, that “walling-off” or “slicing-out” of that proverbial “cerebral cortex” and arbitrarily treating “it” as if “it” has “its” own “fundamental nature” is entirely one grand ball of circularity neatly & arbitrarily isolated from the Non-Theist’s own paradigm and its fundamental & irreducible rock-bottom.
The belief in play there with respect to Sentience v. Self v. Intentionality v. Self-Giving v. Love v. Moral Facts is a strange form of circular-talk which claims that Moral Ontology can somehow “happen” in a vacuum void of Physics – as if on Non-Theism the Map of our own body of emotions and neurons is not ITSELF entirely subsumed by and defined by that far wider Map (Physics).
That yields an entirely self-referencing set of premises when making all of those arbitrary cuts which of course begs the question on what is good, how it is good, and why it is good, and in fact what “good” in fact “is” vis-à-vis this or that irreducible-hard-stop. And it is that last point there, the “is” and the “irreducible” and the “hard-stop” which forces our Non-Theist friends to insist on that cul-de-sac – for without those arbitrary walls one finds one’s very Self and therein Love Itself giving way to – not the hard-stop of the cul-de-sac’s walls – but instead the fundamental nature of the Wider Ocean v. Reality outside of the cul-de-sac in which and by which we find all that the cul-de-sac is, has, or even can be vis-à-vis any syntax of any category of “fundamental nature”.
When we describe “the ontology of trees” that is a narrative of (some phrase it this way) “the history of the becoming” wrt trees, or some phrase it “the history of the Tree’s becoming” and the word “becoming” is key as it tells us that the essence of and fundamental reality of “Tree” is not something irreducible and timeless but instead suffers from non-being at some point in the history of “reality” (….the universe on Non-Theism…) and then “becomes” (…or we can say “becomes real”…) and eventually fades again into non-being (….trees emerged and so are not irreducible and timeless…). The Ontology Of Trees is NOT “…what we find right here inside of the living experience of trees…“.
IF that is all one has then one does NOT have anything that is actually Ontological but instead one has an entirely self-referencing and circular map. And circular Maps cannot tell us anything about the fundamental essence of Trees as we’ve no contextual sight, no ontology, no physics, and we may actually believe that what causes Water to go to the leaves is something other than [Gravity, Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces, and Electromagnetic Forces] – believing perhaps in something like “Better/Worse” vis-à-vis “Flourishing” and so on.
Recall that the only reason the Non-Theist avoids Physics is to avoid loosing the hard-stop of the wall of his artificial cul-de-sac, because without that wall then love itself does not find that irreducible hard stop but finds instead the Irreducible Indifference vis-à-vis the Fundamental Nature of the Ocean Outside which we referent as “Reality” (….Cosmos, QM, whatever….).
Well with Moral Facts the same narrative applies as in fact what causes Water to go into leaves has nothing within it of Better/Worse and how do we know those facts? We know those facts from the ontological history of trees and NOT by self-referencing slices of Tree against Tree via the circularity of “life-good-death-bad” or of “better/worse” or of “flourish”.
With Moral Facts the same narrative applies with respect to essence and content and the fundamental nature of ANY vector. The reason the growing pool of Non-Theists claim there are NOT any vectors which sum to Objective Moral Facts is b/c of a Nominalism grounded in Non-Theism’s only available Map of Moral Ontology.
Miracles In Other Religions? Eyewitness Testimony? Mermaids? Alien Abductions? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus? Thor? Copycat-Gods? Celestial Teapots?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.