Jack Rooney

Philosophy in an Abstract World

By

Jack Rooney

Art by Sir John Tenniel
for Lewis Carroll "The Jabberwock"

A good portion of western thought is infected with a disease. It is an insidious disease, not only because it is destructive, but also because it is difficult to detect and even more difficult to cure. It has emerged over a very long period of time, having its roots planted in the primal rainforests where our ancestors hooted and howled at each other from the treetops with our first primitive vocalizations in an attempt to communicate with one another. This disease crept into human endeavors at the dawn of recorded history when humans first began to ask questions, to ponder their relationship to the world, to wonder, to think. It became full-blown illness thousands of years ago with the presocratics, perhaps even earlier, and it has followed along side the early Greek philosophers, rising in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, particularly with the creation of the Categories. There is evidence to indicate that Plato, during his final years, began to see the true nature of the disease (see Raphael Demos' "Introduction" to Plato; Selections, Scribners, pp. xxxix - xli). With the beginnings of Christianity, as it attempted to formalize itself in the world as a religion, it crept into the Order and continued throughout the middle ages, with St Thomas Aquinas' City of God (Being and Spirit), St Anslem's "Being and Essence", into the Enlightenment with Descartes' Meditations and the cogito, and the Age of Reason, right up through today's most respected and popular sciences. This disease shows up again and again in elementary schools and the lectures of university professors, libraries, all sorts of books, on the evening news, in television shows and movies, in newspapers and magazines, in political speeches and religious sermons, in the writings of some of the world's most renowned thinkers and journalists and in the idle talk of casual conversation and the technical languages of philosophy, science and law. Both print and broadcast media, like Typhoid Mary who spread typhoid fever through out New York, have been, though perhaps unintentionally, the chief carriers of this disease in the modern world and have spread it so far and so wide it is now epidemic. It has infected every aspect of our daily lives. Sadly, it has led to full-scale wars, to the erosion of liberty and freedom in America, to violence and to racial hatred, to bigotry, and to the deterioration of the family. It has led to the rise to power of men aware of its affect on the human condition. It has given rise to new "sciences". It has created tensions between nations and served to promote the selfish, wicked and the deceitful intentions of those who lust for power and seek domination over others. It is self-perpetuating and self-promoting, even though many promoting it, those who are carriers of this disease, are probably unaware of the subtle influence it exerts over their own actions. Those who are aware of it often use it cunningly to their own advantage. It is, for lack of a better term, a disease, which I shall call abstractionitis, which can be loosely translated as "large and swollen abstractions".

I use the term somewhat tongue-in-cheek here mostly because I am at somewhat of a loss as to what to call this phenomena I have observed in the areas of philosophy and science, which has included study regarding the foundations of the various social sciences, particularly sociology, psychology, political science, economics and law. Like a physician who knows something is killing his patients, identifying the symptoms, the root cause, the etymology is the first step, and then giving it a name is mere taxonomy or classification or definition of the disease. Finding a cure is another step entirely, but finding the root cause is always the beginning step towards a cure. I cannot presuppose to use the term abstraction as if everyone will automatically know what one is, or the term abstractionitis as if everyone would understand if it were compared with something like tonsillitis, where I could poke my finger at it and say, "See, this is what is causing my fever, this is what is making me ill, can't you see that this tonsil is abnormal compared to the one on the opposite side of my throat. It is swollen, enlarged, bigger than it should be." Or, for further example, appendicitis, where I could say, "It hurts here, Doc" pointing to the lower left side of my abdomen." Analogies are always inexact.

To claim all forms of abstracting are dangerous is like saying all bacteria are dangerous. Certainly, some bacteria are dangerous and cause illness, like staffloicocci and streptococci, while others are useful and necessary, like E coli which lives in the intestines of humans and helps break down food products, but if it gets out of control, it can also kill you. The mathematical abstractions of science have helped launch men into space, developed new energy resources, increased agricultural production, transportation, medical science, communication, living conditions, and the quality of life here on earth.

Abstractionitis is somewhat more elusive, somewhat more difficult to pinpoint and diagnose than other forms of physical disease. This is because it is a disease of thinking or reasoning emergent from a misuse of technical language (jargon). It is, figuratively, an inherited disease passed on from one generation to the next through the intellectual marrow of our ancestors.

Abstractions arise from a sort of mental algebra, sort of an intellectual game in which a thinker attempts to compute the value of an unknown factor, as in the equation if x + 3 = 5 then x = 2. Notwithstanding that an entire array of definitions must proceed the solution to this simple problem, such as + and = as "is added to" and "is equal to" or "identical to" and 3 and 5 as (1+1+1) and (1+1+1+1+1) respectively, where "1" is itself, or 1 = 1 or 1 is 1 or as simply "1 is".

The concept of one is a survival mechanism; it allows a human to distinguish, separate itself from everything else in the world. 1 and combinations of it (an abstraction) is the starting point of the game. (0 could also be seen as the starting point, if you wish, as on a number line with positive and negative numbers on either side) 1 is seen as a unit of something in this game. It could be anything. 1 inch, 1 pound, 1 ton, 1 atom, 1 molecule, 1 volt, 1 cow, etc. All of these units, or entities are established arbitrarily -- yes, even the cow and the molecule, and this brings us to the platonic question of universals, to the problems inherent in the activity of abstracting, and whether individual entities are, and how language contributes to our understanding, or misunderstanding of the world.

Abstractionitis is an effect of the multidefinitionality of terms. Definitionally obscure terms are just as deadly in an intellectual sense as appendicitis is in a physical sense. COW: a domesticated hoofed animal which chews a cud and is used by man as a source of meat and milk. Or, COW: A conglomerate bimolecular mass situated in space and time. Which definition we accept might depend on our purpose, our point of view, or our needs. This will vary depending on whether one is a farmer or a physicist.

The Aristotelian blueprint for definitions of term, the word or symbol given to the thing; genus, the general class or category of things in general to which this particular thing belongs, and differentia, those characteristics and attributes which mark the thing as different from all other things in the class, allows us to construct a wide variety of definitions depending on our needs.

Abstractionitis occurs when we take the whole debate just a little bit further than reason should allow. There is a big difference between observing some "thing" and then giving it a name and creating a term and trying to define it: "Thus the question that was raised in the beginning and is now and always being asked..., What is Substance [Being]?". (Aristotle, Metaphysics).

What did Aristotle think he would learn if he answered this question? Nothing that he did not already know. Perhaps an analogy will help make this point clear: Imagine a primitive aborigine living in say, for the sake of discussion, Borneo. Now let us also imagine two great hunters from Chicago on a hunting expedition in Borneo. The two hunters hire the aborigine as a guide to lead them around in the jungle, and, at the end of the day as night falls, they make camp and build a fire and settle in for the night. Now let us imagine that during the course of the conversation around the campfire hunter #1 turns to hunter # 2 and says, "I'll bet the snow is deep in Chicago right now." Such a statement might puzzle the aborigine. It does not snow in Borneo; he has never seen or felt or experienced a snowfall. In such circumstances the aborigine might ask, "What is snow?" Within this context, the aborigine is honestly ignorant of the meaning of the term snow and his question is appropriate or legitimate within the context of this situation. In an epistemological sense, he does not know what the term "snow" means, or he does not know what the term means when the hunters use it as a word in their language.

Under circumstances in which the aborigine is honestly ignorant of the meaning of the term "show", the hunters might provide the aborigine with an explanation in a variety of ways: "Snow is a white, cold, powdery substance that falls from the sky" They might pull a snapshot from their wallet and show him a picture of Chicago in winter. They might reach into the ice chest and pull out some ice and rub it on his skin to give him the feeling of coldness. They might shave off flakes from a block of ice and toss it in the air and say, in the form of an analogy, "Snow is like this." Or, in the extreme, they might put him on a plane and fly him to Chicago and point to the snow on the ground and say, "This is snow." In short, the hunters may use a variety of means to provide the aborigine with an explanation of what they mean by the term snow when they used it in their statement "...the snow is deep in Chicago...." In this way, the aborigine can come to understand what the term "show" signifies in the hunter's language.

Now let us imagine a situation in which the aborigine has never met the hunters from Chicago. If we remove them from the situation and imagine the aborigine siting by himself in the jungle, could he ask the question "What is snow?" Since snow is not a part of his world, it is highly improbable that he would be able to formulate a question about it. If he has nothing in his experience to cause him to imagine such a thing as snow might exist. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for the aborigine to even suspect there is such a thing as snow. He could not have even the foggiest notion about snow, and, therefore, it is impossible for the aborigine to question the existence of something he has not experienced.

Let us extend this analogy further. Imagine a missionary visits Borneo to save the savage aborigine and exclaims, "You must love God to be saved.", to which the aborigine might respond, "What is God?" or "what is love?" or "what is saved?" In short, the aborigine is asking what the missionary means by the terms God, love, and saved when the missionary uses these terms.

Continuing with the analogy, let us now remove the missionary from the aboriginal world. Could the aborigine ask the question "What is God?" without ever meeting the missionary? On the surface this appears to be a somewhat different set of circumstances. On the one hand, the aborigine is concerned with the meaning of the term snow and what the hunters mean by the term when they use it in their language; on the other hand, the aborigine is concerned with the meaning of the term God and what the missionary means by the term when used in the missionary's language. Similarly, without the hunters or the missionary to introduce these terms into the aborigine's language, the aborigine would have no reason to suspect such terms refer to anything. If the aborigine has such terms or like terms in his language, then it would be inappropriate for him to raise questions about the meaning of his own terms without placing himself in the position of an ignorance that can not possibly be real, since he can not be honestly ignorant of the subject or referent to which these terms apply. If the aborigine uses such terms without ever having met either the hunter or the missionary, then he knows what they mean.

The problem with the activity of questioning arises when we take the question form "What is X?" and superimpose the form of this question on abstract concepts. Questions of the form "what is truth, what is beauty, what is justice, what is right, what is good, what is God, have the same form as the question "What is snow?" But snow is a physical phenomenon one can point to easily and say, "This [pointing to the snow] is what I mean by the term snow when I use it in my language". The term "God", on the other hand, is not so easily identified in this way.

There are those who have claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God logically. And there are many that believe this proposition with all sincerity. But why should we believe it? Should we believe merely because some person calling himself an agnostic or a logician or a mathematician (Bertrand Russell, Vienna Circle, 1953) says it can not be done? It is simple to make grand statements of this type. It is much more difficult, if not impossible to prove they are true. There was a time when many people believed it was impossible for man to fly. There was a time when people said it was impossible for man to break the sound barrier. But we did it. And we have done great many things formerly held to be impossible by the great masses. Because no one has yet constructed a proof for the existence of God, which satisfies the logician's definition of "proof" does not mean it can not be done. It merely means it has not been done so far to the satisfaction of the logician.

One technique in logic for logical proof is to negate that which one wishes to prove (X). If we wish to prove X, we negate it, and assume not X; and, then, if not X is tested according to a rigorously constructed logical system of deduction which would provide a formal proof of validity acceptable to the logician, then if the proposition of the conclusion is tested according to the "rules of inference", then if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true. Irving M Copi, in his work Symbolic Logic, provides an excellent description of this method of logical deduction:

"The method of Indirect proof, often called the method of proof by reductio ad absurdum, is familiar to all who have studied elementary geometry. In deriving his theorems, Euclid begins by assuming the opposite of what he wants to prove. If that assumption leads to a contradiction, or 'reduces to an absurdity', then the assumption must be false, and its negation, the theorem to be proved -- must be true" (Irving M Copi, Symbolic Logic, Fourth Edition. pp. 52-53.).

This is what makes the position of the atheist so pointlessly absurd: to totally deny the existence of God, he either knows what he is denying, or he is a fool. If he truly knows what the concept of God means and knows what he is denying, he can not at the same time and in good conscience deny it exists. The atheist must affirm the existence of God in order to deny God exists, which is absurd, or at the very least, a paradox. The atheist, in his own act of denial, reduces his own proposition to an absurdity, and thus proves the proposition "God is" is a true proposition.

Religious thinkers, scholars and theologians merely compound the confusion when they fall into the atheist trap and make God the subject of debate. And the debate begins with the question, "Does God exist?" When we question whether God does or does not "exist", we enter the realm of abstraction in order to be able to discourse about "it" to each other. We do not need explanations and descriptions for things with which we are familiar. Once scholars accept the appropriateness of a question of which they are themselves the author, they are off like horses from a start-up-line galloping down a thoroughfare in a race which has no clearly defined finish line. They can run forever and never win the race. Consequently, there may be more truth in a single poet's musings than in all the philosophical theories and explanations which have been constructed by humans to date.

There is such health and length of years
in the elixir of thy note,
That God himself more young appears,
From the rare bragging of thy throat.
(see Henry David Thoreau, "Upon the Bank at Early Dawn")

Thoreau's objective was not to reduce God to a concept and then claim to have solved the eternal puzzle but to invite us to look around at the world and at ourselves and see that many of the puzzles and problems and riddles of science and philosophy are not so puzzling after all. "It is only when we forget all our learning that we begin to know." (Henry David Thoreau, Journal (pub 1906) quotation from page dated October 4th, 1859).

The knowledge of God is experienced as an intrinsic part of human life; belonging to, within, the essential nature or constitution of humans. Problems arise when we begin talking to one another about God and referring to "it", when we attempt to place brackets around it, categorize it, define it, explain it, and reduce it to a concept. But God can not be an objectified thing. God is not an it, or an object, or a being-in-itself, not a person, place or thing; God is not a noun; God is a verb, and the concept implies action or a state of being and all language which attempts to make God an objectified thing, an abstraction, is either a misuse of the term God or is pure poetic analogy.

The following questions exemplify the nature of the disease:

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

What is the meaning of life? (Or, What should I do with my life?)
If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?

Is the whole equal to or greater than the sum of its parts?

To many, questions of the type listed here are considered great puzzles or mysteries of science. All but the last of them will receive no comment here, and it is rejected as absurd, and I ask you to entertain the proposition: The whole has no parts.

The concept of God is of extreme importance in the various social sciences, particularly in those areas that have an impact on government and law. The concept of God serves as the corner stone of all moral philosophy. Without it, as Sartre observes, "...existence is meaningless, reality is absurd, life is a contradiction, and all morality comes to nothing" (see J.P. Sartre, Being and Nothingness.).

The concept of God in the Declaration of Independence is a philosophical precept, rather than a religious tenet. Whether God actually exists is not an issue, it is a given in the Declaration of Independence, it is not a subject of debate in American law. This may be why Marx, in line with Nietzsche, went to such great lengths to declare God is dead; his attempts to discredit religious belief by declaring religion "the opium of the people", was a straw man attempt to eliminate the concept of God from political philosophy ((Karl Marx, 1818 -1893, Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right, 1844, Introduction. see also Fredric W. Nietzche, 1844-1900, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Prologue, 2.) The concept of God is replaced in Marxist/materialist philosophy with the notion of matter, and the hand of God became "historical progress". The irony is that this does not eliminate the notion of a Supreme Being; it merely renames it and calls it "matter".

Again, this is old hat reiteration of the basic rift that developed between Plato and Aristotle more than 2,000 years ago between Ideas on the one hand, and Matter on the other hand. This is semantically skullduggery that served Marx more as a diversionary tactic than anything else: "Men's Ideas are the most direct emanation of their material state. This is true in politics, law, morality, religion, metaphysics, etceteras." (The German Ideology, 1846, written with Fredric Engels). With God out of the way, so to speak, Marx was easily able to argue the case for historical determinism, to make man a product of the environment, and to reduce all values to relativism. It is often said that Marx stood Hegel on his head and brought man out of the sky and back down to earth. But one must question the value of this entire debate, of how much explanation is required, and how much of it is pure sophistry.

It is a widely accepted belief that progress is linear, that it moves through time in some sort of forward or upward direction. "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom." (See Hegel, The Philosophy of History (1832).). The entire notion of "historical progress", which Marx adopted from Hegel, is by no means necessarily so. Phrases like "time marches on" or "the march of history, consciousness toward freedom" augment the notion that the world is in some sort of forward evolution, moving inexorably toward some future goal, toward its telos or ultimate end or good. (see also Stephen J. Gould, Wonderful Life; The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, W.W. Norton � 1989, 347 p.).

It is just as possible for a society to regress as it is for it to progress and actions of government and groups of individuals do not always lead necessarily and inevitably toward a better world. "Every Government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-1785, pp. 19).

Progress, is viewed by many as a building up, like piling bricks one on top of another in the building of a structure. Einstein's argument for the relativity of time demonstrates the falsity of this notion. Time is nothing more than motion as seen from the point of view of an observer, it is an intellectual construct, an abstraction; it has no separate existence apart from the observer. Of course, this sounds like subjectivism. It is not. To say that the world is nothing more than our perception of it is subjectivism, but perception is not the issue and this is not what is implied here: it is the experience of time on the part of an existing human being, and not some metaphysical abstraction called perception. Einstein warned about the dangers of taking the abstractions too far, and the theory of relativity was never intended to supplant the validity of religious experience or to suggest a relativity of morality. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.... To inquire after the meaning or object of ones own experience or of creation generally has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view." (Albert Einstein, The world as I see It, 1934). Subjectivism creates a dualism which establishes an abstract world and alienates us from our true connectedness with the world and with God, as do all dualistic theories of man's relationship to the universe which posit the existence of things called "minds" or "bodies" or "egos" or "substances" or "ideas" or "matter". Time, as an example of an abstract concept, is not a part of the world in itself but an experience or event that we identify and separate from all of the other experiences of living. Time as a concept or an idea of a human being, is itself a part of, emerges from, the very world perceived, the earth/world, the cosmos, the universe, infinity, and so forth.

*** To understand the relationship of ideas to the world and how ideas are used by men and women, scientists, politicians, academicians, religious leaders, authors, teachers, parents or anyone who attempts to communicate with others, to construct explanations of the world, it is necessary to understand not only the foundations of language and how terms emerge and come into use, but it is also necessary to research, review, and analyze, the effectiveness and use of media as it relates to the communication of ideas.

What does it mean when the politician talks about the American public? How are we to understand it when the newsman talks about mainstream America? How can the words in a book incite a foreign power to condemn an author to death? What should we make of it when a terrorist holds a jetliner hostage and demands a time slot on the 6 o'clock news? How can a statue erected in a public square incite a government to commit genocide? One thing appears c lear: Words, either written or spoken, and images, photographed, painted, sculpted or filmed are power. They have an effect which reaches out to others, influences their attitudes and beliefs, and incites strong feelings or emotions in people and moves them to behave or act in certain, sometimes predictable ways. Language and the various media, which communicate ideas, can, therefore, influence human behavior.

Media is a broad term that contains the spoken word, the written word (print media, books, magazines, newspapers, journals, etc), visual media (paintings, sculpture, photography, film, etc) and broadcast media (videotape documentation, television, radio, the 6 o-clock news). What they have in common is that they are each a tool for the sharing of ideas or information about facts and events. But some of the ideas put forth by the various media are of somewhat dubious origin. Mass mind manipulation through the use of media spread propaganda is a technique long used by governments for social control. With the rise of television, it has become extremely simple for an agency of government to spread information. The problem is that sometimes the information they spread is only what they want the public to hear.

Much of the weight of any theory depends on how the researcher interprets or misinterprets the data, what "facts" he chooses to include. In a sense, then, much of what is said is opinion, one person's view of the world. A personal point of view with regard to the issues, whether the researcher acknowledges it or not, is an intricate part of any explanation designed to provide answers as to why things are as they are. But this may not be, in itself, so bad. The world would probably be a pretty dull place if we all thought the same, held the same opinions, believed in the same things, and if everything were perfectly ordered and there were no mysteries, no unsolved questions, no puzzles or problems or unknowns. Without diversity, there would be no art, music, or works of literature, no new ideas, or "progress" in any direction or at any level. Everyone would be a robot.

On the other hand, this same diversity of opinion breeds many misunderstandings and has been the reason for many wars, death, destruction, brutality, cruelty and human suffering. Some acts are deliberate. Some acts are a result of mistakes in judgement. Deliberate acts are criminal, while errors in judgment are merely regrettable. Humans make mistakes in judgment and commit crimes against humanity not because they hold diverse opinions, but because some opinions are based on ignorance and prejudice and superstition and arise from a misinterpretation of data or from false inferences. This dogma has a tendency to predispose individual humans and groups of humans toward a general intolerance to any opinions or notions that are radically different from their own worldview.

Ignorance is not a term which means dumb, or stupid, or even uneducated. There are a great many men who are well educated and yet ignorant. Even the wisest and most pious of men make errors of judgment. One of the most notorious examples pointed out in numerous historical texts is the condemnation by the church fathers of Galleileo's proposition, in support of Copernicus, that the earth revolves around the sun in contradiction to the Ptolemaic system which held that the earth is at the center with the sun, moon and planets revolving around it. The sun rises and sets. The sun moves across the sky, it says so in the Bible, therefore, the earth must be stationary. Yet we could not say with any honesty that these men were stupid or dumb. In fact, they were extremely well educated for their day, but fearing that such an incongruity would undermine their belief system or somehow supplant the validity of biblical teachings (even though strictly speaking Copernicus discovery would have very little if any impact on Christianity), they refused to believe it. They merely turned away from the facts Galleio presented and refused to listen to what he was saying. Their predisposition toward accepting everything in the Bible as literally true clouded their judgment, their failure to see these biblical passages as figures of speech handed down from antiquity led them to draw false conclusions about the reality of the world's position in the cosmos. They simply ignored the facts. And this is all that is meant here by the term ignorance. It means simply "to ignore".

Prejudice is an effect of ignorance. It is a predisposition to think about things in a certain way based on one's culture, education (or lack of education), influences of family, religious beliefs, attitudes of peers, which we accept as true or believe to be true because we have been taught to think of things in a particular way or because of experiences which have led us to hold such beliefs. Prejudice is grounded in an inclination toward a certain world view; it arises from, occurs as a result of superstition and ignorance, mistaken notions about things, people, historical events, causal connections between events, etc., and directly influences human thinking about the world in a bias direction, sometimes with destructive consequences. Carried to extreme, it leads to fanaticism and violence (see Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 1951.).

Intolerance emerges from prejudice. It is a tendency to refuse to accept the ideas, attitudes, opinions or beliefs and behavior of another because of certain preconceived notions or biases. It is a kind of territorial behavior in which the actions of another are seen as a threat to a preconceived worldview. Accompanying this behavior is the tendency to protect and defend the familiar and to reject or strike out at the foreign and unfamiliar. It often leads to violence. It is a major destructive element in all societies.

The great challenge of the coming epoch, then, is not to attempt to eliminate diversity, as it is an intrinsic part of our humanity, but to eliminate ignorance and prejudice from the peoples of the world and to promote tolerance toward the ideas of others. The key lies in education. What kind of education is a real problem because how can one be certain the ideas we are passing along to our children are not themselves based on false and unfounded suppositions? How can we be certain we are not passing along a lot of bogus ideas and mistaken notions to our kids? Through education directed at eliminating ignorance, education which teaches children to try to look at all sides of an issue before jumping to conclusions, education which teaches them to anticipate possible objections to a line of reasoning and to bring them to the fore and not to merely ignore alternative sides of an issue because such alternatives may not support their own world view or because the implications might contradict their own prejudices.

Through education which promotes tolerance for the ideas of others, many of the world's problems can be eliminated or significantly reduced on a long-term basis. It amounts basically to this: One ought to keep an open mind until one is certain all the facts relative to an issue are considered. The old notion about not jumping to conclusions is good advice. It forces us to look at all sides of an issue before we pass judgment.

Theorizing, as a human activity of thinking about our world and attempting to make sense of it all, of constructing explanations about why things are as they are, takes place within the framework of our own human understanding. None of us are capable of viewing the grand cosmic picture and saying with absolute certainty why the world has come to be as it is or what will be tomorrow. A little healthy skepticism is always good when dealing with someone who claims to have all the answers, particularly with regard to social issues. Human beings are not molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. We know from experience that we can place a certain proportion of hydrogen (H) in a beaker with a certain proportion of oxygen (O) and it will produce water (H2O). And we know it will work every time we repeat the experiment. But humans do not conform to the same laws of cause and effect as molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. When we place two humans in a room together, it is difficult to say with any certainty what they will do. There is always the human factor as a variable in the equation which can radically alter the expected outcome. The attempts on the part of the behavioral sciences to reduce humans to the subjects of strict laws in an attempt to construct a science of human behavior have yet proven fruitful (see B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1971.).

With respect to those who ascribe to a formal social philosophy, political philosophy, or established religious point of view, a personal philosophy, or believe in crystal ball gazing or new age mysticism, the best we can hope for is to look around at events in the world, at history, at information provided by science, and, within the limitations of scientific inquiry, deduce, draw inferences, and extrapolate. If the sky clouds over and the barometric pressure falls, there is a good possibility it will rain. There is a dark cloud forming over America; it is filled with ignorance and prejudice, and it is about to rain its acid content upon the people of the land; it can be swept away only by the winds of reason promoting the free flow of ideas to the people.

The framers of the constitution created the forum for discussing issues to provide for the free flow of ideas -- the press. The Internet, with advances in electronics and telecommunications, now permeates every area of the globe. It has been the press, perhaps more than anything else, through the worldwide network for disseminating information through the mass media, which has contributed to the new emerging world consciousness and the Internet must be seen as an extension of the free press. The Internet, as it evolves, can be a true vanguard of progress and freedom; it can help strip away ignorance by providing large numbers of people with information. But the press can also muddle the issues and present a distorted perspective of reality. Journalists can overlook things, fall to illogic, and give in to sentiment and their own prejudices and biases. They can also be manipulated by others, duped by clever forces who either lie to the press or who know how to manipulate the press by feeding them information designed to support a particular point of view. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are at issue. The truth is what corresponds to the facts, and the facts are what any rational man would believe it to be based on the whole truth, the body of complete and accurate information given in support of the proposed facts. If a journalist leaves out or fails to include all the relative facts, the public receives a distorted or at least partial picture of reality. The press, therefore, can be instrumental in spreading misinformation.

Because one can never be certain when all the facts relative to an issue are in, the journalist, the politician, the teacher must stand guard over themselves to ensure that before they opine on a subject to an highly impressionable public, every effort has been made to gather the whole truth so any rational person can say, "Yes, I believe it because I have seen it or have it from competent authority and have good reasons for believing it." And when they do not know or do not have all the facts, they should say so. There is no disgrace in simply saying, "I don't know."

The credibility of the press has waned in recent years due in part to the proclivity toward sensationalism, over zealism, the rush to get the scoop on the competition, and in some cases just down right sloppy journalism. Sensationalism overplays the importance of an issue and ascribes to it a value that is not real. They fuel the fire of public sentiment with the popular jargon and buzzwords of the day. It was the British philosopher John Locke who called upon us to express our ideas clearly and distinctly, and although he never defined what a "clear and distinct idea" is, he probably figured we would know one when we seen it (see John Locke, Theory of Knowledge). Locke's faith in the human ability to discern sense from nonsense appears to have been somewhat misplaced, but he could not have foreseen the rise of the electronic media and its pervasiveness and influence throughout the world.

In anticipation of an objection to all of this, there will be those who will say, wait one minute, are you not here engaging in the same kind of rhetoric you are criticizing? Does not this dialogue itself contain a vast array of abstract concepts, undefined concepts, precepts and suppositions? The answer is Yes. But when the forest is ablaze and running out of control, it is sometimes best to fight fire with fire, it is sometimes a useful tactic to set small fires around the conflagration to contain it so it will burn itself out. In a way, it is similar to the old paradox which arises from those who have argued that logic is useless. In order to show logic is pointless one must construct rational arguments to show why. In short, one must resort to using the very tools it is argued are pointless, i.e., the rules of argumentation. Hence the paradox: To argue against the usefulness of logic one must use logic; similarly, we can not escape the use of language in a critique of language, the very phenomena which is the subject of inquiry is also the very tool used in conducting the inquiry. The truly important thing is that we try our best to do an honest job, even when findings go against the grain of public sentiment or are expedient. Consequently, journalists must bear witness to their own age as they express that most cherished right, the right to write and express their opinions openly without fear of reprisals. Whether these opinions prove correct or incorrect or close to the truth or far from the truth is left to the judgment of posterity, to some future, and hopefully more enlightened age. Exposition, writing about the world in an expository manner, no matter how formal it may appear at times, no matter how many footnotes it contains to support its thesis or arguments, no matter how logical or rhetorical its structure, no matter how grand and well defined its terms, is nothing more than poetry without meter and rhyme. It is human understanding which lends it any meaning at all.

Jack Rooney Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney
Philosophy in an Abstract World By Jack Rooney Note and Feedback Some of the dialogues that follow are from my conversations and communications with philosophers, theologians, and atheists and agnostics regarding "The Proof", althopugh the debate tends to be somewhat repetative to the point of redundancy, it is worth reprinting here because it indicates the general line of thought of the opposition.

A young man asked me one day in an internet chat groupe, "How do I know that I am?", to which I replied to him: I can not answer the question for you, but you can answer it yourself. Cogito ergo sum.... Read more from the man who made the famous statement "I think, therefore, I am." Features "The Passions of the Soul" in both English and French. And Meditations and Discourse on Method: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/text/descart/des-med.htm#med1 Be careful when considering "The thing which thinks" and be aware also that the Cartesian method of radical doubt has been criticized for circularity, called "The Cartesian Circle", but we have come along way since then, and the inherent problem is eliminated by the reducio ad absurdum method of proof developed by Euclid. Jack Rooney Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney

Jack Rooney wrote in message news:7pgtuve4b$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net... Keep me smiling, Herb. Constructs have parts. The God of Abraham is not a thing and has no parts, ergo, not a construct. Better not smile yet, it could be a fool's grin! Here is what the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says as definition for usage in grammar of the word: "CONSTRUCT": To put together words in syntactical arrangement; to combine in grammatical construction. Here is what Jack Rooney said: I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when properly understood. Now, compare the OED with your above "God of xyz" arrangement. Still smiling, Jack?
In article <7phfl$cq$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net, "Herb Ludwig" wrote: Jack Rooney wrote in message news:7pgtuv$b$1@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net... Keep me smiling, Herb. Constructs have parts. The God of Abraham is not a thing and has no parts, ergo, not a construct. Better not smile yet, it could be a fool's grin! Here is what the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says as definition for usage in grammar of the word: "CONSTRUCT": To put together words in syntactical arrangement; to combine in grammatical construction. Isn't this the same as the definition of a sentence, or am I missing something? Here is what Jack Rooney said: I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when properly understood. Now, compare the OED with your above "God of xyz" arrangement. Still smiling, Jack? Well, it mays seem a bit conradictory on the surface to compare the "I am" to nirvana(non-being), but knowledge of being is in the reestablishment of ones being; which is to pass from being into non-being and then into being again. Otherwise known as deliverance another verb and the son(offspring) of "I am". Vincent

Hi Jack, Jack Rooney wrote in message news:7pds1$aq$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net... Let me begin by saying I do not believe in Atheist bashing, or gay bashing, or Jehovah's Witness bashing or Moonie bashing or any kind of bashing. So it is difficult to critique what I feel to be fundamental error without angering the person or group criticized. People have strong emotional feelings about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and it is a normal human reaction for people to strike out whenever the foundations of their belief systems are jeopardized or questioned. Although tolerance and respect are ideals to be sought, they are seldom achieved. From my point of view, you are all God's children equally. None is greater or lesser favored than any other in the eyes of God. Yes this is radical egalitarianism, but the alternative, in my mind, is simply too horrifying to discuss. Some ideas can lead in a direction which is ultimately destructive to human progress and well being. I believe such destructive ideas should be resisted for the good of humanity and the betterment of society as a whole, not through censorship, let each man speak his mind on all matters, but through well reasoned discourse in the open marketplace of ideas. No one should ever fear the truth, even when it does not set well with the keepers of conventional wisdom. Atheism is conventional, destructive wisdom? As I've known it to be, it has been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most "conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now. Now, Foggy, I already dealt with your red herring post about unicorns. You appear to be one of those theorists who defines proof to suit his own purposes and freak when the true, scientifically accepted, conventional mathematics definition of proof works to your disadvantage and exposes the flaw in the atheistic line of reasoning. Let me remind you that Fermat's last theorem was thought unprovable until someone defied conventional wisdom and constructed a proof acceptable to mathematics in 1994. The reducio ad absurdum proof for the existence of God consists of three parts: 1) an ontological observation regarding the meaning of terms and their use (inspired by Wittgenstein.) 2) An epistemological axiom taken from Einstein regarding the origin of questions and human understanding of the meaning of terms and 3) an argument form model taken from Euclid and considered a valid method of proof by analysis of argument form by every mathematician/logician on the planet. I also borrow from, and reference Descartes' technique of radical doubt in considering the Atheist denial. This is a general proof. Since your memory is short or you did not read my earlier post, let's just go over your red herring unicorn thing again for our viewers. Unicorns are constructs from known phenomena, in this case a horse and a horned beast of some kind. The constituents parts out of which the unicorn are constructed are known to the constructor prior to the construction. Griffins, Chimeras, etc., there are many examples. We don't need to get into an epistemological debate here about the meaning of the term 'know', as that would be merely another red herring. If you wish to say God has a beard and white robes and lives in the sky, you are talking about an anthropomorphic construct god. This is not the God of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist understanding, although it does arise in Liturgy as a metaphor. When I use the term God, I am not talking about imaginary constructs. I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when properly understood. If you need a definition, it is that given, "I am that I am." The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was hardly peace and light. The problem for many occurs in attempting to use object language, which describes persons places and things with a state clearly defined as not an object. "AM" is a verb and does not point to any "thing". Verbs describe action or a state of being. Ergo, the God of the righteous is the ultimate active state of all being which can not not exist. Enough about the unicorn thing, now let's turn to your concerns regarding proof. The subject of proof is the proposition "God is" and whether the proposition is true or false. The subject of proof is not "what" God is, as in "God is X", where X is the differentia, since the proposition "God is" has no differentia and we are not attempting to prove the existence of attributes, horns on horses, that is, we are not defining attributes of God, which includes the attribute of "existence" as distinguished from Being qua Being or pure being, rather, the subject of proof is "that" God is (or not). We do not construct proof to convince ourselves of the truth of the proposition "God is". We know God is. We are not asking after the attributes of God, as such a task is infinite, we are discussing the being as such of the Almighty. Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes of god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post, from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to him. You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is? We construct the proof to eliminate the inherent contradiction and subsequent moral problems ( discussed elsewhere) brought into the world by the Atheist types -- by the religion of Atheism. Yes, it takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist. And the belief in the non-god has all the trappings of numerous pantheistic, animistic, and theistic religions combined with its own set of high priests and prophets and a body of blind, unquestioning, and devout followers. Atheism is as much a religious doctrine as any other religious doctrine conceived by man. As we shall see, they are also the authors of their own undoing. I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when confronted by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers. If you define "proof" in such a way as to preclude the possibility of the existence of God, then of course you can never prove God's existence. Fortunately, this is not what is meant by the term proof. The actual proof for the existence of God is much simpler: If we wish to prove X, we negate it, and assume Not X. (this proposition the Atheist conveniently hands us on a silver platter) And, then if not X is tested according to a rigorously constructed logical system of deduction which would provide a formal proof of validity acceptable to the mathematician, then if the proposition of the conclusion is tested according to the "rules of inference", then if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true. The atheist and agnostic provide the ammunition we need to prove the proposition "God is" is a necessarily true proposition. Irving M Copi, in his work Symbolic Logic, provides an excellent description of this method of logical deduction: "The method of Indirect proof, often called the method of proof by reductio ad absurdum, is familiar to all who have studied elementary geometry. In deriving his theorems, Euclid begins by assuming the opposite of what he wants to prove. If that assumption leads to a contradiction, or 'reduces to an absurdity', then the assumption must be false, and its negation, the theorem to be proved -- must be true." Irving M Copi, Symbolic Logic, Fourth Edition. pp 52-53. You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted is that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you claim) and that God exists then by default. If you re-read that paragraph, the key sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." But you have shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis is negated. If someone gave you the proof, and you said, "Yes, that's it" or "No that is not the proof I am looking for to prove God's existence," either way you already know what you require to prove the existence of God and what the subject of your inquiry is or is not -- end of epistemological problem. There is a difference between wanting to know the meaning of the term in its use (Wittgenstein) and an understanding of a term about which it is impossible for one to have an honest ignorance (Einstein). In order to construct questions about God, such as "What is God?", you must already know, be familiar with, understand the subject of your own questioning, God; even if you pretend you do not understand the referent, the subject, of your own question; even if you pretend to an ignorance that is not real; even as you fall away from your own understanding of God in your questioning about God's attributes; even if you are lost, God is. There is no mystery. The "proof" for the existence of God, for those who need one, resides in the simplest of truths you already know. You must necessarily know, even those who chose to pretend they do not. There is no secret. There is no mystery. There is no grand cosmic puzzle. You either already know God, or you are playing a silly semantic game with the term "God" or you are a fool (no disrespect intended - its a biblical allusion), or the Atheist is simply being dishonest. I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that I do not. The contradiction occurs in the Atheist's act of denial itself. We do not need explanations and descriptions for things with which we are already familiar. The atheist reduces himself to absurdity with the words of his own mouth. Which is why the Atheist position is so unacceptable and so self-contradictory. "God is Not" Really? And how do you know this? I find it a pleasant irony that the Atheist, in asserting the proposition, "there is no God", has become the unwitting servant of the Almighty. This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do you know this? Answering that is all we ask. Blessings and salutations Jack Rooney Thanks for the delightful conversation :) MHK

Atheism is conventional, destructive wisdom?** As I've known it to be, it has been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most "conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now. **All staunch dogma has the potential toward destructiveness in the hands of unwavering fanatics. *********** The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was hardly peace and light.** Same God. Different men. ******** Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes of god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post, from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to him. **I said that. I presume you are agreeing with me here. *** You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is?** By an indirect proof based on a method developed by Euclid. ************** I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when confronted by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers.** I believe you... *********** You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted is that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you claim) and that God exists then by default. If you re-read that paragraph, the key sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." But you have shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis is negated.** Correct, if the Atheist position is entirely sensible, my entire thesis is negated. ******* I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that I do not. **But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny God with certainty (thank you Descartes). ******* This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do you know this? Answering that is all we ask. **I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof. Blessings and salutations and all peace to you. Jack Rooney Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney

Jack Rooney wrote in message news:7ph10mqh$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net... " Atheism is conventional, destructive wisdom"? As I've known it to be, it has been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most "conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now.** All staunch dogma has the potential toward destructiveness in the hands of unwavering fanatics.** Ok... but atheism still isn't the norm, which is what I meant. *********** The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was hardly peace and light. ** Same God. Different men.** Interesting perspective, but isn't the bible the word of God? Why would he paint himself in two different lights? ******** Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes of god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post, from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to him. ** I said that. I presume you are agreeing with me here. I believe I am, in terms of the definition of atheism. *** You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is? ** By an indirect proof based on a method developed by Euclid**. This was the point I was unclear on... what was this indirect proof? I didn't see it anywhere. ************** I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when confronted by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers. ** I believe you... *********** You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted is that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you claim) and that God exists then by default.** If you re-read that paragraph, the key sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." **But you have shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis is negated. ** Correct, if the Atheist position is entirely sensible, my entire thesis is negated.** Right... that's two things we agree on so far. ******* I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that I do not. ** But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny God with certainty (thank you Descartes). **Actually, I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist. I don't believe because I don't think there's sufficient evidence to support the theory of God. However, the possibility still exists, as it exists for most every theory. It's just a matter of whether or not enough evidence has been discovered. The amount of corresponding evidence is what allows me to lend any kind of credibility in my own mind to any given theory. The less evidence, the more likely I am to discard that theory as mere fancy. ******* This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do you know this? Answering that is all we ask. ** I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof. See above. I claim there is not sufficient enough evidence to support the claim that God exists. Since I started out without this theory, a blank slate as it were, with no God, I remain with no God. It was presented and lacked any evidence, and I left it as that, a theory unproven. MHK ** Blessings and salutations and all peace to you. Jack Rooney

Jack Rooney says: This is not the God of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist understanding,snip< am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when properly understood. MHK says: The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was hardly peace and light. Jack Rooney says: Same God. Different men. FlimFlam in action: "Why should I be bothered by my yesterdays assertions"

Does it concern you at all, Herb, that no one has a clue what you are talking about? If anyone out there has any idea what this means, please enlighten me..... MHK says: The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was hardly peace and light. Jack Rooney says: Same God. Different men. FlimFlam in action: "Why should I be bothered by my yesterdays assertions"

Jack, I recognise that you are a thinker of great subtlety and I am always alert to the fact that we can miss the point in discussions with you. This might seem the silliest of rejoinders but I will try anyway. When asked how you know that GOD IS you say to a fellow poster "I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof.".. Does anyone else see the indirect proof of which you speak? Does it concern you that you seem preciously close to being alone in seeing any logical connection between the statement that God is not and the alleged "fact" that God is? Like the writer of that message I am less concerned with disproving the existence of God which I believe is probably impossible than in establishing why you see this connection. You have to see that at the very least there is some gulf in communication between yourself and your "opponents". We do not claim knowledge. You do. Therefore the onus of proof falls to you. You claim that we deny knowledge which we have. You write "But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny God with certainty (thank you Descartes)." That is the part which is getting up our noses. I know that you might not like the use of the word "existence" for the word "being" but let us assume that they are synonyms. The argument seems to be based upon the idea that in claiming "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" the claimant demonstrates his awareness of the concept of existence and since "God" and "existence" are one and the same he is showing an awareness of "God". If that is what you are saying I simply cannot agree. The argument breaks down insofar as we need to agree on the meanings of the words with which we communicate. The idea that the word "God" and the word "existence" or the word "being" are interchangeable is not tenable. Just try substituting them in any regular conversation and see what kind of reaction you get. Foggy Jack Rooney wrote in message news:7ph1b$mqh$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net... Atheism is conventional, destructive wisdom? As I've known it to be, it has been the opposite. Christian belief has been the basis for most "conventional" social knowledge for quite some time now. All staunch dogma has the potential toward destructiveness in the hands of unwavering fanatics. *********** The God of Abraham and Moses and Mohammed was for the most part a much more vengeful and petty one than the one portrayed in the New Testament. He was hardly peace and light. Same God. Different men. ******** Herein lies the question, not attempting to discover the given attributes of god, but the very existence of god. To paraphrase from later on this post, from your own words, "God Is, Really? And how do you know this?" What atheism questions is the existence of God, not the attributes given to him. I said that. I presume you are agreeing with me here. *** You know God is? How? What can you show me to convince me that God is? By an indirect proof based on a method developed by Euclid. ************** I have yet to meet a high priest of atheism. The other atheists I know rarely speak of the question of the existence of God, except when confronted by someone asking it. We do not seek converts, just answers. I believe you... *********** You haven't shown any proof here that God exists. What you have asserted is that atheism is wrong (without showing any of the contradictions you claim) and that God exists then by default. If you re-read that paragraph, the key sentence here is "if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true." But you have shown no contradiction and no absurdity. Without those, your entire thesis is negated. Correct, if the Atheist position is entirely sensible, my entire thesis is negated. ******* I do not just KNOW anything. I accept what can be rationally explained or that I have personally experienced. I do not claim to have knowledge that I do not. But you do claim to not have knowledge you do have when you deny God with certainty (thank you Descartes). ******* This is the same question we are asking of you. "God Is" Really? How do you know this? Answering that is all we ask. I know because you have proven it to me when you put forth the statement with certainty, "God does not exist." I am in great debit to you sir Atheist. Thank you for the indirect proof. Blessings and salutations and all peace to you. Jack Rooney Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney

Your concerns are fair. I see now that I can not assume standard (prerequisite) philosophical understanding of philosophical notions on the part of all group members. When I reference Descartes, I am referring to his concept of certainty, indubitability, and doubt. I did not feel it necessary to explain his epistemology since he is a common read for most philosophers. I do not mean to imply that the atheist is being deceptive when he denies God with certainty. I am saying I find it impossible for it to be a genuinely true statement within the context of its utterance in which the thinker denies what he claims to know. To say "I deny God is" is to imply that I know what I am denying with certainty and that I am certain that this that I am indubitably certain of is not, which is contradictory. The atheist also makes, in defense of his denial, as has been my observation, a subtle shift, imperceptible to most, and even perhaps to the atheist himself, between the ontological status of his own understand of God, and the phenomenological status of his abstract objectification of god as a thing. He continues to confuse the is-ness with the what-ness. If I say "god is a 1956 Chevy" and you say "I do not believe that is god"; or I say "god is the sum total of all reality squared" and you say "no way", then such a denial is perfectly Okay by me, as you are denying only a man's definition of God's attributes. But does it not also imply that you have some sort of idea of God and that you are at least relatively certain about the truth of your own denial. How do you know God is not a 1956 Chevy? I believe he believes he does not know the contradiction that occurs at a primal psychological level in the act of denying not that God exists, but that "God is" with such absolute and indubitable certainty. Jack Rooney Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney

Jack you are answering questions I have not asked (ignoratio elenchi). By doing this you have accidentally or deliberately ignored what I did say. Again by your use of the term "red herring" you imply that the unicorn argument is deliberate ofuscation on my part but demonstrate by your failure adequately to address this argument that it might not be a red herring in even in the least pejorative use of the term. Put your considerable intellect to work on why we differ on this one matter and you see that this is where true dialogue can begin. Although your reply was irrelevant to the argument I will honour you by accepting your intellectual honesty and willingness for dialogue. I will presume that you simply missed the point. Please honour me as I do you. Since we cannot as yet get anywhere by debating the nature of a concept and since it is difficult to abstract from your scattergun response I will address the point you raise which comes nearest to the ballpark in which the discussion began. I hope I do not misrepresent you in saying that you consider the construct "unicorn" to derive from objects and attributes of objects. I would agree with you if that is what you are saying. You seem to be saying that "God" is being per-se and action per se ("I am that I am") and thus cannot be compared with the construct "unicorn". "I am that I am" is a language utterance based upon the Subject - Predicator - Predicate model. Since the predicate "that I am" includes the subject ("I") together with the predicator ("am") it is unusual and is different to any utterance which the plain man would consider to be sensible. It is more than a tautology. It is an eternal loop. It might be called nonsense yet our sense of the poetic makes this infinitely looping proposition or name a wonderful piece of language. It relies on a perversion of language conventions which makes it meaningfiul only to those who have more than a passing grasp of those conventions. I see little more in the expression "I am that I am" than that. My original proposition was that you can have a concept of God but it does not mean that God exists. My concept of the unicorn includes the attributes "probably mythical, probably fictitious". My own concept of God shares these attributes. In a Neo Platonic sense, then, the unicorn and God exist but only in ideational form as probably mythical, probably fictitious beings. Jack wrote: Unicorns are constructs from known phenomena, in this case a horse and a horned beast of some kind. That is exactly how I see the construct "God", Jack. Forgetting all the "I am that I am" mullarky "God" is for many people a construct based on the known phenomena that material objects have origins - nothing comes into existence without a cause. It is then concluded that there must be a First Cause but there is no justification for such a conclusion. It is no more sensible to expect a First Cause than it is to expect a last number. "Things just iz!" And to say "Things just iz" is not the same as "I am that I am" because the latter predicates personal characteristics on what is. That is an unwarranted leap. It was not my memory nor my laziness which prevented me reading any earlier response you have given to the "unicorn red herring". I cannot see it anywhere on the newsgroup as it comes to me through my server. Are you sure that you were not replying to someone else on another occasion? I repeat that for me it is a real question. Finally thank you for putting so much effort into your reply. I would be interested to read your considered response. I will attempt to deal with the so called "Logical Proof" at another time when my wife is not calling me up to bed. Foggy Jack Rooney wrote in message news:7pdns$3aq$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net... Let me begin by saying I do not believe in Atheist bashing, or gay bashing, or Jehovah's Witness bashing or Moonie bashing or any kind of bashing. So it is difficult to critique what I feel to be fundamental error without angering the person or group criticized. People have strong emotional feelings about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and it is a normal human reaction for people to strike out whenever the foundations of their belief systems are jeopardized or questioned. Although tolerance and respect are ideals to be sought, they are seldom achieved. From my point of view, you are all God's children equally. None is greater or lesser favored than any other in the eyes of God. Yes this is radical egalitarianism, but the alternative, in my mind, is simply too horrifying to discuss. Some ideas can lead in a direction which is ultimately destructive to human progress and well being. I believe such destructive ideas should be resisted for the good of humanity and the betterment of society as a whole, not through censorship, let each man speak his mind on all matters, but through well reasoned discourse in the open marketplace of ideas. No one should ever fear the truth, even when it does not set well with the keepers of conventional wisdom. Now, Foggy, I already dealt with your red herring post about unicorns. You appear to be one of those theorists who defines proof to suit his own purposes and freak when the true, scientifically accepted, conventional mathematics definition of proof works to your disadvantage and exposes the flaw in the atheistic line of reasoning. Let me remind you that Fermat's last theorem was thought unprovable until someone defied conventional wisdom and constructed a proof acceptable to mathematics in 1994. The reducio ad absurdum proof for the existence of God consists of three parts: 1) an ontological observation regarding the meaning of terms and their use (inspired by Wittgenstein.) 2) An epistemological axiom taken from Einstein regarding the origin of questions and human understanding of the meaning of terms and 3) an argument form model taken from Euclid and considered a valid argument form by every mathematician/logician on the planet. I also borrow from and reference Descartes' technique of radical doubt in considering the Atheist denial. This is a general proof. Since your memory is short or you did not read my earlier post, let's just go over your red herring unicorn thing again for our viewers. Unicorns are constructs from known phenomena, in this case a horse and a horned beast of some kind. The constituents parts out of which the unicorn are constructed are known to the constructor prior to the construction. Griffins, Chimeras, etc., there are many examples. We don't need to get into an epistemological debate here about the meaning of the term 'know', as that would be merely another red herring. If you wish to say God has a beard and white robes and lives in the sky, you are talking about an anthropomorphic construct god. This is not the God of Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist understanding, although it does arise in Liturgy as a metaphor. When I use the term God, I am not talking about imaginary constructs. I am referring to the God of Abraham, the God of Moses, the God of Mohamed, and yes, the ultimate reality concept of the Buddhist when properly understood. If you need a definition, it is that given, "I am that I am." The problem for many occurs in attempting to use object language, which describes persons places and things with a state clearly defined as not an object. "AM" is a verb and does not point to any "thing". Verbs describe action or a state of being. Ergo, the God of the righteous is the ultimate active state of all being which can not not exist. Enough about the unicorn thing, now let's turn to your concerns regarding proof. The subject of proof is the proposition "God is" and whether the proposition is true or false. The subject of proof is not "what" God is, as in "God is X", where X is the differentia, since the proposition "God is" has no differentia and we are not attempting to prove the existence of attributes, horns on horses, that is, we are not defining attributes of God, which includes the attribute of "existence" as distinguished from Being qua Being or pure being, rather, the subject of proof is "that" God is (or not). We do not construct proof to convince ourselves of the truth of the proposition "God is". We know God is. We are not asking after the attributes of God, as such a task is infinite, we are discussing the being as such of the Almighty. We construct the proof to eliminate the inherent contradiction and subsequent moral problems ( discussed elsewhere) brought into the world by the Atheist types -- by the religion of Atheism. Yes, it takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist. And the belief in the non-god has all the trappings of numerous pantheistic, animistic, and theistic religions combined with its own set of high priests and prophets and a body of blind, unquestioning, and devout followers. Atheism is as much a religious doctrine as any other religious doctrine conceived by man. As we shall see, they are also the authors of their own undoing. If you define "proof" in such a way as to preclude the possibility of the existence of God, then of course you can never prove God's existence. Fortunately, this is not what is meant by the term proof. The actual proof for the existence of God is much simpler: If we wish to prove X, we negate it, and assume Not X. (this proposition the Atheist conveniently hands us on a silver platter) And, then if not X is tested according to a rigorously constructed logical system of deduction which would provide a formal proof of validity acceptable to the mathematician, then if the proposition of the conclusion is tested according to the "rules of inference", then if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite (X) must necessarily be true. The atheist and agnostic provide the ammunition we need to prove the proposition "God is" is a necessarily true proposition. Irving M Copi, in his work Symbolic Logic, provides an excellent description of this method of logical deduction: "The method of Indirect proof, often called the method of proof by reductio ad absurdum, is familiar to all who have studied elementary geometry. In deriving his theorems, Euclid begins by assuming the opposite of what he wants to prove. If that assumption leads to a contradiction, or 'reduces to an absurdity', then the assumption must be false, and its negation, the theorem to be proved -- must be true." Irving M Copi, Symbolic Logic, Fourth Edition. pp 52-53. If someone gave you the proof, and you said, "Yes, that's it" or "No that is not the proof I am looking for to prove God's existence," either way you already know what you require to prove the existence of God and what the subject of your inquiry is or is not -- end of epistemological problem. There is a difference between wanting to know the meaning of the term in its use (Wittgenstein) and an understanding of a term about which it is impossible for one to have an honest ignorance (Einstein). In order to construct questions about God, such as "What is God?", you must already know, be familiar with, understand the subject of your own questioning, God; even if you pretend you do not understand the referent, the subject, of your own question; even if you pretend to an ignorance that is not real; even as you fall away from your own understanding of God in your questioning about God's attributes; even if you are lost, God is. There is no mystery. The "proof" for the existence of God, for those who need one, resides in the simplest of truths you already know. You must necessarily know, even those who chose to pretend they do not. There is no secret. There is no mystery. There is no grand cosmic puzzle. You either already know God, or you are playing a silly semantic game with the term "God" or you are a fool (no disrespect intended - its a biblical allusion), or the Atheist is simply being dishonest. The contradiction occurs in the Atheist's act of denial itself. We do not need explanations and descriptions for things with which we are already familiar. The atheist reduces himself to absurdity with the words of his own mouth. Which is why the Atheist position is so unacceptable and so self-contradictory. "God is Not" Really? And how do you know this? I find it a pleasant irony that the Atheist, in asserting the proposition, "there is no God", has become the unwitting servant of the Almighty. Blessings and salutations Jack Rooney Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney Foggy: Thank you for taking the time to review my posting and comment. Your remarks and observations are appreciated and respected. I see I need to make some clarifications and revisions, as always the growth and pursuit of knowledge is never-ending. I hope I do not misrepresent you in saying that you consider the construct "unicorn" to derive from objects and attributes of objects. I would agree with you if that is what you are saying. You seem to be saying that "God" is being per-se and action per se ("I am that I am") and thus cannot be compared with the construct "unicorn". Although I believe the unicorn is an intellectual construct, I did not say it was "derived from objects and attributes of objects." I do not believe in objects. I said, "Unicorns are constructs from known phenomena, in this case a horse and a horned beast of some kind." ****** "I am that I am" is a language utterance based upon the Subject - Predicator - Predicate model. Since the predicate "that I am" includes the subject ("I") together with the predicator ("am") it is unusual and is different to any utterance which the plain man would consider to be sensible. It is more than a tautology. It is an eternal loop. It might be called nonsense yet our sense of the poetic makes this infinitely looping proposition or name a wonderful piece of language. It relies on a perversion of language conventions which makes it meaningful only to those who have more than a passing grasp of those conventions. I see little more in the expression "I am that I am" than that. You seem to want to continue to objectify the verb "Am". "I" is a pronoun, typically referring to a person in ordinary language, but since there is no predicate in the sentence, I=am. The repetition, "I am that I am" is probably for emphasis, as it is later said, "tell them I am has sent thee." Within the context of scripture, Moses wanted to know the name of God, God is that which has no name. Why didn't God just say, 'tell them God has sent thee" or "God is what God is"? Your interpretation attempts to make I am that I am and God is what God is truth functionally equivalent statements, and they are not the same from a Theological standpoint. The statements do not convey the same message. God is what God is is indeed tautological. I am is put forth as a statement of fact and of identity and to provide information that God is not a "Thing" ********* My original proposition was that you can have a concept of God but it does not mean that God exists. My concept of the unicorn includes the attributes "probably mythical, probably fictitious". My own concept of God shares these attributes OK, here is where we are not connecting. You continue to talk about attributes, but I never mentioned God's attributes in any of my original writing. I see I probably need to get rid of the term "Existence" also because I see it is leading to confusion and is used much to loosely by philosophers, myself included. I could go the essence proceeds existence route, but I don't think I want to go there. I did respond to the attributes thing after you introduced the term into the discussion in your critique, but I do not see a discussion of it useful or germane unless you are a physicist concerned with identifying objects; one can identify attributes until the end of eternity and never know God. I reiterate my response again: The subject of proof is the proposition "God is" and whether the proposition is true or false. The subject of proof is not "what" God is, as in "God is X", where X is the differentia, since the proposition "God is" has no differentia and we are not attempting to prove the existence of attributes, horns on horses, that is, we are not defining attributes of God, which includes the attribute of "existence" as distinguished from Being qua Being or pure being, rather, the subject of proof is "that" God is (or not). ********* In a Neo Platonic sense, then, the unicorn and God exist but only in ideational form as probably mythical, probably fictitious beings. when you compare watermelons with a 1956 Chevy it probably is ********** Jack wrote: Unicorns are constructs from known phenomena, in this case a horse and a horned beast of some kind. That is exactly how I see the construct "God", Jack. Looks like we need clarification between known phenomena and idealized constructs. When you substitute a concept like Idealized constructs for a concept I use, known phenomena, and then critique idealized constructs, you have not critiqued my concept. You switched horses in mid stream -- it ain't my horse you are riding now. ********* Forgetting all the "I am that I am" mullarky "God" is for many people a construct based on the known phenomena that material objects have origins - nothing comes into existence without a cause. It is then concluded that there must be a First Cause Not by me...You use my terminology but attribute attributes to it that are not my doing -- "material objects have origins" In fact, my claim is that there are no material objects. I gravitate toward the idea that spirit is the primary substance out of which the universe is comprised, not matter. ********* but there is no justification for such [First Cause] a conclusion. I never made this (First Cause) conclusion, you seem to be talking about Aquinas, not Jack Rooney... ********** It is no more sensible to expect a First Cause than it is to expect a last number. I like that. ********* "Things just iz!" ? ********** And to say "Things just iz" is not the same as "I am that I am" because the latter predicates personal characteristics on what is. You are correct but 'predicating personal characteristics to "God as an active state of being" is not what is going on here. In fact, it is exactly what I am suggesting one avoid. ********** That is an unwarranted leap. Yes, it is. And one I did not take. ************** It was not my memory nor my laziness which prevented me reading any earlier response you have given to the "unicorn red herring". I cannot see it anywhere on the newsgroup as it comes to me through my server. Are you sure that you were not replying to someone else on another occasion? I repeat that for me it is a real question. It occurred under a posting called "The Proof", you commented and I responded there with essentially the same response. No biggie. Blessings and salutations Jack Rooney Http://home.att.net/~JackRooney

..., What is Substance [Being]?". (Aristotle, Metaphysics). Energy Problems arise when we begin talking to one another about God and referring to "it", when we attempt to place brackets around it, categorize it, define it, explain it, and reduce it to a concept. But God can not be an objectified thing. God is not an it, or an object, or a being-in-itself, not a person, place or thing; God is not a noun; God is a verb, and the concept implies action or a state of being and all language which attempts to make God an objectified thing, an abstraction, is either a misuse of the term God or is pure poetic analogy. God is the whole. A being composed of everything in existence, lacking in no value. A literal not an abstract. The following questions exemplify the nature of the disease: What is the sound of one hand clapping? snaping of the fingers What is the meaning of life? (Or, What should I do with my life?) expierence If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? no, soundwaves Is the whole equal to or greater than the sum of its parts? Equal to To many, questions of the type listed here are considered great puzzles or mysteries of science. All but the last of them will receive no comment here, and it is rejected as absurd, and I ask you to entertain the proposition: The whole has no parts. The whole can exist in it's entirety parralell to it's parts given reletivity 1=2 a dualism which establishes an abstract world and alienates us from our true connectedness with the world and with God, as do all dualistic theories of man's relationship to the universe which posit the existence of things called "minds" or "bodies" or "egos" or "substances" or "ideas" or "matter". Time, as an example of an abstract concept, is not a part of the world in itself but an experience or event that we identify and separate from all of the other experiences of living. Time as a concept or an idea of a human being, is itself a part of, emerges from, the very world perceived, the earth/world, the cosmos, the universe, infinity, and so forth. *** No, my friend time is real. it is reletive to the observer in the since that it is constant but in actually it is determined by the level of energy in a given system of reference. Time is equal to an object inertial resistence to be moved or the kinetic equivellency of the energy given an object to increase it's rate of velocity. One ought to keep an open mind until one is certain all the facts relative to an issue are considered. The old notion about not jumping to conclusions is good advice. It forces us to look at all sides of an issue before we pass judgment. But it also stands to reason that if one never passed judgement one would never err. I dig your works man. R.S.

Mr. Winner has correctly outlined the problem attributed to the Cartesian method. On examination of Descartes', I find he may have received a "bad rap" from his detractors, who failed to understand his concepts of certainty, indubitability, and doubt, all of which he explains in the body of the work. Descartes probably felt we would be intelligent enough to see, within the context of his model, that the proposition "I doubt I am" is absurd. If Descartes is guilty of anything, it is in violating Occam's Razor; in creating the existence of abstract metaphysical entities unnecessarily such as "the thing which thinks", the mind, and the body, none of which are purely objectified things as such or derivative from the indubitable, self-evident truth that I am. Descartes simplifies to "I am", which is not tautological. The thinking thing and the thing which thinks are one and the same. If one eliminates the body as an extended thing, as there is no necessary reason for it to be assumed separate from that which perceives it, the dualism vanishes, and the being of the Cogito is a matter of pure, self-evident reason (logic), and not faith. Jack Rooney

If I believe in god and their is no god I loose nothing If I do not believe in god and there is no god I loose nothing. If I do not believe in god and there is a god, I loose my eternal soul. If I believe in god and their is a god I win. Ergo it is better to believe in god than not because the stakes against being wrong are just too high. Are you willing to wager your eternal soul against nothing? Isn't this Kant's logic? -- --- --------------------------------------- dc waterman, PhD dwaterman@net1plus.com --------------------------------------- Romans 1:18; For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. 19; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it unto them. 20; For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse;

There are those who have claimed it is impossible to prove the existence of God logically. And there are many that believe this proposition with all sincerity. But why should we believe it? Should we believe merely because some person calling himself an atheist or an agnostic or a logician or a mathematician (Bertrand Russell) says it can not be done? It is simple to make grand statements of this type. It is much more difficult, if not impossible to prove they are true. There was a time when many people believed it was impossible for man to fly. There was a time when people said it was impossible for man to break the sound barrier. But we did it. And we have done great many things formerly held to be impossible by the great masses. Because no one has yet constructed a proof for the existence of God, which satisfies the logician's definition of "proof" does not mean it can not be done. It merely means it has not been done so far to the satisfaction of the logician. So I will give you the proof now to eliminate the inherent contradiction and subsequent moral problems ( discussed elsewhere) brought into the world by the Atheist types -- by the religion of Atheism. Yes, it takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist. And the belief in the non-god has all the trappings of numerous pantheistic, animistic, and theistic religions combined with its own set of high priests and prophets and a body of blind, unquestioning, and devout followers. Atheism is as much a religious doctrine as any other religious doctrine conceived by man. As we shall see, they are also the authors of their own undoing. If you define "proof" in such a way as to preclude the possibility of the existence of God, then of course you can never prove God's existence. Fortunately, this is not what is meant by the term proof. The actual proof for the existence of God is much simpler: Irving M Copi, in his work Symbolic Logic, provides an excellent description of a method of logical deduction, deductive proof developed by Euclid (300 B.C.) for proving the existence of unknowns : "The method of Indirect proof, often called the method of proof by reductio ad absurdum, is familiar to all who have studied elementary geometry. In deriving his theorems, Euclid begins by assuming the opposite of what he wants to prove. If that assumption leads to a contradiction, or 'reduces to an absurdity', then the assumption must be false, and its negation, the theorem to be proved -- must be true." Irving M Copi, Symbolic Logic, Fourth Edition. pp 52-53. If we wish to prove X, we negate it, and assume Not X. (this proposition the Atheist conveniently hands us on a silver platter "Not God" ) And, then if not X is tested according to a rigorously constructed logical system of deduction which would provide a formal proof of validity acceptable to the mathematician, then if the proposition of the conclusion is tested according to the "rules of inference", then if not x leads to a contradiction or reduces to an absurdity, then the opposite ("God") must necessarily be true. The atheist and agnostic provide the ammunition we need to prove the proposition "God is" is a necessarily true proposition. If someone gave you the proof, and you said, "Yes, that's it" or "No that is not the proof I am looking for to prove God's existence," either way you already know what you require to prove the existence of God and what the subject of your inquiry is or is not -- end of epistemological problem. There is a difference between wanting to know the meaning of the term in its use (Wittgenstein) and an understanding of a term about which it is impossible for one to have an honest ignorance (Einstein). In order to construct questions about God, such as "What is God?", you must already know, be familiar with, understand the subject of your own questioning, God; even if you pretend you do not understand the referent, the subject, of your own question; even if you pretend to an ignorance that is not real; even as you fall away from your own understanding of God in your questioning about God's attributes; even if you are lost, God is. There is no mystery. The "proof" for the existence of God, for those who need one, resides in the simplest of truths you already know. You must necessarily know, even those who chose to pretend they do not. There is no secret. There is no mystery. There is no grand cosmic puzzle. You either already know God, or you are playing a silly semantic game with the term "God" or you are a fool (no disrespect intended - its a biblical allusion), or the Atheist is simply being dishonest. The contradiction occurs in the Atheist's act of denial itself. Since the proposition "not God" uttered with presumed certainty leads to contradiction, the statement must be false, and the opposite statement "God is" must be true. We do not need explanations and descriptions for things with which we are already familiar. The atheist reduces himself to absurdity with the words of his own mouth. Which is why the Atheist position is so unacceptable and so self-contradictory. "God is Not" Really? And how do you know this? I find it a pleasant irony that the Atheist, in asserting the proposition, "there is no God", has become the unwitting servant of the Almighty. This is what makes the position of the atheist so pointlessly absurd: to totally deny the existence of God, he either knows what he is denying, or he is a fool. If he truly knows what the concept of God means and knows what he is denying, he can not at the same time and in good conscience deny it exists. The atheist must affirm the existence of God in order to deny God exists, which is absurd, or at the very least, a paradox. The atheist, in his own act of denial, reduces his own proposition to an absurdity, and thus proves the proposition "God is" is a true proposition. The atheist proves the existence of God when he denies God with certainty. Religious thinkers, scholars and theologians merely compound the confusion when they fall into the atheist trap and make God the subject of debate. And the debate begins with the question, "Does God exist?" When we question whether God does or does not "exist", we enter the realm of abstraction in order to be able to discourse about "it" to each other. We do not need explanations and descriptions for things with which we are familiar. Once scholars accept the appropriateness of a question of which they are themselves the author, they are off like horses from a start-up-line galloping down a thoroughfare in a race which has no clearly defined finish line. They can run forever and never win the race. Consequently, there may be more truth in a single poet's musings than in all the philosophical theories and explanations which have been constructed by humans to date. There is such health and length of years in the elixir of thy note, That God himself more young appears, From the rare bragging of thy throat. (see Henry David Thoreau, "Upon the Bank at Early Dawn") Thoreau's objective was not to reduce God to a concept and then claim to have solved the eternal puzzle but to invite us to look around at the world and at ourselves and see that many of the puzzles and problems and riddles of science and philosophy are not so puzzling after all. "It is only when we forget all our learning that we begin to know." (Henry David Thoreau, Journal (pub 1906) quotation from page dated October 4th, 1859). The knowledge of God is experienced as an intrinsic part of human life; belonging to, within, the essential nature or constitution of humans. Problems arise when we begin talking to one another about God and referring to "it", when we attempt to place brackets around it, categorize it, define it, explain it, and reduce it to a concept. But God can not be an objectified thing. God is not an it, or an object, or a being-in-itself, not a person, place or thing; God is not a noun; God is a verb, and the concept implies action or a state of being and all language which attempts to make God an objectified thing, an abstraction, is either a misuse of the term God or is pure poetic analogy. Jack

The Jabberwock

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought--
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arm, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe
(Carroll The Annotated Alice 191-97).