Transmaterialism: Can’t materialists be more creative?

I have criticized Kant enough already and now on to idealists. Sit comfortably and listen to this story. Plato built the first foundation. He constructed a tropical garden on his idealist island. Aristotle quickly built the second foundation on top of Plato’s. He cultivated the garden and protected the original foundation from violent weather by building stone walls around it (read: plugged and concreted the holes in Plato’s idealism). Then we have about two millennia of peaceful sleep on this island, isolated and unconscious in absolute monarchical regimes that kept it going, eschewing progress and keeping up routine maintenance.

But soon the island was overcrowded. Everything started breaking out and apart. People started awaking. The costs of maintenance were too high; the repairs weren’t feasible. Then came Kant and planted his seed. He broke the walls and taught people the meaning of evil and let them loose upon the world. People finally found freedom, and freedom apparently found them–in the 20th century. The Kantian third foundation is the anti-foundation, the transcendence of the previous foundations. Kant never integrated anything. He simply opposed.

Thanks to Ayn Rand, we have the fourth foundation. She looked at all the chaos that was going on and decided that something had to be done. So she built another island. This time, however, the entire island was built of concrete. In fact she concreted everything there several meters deep, reflecting on techniques that Aristotle taught her. She realized an island that was self-manageable and self-sustainable with costs of maintenance very little. And she prepared for the future, limited the amount of people who could be allowed to live in it, and went into deep, deep sleep, a sleep that may never find awakening, the sleep for the next two millennia.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want that sleep. I don’t want the return to these islands, whether new or old. I want to explore the continent, and I am not afraid of the evils I would find there. I am prepared to face the greatest evils there can ever be. I am ready, and I am strong because of what carries me: reality that ever changes, reality that is my beacon. I am building the fifth foundation, the foundation of all foundations. Are you with me on this perilous quest? We will build a glorious future together. Thanks to Rand, the fifth foundation can now embrace the entire world. It is global, perfect, and ever changing to resist the violence of the Kantian generation. But, seemingly, the fourth foundation has denied me access. They might have accepted me as a maintenance guy, but I wanted to open their windowless walls. No, they told me, and so they would rather sleep dreamily and ignore me. They do not accept my philosophy of neo-Objectivism. Do they really think they can sleep for all eternity? No! They are obviously deceiving themselves.

The story is true; but reality is more complex than in this simple story. The descent of Objectivists into matter of the third foundation is inevitable. Already very few can resist it during their lifetimes, while holding the flag of their one exemplar–Ayn Rand. Most average Objectivists cannot help it but secede from this philosophy. They cannot spend any more effort on maintaining conscious focus, initiating emotional “printouts,” and making conceptual integrations based on strict Objectivist principles. This post is for these people: normal individuals who have, at least subconsciously, realized that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is flawed and unrealistic. It is for these individuals that I offer the explanation.

Rand’s Objectivism is incomplete because it is a misintegration of Marxism and Aristotelianism, materialism and realism, on the basis of idealism. Rand failed to transcend (i.e., oppose, not unite) Marxism. All she did was delay its progress. She played a trick on Marxists by jumping out of Marxist formulations and grounding her philosophy into a metaphysically fundamental conception of reality. The problem with her concept of reality is that it is either too remote idealistically or it becomes too base materialistically.

For those who decide to hide in their “implicit” ideas, they find it impossibly hard to resist the urge to unite with reality, and thus their only atheistic choice available is Marxist, objective materialism. Libertarians, the spawn of Rand & Co., match the direction and approximate the position of Marxist anarcho-communists. In other words, they drop Rand’s imploding idealism and accept the materialistic fragment of her philosophy. This implosion and collapse is the fate of all misintegrating philosophies.

In this post, I wish to introduce all materialists, whether they are fresh or old, to a new materialistic conception. This conception I call transmaterialism. Transmaterialism is the materialistic direction matching that of Aristotle. To begin explaining it is probably the most difficult endeavor, since there has never been (recognized) a philosophy like this before (at least not that I am aware of correction: this is also the philosophy of A. S. Presman, who integrated biology with quantum physics in his electromagnetic biology, Dr. Michael Kosok, who integrated Hegelianism with quantum physics, and Nassim Haramein, who integrated relativism with quantum physics). To those of you who have been following my blog, transmaterialism can be described as the missing link between Kant and Aristotle on the CRH. Transmaterialism is fundamental to my entire philosophy. The rhetorical purpose of transmaterialism is to flip the direction of materialism without changing it into idealism.

spooky symbol

The symbol of transmaterialism

neutral symbol

An alternative, relatively neutral design

Here is a short, two part introduction with a follow-up discussion of my proposed philosophy that I call transmaterialism.

Part I. Nothingness

The following sequence deals with “nothingness” not as a mere word but as a metaphysical (fundamental) concept:

  1. Absolute nothing: Absolute nothing has neither space nor time nor anything epistemological nor metaphysical. In a way, it is pre-metaphysical. It is actually eternal and actually infinite. It is out of metaphysical Space/Time and out of epistemological spacetime. None of these apply to absolute nothing. That is, they do not apply.
  2. Center: When we start with absolute nothing, we have to wipe everything clean; we start from a so-called blank slate, or tabula rasa. Once we start with true absolute nothing, we have no choice but to select a center, a center that you can imagine to be invisible, like an invisible point, to be neither Space/Time nor spacetime; to have no properties except for its being a center, a center of absolute nothing.
  3. Perspective: Once you are able to visualize this center in your mind that is empty of all concepts, you have a perspective. A perspective is not consciousness nor is it an awareness. It is an undifferentiated state of non-involvement. A perspective starts with the center; it is a way of observing without an observer and without anything to be observed. In a way, you may think of it as a beginning of a subjectless subject.
  4. Nonexistence: Once there is the perspective, what actually happens is a form of fragmentation of absolute nothing into its aspect of Time. It is still an undifferentiated state, but it is the last and least undifferentiated of the preceding stages. You can read a passage from my blog about the metaphysics of Nonexistence.

To help you (metaphysically) visualize the concept of Nonexistence, imagine a circle within a circle (or a sphere within a sphere). What’s between the circles (or spheres) is absolute everything; what’s within the circle, that is, the inner circle, is Nonexistence. Nonexistence leads to the epistemological measurements of sensations, such as the Planck time.

Part II. Modern physics

On YouTube you can find a lecture titled “The Black Hole Wars: My Battle with Stephen Hawking.” It is given by a prominent physicist from Stanford: Dr. Leonard Susskind. I want your attention on the following two points he raises:

  1. The Planck units (please consider only those related to photons) are the most fundamental units of measurement (and compare this to Nassim Haramein’s calling them “the smallest thing[s] in the universe”).
  2. Objectivity, as defined by the law of identity, is mind-dependent.

What do objective materialists think about that? To follow this discussion, please go to the Home of the Revolutionary Left.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s