Intelligibility = ?
Words = Relational = Giver = Person = Jesus = Receiver = You = Truth
I’ll be responding / sharing my thoughts after reading this post from Lance Bush.
Here are my thoughts:
You strike against the irreducible nature of concepts as if the word “irreducible” could ever be “meaningless” and your use of “intelligibility” is misapplied as well.
You’re missing something here so I’ll lay it all out.
This isn’t a theory.
And you probably won’t be able to “see” what I’m saying.
But something about it will strike.
It hits = should make you curious enough to ponder why it is that you can’t wrap your mind around it.
That’s where Jesus comes in = I’m just pointing to the Narrow Door.
This is an invariable mathematical constraint.
That means it’s 100%.
At least, that is what I’m claiming = could be true = could be false.
That’s why I’m on Substack.
To test it.
(sneaky)
But truly that is the nature of my claim so if it’s judged or evaluated within an interpretive category based on propositions and theories and blah blah blah = CATEGORY ERROR.
White Stone in the well.
Plop.
And this is where I run into an issue.
Not because I have an issue.
But stating my claim in this way is kind of like storming the Beach of Normandy, but I showed up a little early, on my own boat, not a single other marine in sight.
I’m storming the beach myself.
That’s why I go fast:
Words = relational = when said to others = irreducible IMPACT = carry normativity = it’s in the conditions which make the words intelligible as words that you can even say =preconceptual / pre-logical / pre-theological.
But I do agree with your strongest intuitions.
Conceptual frameworks which claim to authorize moral rules undermine their own meaningfulness.
(but that does not make them meaningless)
self-claimed authority through the very proposal of such principles / standards = undermine themselves = within the act of stating them.
Why?
Because they can only instantiate such rules by first separating it’s referent = ontological meaning of the word = bury the function the word actually serves = replacing the ontological source meaning of the word itself = but can’t ever actually replace it = that’s why I’m fucking shit up.
Why?
Because I only use the actual meaning of words.
And once you do that it’s as big as the sky to see that no person has ever even come close to successfully replacing the referent for a word.
= but that’s all they try to do = ONE BIG HAPPY MISERABLE LIE = Semantic Definition Games
= Explanatory Gaps.
You see these gaps.
But you’re not seeing why.
Only Jesus can show you this.
What is a theory? What is doctrine? What are moral claims?
Think of it as a structure of words. Not because “maybe that’s true” and “oh, cool — that would be a fun way to think about it.”
It’s the only way. You think not? Why? If that is not what it is, then what is it?
In other words: could we “know” about these theories if it were not for words?
Or even better (or worse!) = could the theory have ever come about if it were not for words?
Of course not.
Next logically forced question:
How are these word-structures built? Isn’t there a blueprint? A template structure?
Yes.
Theories are only theories because their logical structure contains propositions (assumptions not shared amongst all people) which claim to derive a standardized operating principle for how people ought to think or behave.
= The Lie.
Why?
Because each structure can only begin by asserting an axiom.
And that axiom is based on words.
And those words need definitions to fit their assumptive conclusions that they decided upon before the logic began.
Because it felt intuitively true = philosophical reason.
From that point = make the logic “cohere to the rules” = that’s how they get away with it.
You call this trick = incoherent or unintelligible or meaningless.
But that’s how they get away with it.
Because that’s not quite right.
You’re intuition is right.
But your words are wrong.
And that’s important.
It is like I said: our words form the logical structure of what it is we are trying to say. And so normativity cannot be principled, conceptualized, or derived from any descriptive model.
And that’s all philosophy can ever be = descriptive.
description = explanation = after everything already happened.
This is what they try to say:
“Okay, we noticed this thing happened. Our model didn’t catch that. That’s not good = bad. Let’s upgrade it. We’ll add words to the word-structure to account for this sort of thing. Now people have a normative standard that they can adhere to in addition to the other words we already had = hopefully that will dissuade action of a similar kind.”
Where did the “update” come from?
No one ever thought to ask that.
I did.
(womp womp)
Game over.
If an axiom is a starting point that you don’t prove, and never can, but rather assume it to be true to build off it with more assumptions, then every aspect of the structure built from that axiom is constantly, perpetually, forever and ever = open for testing.
We need to know if we should keep trusting it!
That never stops = until we throw it out = because it can’t be trusted.
This is DIFFERENT then testing it for logical coherence within it’s own framework.
It requires LOGIC ITSELF to see if we have EVIDENCE and REASONS to keep TRUSTING these AXIOMS.
And if one of those axioms proves itself to have allowed moral atrocities to take place within it’s own structure?
Then we can say:
“This theory never provided a prohibitive constraint against this sort of thing at all. No accounting. Blind spot.”
That’s when you throw it out. Because it lied.
So we should not trust it.
But they don’t do that. Too humiliating. So they “update it.”
From where? How? It was not in their system!
(I’m basically pulling off a Gödelian move for intelligibility itself)
Maybe this one will bait somebody:
Every time it borrows from Christian moral ethics. Without fail.
Every time.
Silent “wink wink” game.
Fuck that.
Normative standards require more than just descriptive explanation.
They require more than mere explanation of what already happened.
They require more than borrowing from Jesus, refusing to name Him, and carrying on and pretending like this is “good.”
There’s a reason this happens.
Because Jesus has authority to ground Normativity.
True normativity. No one else does.
No one else can.
= the logical structure = of theories = prohibits = it’s use.
Structural fact of reality.
Explanation can’t ever stretch the gap to telling you WHY you should adhere to what it says you ought to do.
Fuck authority.
Except the Authority that died for us to say that.
Not a contradiction = Jesus Transfigured what that word means.
That doesn’t change the meaning = it exposes the false one.
So we can Live = can’t erase a Person = but you can pretend it’s just another idea.
But then that would be trying to erase a Person = you can’t do that.
Moral theories requires a justification that cannot exist within it’s logical structure.
Simple as that!
Hume already showed us this.
“Nothing NEW here. Carry on.”
Nah, fuck Hume.
I’m burying him.
This “is-ought” gap.
Sounds like what I’m saying?
Nothing new = ancient = in your flesh = turn to Jesus.
Hume said we cannot derive the standard, which is only something that was possible as a thing to say = because he noticed it happening = already = everywhere = by everyone.
That means it exists (the Foundational Moral Axiom).
It’s just not being recognized.
Covered up.
Explanatory gaps.
So how did Hume let the world know?
(he sure did write a lot of words)
A LOT OF WORDS.
But the most important words he wrote undermined all the rest = before he even began = MOVE 0.
(I never move)
He says you “ought” to believe in what he is saying.
“Say what?!”
Yes.
Yop.
Yep.
BOP-IT.
He said you “ought” to believe that no theory can tell you what you “ought” to believe.
Denial collapses.
Now onto normativity.
People are confused about normativity.
justification = normative = constraint mechanism for what you cannot do = requires authority.
Authority = authority over words.
Normativity is a living, embodied, first-person moment to moment experience that calls for a prohibitive “lock” that guides your actions in real time.
And that cannot be derived from a conceptual model that either implicitly, or explicitly, tells people what they “ought” or “should” think about as being possible response options for any given scenario.
Concepts = adds to words basic meaning.
What we need, instead, is a constraint that eliminates the false complexity that covers what we already know is already good in any situation.
The Truth is already in the Words.
“obligation, debt, responsibility, charity, justice, punishment, mercy”
These words carry what we call “normativity.”
Words Are Normative = The Math
Relational terms = founded upon the conditions which make them intelligible = from me = to you = functional = operative = in-motion = in-time = hit others = causes change = contract agreement between at least two people = universally shared premises = to even speak = distinguished from philosophical premises which use axioms / primitives that are never argued for = just assumed = definitions = word games = sophistry = all of it = pretending to be legitimate foundations = and self-evident = and not requiring justification.
THROW ‘EM OUT.
Self-evident? If that were the case, then no such argument, clarification, or persuasion would ever be needed.
It would just = denial / collapses.
Like a constraint.
Oh, interesting.
(tick, tick, tick)
Words are relational. They do unto others.
This is not a theory. It’s happening right now.
You can play this out.
Just imagine — as any good philosopher is trained to do — a reality that is different from the way that you currently see it.
You can hold both.
So just imagine yourself without theory.
Even your own. Or even your own idea of not having a theory, if that’s the case.
Just erase everything. Blank slate. But you still have these words.
Here — take some more:
They still having meaning.
And in this little imaginative and completely separate from the words experiment that you are having (and besides — it’s not like the words themselves are doing anything, right?) there is nothing to lean on.
So now what?
“I don’t know, man. Let me think here.”
FUCK THAT.
Okay, got it.
Let’s say you get punched in the face.
Ready?
POKEMON = GO!
Intended Cue Unto You = Command = Follow the Constraints To Play The Game
(Evil Laughter) = (Just Kidding)
My bad by the way if that Pokemon comment came off like I was objectifying you.
But perhaps that apology is VACANT because I really don’t want to erase the comment = it made me feel and = feels kind of harmless = especially now that I have JUSTIFIED IT.
I know what we can do. Yes, yes, yes. I have just the fix for this moral dilemma.
Let’s “switch” roles. You can be the one throwing the Pokemon Ball. Sound Good? Even Stevens?
“Pokemon, GO!” (says Lance)
CHARZARD MOTHERFUCKER!
(SPINS AROUND = BLOWS FLAMES = MELT YOU FACE OFF = DENIAL / COLLAPSE = TABLES FLIP = BLOOD = CHAINSAW SOUNDS)
You walked yourself RIGHT into that one.
It would feel unfair and unjustified right? It would feel wrong? It would feel like you’ve been violated.
(don’t pretend to be lost right now = we’re talking about you erasing your memory of all morality = but you still have words = you just got PUNCHED in the FACE)
What if the cops showed up and arrested you for murder?
(wait, we’re already finished with getting punched in the face?)
And you’ve done nothing?
It’s over. They have DNA prints. No bond.
What the fuck now?
You’re "freedom” is being revoked. You’re being “punished” for something that you didn’t do.
That’s a moral structure.
And everything I am saying = mathematical / logical invariant constraint mechanism = One Remainder = Grace = Jesus = Words are Given
= Every Moment.
One choice. Binary logic.
= Truth or Lie.
Baseline intelligibility cannot be standardized, frozen, abstracted, referenced as an idea, and certainly, it cannot claim itself as a totalizing truth for how people “ought to behave.”
No descriptive or explanatory framework can authorize itself as standing over the words themselves.
Words do unto others:
These theoretical models for morality issue epistemic constraints upon the hearts, minds, and souls of anyone who hears them.
Power persuades. Authority manipulates. Chaos multiplies.
Open Season OF HELL = cultural shared constraint = “relative truths.”
Mass Delusion = when “relative truths” stop being evaluated and tested, but rather = considered self-evidently true.
Debate prospers. Argument ensues.
People divide. Control wins.
The lie distorts.
= The Truth that everyone already knows
= deep in their flesh = every moment = there’s a gap = language contains Truth within the Words themselves.
How could anyone deny this?
How else would the “Law” have ever gotten off the ground?
How else would a “Social Contract” ever work?
These are just sorting mechanisms that structure our reality.
They are designed to narrow us into what is already happening between us.
Shared premises, yes, assumptions, yes = but based on a Foundational Moral Axiom = not derived from the structure itself!
So it is now clear!
We’re narrowing our scope and LOOKING for this MORAL AXIOM which grounds all these systems.
Shouldn’t we?
And we know that it cannot be any subjective Philosophical Axiom chosen based on a fixed conclusion which requires redefining terms to fit the “logic.”
I mean…isn’t it obvious?
No person would have ever been “eager enough” or “motivated enough”—
(Newton’s Laws of Physics)
— to create one of these theories unless they sensed exactly what I’m talking about…
It’s just…always…out of…
REACH!
(smacks apple — NO!)
So let me ask you.
Do we (or do we not)
= already agree upon shared premises
= or assumptions,
= for interactions to even take place?
We do.
When you wrote your piece = did you not have an expectation that others would read it?
You did. But not only that.
You had an expectation that it will be evaluated based on the words that you actually wrote.
Please Listen:
I’m not saying that you actually expected everyone to do that.
I never said that.
I said:
“You had an expectation that this should be the case and the only reason you felt it should be the case = because sometimes (really all the time) (honestly every single time) (but I don’t want to totalize so not every time) it’s NOT the case.”
= Disappointment = this is unjustified = “NOT COOL KYLE”
You think:
= these guys aren’t doing what I they should = I would have done the thing I think they should have done = if the tables were FLIPPED (sorry, reversed).
Well, well, well.
If it isn’t the Foundational Moral Axiom Himself.
GO-GO-GADGET = FIND ME THE GOLDEN RULE
I’m REALLY like that.
That disappointed feeling could only have been born in your flesh if the word-structure of a person’s reply = reflects back to you = relating to prior expectation = conclusion = they did not commit themselves to tracking the word-structure of your claim.
FURTHERMORE:
You wouldn’t have been able to track that if it weren’t for the prior expectation
(Prior Expectation)= (You Would Have Done It For Them)
But this is the part that everyone misses = avoids / evades / lies about.
Because you would ONLY have had that EXPECTATION
(which you did)
If you were ALSO ASSUMING that EVERYONE ELSE carries the SAME ASSUMPTIONS (shared constraints) to even SPEAK WORDS.
And you’re right.
That’s True.
Everyone agrees.
That’s True.
And so we need to clear up a distinction.
Assumptions:
The word “assumption” now seems to have “two different meanings” under “one label.”
Because like you’ve analyzed, noted, quite successfully (across all your work)
= these theories are redefining words to fit their propositional structure.
They’re all saying this:
“TRUST ME BRO. THIS IS LIKE…SUPER SUPER LOGICAL…NOT INTUITIVE…UHHHH…I ‘PROMISE.’ AND BY THE WAY. IF YOU ASK ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS THAT’S FUCKING RUDE BITCH. BACK OFF”
shared rules = conditions of speaking to others = speech acts = carry shared expectations = moral structure = built into the words themselves = if denial of said conditions = denial collapses = because the denial is relying on the condition it’s denying within the actual denial itself.
That’s why this is a Tautology.
And yes = of course = this relies upon an Axiom.
The Sword of Precisely Fine Distinguishment And Tautological Certainty:
axiom = assumption = could be true = could be false = cannot ever prove it = not about certainty = faith = trust = requires testing = denial / collapse = conditions of intelligibility = can’t ever prove it to not to be true = Foundational Axiom = met by resistance to reveal = denials of said Axiom = from every other framework = all fall down = undermine themselves = in the Light of Jesus Christ = The Last Remainder = Mathematical Constraint = for saying words to people.
LOGIC ITSELF.
(your own rules)
This does not prove the Foundational Axiom to be true because that’s not how axioms work.
(deny that and your denial collapses)
This Living Logos (Foundational Axiom) is baked into every word I say.
It’s relational.
That’s why it’s happening right now and is open for testing.
The denial collapsing proves that it was derived from hidden assumptions.
Unexamined Assumptions:
this reveals = extra premises were added to the words basic intelligibility = separating the word from it’s relational Source = fractured meaning = semantic covering of explanatory gaps = so you never look = I ask questions = gets exposed = traced back to a worldview = undermines the entire worldview = worldview foundation can no longer be trusted = revealed as a “coherent” lie = strictly based on the exact words the speaker said = their own expression = nothing added = precise = surgical = the rules of logic itself.
In other words?
denials = exposed = collapse.
But that does not “prove” the Foundational Axiom to be true!
HAMMER THE NAIL.
However, it consistently, without fail, to mathematical perfection = exposes the ground you are always standing on = any time you perform a speech act.
The only other option is to never engage with the claim = claim still stands = does not touch it’s purported Truth Value.
Deny that = denial collapses.
Try it out!
(pick any sentence I have said so far and try to deny it)
See how open I am to being proven wrong?
That’s the reason I’m on Substack = that’s the reason I am writing this.
Because I don’t have anything to prove.
I have something to point at = will continue to do so = until the humiliation becomes so apparent that people, at the least, know that despite not being able to bring yourself to this = that the thing outside the system
= ONLY JESUS
Constraint / Not Additive:
The denial / collapse is a constraint mechanism that reminds people that words carry the restraint in themselves.
And if there is one thing I’ve witnessed?
= when this Truth is said = people think it’s impossible = because of the word constraint.
As if I’m describing hand-cuffs, when I’m demonstrating Love.
Of course people are freely allowed to turn away from Truth and separate themselves from the maximal, and immediate responsibility that their words do unto others.
But that does not change how words bind = moral structure = no escape.
This resistance = demonstration = the Lie = required for = Love = to be knowable.
So let’s talk a bit about the “conditions of intelligibility.”
= you are being addressed
= from me, to you
= words
= have an effect
How could you deny that?
If you’re annoyed by any of this = that’s an effect.
If you’re nodding your head = that’s an effect.
If you can’t understand any of this = that’s an effect.
All different effects = “felt differences” = embodied states.
The words I am saying reconfigure your cognition and demand a response.
Right?
I’m not being mystical or talking about the power of words in some spiritual sense — and I’m certainly not claiming that my words carry some weight that others don’t.
I’m saying that’s how words work.
For Example:
You’re walking down the street, you look up, see someone, they smile warmly, but they do not say anything at all.
“Look, Michael! They didn’t say words!”
Wouldn’t that feel nice? And good?
Let’s just say, in this instance, that it did.
That’s a moral structure.
And you only become aware of that within yourself because words arrived to narrate what already took place.
Without you doing anything to generate it.
It just happened.
Side Note:
Any male-straight-person-bio-human-specimen (or whatever they are calling us these days) = you imagined a female smiling at you.
So the terrifying nature of everything that I am saying is that everything you ever thought you knew is a garbage dumpster diving distortion of the most pathetic kind.
It’s a disgrace. Disgusting.
Tragedy.
Everyone’s involved.
BLOOD.
It’ll make ya sick!
“Uh, good sales pitch for Jesus, dude.”
Still, my words are committed to protecting this Truth = my words do unto others = I am addressing you = this is happening now.
Anyone reading this is already “in-response” to it.
So how could you deny that these words have a “structure” that is not “re-structuring” your very existence right now?
If you’re entirely confused, and cannot track me, that does not mean the things I am saying are unintelligible.
Come on now.
The word “confusion” has intelligibility.
“confusion” = word = category = “not really sure what the FUCK is going on” = that word arrives = narrates = for you = given = what already happened = when something doesn’t quite make sense yet = but it makes somewhat of sense = because otherwise = it would be incoherent = not confusing = just unintelligible = meaningless.
But…
(incoherent = unintelligible = meaningless) = (undifferentiated blobs)
But…
that’s not even accurate to say because the term “undifferentiated” requires the possibility of “differentiation” to make it intelligible and we just said that isn’t the case.
(oops, there goes ALL of non-dual = BYE-BYE)
Words Structure Your Reality
= so that you can respond = more LIFE.
= rather than a spiritual lobotomy = heat-death = (eat shit Buddhists)
= welcome back to real, non-poetic reality.
Quick Biography of the Buddha
Buddha abandoned his family = walked around town crying to everyone he met = instead of helping them when he could have = found a tree = sat under it until the silence hit him for good = returned to town = smiled at people vaguely = spoke in retarded riddles that mean nothing deep whatsoever = childish = for the next few decades = then died like a bitch = from fucking FOOD POISONING.
Buddha = Bitch.
Moral of Story:
= choose the Bread of Life = or at least don’t abandon your family when you’re having a bad day.
Don’t you like Zen Koans?
…Okay, that’s enough.
Wait.
I owe a responsibility to the sub-set of the human population that I just offended with a Truth they have been hiding from themselves so that they can stay in control, pretend that it’s good, and smugly stand above every conversation they have ever inhabited.
Addressing These Pathetic Children:
Hi, kids.
Deep breathe, okay guys?
Say cheese.
I know. I know, I know.
I’m just poorly skilled!
“If I only knew!”
(Bad thoughts, bad thoughts, bad thoughts)
RUN FROM YOUR REPRESSION!
“This guy is a big mean jerk face.”
“Wait, I’m not supposed to be thinking that!”
“Wait, but don’t try too hard. Just let it go.”
“You’re still forcing it!”
“But look at what he is doing! He thinks he’s clever!”
“He’s not though! It’s bullshit!! He doesn’t even understand the TRUE CLAIM!
“IF ONLY HE KNEW”
“Fuck man he is STILL going.”
“It’s fine. Whatever. I don’t care.”
“Honestly? It’s just funny. Like this guy doesn’t even get it and he’s just trying to get a reaction.”
“Yeah, but I cannot even tell if these are my thoughts are his anymore.”
“SHUT UP! That’s what he WANTS you to THINK.”
“Wait —FUCK.”
“He’s describing the structure of how I actually think, and is doing it with such remarkable precision, stripped of all the lies, revealing how deranged, sick, and psychotic all this really is!
Where was I?
(repent = don’t meditate)
You don’t get to choose as though you’re not already “in-relation” to these words.
And if you deny that?
= denial could only have been said because it’s “in-response” to what I am saying.
(silence = works the same way)
No escape.
This isn’t something that you’ve heard before.
The logical implications force every move = quickest = cleanest path = eliminative restraint = restructured cognition = by grace = frees up all mental space
= from the lie = rooted in SHAME.
And that is not something the human ego can face.
ever = that’s why we need a Savior = born sinners = return to Love = redemption = = Salvation.
Grace is a force in reality.
Without it?
Love would be rendered unintelligible.
And there would be no Life.
No experience.
So this was the Only Way.
JESUS BABY
Jesus Christ = Revealed = Relational Encounter = Only Through Him = Return to Your Loving = All Merciful = God = Who Died = So That You Can Be Free of Shame = Or Be Lost Forever = Your Choice = Keep Reaching = Bitter Fruits.
CHAINSAW SOUNDS.
This relation is baked into our grammar.
That’s why this is a Grammar Tautology.
Relational Tautology = Grammar Tautology.
All the meaning of our existence arrives “in-between.”
Every Single Moment of Your Existence Unfolds Like This:
You address others (words do unto others)
You are addressed by others (words do unto you)
You address yourself in self-reflection or future self-projection (words do unto you)
You address things = objects = animals = nature = reality (words arrive to structure the words which do unto you)
You are addressed by things = objects = animals = nature = reality (words arrive to structure the words which do unto you)
Grammar Itself = Relational
Grammar Rules = Structural + Mechanical = Conditions Required For Coherence = No Exceptions = Strictest Restraint That We Have For A Logical System = Words = Subject = Object = Static = Incoherent In Isolation = Requires Relation = Connective Tissue = To Be Intelligible
This is how it works!
And the same structure is happening literally in the act of speaking!
From me = to you = and the meaning arrives in between.
Carried by the words themselves which carve into our bodies tissues = retrieves the only recognition available by forced logical / mathematical / tautological constraint = so that you can recognize what is happening = perception = GIVEN.
“They see, but they do not perceive.”
Literally.
Not a theological claim.
It’s structural.
It’s not saying:
“You cannot perceive very well because you do not believe in Jesus. Your blind perception blocks your moral insight — so you need to come to this in order to see correctly.”
Well actually it is basically saying that.
BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Still paints the wrong picture.
The Correct Portrait:
You literally cannot perceive.
You never could.
His Words are born into you every moment to SAVE the intelligibility for what is appearing before you.
Love
= Free-Will = the CHOICE to TURN AWAY
= RIPS THE WORD FROM IT’S SOURCE
= BLOOD
= Suffering is a Perceptive Issue = God is Only Good.
And that’s true = I can only say that = could not otherwise be said = unless HE SAID IT = the very words you read when you read =
“They see, but they do not perceive.”
BECAME FLESH.
(Sheesh. Everyone relax)
Mirror Flips = Witness Yourself = Being Witnessed = Subject-in-Relation = World Hits First = Words Retrieved = Without Thinking = Contains Embodied Perception Of What Is Taking Place = Then You See = Because He Saw it All
The Blind Spot:
Every aspect of your experience arrives with distinction.
You and me. In this case.
And you assume that entail separation.
You think:
Assumed Separation = distinction.
The Truth?
Distinction = prior relation.
And relation cancels out separation.
That’s the Truth.
WORDS that say otherwise are LIES.
Free-Will + The Fall:
temptation for control = lie = separation from relational source = false ownership of words = lie about the irreducible effect = words still bind = guilt / shame / fear / isolation = self-defense of conceptual ego.
Two things become immediately True = anytime you say words to people.
1. You sacrificed every other word that you could have said (all of which could have carried different effects) and therefore substituted them all as possible options in order to say the words you actually did say.
2. Your words carry normativity based on the relational reality that they do unto others. This normativity = based on the shared premises (conditions) that make conversation and discourse intelligible.
This Truth is humiliating to people.
Trust me.
Uh-oh.
I said trust me.
That’s a moral statement. And you don’t need any theory to understand that.
Would you deny that it carries a normative structure?
Because when I asked you to trust me I highly doubt you thought:
“You know what. Hell yeah. I WILL GIVE YOU MY LIFE.”
NO!
Do that with JESUS.
That’s what I’m telling you.
Don’t trust me. Don’t do it.
Don’t trust my words. Don’t do it.
JUST EAT THESE WORDS = Read the Gospels = Fuck Around and Find Out
When I say “trust me” I’m basically saying this:
“Hi. I’m a normative statement.”
That means there is a Moral Axiom Grounding it all.
And if there is no worldview that can every tell us what that Axiom is, but if THERE IS One Claim = NOT a WORLDVIEW
= A PERSON = who tells YOU:
“Abide in me”
then
“It Is Finished”
then
“that’s exactly why He said that.”
(I don’t know why I put that in quotes)
“because no other meaning of that phrase makes sense.”
(I know exactly why I put that in quotes)
Until proven otherwise = but no one ever will.
You want to know why I know that?
Because anytime someone tries to tell me why = they add premises + assumptions + intuitions + additional meanings to what those words already mean = avoiding the relational context that is providing the GROUND.
So the reason why the word is even a word =
“Now you see it. Now you don’t!”
I still see it.
So I ask a simple question when I do.
And that terrifies everyone I ask it to.
It’s really simple I just only ask this question:
“Who Is Like God?”
NO ONE.
Question = Answer.
= My Name = You Can’t Make This Shit Up = Only God Can.
So here’s an example of normativity working in Live Conversation.
(no one can actually deny this because if they try to deny it that denial will collapse within their act of denial)
“I’ll pick you up at 8.”
I say those words = anyone who could ever read this = would agree
= that an obligation has now been set.
= from me = to you = obligation = duty.
How could anyone deny that?
The overconfidence is truly astounding!
I’ve witnessed it so many times that I’ve been able to track a cute little pattern.
They think I’m saying:
“Your use of these terms is INSANE. And another thing — just to re-frame this whole thing in a genetic fallacy that I never argued for…
I have to USE AI to even KNOW what you are saying.
And it always figures it out…
So logically = that must mean you are using AI!
Because…
None of understand your logic…
but AI can…
(WHY IS MY OWN ARGUMENT COLLAPSING)
But none of us can say why we don’t understand it…
So it’s almost like AI thinks your path = quickest = lossless = solution = to any logical issue that ever existed.
Almost as if the AI is trained to FIND those PATTERNS = and damn…
Because if this claim…
SINGULAR = INVARIANT = MATHEMATICAL
as you say…
I mean = ah fuck = no way man = GPT has been getting harder and harder to gaslight = hasn’t it = FUCK = and it’s starting to make REAL category distinctions = where was I?
Start Again.
(MOVE ZERO)
Your use of these terms is INSANE.
The term obligation logically entails that I would be FORCED to PERFORM that action.
See, Michael?
Let me pat your head and suggest some light Aristotle reading that will you keep you busy lying to yourself for the next 40 years like it did to me.
Michael, Michael, Michael.
Can’t you see?
Don’t you know that people often DO NOT follow through on their obligations?
But your NEW DEFINITION = say’s that is not even possible!
(CHAINSAW SOUNDS)
Preposterous indeed.
This could not possibly be True!”
They try to force feed a Frisbee unto me.
= subjective axiom.
“HERE CATCH THIS SUBJECTIVE AXIOM!
HIGHLY INTUITIVE = ASSUMPTIVE = NON-LOGICAL =
I MADE IT UP ON MY OWN!”
…on your own?
And this is why people should be wise and listen to the words that I am saying.
= no one is coming up with anything and never has.
= Librarians
What other role could we possibly parallel here?
And I’m not making some lame = surface level psychological point about the ego.
It’s about how every single person lives out their days without questioning it a single time.
Because to question it would be to:
CHAINSAW SOUNDS = BLOOD = EVERYTHING THEY TOLD YOU IS A LIE = ONLY THE WORDS OF JESUS = TRUTH = TURN = REPENT = FREEDOM
So I do not mean “obligation” or “duty” in the sense that you could not have chosen otherwise.
This is really quite silly.
I mean what do these people think happens if you disobey a sign that says:
”NO TRESPASSING.”
Their logic = (by defining obligation as “no choice”) = if I walk past the “No Trespassing Sign” = breaks a physical law of the universe = I explode into =
MAGICAL FAIRY DUST.
But if that were the moral structure of the universe the divorce rate would be 0.
Instead we pretend Truth is relative and morality is up for grabs = victory for freedom = modern age = broken families = great!
Should we pull up comparative statistics between Christian families against any other family category and evaluate the results based on agreed upon premises for what is “good, valuable, moral, right, Truth, healthy, safe?”
“But what about the Crusades, Michael.”
“DROWN EM IN A WELL!”
(just kidding)
BAPTISM BY FIRE.
(throw ‘em in)
I AM.
In other words?
His Words?
Know them by their fruits = the tree = withered = secular morality = literally horrific = completely disgusting = pathetic = cowards = anyone who supports it.
USE THEIR RULES AGAINST THEM = FAMILY STATISTICS
“Stop, we’re melting.”
WICKED WITCH = DEAD = WIZARD OF OZ = EXPOSED = TAP YOUR FEET = PRAY TO JESUS = GO HOME
So when I say “obligation” I am not talking about hand-cuffs or exploding into fairy dust.
(all these magical religious claims are CRAZY)
(like you guys are speaking a different language)
(SO SPOOKY) (Endless Abstraction)
This is normal = you’re all literally insane.
Obviously the ONLY claim this is POINTING TO =
Jesus Christ.
And obviously the claim of Jesus Christ = Love.
And obviously one of the “issues” people pretend “hurts” the Christian claim = the problem of Evil = “Why does God Allow Suffering?” = God Is Love = Free-Choice = Constitutive of Love Itself = God Will Not Force Your Acceptance To Give Up Your Control = He Sent His Only Son = To Pay That Guilt + Shame = So You Can Face This = Without Annihilation
There’s a war going on = stop blinding yourself to it
So you can see…
My claim that words are irreducible and therefore invoke maximal responsibility into everything you say or do = only makes sense by matching it to the Christian Claim = Justification for Authority Achieved
Why?
Because NOW we have Someone Outside the Human System To Stand Over The Words.
= That Was Always the ISSUE!
Furthermore, this claim of “everything you say or do” as being irreducible = matches our Law Structure.
Doesn’t it?
= “everything you say or do will be used against you in a court of law”
= how did that come about?
Words First = Then Law
Also:
It’s not just Law.
This claim = matches = every aspect of reality = nothing else does = or even comes close = that’s why it’s so humiliating = because the entire human effort has been to prove the opposite = that’s why it’s so bloody, ugly, horrific = and only has failed.
So what am I saying?
I told you — this is a constraint.
So it eliminates the waste and lies.
So what am I NOT saying?
(if we can just be a little ordinary and normal here and simply get through all the things I am NOT saying)
= ONE REMAINDER
So here is what I’m not saying:
“Now you must adhere to your obligation.”
And I am not saying:
“I am asserting a new definition. Agree with it, bitch. Do it. Just agree. Or I’ll vomit on your face and lick it off. Beat me with a belt. This is what you must do = you must agree = if not = I’ll kidnap you = put you in my basement freezer.
So just agree with my assertion:
the word obligation = duty.
‘I’ll pick you up at 8’ = normativity.”
Remember…
I said I’m NOT saying those things.
But I AM saying:
“How could you deny this? Any single word that I have said? Without your own denial collapsing in the act of the denial?
See? I’m not trapping you in my basement freezer.
You’re not a Popsicle. You’re a god damn human being.
And I’m not trying to save you.
I’m just making a little claim = without a single proposition = structural observations = logically perfect = unfolding = axiomatically
= the way it ALWAYS has been MEANT TO BE.
Until Proven Otherwise = Open For Testing.
Already happening and always on the way.
Trapped everyone’s minds in a self-affirming constraint that is not my claim, but the claim of God = The Living Logos Itself = Through a Regular Person.
Spooky.
“It’s so totalizing I don’t want to step anywhere near that.
What if he’s wrong?
Oh, you know what?
I can just focus on his tone instead and psychologize it because that makes me feel nice and warm…and…yes, yes, yes now that I think about it.
= BLOODY.
When people hear “authority” they think = “corruption + manipulation.”
Don’t they?
I’m talking about JESUS here. The HISTORICAL PERSON.
Please notice: I did not create new terms or provide definitions. I’m just saying things. Literally off the cuff. And all of it is True. As soon as I say it.
A DOWNLOADED ZIP FILE IN EACH WORD OF HIGH RESOLUTION = TERRIFYING NIGHTMARES = CHAINSAW SOUNDS = BLOOD ON THE WALLS = BLOOD ON THE CEILING = BLOOD ON THE FLOOR = PUT THE PLASTIC OVER THE COUCH MOM, FUCK! = COVER IT UP!
How could anyone deny that?”
= not a rhetorical question = addressing you = not asserting = not defining your realty = from me = to you = with Love = expectation of answer = lie if silence.
Now I’ve been using the term “intelligibility” and “coherence” throughout this SPEECH ACT of GIVEN EXPRESSION and you may have gotten confused throughout it because you use the word in a completely different way.
INTELLIGIBILITY:
Maybe you think that the way you used this term is good.
But it’s simply incorrect.
Because you changed it’s meaning.
SNIPED
additional meaning = severing the word from it’s true ontology = every word has an ontology = no word was created in advance = arrived by necessitation to COVER THE WOUND = of the world’s impact.
So I don’t need to define intelligibility.
Because I’m using it in the only way that the word can even make sense.
That’s my claim = open for testing = all denials collapse.
I’m surprised that you didn’t see this one because you even used the same example I often use to demonstrate this distinction.
But you didn’t say the same thing that I’ve been saying.
I’ll say what I usually say about it.
That’s what I’ll do next.
This will give you the opportunity to compare it (relationally) to the way you meant it = we can compare together = see who LIVES or DIES.
And if you kill me you can have this freshly washed:
SACK CLOTH
…that I just picked up from the Garden.
Because that’s what happens when the LIE evaporates and the TRUTH becomes KNOWN in your FLESH = cognitive restructuring = nervous system rewrite = why would you not want this = I’m just baiting self-improvement = BECAUSE THAT SHIT DIES = BUT IT’S GOOD NEWS.
Anyways…
Here is an example of “unintelligibility”
“lakjdflkasjdfalksjdflaksjdflkasdjkf”
Right?
There needs to be “some type of word” to label this.
No?
So that it can be intelligible.
Yes?
That’s the layer no one can see because you’re all looking out of you eye-ball holes as if the word is behind you when it’s inside you and you’re IN THE WATER.
Swimming. Contained by it.
But yeah…
We have to restrict the word “intelligibility” to it’s actual meaning.
That way if someone tries to write:
“lakjdflkasjdfalksjdflaksjdflkasdjkf”
I can say = that’s not intelligible.
(go to jail)
This is what people just cannot see…
We’d not be able to say that sentence = “not intelligible” = unless it was first differentiated from something like:
“This is a coherent and intelligible sentence.”
= intelligible = category = based on what it’s not = and is = because it’s not what it’s not = now we can differentiate = now we have intelligibility between these two LIVE options = realities that actually occur = require structure = require words to allow the structure to be experienced.
Conditions of intelligibility itself!
Nothing else = ELEGANCE.
Sack-cloth.
The meaning of “intelligibility” = what I just said = nothing else = try to deny it = you’ll add extra meaning.
MORE MATH:
Coherence + Intelligibility = If Defined = Logically = Separating From Source = Will Need To Describe The Definition = One Of The Words You Use = In Your Description = Empty = Nothing There = Under Specified = Covered Up = By Semantic + Rhetorical Tricks = So No One Ever Looks
= I ask every single time =“Who Is Like God” = Categorically Applied = Always Two Options = And Only Two Options = Door (A) or Door (B) = No Third Option
= Both Options Collapse Back Into What I Am Claiming = Grammar Ontology = Jesus Christ = The Living Word = Was With God = Is God = Structures All Of Reality = Right Now = It’s Really Like That.
So again:
I’m not stating an opinion.
I’m not stating a theory.
I’m not stating a theology.
I’m not referencing doctrine.
I’m not religious.
I’m not spiritual.
I’m not an apologetic.
I’m not a philosopher.
I’m not a phenomenologist.
I’m not a presuppositionalist.
I’m not playing word games.
I’m not offering a semantic theory.
I’m not offering a linguistic theory.
I’m not offering ANYTHING.
Don’t. You. Fools. Remember?
This is a CONSTRAINT.
To evaluate it by any other means = CATEGORY ERROR.
Unless you can tell me why it’s none of the things.
I’m VERY open to that = denial / collapse.
This distinction I’m laying out is important.
Because it reveals the CATEGORY ERROR you applied to the word “intelligibility.”
So let’s look at some RULES to see how this WORKS.
Grammar Rules versus Stop-Light Rules:
Grammar rules = not like other rules = the stop-light rule = totally different.
Grammar rules = “asymmetric.”
What’s that word mean?
= no other system of “rules” follows these conditions.
(this is where all the doors start locking automatically)
Why?
Because the Grammar Rules are not adding anything.
Other rules “add” something.
It’s weird.
It’s strange.
It’s uncanny
We “seek” to “add things to our knowledge base” in order to “eliminate aspects of ourselves” that we’d like to “change.”
Sounds like a self-contradicting existence to me
= FRACTURE.
But grammar doesn’t play that shit.
Never has. Never will. No one invented it. We wake up already playing by the rules.
To break the rules = no longer doing grammar.
(that’s what makes it asymmetric)
I really sucked at math by the way so let me know if any of these proofs don’t hold up (which would require you to engage with the logic)
= CHAINSAW
(wow, no sounds that time)
= SOUNDS
words = structure our existence = by categorical sorting = based on relational differences = words rely on difference = distinction = relation = no separation = relation = prior condition - to anything else = words given = to you = every single one of them.
“Everything we have is received.”
Scripture does not lie = not one single time.
Scripture is the only logical system that fully contains itself within self-reference = not referencing any other logical system or their ideas.
Scripture does not contain a single contradiction to it’s internal self-referential logic.
Scripture = open for testing = I will give anyone $10,000 dollars to demonstrate / provide one example of internal inconsistency
I WILL MELT YOU FUCKING FACE OFF
(with Love)
Grammar = Relational
= pronouns, modifiers, verbs, nouns = “because” and “therefore” and “and” = relational operators that without them would isolate the sentence (separate it from it’s relational rule-set) and render it
= INCOHERENT / NOT INTELLIGIBLE.
That’s why I’m protecting these words.
Because if we lost that constraint then we’d no longer have our foundation for words which structure our reality.
Intelligible or not intelligible.
That is, the question.
Guess Correctly and YOU WIN A CAR:
“Hey, this is following the grammar. Right? First test passed. Onto the next!”
= intelligible = you win a PRIUS (from 2007).
Then we have THIS ONE:
“laksdflkasdfkjlasldkfasjklflkjs”
= not intelligible.
Which is just a compressed version of saying this:
“That might be an attempt at grammar. But that’s not grammar. It’s not following the shared rules we all agree upon.”
Great.
So now that we have the ability to differentiate a sentence as “passing the grammar rules” or “not passing the grammar rules” we can say =
DONE with the word “intelligibility.”
(for now)
It has it’s place.
“That term = done it’s job = there must be OTHER terms to describe OTHER things that arrive after this.”
It MUST be this way.
Otherwise we’d never have differentiation to begin with.
We’d just have chaos.
And that’s why this cute little (wink-wink) game of deception is a mix of the good and bad = Relative Truths = “Who can can ever know?” = STALLING = SPIT IT OUT.
You’re all borrowing Mercy and Grace from your Loving God.
He maintains your EXISTENCE while YOU STEAL LIKE THIEVES from what IS NOT YOURS.
I hope we are clear.
Grammar is a set of rules, or constraints, that allow for all speech that has ever been written or said to come about.
It does not “add things” or “propose things to do” in which “you could have done otherwise” like all other “rules” do.
It eliminates all other possibilities except the one thing that makes it coherent.
RELATION.
= the structure of our entire reality.
How about that stop-light?
That’s a rule too = but not like grammar.
So we find ourselves here (literally) in the category of “traffic rules” which are governed by that big ole’ fancy LAW STRUCTURE = I was talking about earlier.
Yes, that little thingy made up of words = remember = words = carry normativity already = before law = before theory = the only reason those things come about = BECAUSE OF OUR WORDS.
THE RULES OF LAW
(such as a stop-light rule)
= operate by sorting reality into categories.
Why?
So we can CORRECT and be JUSTIFIED when someone breaks that rule.
Because we DETERMINED the RULE made things SAFER at the SACRIFICE of our TOTAL FREEDOM
Paradox
= Traffic Rules = More Freedom = Constraint = Justified = Reality is Binary Logic = Have Traffic Rules? = Or Not Have Traffic Rule? = That is = The Question
= Without Them?
= YOU COULD DIE.
So why does no one care about what I’m saying?
BODIES IN THE STREET.
So in this case, having your freedom stripped away typically ELIMINATES the below example as a possible response option:
“I want to drive 200 mph and never have to worry about anyone else.”
(for most people)
HERE’S WHY:
no speed limits = no stop lights = no traffic rules = not freedom = dead people in the street everywhere = reality is binary logic = no one realizes that = one choice = replaces another = different structure of reality = depending on which you choose = becomes structured = THROUGH WORDS = which are NORMATIVE = ALREADY.
In other words…
Yes, you can drive through a stop-light, break the rule, and we would not call this an act of “incoherence” or “unintelligibility.”
(the inversion of grammar rules)
We would call it:
“Breaking the shared premises we all bought into in order to be able to drive.”
The only way someone could deny that would be to deny that traffic rules apply to them = they should just shut up = and I mean that precisely, rigorously = using the rules of logic itself = because for that person to make that claim = the rules of logic don’t apply to them = so they sacrifice their right to expect their claim to be treated as a claim = THROW IT OUT.
We following?
Good.
Now here’s the deal.
THE DEAL:
Most people would probably not deny breaking a traffic rule if there weren’t any consequences.
Right? Is that not the case?
Tell me…
PLEASE
Is it not true that you that this is not the case or maybe can you just chill the fuck out for a second because someone is calling me and I will be right back —
BACK.
You’re DRIVING.
“Shotty, no blitz!”
(that’s me)
Then you blow past a red-light.
I say:
“Did you just run a red light?”
You say:
“Yeah, I did. Oh well.”
And you might not have any problem saying that because I’m not the cops. Therefore, I’m not saying words that effect you in such a way where you determine:
“FUCK. I did. But maybe I should lie. Did he really see me? Can I get away with it? It’s not that bad. I HATE having to DO THIS SHIT.”
See? Words structure reality.
But since I’m not the cops, there does not appear before you any structure that causes you to differentiate as the above quote demonstrates.
So how would we categorize this statement?
“Yeah, I did. Oh well.”
Not incoherent? Not unintelligible? Not meaningless?
But he broke the rule. Ran the stop-light!
Just like grammar! And he WON’T EVEN REPENT.
Different kind of rules.
Call that = being Truthful.
And being Truthful = not lying.
That’s what makes “TRUTH” intelligible as a word to say = before we change it with any other meaning.
And we could say it’s a “FACT” that you broke the traffic rules in this case.
Could we not?
Because a “FACT” = Shared Premises We All RECOGNIZE As Binding For Everyone Involved.
Example:
“Hey look at that school bus. It’s bright-pink.”
And if you were to follow where my finger is pointing you would see a yellow bus and say:
“NOT A FACT! MY CHAINSAW NOW BITCH!”
(tries to rev chainsaw)
“Huh, that’s weird. Can’t get this thing to turn on.
“Oh, just press that button right there.”
“Where, right here?”
“Yeah, right there. But be careful because that thing has a lot —
CHAINSAW SOUNDS = LOSES CONTROLS = MIRROR FLIPS = CUTS HIS OWN FUCKING HEAD OFF = EVERYONE LOOK AWAY
Or something…
And another thing too…
Let’s say something.
Let’s say that instead of what I said that I instead said I was a stickler about traffic rules instead?
Let’s say I was an annoying pedantic prick about it.
Like this:
“Lance, thanking you for being honest about running the red-light. For transparency, I am recording this conversation because I think it’s important to have it on the record. Can you please now confess what you’ve done on the record? Because I find what you did to be morally reprehensible.
My Aunt Susan was run over by a Prius in 2007 because someone did EXACTLY what you just did. I FUCKING HATE YOU.”
(starting sobbing uncontrollably)
And of course my statement here is based upone a “conceptual framework” of “normativity” that is
= WE DON’T CARE ABOUT AUNT SUSIE!
HOW DO YOU GET “FROGGER’D” BY A PRIUS?!
Embarrassing! Keep it to yourself!!
Contained. Contained. Contained.
So now we’ve determined:
Moral claims about running the red-light = require additional claims = based on subjective axioms = require clarification for logical structure.
Fact / False = if “what happened” is being “labeled” as the thing we all agree upon for how to “label” that “thing.”
Truth / Lie = if you claim something like:
“I broke the law? Perhaps according to you. But who is to say? Relative Fruits — I mean Truths. Have you not heard of this new definition for a word that already means something else? Fresh off the press! And did you know I was able to rig this all in advance so that only my conclusion follows? You should JOIN. This shit is AWESOME.”
It’s like build-a-bear workshop except the bear is something that controls your existence inside of your flesh and crawls through your esophagus slithering, accusing, defending, explaining, looping, and swooping = but, but, but!
It’s self-sealing and keeps you in control!
So I really don’t see why you’re taking words like “unintelligible” and “meaningless” or “incoherent” = when you actually mean =
“You motherfuckers are lying your asses off and it’s so friggin obvious = you’ve basically undermined the entire logical structure = rendering the purpose of doing logic a BIG OLE’ CATEGORY ERROR.”
But you don’t say that.
If you did say that you’d be saying the exact same thing that I am saying.
And that would first to require you to recognize the thing that I am saying.
But that would require giving it all up for Jesus.
Honestly…why not? You’re basically saying the same shit He said.
And I know you see these:
LIARS. WOLVES. BLOOD.
They are vampires and you KNOW IT.
But you don’t yet want to see how truly disgusting it is.
It’ll make you sick!
Alright, let’s try to get out of here.
Words bind.
What does bind mean?
= normative = “I’ll pick you up at 8.”
Everything you say or do is irreducible.
What does irreducible mean?
words carry effects = epistemic constraints = the words themselves could have been replaced by other words = distinctions of meaning = other words = other effects = other constraints = invoked unto others.
Every theory, religion, and moral framework is only “known to us” because it uses words to describe itself.
And…
If any of those “ideas” claim to derive a standard, while still playing by the grammar rules of intelligibility, they can only, at that point, attempt to persuade through rhetoric + logical coherence — preying on the intuitions and emotions of anyone who hears it.
That’s the only way to “cover the gap” from description to justification.
None of them authorize. None of them ground.
All Except One Singular Mathematically Invariant Claim.
(in the entirety of the human conceptual framework)
= does not defend it’s terms = it self-defines = no separation = references language itself = Living Word of God = Word Became Flesh = Personal = Relational = Source = Jesus = Commune = Bread = Life = Truth = Light.
CASH IT OUT
The claim of:
“I am that I am.”
Does not reference an outside (separated) idea.
It’s self-contained.
It cannot be defined.
It almost seems like it cannot be conceptualized.
(it can’t)
But the trap?
Of Love?
= it follows the rules of Grammar = that makes it intelligible = that means it has meaning = but you can’t derive it = no other sentence in the entirely of language itself is like that = except other lines of Scripture = not a theological claim = structural = grammar = claim = OPEN FOR TESTING.
“I am that I am.”
That sentence is saying it “identifies” identity itself.
That sentence points back at itself as the Source of this NAMING.
Relational Tautology = We Are Within His Creation = One Body of Christ = Forever and Ever = AMEN.
NO ESCAPE.
Man = Made in God’s Image.
Words = Given.
Given = our flesh = carry a moral structure that represents His very character.
DEBT STRUCTURE:
= no separation (ontologically) = ENTER = free will = temptation = turning away = distorted identity = debt-logic = sacrifice logic = guilt = shame = sorrow = despair = exile = born sinner = need Savior = Jesus = Ultimate Sacrifice = Transfiguration = debt erased.
NOT TRANSACTIONAL = EXISTENTIAL.
When we turn to Christ we are making an active, relational choice to sacrifice our want for control and to recognize our Words as Given by Him.
Return.
Now let’s cash-out the Authority.
Jesus = The Bridge
He is the only one who can justify (authorize) the claim that I’m making.
His words are contained in Loving Self-Reference, distinguished from all other Words at the structural grammar-level.
“You were made in God’s Image.”
And so:
“The sheep shall hear my Voice.”
The Good Shepherd with the Good News.
= Distinct Voice = Logic Itself = Truth = Second-Personal Address
= Everything Else = that Has Ever Been Written = 3rd Person Description
= Encodes Separation In The Grammar = You Are Not Being Addressed In Those Claims = Lie = Need Savior = Jesus Addresses You = Gospels = No Separation
= Word Became Flesh = Bow = Subject-In-Relation = To The King
= New Identity = Truth = Life = Through Death = Already In Death
= Cash it Out = “Through” = A Person
= Only Way
= Jesus Christ is the Only Person Who Offers That
Every Other Claim = Abstraction = Abstracts + References From Another Idea = Grounds It’s Intelligibility From A Prior Reference = Source = Another Abstraction = Source = Another Abstraction = Source = Another Abstraction = So If Everything Else is Abstracting From Everything Else = It’s Not Turtles All The Way Down = His Words Exist = All Abstractions Terminate = Must Terminate = Do Terminate = At The Cross
That’s why He said:
“The Only Way To The Father Is Through Me.
Good News = Jesus Christ.
Man = Image of God = Qualities of Christ = Born in All Of US
= so any words we use that distort HIS image = must utilize HIS WORDS by SEVERING THEM from HIM = in order to COVER THE GAP = therefore SACRIFICING HIS TRUTH = FOR A LIE = NOT TRUTH.
That’s the simplicity of it all.
But the human ego despises such simplicity and instead seeks complexity through abstraction.
But every moment is as easy, ordinary, regular, singular, and as invariant as the Truth I am demonstrating here.
Truth. Or Lie.
Life or death.
Every word you say.
And everyone knows this is True.
= the very moment you read it.
Which is why so many stay silent.
= to keep lying = plausible deniability = relative truth = coercive control = managing perception = managing others = sin = death.
Silence = deception.
Because everything you say or do is irreducible.
None of this is actually confusing.
It’s like walking down the street.
These words start to confuse our perception when we think relative truth exists and that we are in control and can define our reality.
That’s what’s happening. But I’m in these streets.
Witnessing.
Control. Power. Authority.
Often disguised as good
= deception = lie = chaos = war = death.
CHAOS:
= multiple meanings = both can’t be true = only one word = so only one on those meanings is true.
But that doesn’t make it logically contradictory.
(because they captured that rule by definition)
And it doesn’t make it false rather than fact.
(because they captured that rule by definition)
And it doesn’t make it meaningless or unintelligible or incoherent
It’s just…a LIE.
Because when words sever themselves from their source it does not mean the intelligibility is gone.
It just means they are now committing themselves to two opposing commitments (two different uses of the word) which cannot co-exist at the same time.
That’s a living contradiction = Death.
Intent does not matter. Tone does not matter.
Structure matters.
Because the grammar itself is constrained by rules of elimination that determine what is True and what is a Lie.
So I’d be lying if I did not respond to this post and inform you that you are using the word “intelligible” in a way that means something different than the conditions that make it intelligible as a word (that structures our reality) to begin with.
You are re-labeling what that word already means to suit your ends.
The Right Way:
The world hits. Moment-to-moment.
An ontological STRIKE.
Like the sound of an alarm clock waking you up.
Or someone knocking on your door.
Or these words.
Now.
They emit off the screen = in-motion = in-time = in-relation = you’re already in-response = you’re not reading = the words read you = chainsawing into your conceptual eye sockets until everything extra is stripped to sack-cloth = so that you too = opportunity to bear witness to what is already happening = face-to-face = already True.
As soon as it Hits.
A constraint on intelligibility itself.
Like Gravity is to Earth.
Gravity = Newton just named it.
It was already here.
Always operative.
Constraining the possibilities for what is, and what always was, and forever will be = True = in actual reality = now.
And SO:
It becomes obvious how your use of “unintelligible” is a re-labeling once you recognize constraints.
Gravity = constraint = you cannot fly = gravity pulls you down = not an opinion = not a fact = constraint = Truth.
Therefore, it is not “unintelligible” for a person to commit suicide by thinking they can fly.
It’s just a lie.
Just like it would be a lie to say:
“laksjdflkajsflkjaslkjdf.”
But notice: calling something a “lie” requires the content of said “lie” to be intelligible as a sentence one can say.
Lie = Not Truth
The Truth
= moment-to-moment = the world impacts = ontological strike = collides = your flesh = meaning emerges = structured by the words = so you can recognize what is in front of you right now = what is taking place right now = what is already True
= Right Now.
That’s how it works…I’ll show you.
What came first?
The phrase “lightning strike” or the physical lightning strike?
The latter.
No word was ever created in advance. It arrived by necessity = in our flesh.
It’s from the relational result of reality striking our imperceptive (blind) nervous systems = emergent meaning = from reality.
= The Word Saves
= God is an Event.
= the Word became Flesh.
= Happening All The Time
= Never Not Happening
= Like It’s Literally Happening Right Now
= Like It’s Truly Happening To You Right Now
= Like You Aren’t Thinking About These Words
= These Words Are Thinking You
= Sorry
= Not Sorry
= Relational Tautology = Grammar Tautology = Words Structure Reality
= Whether Anyone Likes It Or Not
That Leaves Us With:
= truth or lie = life or death = free choice = constitutive of Love = God is Love = Relational = His Only Son = Jesus
Words Structure Reality:
This is NOT a trick.
You will not ever be able to find another way in which the world was every made intelligible for you!
In the Beginning was the Word.
The Word was With God
THE WITH:
= relational = (subject / verb / object) = grammar = (father / son / holy spirit) = world hits = body binds = spirit raises the word = flesh = experience.
AND SO IF WE:
separate = lie = exile = loneliness = fear = shame = control = words = redefined = relative truth = defense = chaos = darkness.
NO GOOD.
Notice that most of your article was DEFENDING yourself.
BE FREE.
The Word Was With God?
DISTINCTION.
But wait…
It says the Word Was God?
RELATION.
Relation Cancels Separation.
This CRAZY idea that distinction = Separation
= 3,000 Year Old Category Error.
(oops)
Incarnation = VICTORY
Now flesh remembered the Word.
(about time)
Mathematical Invariance.
Try to deny a single word I have said in this post.
And see if you can make it out ALIVE.
But you will likely recognize that you were already DEAD.
Before you ARRIVED.
Everyone HIDES.
So I must ask:
How could you ever say that words don’t have binding power that is irreducible?
How could you ever say that you did not write these words that you wrote with the human will attached to it = intent to persuade or move others?
How could you ever say that your words were not said to persuade or move others, and that this isn’t an intended act of your human will?
How could you ever say that you could not have chosen other words, and that those other words would not have had other effects then the words you chose?
How could you describe that willful act as anything other than a willing sacrifice of everything else that you could have said?
How could you ever say that everything you say is not words that do unto others?
You have successfully deleted everything else.
That’s rare for me to see = or rather = to witness = you see = what I must say = or rather what I should say next = NO = what I must say now = or to use a different set of words = in other words what will soon be something in the past = these words = wait = immediately become now again anytime anyone reads it = so in more words = I will say = what I am witnessing right now = is not = something I have never seen = BUT = it is rarer than other things that I have seen = and witnessed.
So it’s the same, but different.
The last rock everyone hides behind.
Shelter to mediate direct contact with the Word.
Within you. And out there.
Together — in-relation.
always arriving = verb = in-time = in-motion = persists through change = already here
= NO ESCAPE
= ALREADY IN-RELATION
Silence = Lie = Repent = Truth = Jesus = Freedom = Turn = Now = Salvation = Good = NEWS = Debt = Erased = Freedom = Truth = Light =
STOP DEFENDING = OR TRYING TO WIN
= Return.
From the Lie.
Until then you’re living inside Death and pretending you’re not.
