We Platonists Shall Have the Victory Over Materialists

The eternal One, the Dyad and the Triad.

The eternal One, the Dyad and the Triad.

By: Jay

Famous philosopher Thomas Nagel recently published a book questioning the hallowed dogma of strict, reductionist materialism.  I have not read the book, but a philosopher friend recommended it to me.  It’s nice to see someone daring to challenge the ridiculous control grid that is modern so-called academia.  In a similar vein this week, a friend set up a Google chat where I was able to meet an MIT professor and debate certain questions relating to materialism and Platonism.  While I have to tread lightly here, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating everything Plato taught.  However, in the course of debating academics and thinkers, appeals to the hallowed tradition of Platonism and mathematics seems to have some weight as an inroad.  I don’t think I made much progress in my discussion/debate with the MIT chap, but it illustrates for me further confirmation of the correctness of my own positions on metaphysics.

In the course of this conversation several ideas came to mind that highlight the impossibility of rank materialism.  Many of them have been highlighted here before, but it’s always good to rehearse them, since modernity is so committed to this dogma without question.  The first faulty presupposition is naive empiricism.  The scientific and academic establishment is still dominated by naive empiricism as its sole epistemological approach.  Believe anything you want, in fact, just so long as undergirding all of it is the ridiculous idea that “all knowledge comes through sense experience.”  This is the ancient error of the sophists, nominalists and Enlightenment empiricists.

Caught up in the populist ideas of their times, these strands of philosophers and thinkers simply assumed that the intellectual climate that fostered “progress” was and is only had in circles that adhere to this doctrine.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Since most in this school follow some form of what they would term “logic,” it is very easy to demonstrate that the claim “all knowledge comes through sense experience” is false by appealing to the sentence itself.  The claim itself is an exceptionally strong universal claim about both knowledge and metaphysics.  Given the propensity of those in this strand to bully theists for unsubstantiated claims, there is no possible way, on empirical grounds, to prove such a claim.  The claim itself necessarily entails a whole host of metaphysical preconditions, too, which are anathema to naive empiricism.   So the very dogmatic claim of naive empiricism, which even W.V.O. Quine, one of their own, showed was an impossible claim, is still quite impossible.  In fact, you can read David Hume himself, the grandfather of modern atheistic materialism, for an elaborate explanation of how empiricism necessarily entails radical skepticism and is therefore utterly destructive to all knowledge.  For example, in the Weekly Standard piece on Nagel’s recent workshop with materialists, we read:

“At the workshop the philosophers and scientists each added his own gloss to neo-Darwinian reductive naturalism or materialistic neo-Darwinian reductionism or naturalistic materialism or reductive determinism. They were unanimous in their solid certainty that materialism—as we’ll call it here, to limit the number of isms—is the all-purpose explanation for life as we know it.”

Since modern academia is not much more than a vast machine of brainwashing and propaganda, we cannot expect much, but as with most “educated intellectuals,” knowledge of Plato rarely consists of more than a smattering of the Republic and a few dialogues.  My concern here is not to delve into Plato’s theory of the polis, but to highlight the metaphysics.  Modern academia being the machine it is, they only know to follow the popular line of Plato as this, that or the other, and almost never hit on the fact that Plato was part of an esoteric tradition extending from Egypt and older cultures that had a specific cosmogony and cosmology that closely connected with anthropology, embodied in the classic microcosm/macrocosm analogy.

Since my opponents were not familiar with the Timaeus, we were at a bit of a loss, because the Timaeus exemplifies this tradition so clearly.  I am not saying that all the statements about polytheism or creation by the gods is necessarily metaphysically correct or literal, but that there is a great amount of truth in the work that clearly extends back to an older creation tradition that is very similar to the Mosaic, where the logos or word is preeminent in the creation act.  This means the external world, whatever ‘stuff’ one conceives it to be made of, is inherently rational and imbued with meaning and the manifestation of the divine energeia.  The modern materialists hold the utmost opposite as their working presupposition: meaning and logos are merely social conventions foisted upon reality from finite, meaningless brains that resulted from equally meaningless materialistic process.  On the contrary, what I further realized in the course of the conversation was how vastly different the approaches to the world as a whole were between us.  My operating presuppositions so radically differ in my view of the world that it is very difficult to translate them into concepts that even make some kind of sense for the die-hard materialist.

Squaring the circle.

Squaring the circle.

My next argument after criticizing empiricism was the classic one relating to numbers which all materialists find a difficulty grasping.  If take a logical entity like the number “7” and consider that collecting “seven” objects alone cannot account for the invariant, unchanging and eternal conceptual nature of something like “7,” we can begin to see that a number proper is not like material things in a very fundamental way.  In other words, the classic philosophical problem of identity and predication emerges as something impossible for rank materialism.  What is a number, if it is clearly not a mere collection of these atoms?  Even if the materialist affirms that “seven” is just the collection of some seven objects, it begs the question: is that particular collection the number 7?  Clearly not, since the removal of one of the objects does not suddenly erase the number “7” from existence.  I apologize to more thoughtful readers that such basic philosophy has to still be recounted, since anyone who has taken philosophy 101 knows this is one of the first things you will discuss.  Consider another illustration: which is the number 7?





The answer is all and none.  This is the problem of the one and the many, a very dastardly problem for rank materialists.  “Seven” the conceptual reality is therefore something that transcends each of these concrete particular symbolic representations.  The pure materialists must always, of necessity, reduce all conceptual reality to some arbitrary collection of the molecules and atoms and arbitrarily predicate “sevenness” to those things.  But if all reality is mere matter, the brains engaged in the process of predicating “seven” do not contain the same neural impulses that are firing to cause the concept “seven.”  So the question can be reframed as follows: in the collection of numbers above, what is it that causes us to connect these different symbols?  What, precisely, is the ‘nature’ of the connectedness?  It cannot be simply what is happening in our minds chemically, because we are looking for the connecting principle or meaning behind these events.  The chemicals in my head are not the chemicals in yours, so what is “sevenness”?  Simply restating it is those molecules and these molecules begs the question, since assuming that the mind can pick out a certain collection of molecules as a specific object of predication just assumes materialism again.  It is as if to say, “signs and symbols have no real ontological status beyond being token symbols of material reality because the chemical reactions in the brain that equate to being signs and symbols.”  But this is logical and philosophical nonsense.

While I do not fully agree with Max Tegmark that all reality is purely math, per se, Tegmark is definitely on the right track when he talks about how the fundamental nature of reality is quite different from what these people imagine.  Rather than adopting the ridiculous and childish idea that mathematics is an invention of human social construct, Tegmark explains that mathematics is very much at the heart of reality and very much something that precedes man.   In contrast to the materialists and existentialists who hold that existence precedes essence, the worldview I espouse is quite the opposite: essence precedes human existence.  Meaning and number are not random creations of chaotic process, they are the very fabric of reality itself, and are not dependent on the “invention” of some guy.

When we read the Timaeus we see that even at that early date Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato, had a conception of the fundamental structure of reality being based around geometry – the very archetypal forms of nature.  In authentic education taught in the trivium and quadrivium, we know that geometry is number in space, while music is number in time.  With the Timaeus, we can see that early in this tradition there was an almost magical conception of the idea that at a very fundamental level reality is geometrically structured into forms known now as the “Platonic Solids.”  These forms can be seen in everything in our world, from the molecular level, to the cosmic level.  The Platonic Solids follow upon the pattern of the One, the Dyad and Triad, which extend out to make all geometrical shaped and forms.  These structures emerge everywhere in “nature,” and show that all reality highly structured and ordered, as opposed to being the product of random chaotic forces.  for example, by the use of cymatics we can see that notes in music have a certain form when played on a surface that can demonstrate the geometrical structure they produce.

Only a fool would think that the platonic solids have chemical equivalents by random happenstance.  On the contrary, these things demonstrate very clearly that we are right as positing an omniscient Mind as the Source of all these interconnected phenomena.  This is more clearly seen when we examine the notions of linguistic philosophy and the problem of predication, which I have outlined elsewhere.  It also shows that reality itself has its own metaphysical structure which functions as a precondition for even the possibility of knowledge at all, in a transcendental sense.  By transcendental here, I am referring to “transcendental philosophy,” and not anything else.

From this point in the conversation, I went on to argue that the very possibility of creating an AI supercomputer or something like the Cloud assumes a world far different from what the materialist thinks.  This sounds a bit odd at first glance, since generally speaking its the AI fanatics and tech geeks who are often the first to cry that computing so loudly heralds the dawn of the victory of the “materialist” worldview.  On the contrary again, the ability to encode information in light, based on the fact that light itself is information is precisely proof of the opposite of what these fools believe.  The ability to store information in a sort of realm of forms if you will, where algorithms and sets ‘stand for’ reality is an analogy of what must be the case on a more cosmic, interdimensional level.  We cannot locate the essence of things solely in the concrete historical of a thing due to 1) the problem of the one and many I outlined above, and 2) the classical philosophical problem of identity over time. This does not mean that someone who takes the route I am mentioning de facto has all answers to all questions, either.  But if our starting points lead us to the utmost absurdities, as raw materialism does, it must be jettisoned for real progress to occur.

I often reference Kurt Godel because the incompleteness theorum is a great example of why no system can be explained solely by the axioms that undergird the system.  Godel showed this against Bertrand Russell’s challenge, yet many people are unable to make the connections as to what the implications of this are.  Not only does it show that mathematical sets cannot be justified by reference to other mathematical sets, as Godel, Escher, Bach shows, this pattern emerges in other disciplines and areas of life.  But even Hofstadter cannot seem to make the connection between this and why materialism is false.  As I mentioned with Godel, a friend sent me an interesting piece the other day that appears to be true and confirms something he and I had been speculating about lately: is there something more sinister at work in terms of the suppression of Platonism and the promotion of rank materialism?  Readers of my blog will know that I certainly think the promotion of communistic dialectical materialism is demonstrably true and “conspiratorial,” but is there a flipside to this idea, where truth about the actual nature of reality is being suppressed?  Perceptive readers and friends will recall that I have made mention in the past of my suspicion that there is much more to Leibniz and Husserl in particular than is commonly known, and what my friend sent me especially perked my ears.

Apparently, I am not the first to wonder about this idea.  A blogger recently put together a fascinating article about Godel himself coming to the same conclusion regarding the actual philosophical tradition we are now taught in the West.  And who did Godel specifically pick as suppressed?  Two Platonists were fingered – Leibniz and Husserl.  The blog reads:

“Perhaps the greatest logician of all time, Kurt Gödel uncovered the existence of a world-wide conspiracy to make men less intelligent. For years Gödel had been very interested in the work of Gottfried Leibniz, whose characteristica universalis influenced Gödel’s use of symbolism in his famous incompleteness proofs, and went so far as to request copies of the voluminous Leibniz manuscripts to be brought to the United States during the second World War. Gödel initially claimed to have discovered evidence of a conspiracy suppressing Leibniz’s work—that Leibniz had in fact completed the famously unfinished (and unfinishable) universal language of thought, but had been prevented from publishing it. In conversation, Gödel suggested that the Viennese Academy of Science, officially inaugurated in the mid-19th century, had in fact been founded by Leibniz in secret some centuries before; its record books, which contained references to the complete characteristica universalis, had been systematically destroyed.”

And a commenter writes:

“I came across this in On the Philosophical Development of Kurt Gödel Author(s): Mark Van Atten and Juliette Kennedy on page 452-453 in a footnote:

“[After quoting Godel talkign about a manuscript of Husserl that had been removed from published record] Godel has made similar remarks about manuscripts disappearing, e.g., some of Leibniz’, which have sometimes been dismissed as symptoms of a possible mental instability on Godel’s part. But in this case, Godel was completely correct, and by way of proof he pointed Sue Toledo [92, p.9]”

So we have here another case of Godel’s allegations of important works being removed actually being evidence of his meticulous research abilities.”

This is both amazing and important. There is a characteristica universalis because Plato was right.  Of course I cannot verify if this is absolutely correct, but it is something I have spoken to others about for a few years now.  My intuition is almost always right.   These last facts about Godel do not prove anything about the case against the materialist, but they do fit perfectly into why I think we will eventually win out in the long run against the materialist enemies and haters of truth.  Because the world is actually so far from what they think, their “system” cannot win out in the long run.  Anything at odds with actual reality can only fail in the long march of history.  True, Plato argued with the sophists of his day, and Leibniz did battle with the materialists of his, but in our day things are coming to a head.  The big discoveries in theoretical physics are coming to vindicate our view of reality as opposed to the chaos philosophers of nonsense.  They fail to realize that they war against their own very being and logoi, and are thus doomed to fail.  The solution to this dilemma is the notion of a single unified science, as Dr. Phillip Sherrard accurately explained.

Read the essay here: A Single Unified Science.

17 thoughts on “We Platonists Shall Have the Victory Over Materialists

  1. Great read – I’m with you about the enslaving limitations of naive empiricism. This is also an interesting subject for me, and whether we are looking at either the structure of atoms or the structure of DNA its clear we are looking at the implementation of a ‘word/logos’ or concept.

    For what its worth, where I thought you could strengthen this line of thought was in your use of the word ‘existence’.

    In your thought experiment about ‘7’, removing one ‘object’ totaling 7 did not take ‘7’ out of existence. I think here there is a problem, because of the difference between a concept an and object. Objects exist because they have two criteria – mass and location. I suppose that’s a definition. ‘7’ is a concept and not an object, and cannot said to ‘exist’.

    But I don’t mean to impose my definitions on your framework, because clearly you have yours worked out.

    When we take ‘7’ of some objects it also involves a value judgment. When there are 7 of something, often that ‘count’ is based on how far we look to include.

    Concepts, perhaps, rather than being direct reflections of the direct-external ‘existence’ – which I think we might agree is illusory – may instead be reflections of the cognitive functions of the brain including logic – the word/logos.

    Perhaps it is here that the god-mind resides, and I’m interested in looking at this from the view Empiricism from the perspective of Subjective Idealism in the vein of Berkeley.

  2. Thank you for your comments, Joaquin. As I drove around town today, I was actually thinking about how that section was unclear. There was going to be more relating to numbers and I was going to bring in my own speculations about the unified field theory, but I chose to leave that out. I think that numbers, essences, souls, etc., relate to the higher dimensions and in particular to the anima mundi and the aether. I think that Pauli and Jung are right to make psyche a fundamental connect between the inner world of the mind, and the outer world of the archetypal forms. However, this would be lightyears out of the understanding of the materialist I was debating, so I didn’t bring it up, but it’s very relevant.

    In regard to the weakness of terminology you mentioned, you are correct. Existence is perhaps not the best word to describe numeric or logical entities because it’s such a loaded term, but I very much think it is correct: number, essences, meaning, etc. – all certainly do exist. They just exist in a way or mode different than we are used to in our dimension. But I should have been clearer, since all I was doing there was offering different versions of argumentation from the following:

    1. The argument from predication: How does a materialist, since his position is ultimately monistic, “pick out” some object as a meaningful “thing”? Since our mind and thoughts are more or less illusory in that view (since they are predetermined materialistic processes that emerge from chaos and quickly fall back into chaos, that the mind of the materialist can predicate anything at all is thus impossible – the determinisitc fallacy).

    2. The argument from the problem of identity over time. This is a problem Hume highlighted. Even if it were granted that on the materialist worldview one could predicate meaningful expressions about an object and pick it out as that object, in materialism, all reality is in constant flux. Objects experience becoming, and are therefore not the same as they were in the past, unless one has some coherent explanation as to why we should think that objects retain some identity over time. Furthermore, on the materialist worldview, the objects themselves don’t really possess that meaning – no essence has been apprehended by the materialist mind – only a token phrase resulting from a single instance of neurons firing.

    3. Even if we grant that objects can be predicated about, picked out, and have identity over time, the question of the one and the many has to be answered. This is what is being highlighted where I mention “existence” that you are asking about. In order to predicate meaning of any thing, we need some account or explanation of the “golden chain,” if you will, what connects the conceptual notion of “sevenness” between these various instances of sevens. In other words, universals. Any philosophy that denies universals and essences, as empiricism does, deriving its roots in medieval nominalism, will not only be bankrupt, but lead to a multitude of reductio ad absurdam positions. It is perfectly rational and sensible to ask about the ontological status of numbers adn essences, despite the materialists screaming against it. That is simply their own bais that causes them to constantly and glibly brush aside all these arguments and refutations as of no import.

    These are just a sampling, but one can actually sit and list probably countless sound arguments agains their position from a logical, epistemological and metaphysical perspective, that will just end in materialists saying, “So what, we don’t care about any of that.” At that point we have won, because the claim of sole ownership of logic and reason is no longer theirs (which they never owned anyway, but by threat and intimidation.

    I was glad to see that Chris Langan positied a similar idea to the argument I’ve been making for a while now, which is a version of the transcendental argument. To even engage in a single speech act, we are not merely presupposing a handful of metaphysical preconditions and categories: we actually presuppose the entire present world, along with all of its various metaphysical and epistemic preconditions. I lay some of that out here in a paper on Alva Noe and PF Strawson:


    As for your ideas about Berkeley, you are right that, along with leibniz, there is an interesting idea about pre-established harmony and all reality being essentially “mental,” making Berkeley an empirical idealist. I do not embrace that view, but an interesting side note about that is that reading Augustine one day, I noticed that he proposed that idea much earlier that Berekeley in his Soliloquys, much like he proposed a kind of cogito in the City of God far before Descartes.

    • These considerations about Gödel’s “conspiracy theories” involving certain philosophers are very intriguing. There is much more here involved than even the official papers and scholars can discern.
      Most of Gödel’s work in mathematical logic is not only 1) invariably brilliant and meticulous but 2) invariably had deep (often only implicitly stated) devastating philosophical consequences for certain movements of his own day ( Russell, Carnap, Brouwer, Einstein) and 3) seems to draw all on a common core set of esoteric ideas (such as symbolism, codification, translation, negation, self-reference, infinite hierarchy, Pythagoreanism) which are clearly Leibnizean (and Fregean). Some of his published papers that have an explicit philosophical content (such as the one on Russell’s Mathematical Logic) are in fact more acute and subtle than is generally realized. Another great enigma is Gödel’s relation to Kant and Husserl (and Einstein). Kant was a very strange figure, at once subversive (and state-backed) and profoundly traditional. I believe that Kant was the agent of a gigantic hoax and conspiracy: his works (published so late in his life) are 99% Leibniz-Wolff painted over with a Humean-Skepticist eyewash and some anti-theological, anti-platonic sophisms (this was noted by Eberhard). Leibniz is a very very difficult and inaccessible philosopher, whose work is contained in countless manuscripts. But Kant managed bring all the inaccessible Leibniz and Wolff into a popular condensed form in his Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (maybe this was what Kant had been doing all those years – studying Leibniz). Maybe Kant had access to rare and later destroyed manuscripts of Leibniz. If Gödel was aware of this, it is easy to see why he publically took the stance of viewing Kant as friend rather than a foe and destroyer of the Leibniz-Wolffian tradition (the same with Einstein). But more strange is the situation with Husserl, who Gödel is said to have “discovered” later on (after the 1940’s). How similar yet different is Husserl to Kant, and how similar to Leibniz (cf. Paris lectures) – Husserl refuted in detail, in the name of the a priori, Locke, Berkely and Hume, exactly as the “Nouveaux essais” had done with Locke. And Husserl wrote like no other philosopher at his time, his epokhê and transcendental reduction and discovery of the “absolute ego” – even if they could have been suggested by his Brentano background – are truly an odd intrusion of ancient neoplatonic and hermetical doctrines. All this suggests that we are in the presence of opposed hidden currents in Western history that are mutually at odds, each of which maintain the most perfect historical continuity.

  3. Pingback: Jay’s Analysis Audio Discussion: Platonism Destroys Materialism | Jay's Analysis

  4. Funny about the Leibniz suppression story, since this is the exact thing the LaRouche crowd keeps insisting. The elite, are driven by sense certainly and animal appetites and have been attempting to suppress Platonism since time immemorial. One of the key figures the LaRouchers always cite in this struggle is Leibniz, who they believe the elite suppressed in favour of Newton, whose more mechanical picture of reality suited their plans to dominate the masses by lowering them, in their own estimations, to the level of animals or material robots. They make the same argument about the promotion of Galileo over Kepler.

    • Yes I read LaRouches secrets known only to the elites back when you mentioned it. I don’t think there’s really some secret society, but hell maybe there is. Nothing would surprise me anymore. When I saw the thing about Godel I immediately thought of it.

  5. While I don’t think we live in a “simulation” that isn’t “real,” this also speaks in favor of everything I argue above:


    “What we do know, though, is that when we create such a simulator, there’s some kind of underlying lattice that holds everything together like a kind of framework. Think of it as the smallest scale at which a simulator runs — like the way a grid divides up the playable space in a chess game. You can’t move a piece less than one grid space.”


  6. A friend of mine posted a link to this blog post, & I read it. I am familiar with the problem described, & with the philosophers named, and their philosophies. I believe the same as you in the ‘Platonic Realm’ of concepts, principles, relationships ect, but I don’t relate as much to the language used, or the tone. I used to feel strongly about Platonism, so I would’ve called my ideological opponents ‘fools’ or make disparaging comments about academia, & then concede that my argument is based on intuition, also. But I’ve come to feel like the problems in each case are subtle, and intelligent persons can disagree. The problem with Platonism is that the evidence for it has to be taken at face value; for example, you can see in Euclid’s “Elements” how axiomatic statements lead to relationships which appear Platonic. But as you mentioned yourself, Godel’s incompleteness theorem shows that a axiomatic system can’t be both ‘complete’ & ‘consistent’. So, although Platonism appeals to our intuition, there is no way to validate it empirically, thus, you can’t call materialists fools. Materialists just choose to be conservative given the lack of a priori, unassailable ‘proof’ of the Platonic realm. A materialist may even want to accept Platonism, but have no way to justify their belief to others. As I said, I believe in the Platonic realm for the same reason as you- it appeals to my intuition, given the symmetry of nature & the expression of interrelated forms in nature, but how do I show that link to the Platonic realm in a way that cannot be challenged? I cannot. If you can than maybe you have a right to call worthy academics & philosophers fools.

    • Thanks for your comments. The proof for the position is a transcendental argument. But I also don’t advocate some generic platonism, I just think it’s a step in the right direction. The true way out of the maze is Theism. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”

      • Sorry if I sounded contentious; I do have one original aphorism that I like to use in support of the existence of a platonic realm “Suggestion is not proof, but some truth’s are beyond proof- take thought”

      • Hi Tyler and Jay–“Proof” begs the question, does it not? Unless, of course, we posit a transcendental argument. Here’s one I wrote some years ago, though, strangely, some folks get real upset when reading it which I interpret as a sign of the times. Here it goes:

        At some point in time man discovered the universal law that governs the behavior of all perpendicular triangles. We think it may have been Pythagoras, though, it may also have been an earlier Sumerian. Be that as it may, the point is that there was a first human to apprehend that universal law, namely, that the area given as the sum of the two squared shorter sides of a perpendicular triangle is always equal to the area of the squared hypotenuse. This discovery changed the world in many ways. To mention but a few, architecture, engineering, aqueducts and battlefield tactics/formations were never the same again.

        Though, triangles do not exist in physical space, and even less so, the laws that govern them. In other words, I can draw a triangle onto the white board, but that is not a triangle, but rather, a mere representation of a triangle. After all, any triangle is defined as the intersection of three straight lines. And if we take a magnifying glass and look at the one we just put on the white board then we will not find a straight line but crooked ones. And even if we use a $10,000.00 Dollar ruler, well, then we will get our microscope out and look at it and again we will see but crooked lines and not a straight one at all. In fact, in physical space, that is to say, the world in front of our eyeballs, it’s impossible to manifest a truly straight line for even at the molecular level atoms are not straight but rough.

        And anyhow, any triangle is also by definition a two dimensional entity and things in front of our eye balls have to be three dimensional to exist at all, physically speaking. And so it goes with the triangle we put on the white board, namely, it is a three dimensional entity and therefore not a triangle at all for the ink we laid upon the board for us to look at it in the first place has a thickness to it making it three dimensional and not two dimensional.

        Hence, Pythagoras (or who ever it was) did not discover such a mathematical law by observing the empirical world. He did not need his eyes, ears and so forth, because such things do not grow on trees. Rather, he harvested such a thing by thinking. In other words, we could have locked him into a cave and this would not have decreased his ability in the least to go about his work! Though, in the end, did he invent that law or did he discover it? Think about it. If he invented it, then it would follow that he could have invented it differently much like an artist could have painted something differently. What then would also follow, however, is that all perpendicular triangles would now behave differently than they do…which does seem unreasonable. Thus, he did not invent such a law, but rather, he discovered it! Yet, what logically follows from this insight is that such a law must have existed prior to him having discovered it, else he merely invented it, which he did not.

        Therefore, we may conclude that the law that governs the behavior of all perpendicular triangles existed prior to being discovered. However, we also know that it did not exist in the world in front of our eyeballs for it was not discovered empirically through observation, but rather, rationally through thinking. So here then is the million dollar question: If it existed prior to being discovered, which it did, and it did not exist in the world in front of our eye balls, which it did not, then WHERE did it exist? WHERE does such a thing exist prior to being discovered? You see, Plato called such things forms and described the place where they exist as The World of Forms, Augustinus Aurelius (St. Augustine) called them Ideas Principalis, which is Latin and means original ideas by which he meant these kinds of things (special kinds of ideas) that exist prior to man discovering them, Carl Gustaf Jung called them Archetypical Ideas, and I myself in my work call them concepts that exist in semantic space as opposed to physical space. And to ask where exactly such a place is remains a whopper of a question, to say the least.

        For instance, it is probable to say that Carl Gustaf Jung broke with his master Sigmund Freud over exactly this issue and this very question once the former formalized his thought on Archetypical Ideas. After all, Freud was a metaphysical monistic materialist and, thus, the only answer to the question of WHERE he could possibly give is to claim that such universal knowledge of the world is somehow embedded in the molecular make up of our brains. As a materialist, where else could it exist prior to having been discovered given that such things do not exist in the physical world in front of our eyeballs as when growing on a tree? Yet, if so, then how did it get there? This would entirely contradict basic Darwinian theory of natural selection leading to complexity in the end, rather than, the most complex of stuff already being there from the beginning inside the atomic make up of our brain. Freud refused to entertain the question and the two never reconciled as Jung left lamenting that his master had become dogmatic. Now, don’t get me wrong, the question as to WHERE does not get any easier if we change our metaphysical perspective…it remains a whopper of a question no matter what metaphysical perspective we choose to engage it at !!! In closing, I just thought I would share with you the fact that the history of Western science and philosophy has had to endure some one of us asking this question every generation or so throughout the last two and a half thousand years. It is not the kind of question that simply goes away. It is the philosophers and the theoretical scientists who every generation or such utter it anew in the language of the day…

        Most humbly and respectfully, Warren

  7. Pingback: Response to An Atheist | Jay's Analysis

  8. I am a mental midget compared to you folks here, I have been on hiatus for some time now from all learning, but after a recent experience, one that killed me, I have awoke with a renewed vigor for life and learning. That said, I understand and comprehend everything I am imbibing here, nearly drunk with information, I try to keep my Alexander Pope in mind as he stated: ‘some people will never learn anything for this reason: they understand everything too soon.’

  9. This was a very interesting read. If we are to believe that numbers are metaphysical forms that superimpose physical reality, we will eventually run into the strangest number of all – the number 9. You may be familiar with the method of “Casting Out Nines” in which we simply cross out all 9’s and pairs of digits that total nine, and then add what remains. There’s no need to break down this simplistic arithmetic here, but the potential metaphysical underpinnings are intriguing to ponder about. Based on it’s behavior, it seems as if the number 9 acts as the intermediary between the physical and spiritual world.

    And then of course we arrive at Tim Burton’s animated movie “9” which debuted on 9/9/09. The main premise being the battle between the old traditions/religion and new age illuminism, and man’s attempt at conquering the physical world through occult science . Our occult masters who art in Hollywood seem to understand these ancient metaphysical/occult concepts and are socially engineering humanity to accept this Gnostic dogma – Gnosticism (along with Kabbalism), of course, being the basis of most esoteric societies. And herein lies the one – two punch for many people who study secret societies, psy ops, and conspiracy culture.

    It seems like many new want to be truth seekers are guided by the same philosophy in which they intend to “expose.”

    The ancient Gnostics borrowed many concepts from Plato and the Neo-Platonists (i.e Demiurgos, gnostikoi, etc). However, it seems as if the goal of the Gnostics was, and still is, to conquer Nature by manipulating our physical reality, and then catapult Mankind (with a capital M) into the realm of godhood through the science of illuminism. In other words, they stole fundamental Platonic concepts and molded them to their advantage. Today, we have people like Joe Rogan and Russel Brand as promoters of the Transhumanism agenda. People like David Icke, Michael Tsarion, and David Wilcox all seem to be guided by the gnostic agenda as well. Whether these types are deliberately put in place to guide masses of people into the new age agenda or not is anyone’s guess.

    What I see taking place right now is a three fold battle between atheistic materialism, theistic metaphysics, and the occult/thesophical/gnostic/kabbalistic/libertarian/revolutionary/new age scientistic illuminism. The end goal being the conquering of the material world through the magickal manipulation of matter. It’s the age old deception, and the original biblical Fall of Man in which Man was deceived into accepting the notion of “Ye shall be as gods.”

  10. Jay… I appreciate you and your writing. You are making a difference!
    Something you said made me think of this: https://youtu.be/h6Ycav742jI?t=6m45s

    Listen as William Lane Craig explains how much of reality can not be scientifically proven to a hardened scientific materialist who says arrogantly that science can account for everything in the universe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s