Tuesday, February 18, 2014


The strongest argument for the existence of God?

Aside from the music of Bach we have this: 

Quantum Entanglement (and) the idea of a Singularity. Taken together these two ideas lead to the conclusion of Pantheism. There is no hope for monotheism. So let us suppose that Nature is evidence for the existence of God; let us suppose that Quantum Physics necessitates some concept of deity, but the question we must ask is what kind of deity? 

It would seem all things are connected given the nature of Quantum Entanglement-- and the possible reason for this is a Singularity [by which we mean a point when all things were one]... hence, Pantheism is true. God is everything and everything is God. For how can we disassociate God from the universe when we have no expreience of disassociation? All things are connected! (At least it would seem this is where the evidence leads).

We might call our position Strategic Pantheism, and the reason for this is that the theist adopts a position of strategic theism (which is vague theism)... (and yet he is not a vague theist!), why then do we need to be Pantheists in order to adopt a position of Strategic Pantheism? If the monotheist (who utilizes the strategy of vague theism) denies us this right, then how can he legitimately utilize himself without becoming the most egregious hypocrite? This smacks of special pleading!  

If the evidence, does at all, point to theism it points to Pantheism (which has a very small distinction from that of Naturalism). What's the difference between saying, Nature is all there is, or saying, God is Nature?

Essentially a Pantheist, and a Naturalist, resolve issues the same way: not on the basis of transcendence (a God outside of Nature), but on the basis of Nature itself (even as Pantheism equates God with Nature and Nature with God).

Strategic Pantheism allows us to dispose of Natural theology, which forces the monotheist to find a new line of reason in order to justify his theism. We can see that his argument was always based on the assertions of a religious text, which is a kind of authoritarianism (though he tried to make it appear that his qualified-monotheism* was actually based on reason). [This is commonly known as the fallacy of non-sequitur.] The reason monotheism must always be based on a religious text is because it's the only place the monotheist can deduce his particular theism. He cannot deduce his idea of God from Nature.

It is important to note that the Naturalist is not confined to Strategic Pantheism, but can also utilize forms of Strategic Deism and Strategic Polytheism. One simply cannot deduce a qualified-monotheism from the basis of Natural theology. Perhaps this statement is false, but where is the qualified-monotheist who is able to prove that his idea of God, can in fact, be proven from Nature? 

And perhaps what is most telling: all annoying forms of theism, destructive forms of theism, are in fact forms of particular theism----- there is no such thing as vague theism! This means the qualified-monotheist (unless he finds an argument from Nature) will always be refuted by the maneuver of Strategic Theism.  

Even in the most extreme case, where one is actually committed to a form of natural theism, there is simply no threat. A consistent natural theist (which is to say a Deist, Pantheist or Polytheist) would gladly join us in the refutation of qualified-monotheism. What does a Deist know about the will of God? What does a Pantheist deduce from transcendence? How can one be a moral fascist under the guise of Polytheism? These forms of theism (which are the conclusion of Natural Theology) simply represent no threat! 

For how did it come to be that Strategic Theism is perhaps the most powerful technique one can utilize in the service of Naturalism! By the maneuver of Strategic Theism the particular monotheist is actually forced to confront the dialectic of his own theism, only this time, the dialectic works as a refutation against his particularism! But this is not a paradox; the reason this occurs is because the particular theist is not honest in the formation of his theism. When he attempts to utilize the arguments of natural theology in the service of his monotheism he is not allowing the arguments to speak for themselves. If this was the case he would end at Deism, Pantheism or Polytheism {or in the most intelligent case} Naturalism.

All believers believe in a very specific notion of God. It is simply dishonest to argue for a vague creator on the basis of Natural Theology, when one believes in a very specific idea God. The theist hardly realizes that he is fallaciously connecting the dots. Where is the theist who can deduce his specific notion of God (which is to say, the God he believes in and worships) from the existence of Nature?          
*[An example of qualified-monotheism is the Christian Trinity.]


Sunday, February 16, 2014


Contemporary, sophisticated theism has finally come to accept the premise of evolution. Of course, this was a choice it made kicking and screaming, contesting all the way (which shows the inability of theism to evolve proficiently). 

Let us suppose that the theist is right; let us presume that evolution requires a creator to set the whole show in process. The next question becomes, what can we know about this being or beings? Indeed, let us go further, let us simply grant the premise of monotheism to the desperate theist. Now the question becomes; what kind of a creator is the creator of evolution? Is this the kind of God any self-respecting theist would truly want? Can such a God be said to be involved in the process of the universe? Is such a God truly personal? Can the premise of evolution tell us whether such a God is even still alive? Indeed, it would seem the only conclusion, that could legitimately be reached by theism (if we presume the existence of God from evolution), would be the idea that some entity or entities, beyond Nature, must be responsible for Nature. But one could know nothing beyond this!    

Let us presume that the creator of evolution is still alive, but what kind of God is he; would it be illogical to presume that he is still evolving himself? Indeed, what could possibly negate this premise seeing  God himself (as from the argument of the theist) is deduced from Nature? 

On this logic could we even draw a meaningful distinction between God and Nature? Even if we grant the premise we see that theism ultimately dies the death. For one cannot have it both ways; if justification is produced on the basis of Nature then it shall be very hard for the theist to distinguish God from Nature. And yet he means a very specific thing when he says he believes in God! But does he mean the God we can deduce from the process of Nature?

If evolution shall be the premise; if evolution is made the axiom of God; if it is used as an analogy for the existence of God, then we can only conclude that God is in process the same way that Nature is in process. But is this what we hear from the mighty theologians who accept evolution? Most certainly not, for they are altogether inconsistent and refuse to give up the attributes of their deity. 

It is simply ignorant (or dishonest) to proclaim the justification of revelatory forms of theism, when one's argument is not specific to those forms of theism. If the theologian will attempt to deduce a God from reason on the basis of Nature, then he must abide by the conclusions of Nature (as Nature is the premise of his argument). 

But of course, all this begs the question... as I have said so many times before, why not keep the things of Nature to Nature and the things of God to God? 

The truth is that provoking Nature (or evolution) in defense of the existence of God, is catastrophic to the theologian's concept of God. If evolution is the axiom of the existence of God, then we have no reason to presume that God is not himself in process. And what this says about the nature of God (insofar as the theologian claims that the nature of God dictates the nature of reality) is that meaning is an evolutionary process... is that the idea of God we have today will not be as true as the idea of God we have tomorrow... because today's God is inferior to the God of tomorrow.

Overall this is really an affirmation of Naturalism, even as the acceptance of evolution presupposes the authority of Naturalism above that of theism. To examine these worldviews in reverse is not to find that Naturalism has succumbed to theism, but that theism has had no choice but to submit to the authority of Naturalism. 

A God of evolution is first and foremost subservient to the premise of evolution. That is to say, the real proposition is that evolution has authority over any counter notion of God! God must be informed and conditioned by evolution and not the other way around; for where can it be said that evolution is conditioned by a concept of God? We know we are reaching the end of an era of theism when theism has no other choice but to conform to principles it previously repudiated in the name of God.                   


Thursday, February 13, 2014


Muslim: Mr. Flight you think you're so smart, but you can't explain where the world came from or why its here, but the Koran explains it perfectly.

Flight: Oh dear, oh dear, I perceive this is very serious. Let me ask you a question, is it possible your belief is wrong? Is it possible that the Koran is not a book from God?

Muslim: Of course not. The Koran is the only book from God. It clearly states that all other books are false. The Koran is Allah's final and complete revelation to man.

Flight: Oh dear, oh dear, I perceive this is very serious. I thought the Protestant Canon was the only true revelation from God? Wait... maybe I have it wrong... I meant to say, the book of Mormon.

Muslim: All of those books are false, even the Koran says it; it brings up the error of the bible and explains that it was simply made by men. But this was not the case with the Koran. I would have you know sir, the Koran was written by an illiterate man.

I am very impressed.

Muslim: So tell me why we're here? Where did life come from? Can something come from nothing?

Flight: Oh dear, I can answer your questions, but I can't answer them with absolute certainty.

Muslim: Then this proves that the Koran is true because it can explain these questions, even as it is the only absolute certainty. You have nothing. How do you explain objective morality?

Flight: Oh dear, oh dear, I perceive you are correct. The universe has to be the work of Allah; without Him objective moral values could not exist. But is there anything that could change your mind?

Muslim: No, I'm firm in my faith, you could never refute my belief. 

Flight: Oh dear, oh dear. But how can a belief without falsification have any value? How do you know your belief is true?

Muslim: I don't have time for your petty philosophy games. If you don't submit to the will of Allah before you die you will go to hell. You risk everything and I risk nothing!

Flight: Oh dear, oh dear, this is scary indeed. But what more can I say; if it's not possible for your belief to be false, then we are not even having a dialogue, because no matter what I say (or can prove--- even if I proved your belief was wrong) you would still believe it!

Muslim: If you don't believe you will one day pay the price. You are a very arrogant man. I feel sorry for you.

Flight: Well my passionate friend, so full of invincible conviction, which is of course, the greatest virtue in the universe... I am an honest man, and as such, must have some kind of warrant associated with my belief. If your God would punish me for being honest (because I could not believe), then I can only wonder what kind of God he truly is?

Muslim: He is the only God and He is merciful, which is why He is giving you a chance to believe. And when you say you're honest I perceive you're a liar. If you were honest you would believe in Allah. Your intelligence is very small. You're not honest, you're wicked and arrogant. You don't like the ways of Allah because you're evil and you love your evil. One day you will be broken, I only hope by that time it is not too late.

Flight: Oh dear, it is most unpleasant to hear these things about myself. I have much thinking to do...

Sunday, February 9, 2014






Mr. Flight,

Ultimate questions have always been my favorite.  How could they not be, right?

I am so very encouraged by your invitation and your promise that, "it is very likely a conversation can ensue." [Mr. Fonkle is referring to my open invitation to apologists.]

I don't have quite as many conditions as you do.  In fact, I only have two:  Do you value the truth more than you value your worldview?  If your worldview were wrong, would you like to know that it was?

If your answer to even one of these is "yes," I would love to have a conversation with you if your invitation is still open.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully yours,
Theodore Fonkle


It would seem your questions have already involved us in controversy.

Whatever do you mean by truth? How do you define a worldview, and at which point do you consider a worldview to be proven false? 

But of course, I can answer in a presumptive, general sense, yes I am very much concerned with truth and neither do I take my "worldview" (as you call it) to be infallible. It would seem everyday my ideas are shifting... at times the world is such a beautiful place.

Respectfully yours,
Jersey Flight  




Thanks so much for responding.  I think I can best explain what I mean by a worldview by briefly sharing a little bit about where I am coming from.

I became an atheist in my late teens.  I attribute my atheism to my high school and college education, and I remained an atheist for more than 30 years.  But about 10 years ago, I learned something that made me realize that my education was presented to me from the worldview of
metaphysical naturalism.

The simplest way I would define a worldview is an explanatory filter through which we process all that we learn and experience ( I suspect you already knew this ).  The naturalistic worldview presupposes that all natural effects we observe have completely natural causes.

When I learned that all living systems contain large amounts of information, and it is this information that makes all life possible, along with the fact that this truth was well known at the time I received my education, I became aware that not only was there a worldview behind my education, but that it was powerful to the point of being blinding.  Information is immaterial and abstract. Therefore, the fact that information is the cause of life does not fit in with the naturalistic worldview.  I have since learned that the information storage and processing systems of even the simplest single cell organism is vastly more superior than any such system we have ever encountered.

So I would like to ask you a question:   if it were possible to strip away every worldview, from atheism to fundamental Christianity, upon discovering the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered; a system which, by the way, routinely produces feats of engineering that our best engineering efforts cannot rival; what would be reasonable to conclude about the origin of such a system?

I am delighted that you, like myself, hold the truth in such high esteem and I look forward to your thoughts on this.



"When I learned that all living systems contain large amounts of information, and it is this information that makes all life possible... I became aware that not only was there a worldview behind my education, but that it was powerful to the point of being blinding."

When you say, it was so "powerful to the point of being blinding," what do you think this worldview blinded you from? And is it possible that you are now being blinded by the worldview you have?

-----: "Information is immaterial and abstract."

But how can this be the case if you are observing this component of information in order to arrive at the conclusion of the complexity of information? You used the word "encountered..." well, did you "encounter" this information in a non-material way? How did the information come to be something you know without passing through your senses?

"Therefore, the fact that information is the cause of life does not fit in with the naturalistic worldview."

How the did the cause of life enter the picture? (This is an entirely separate topic).

In what way is information the cause of life? (I find your assertion to be exceedingly vague).

Naturalism at no point claims that information or logic must obtain the status of a physical object in order to be considered existent. [By saying that information is immaterial what kind of immateriality do you think you prove?] The contrast of Naturalism is not immaterialism but supernaturalism.
Of course, the bottom line is how you prove the universe should not be the way it is? (And how funny that you are actually speaking about the universe itself, from which thing, you are trying to insinuate, that a thing unlike the universe must exist).
 But let me point something out; this present conversation has NOTHING to do with theism, and everything to do with the ontological status of information and its relation to life! [Of course, you are free to connect the dots if you can... linking your idea of God with the ontological status of information?]

"I have since learned that the information storage and processing systems of even the simplest single cell organism is vastly more superior than any such system we have ever encountered."

I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "a single cell organism is vastly superior to any such system we have ever encountered?" Did we not encounter the single cell organism?
"...if it were possible to strip away every worldview, from atheism to fundamental Christianity, upon discovering the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered; a system which, by the way, routinely produces feats of engineering that our best engineering efforts cannot rival; what would be reasonable to conclude about the origin of such a system?"

You asked, what would be "reasonable" to conclude about the origin of a complex structure? The answer is, NOT SUPERNATURALISM!

Supernaturalism must first be established as something reasonable before one can appeal to it as a reasonable explanation. [And by god, most certainly not monotheism!]

You are arriving late in the game; you did not observe the miserable crawl of our species (this is stated as an analogy). So how do you account for the fact we are an advanced species? Were we always this advanced? And yet, clearly we can observe the fact of our gradualism. I see no reason to reject this notion in regards to the origin of life. Why do you assume it started out as something complex [the most advanced (X)]? But who is to say that it will not be more advanced in the future? My answer is that life did not start out complex. Your question is loaded!
[Again, this is not a question about theism but a question about the nature and origin of life.]
Allow me to explain your predicament. Your confession is not a testament to your honesty, but a manifestation of your intellectual capacity. For you have clearly manifested why you are no longer an Atheist... your analysis of theistic propositions (assertions) is exceedingly weak. At the very best, my friend, you should not have concluded the reasonableness of theism (if you would be reasonable), but the limitations of our present knowledge (which is not an argument for the justification of theism)!
My dear man, if you're a Christian it also means you're a charlatan, because Christianity is not the prospective conclusion of your argument from information.

You are even confused as to the nature of your argument; your argument is an argument from fine tuning [which argues from the basis of a false dichotomy]; your argument is also a cosmological argument as relates to the origin of life. There is nothing new here.

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight



Mr. Flight...

Thanks for the lengthy reply.  You have put a lot of things on the table.  Let me address what I see as immediately relevant:

"is it possible that you are now being blinded by the worldview you have?"

Sure.  Is it possible that you are being blinded by the worldview you have?  Absolutely!

"how did the cause of life enter the picture?"

I brought it up.

"Again, this is not a question about theism..."

Correct.  Nor did I ever claim that it was (and therefore your claims that my "argument" is a weak and confused argument for theism are completely irrelevant).  Recall that in my first email, I asked you if you valued the truth more than your worldview, and in the second, I explained the reason for my worldview shift, ending by asking you a simple, straightforward question which you have not answered. Up to this point, that's it; that's all I have done.

I have really not made any argument at all yet.  I have simply determined on faith that you are interested in what is actually true and next I told you a little bit about myself.  I appreciate you responding every step of the way, but from my perspective I thought it prudent to tiptoe into a conversation - not assuming anything on your end, but exploring where you really stand and at the same time, letting you know where I stand.  Now, in the interest of clarity, I will tell you exactly what case I intend to make for your consideration.  Here is my case in logical format:

1.  Life requires a Creator.
2.  The Creator of life necessarily possesses at least some of the crucial attributes of God.
3a.The laws that precisely constrain and purposefully govern aimless, inanimate matter further support the existence of this Creator.
3b.The universe also further supports the existence of this Creator.
4.  It is reasonable to conclude that the Creator of all three (life, the physical laws, and the universe) is one and the same.
5.  The only reasonable candidate for this Creator is the God of the Bible.
6.  The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus serve as further dramatic evidence for #5.
7.  The voracity of the Bible adds even more evidence for #5.

This is a cumulative case and it mirrors my journey from atheism to Christianity.  It is crucial to establish the reasonableness of #1 first. The truth of #1 by itself is enough to, at a minimum, throw the naturalist worldview into doubt. This is what happened with me. However, it is not sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity by itself.  Each successive point builds on and is strengthened by the previous points.  If I were to begin a conversation with you trying to argue for the reasonableness of #7 first, you and I could never have a productive conversation.  I know that when I was an atheist, it would have been impossible to have any kind of productive conversation taking point #7 in isolation. However, if each of the first four propositions can be established, then not only does an exploration of #7 become interesting, it becomes vital.  Thus, I will begin by defending #1.  Here is the logical argument I will use to defend that proposition:

1.  Universal information is at the base of all physical life.
2.  The origin of universal information is always intelligent agency.
3.  For some period of time (as far as we know, until it appeared on our planet), no physical life existed in this universe.
4.  Therefore, the origin of physical life in this universe is an intelligent agent that necessarily exists outside of the confines of this universe.

Now I will answer the challenges you have made that will pertain to my first claim in advance of beginning my defense of that claim in my next email:

"I'm not sure what you mean when you say, 'a single cell organism is vastly more superior than any such system we have ever encountered'"

It is helpful to consider my entire sentence, which I stated thus: I have since learned that the information storage and processing systems of even the simplest single cell organism is vastly more superior than any such system we have ever encountered. The complete sentence provides the crucial context.  I am not speaking about a single cell organism, but the information storage and processing systems of life; even the simplest life.  Thus I am saying that the information storage and processing systems of life are superior to any other information storage and processing systems we have ever encountered.

"In what way is information the cause of life?"

This is a question that can be answered in several ways, but the most straightforward (though not simple) way is this;  DNA is a four letter alphabet.  Arranged into codons, or "triplets," after undergoing sophisticated copying, splicing, and editing protocols (themselves governed by codes), specific amino acids are prescribed.  The growing chain of amino acids becomes a protein; a protein determined by the specific sequence of amino acids.  This protein is then folded into a specific 3-dimensional shape and is escorted to where it is needed in the cell, where it becomes a molecular machine or a part of a molecular machine comprised of many proteins (the engineering marvels I alluded to). These molecular machines perform the operations of living organisms; the operations that keep these organisms alive. This entire process is orchestrated by a hierarchy of regulatory and control mechanisms.  The entire overarching meta-system constantly shares and analyses data, and implements solutions in blazing fast real time. The DNA alphabet, the "triplet" codons, the specific amino acid sequences, the editing codes, the splicing codes, the regulatory and control mechanisms, the data sharing and analysis, the solutions; all of these are properties of information processing systems.

This is a simplistic and very abbreviated introduction to the information of life.

"How did the information come to be something you know without passing through your senses?"

If we can recognize functional language, we can recognize information. We do it routinely. For an example, re-read my last paragraph.

"There is nothing new here"

Yeah, actually there is.  From Darwin until well into the last century, it was assumed that physics and chemistry were at the base of all life.  But just a few short years after collaborating to elucidate the DNA structure, Francis Crick (an avowed atheist, by the way) proposed the sequence hypothesis, establishing the informational nature of life.

"What do you think your worldview blinded you from?"

My education left out the informational nature of life, even though it was well know when I was matriculating.  This inexcusable glaring omission can only be explained as a function of worldview; a worldview which persists to this day. That it is information, and not physics and chemistry behind life is a game-changer. Some like yourself, and like I used to be, continue to play the old game, refusing to deal with the profound change.

"You asked what would be reasonable to conclude about the origin of a complex structure"

I asked no such thing.  More than once in your last email, you accused me of making an argument from complexity.  Until quoting you just now, I have never even used that word in our exchange.  Please quote me accurately and rest assured that if I ever do use that word (which I may), it will not be as an isolated concept, but will fit into a larger context.

"The contrast of naturalism is not immaterialism, but supernaturalism."

I would love to address this claim, but first I really need you to provide me with a precise definition of what you mean by "supernaturalism."

"Naturalism at no point claims that information or logic must obtain the status of physical object in order to be considered existent"

True.  But the metaphysic of naturalism demands that information and logic - which are abstract and which you seem to concede are abstract - must be explained by exclusive appeal to matter and energy.  If you wish to make this argument, please be my guest.


Again, I would love to address this claim, but cannot until you provide that precise definition.  I do thank you though for assuming a burden of proof here.

Well I hope I have been able to provide you with some clarity about what I have said to this point and I am very much looking forward to seeing how you will now move the conversation forward.

Humbly yours,
Theodore Fonkle


I'm not so sure there is good reason to believe a detailed conversation on something as vague as a Creator is justified?

Answer me this; you already admit that you believe in God, so what do you mean by the term God? What are the attributes of the God you believe in?

My guess is that the conversation will not need to go much further than this.

I simply tire of playing these kinds of games with clever theists.

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight




Mr. Flight...

I am happy to answer your question; indeed I have an answer at the ready.  One thing first:  you and I have both invested time and effort into this conversation.  Until my previous email, we have each respected the other's time and effort by providing substantive responses.  However, you have completely ignored my previous post. Therefore, in all fairness to the conversation, I need you to provide a substantive response to that email; in particular, I need you to provide a precise definition of what you mean by "supernatural."

Once you have done that, I will respond in kind and then oblige you with an answer to your question.

Faithfully yours,
T. F.


Only God knows how much I loath these sophistical games.

Your argument is so powerful and so sophisticated that I'm deathly afraid to answer. You are the greatest theist I have ever encountered... the profundity of your 5th premise alone is enough to destroy all Naturalistic claims... it would seem you have secured the future of theism for a thousands years.

I submit myself to the logic of a superior master.

humbly yours,
Jersey Flight



I'm confused.  Are we still having a conversation or not?  I am happy to continue if we are both serious and honest with each other.  If that's the case, I will review what you have sent me and respond.  If it's not the case, I am puzzled as to why you would send this to me.


faithfully yours,
Theodore Fonkle


I resent having to prove your simplicity, intellectual superficialism.

You bring me a poor game, a game that would waste my time, a game that can offer me no increase. You want me to presume the worthiness and seriousness of your propositions? You want me to school you in fallacies?

I'm sorry, I have to say it; you're an idiot. And sadly the world is full of people like you.

Allow me to substantiate my claim. Take your first premise (just your first premise)!

"Life requires a Creator."

Why "a" Creator as opposed to many Creators?

You think you have stumbled onto something profound, but your arguments are worse than ignorant. I refuse to subject myself to your juvenile banter.

I let your own scholars speak:

“I don’t know how to do something one could sensibly call ‘showing’ that [theistic intuition or classical Christianity]... is true. I believe there are a large number (at least a couple dozen) good arguments for the existence of God; none, however, can really be thought of as showing or demonstration. As for classical Christianity, there is even less prospect of demonstrating its truth.” Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga pg.170

Deluded invalid! even your brightest theologians have abandoned the fundamental line. Your argument belongs next to a flat-earth syllogism. Fuck off and quit wasting my time!

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight



Ease up pilgrim.  Don’t have a heart attack.  You sent me the link.  I didn't solicit it.  Have fun with your worldview of death.  Heck, I wouldn't trade in a worldview that offers that bright future for anything, either!  Cherish it. Protect it at all costs.  Never, ever let it be subject to the court of reason, what ever you do!

This was never a "contest".

Theodore Fonkle

p.s.  Many Creators certainly implies at least one.  Your objection is bizarre. But of course, you will never have to defend it.  You will never have the balls…


Let my final word stand as proof of your incompetence, which serves to justify my derision. To call a man, that is not an idiot, an idiot, is to make use of a fallacy, but I have used this word in context! If the shoe fits the word applies:

"Many Creators certainly implies one." But one does not imply many--- insufferable blockhead! I am happiest when idiots like you simply leave me alone.

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

The Fate of Analytical Philosophy-- Jersey Flight

God (who is always a reliable source of information) tells me the days of Analytical Philosophy are numbered. For we cannot deduce its longevity from antiquity... as it is, low and behold, a language for the elite; we are speaking of equations that have little or nothing to do with wisdom. One has been occupied with the precepts of grammar. It seems the real work can begin only when one has stepped out of the paradigm of linguistic computation. One must begin to create as opposed to argue the infinite thing.  

Of course, this is not to say that such a method is without utility. It has its place in the critique of metaphysics. But this is merely to dispel the ghosts of antiquity.   

What blossoms in the eye today will be the refuse of tomorrow. We can ask the question as to whether or not there is progress on the basis of this tedious thing? Is there not an air of dishonesty associated with the question? But rationalism is not the enemy (for she can never be the enemy so long as men would be the enemy of reason).

We have here a precept [one is not doing philosophy] one is chasing the precept; one follows the line into insignificance [we can ask the question why the question itself even matters, which is a question as to the nature of the question, which is a question regarding the ontology of the question itself]; follows it merely because they can see it, because it is good sport to play sophistical games.

What will be the longevity of this motion? Is such a sport the praise of mankind? Can it really be the salvation of culture? Is it not rather, a futile burden on the shoulder's of men, a kind of academic distraction? We say the thinker will grow tired of this procedure. One man breaks stones while the other analyzes the pieces (which is an analogy of methodology). But such men will eventually choke on the dust of their concentration, which is an emphasis of the precept.

If there is a future to the analytical line it means the transference of philosophy into that of science [thought subverted into a kind of mathematics]... but if hypothesis proceeds theory then what can be the substitute for inventive speculation?