Wednesday, October 29, 2014


Let me propose an argument for comparison: If acts derive from judgment judgment is embodied in the acts.  Acts derive from judgment.  Therefore judgment is embodied in the acts.  This argument may be sound, but is insufficient to account for judgment.  Judgment has two branches: consideration and pronouncement.  Pronouncement is embodied in the act.  Consideration is not.  Punishment follows from conviction, not trial.  Likewise, it may be said, "All life is being."  But the antipode of being is doing.  Doing is not being, and vise versa, but they are both bound up in life.  So maybe the antipode of properties is processes.  Maybe mind exists in two constituent parts, which would account for why some things are thought of as non-mind.    

Saturday, October 18, 2014


Would it be correct to conclude that all change will resolve to something changeless? Or maybe change will asymptotically decrease toward a never-reachable resolution? If the latter is true, what would be the state towards which it reaches?

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Free Will

Can we please get rid of the Either/Or model of human existence and replace it with the continuum model, so that we don't have to be either black or white, Republican or Democrat, gay or straight, free or not free. This last one urks the hell out of me. Even intelligent people talk about free will as if it either exists or doesn't. Well, I'm on a continuum, meaning I'm not a zero or one. I'm free in some respects and not free in others. I've progressed since infancy. The fact that I'm more free now than I was then means that I am in fact free in some respects. I feel like the Calvinists are to blame for the whole free or not free bit. The fact that "liberated" (as in "have been liberated") is a valid, serious word in the lexicon means that it is a valid, serious concept.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Three Scenarios

There are, as far as I can see, only three possible scenarios: Either A.) The cosmos is the result of an infinite regress of previous finite occurrences (This event was caused by a previous event, which was caused by a previous event, ad infinitum). B.) The cosmos began to exist but was not created. C.) The cosmos began to exist and was created by a first cause which exists in eternity as an eternal entity. Now which of these makes the most sense? The question is, as far as I'm concerned, a metaphysical one which relies on logical inference rather than empirical solutions.