Working through Brave New World now, but 1984 still serves as good food for thought. I'm going to avoid writing a post where I directly apply the whole book to the Chinese Government, because that would depress me too much. I just want to pick out a few things here and there. This passage stood out to me:

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink."

Orwell's "doublethink", now it seems more popularly called "cognitive dissonance", is relevant to us. In this post, I want to give some real-life examples of such willful contradictions that come to my mind.

I often complain about the way Atheists will assert (thus far, in my experience, without stable grounds) that Christianity defies logic and reason, but then simultaneously say that we can't have justified knowledge in a strict philosophical sense. It's silly.

Academic institutions and liberal activist organizations in the U.S. readily advocate freedom of expression, freedom to share ideas, tolerance, and respect for all ideologies. But when a Christian stands in front of them and suggest that there is only one true religion, they do not respect him; or, for that matter, when anyone with something offensive to say steps up to the podium, it's not tolerated.

Then, of course, the pro-choice movement cares a lot about adult women's bodies, but very little for the bodies of the young women they kill. The Social Justice Warriors are known for breaking laws. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Knowledge without knowledge; reason without reason; respect without respect; tolerance without tolerance; love without love; peace without peace; justice without justice; life without life; choice without choice; empathy without empathy. Everywhere I look, Demos attempts to stabilize himself by transforming into an ouroboros of contradictions.

But I actually didn't want to complain about secularism that much today. Right now, I really want to complain about Christians, who actually seem to be suffering much from the same troubles. Seeing as I've sortof unofficially decided to specialize on just a few issues (theonomy and epistemology), I'm going to focus on Christ's Kingship.

Christians say that Jesus is King, and they sing Psalms which say that God's law is good and that God's Messiah will bring His Law to the land, and they say that God is imminently just, and that God is unchanging, and that God's justice is unchanging, and that God's expressed moral standards are imminent and objectively binding on all men; they say that all scripture is God-breathed, infallible, and profitable, for equipping the man of God for every good work. No Christian will disagree when I say that we should conform our minds to the mind of Christ, rather than re-imagining scripture to manufacture a god more appealing or agreeable to our inclinations. But then they say that wherever the Psalms say "law", they just mean, "the word of God", which advocates a general and unspecific "respect for all men". And when pressed on that spurious, motivated redefinition, they eventually say that God's expressed standard of holiness and righteousness, the Old Testament Law, was unreasonably harsh; they rationalize that the OT Law must not have reflected God's original plans for man because it was impossible for man to perfectly comply; they say that God is very different in the New Testament; they say that the OT law is "all-or-nothing", quipping that if the Old Covenant were still applicable to us, then we shouldn't eat shellfish; they say that the OT statutes don't apply unless they are repeated in the NT; and whenever a law is too hard to explain, it is rationalized away by saying "it was just for that culture and time".

So, basically, God's law is simultaneously the standard for good behavior, and not applicable to considerations about what is or isn't good behavior. We should simultaneously apply Biblical standards to justice, and reject the idea that a direct implementation of God's law is presently just.

The Biblical answer is much more simple than that; the ritual laws have been fulfilled in ways which are plainly written in the text.

We still don't eat unclean food -- Jesus made all foods clean (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15).
We still have a sacrifice -- Jesus is our sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10)
We still participate in the Passover -- Jesus is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7)
We still have a temple -- Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19)
We still have a priest -- Jesus is our high priest (Hebrews 4:14-16)
We still don't wear mixed fibers -- we clothe ourselves with Christ's Righteousness (Isaiah 61:10, Eph 4:24)
We are still circumcised -- it's a circumcision of heart (Deut 30:6, Rom 2:25-29)
We still have God's Torah -- it's being written on our hearts in the New Covenant (Exek 11:19, 36:26, Jer 31:33, 32:40, Heb 8:10)

The law is not abolished -- it's fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17)

This stuff isn't difficult. There's no clause in the Mosaic covenant that says, "if you succeed in doing this right once, then you'll never have to do it again", as if Jesus simply obeying the law was enough to remove it from us. Rather, Jesus fulfilled all the law in a more permanent and continuous way, enabling us to be free from the "curse of the law" (Gal 3:13), but still writing its statutes on our hearts so that obedience to the law is the fruit of our renewed spirit (Gal 5:22-23 -- and when you read that, ask yourself, what describes for us the specific behaviors associated with "goodness" as distinct from evil, if not God's law?).

But what about those laws that seem harsh -- like the death penalty for rape; for kidnapping; for selling, purchasing, enslaving, or otherwise possessing kidnapped individuals; for homosexual intercourse; for counter-proselytizing as an apostate; for murder; for child sacrifice; for witchcraft; for false witness to a capital crime; for adultery; for bestiality; or for just being a drunken sluggard who doesn't contribute to society? Are all those crimes really on the same level as one another (capital)?

Well.... Let's be consistent in our beliefs. Are we going to conform our ideas about right and wrong and the severity of these crimes to what God said in His word, or are we going to reinterpret scripture in a way that better fits our own scruples?

Is our goal to conform our minds to the mind of Christ? Is Jesus God? Does morality change? Does justice change? Does God change? Are morality and justice defined by their conformity with God's attributes? Is God perfectly just and moral? We can't have everything we want all at once, unless we conform our own desires to what God has said about Himself.

Finally, some of my nonexistent readers may notice that I put the pageview tracker back onto my blog. It's been gone for several years now, but I don't like the way Google tracks pageviews, so I figure it will be fun to have that back for a cross-reference. It just means my pageview count will have to embarrassingly restart at zero, and the golden-age of Psa 139 is lost to public records forever.

"Shall the thing made say of him who made it, 'he did not make me'? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, 'he has no understanding'?"

Today I want to offer a categorical description of my philosophy, either to say more with fewer words or to obfuscate the matter. I'm a little bothered by this kind of denomination, because I feel like the words I'm about to use were devised with intent to describe what I believe to be proper methodology for acquiring answers, but they don't describe the answers themselves; whereas I think that the answers are only as correct as the methodology used to obtain them I do not like the way that discussion about philosophical denominations may tempt readers to limit themselves to a protracted study of methodology without ever learning the conclusions drawn thereby.

I suppose that strict, "strong" foundationalism accurately describes the situation we live in, epistemologically, and that the epistemic information comprising (what you might call) our basic "foundational" knowledge, must be indubitable, incorrigible, and infallible. However, I am not convinced that human language necessarily supports articulating the specific information contained in our basic knowledge at this time. Granting that we do have the information required to justify knowledge, I am convinced that some information about the mechanism by which we obtain and/or utilize that basic knowledge can be gained by applying a combination of strict deduction and empiricism, with a view to the universal coherence of all true information (where "coherence" means that an idea contradicts neither itself nor any other information known to be true). That same methodology, combining deduction and empiricism, I believe, is the method by which we can trace out relationships between our conclusions and our basic knowledge. That said, I'm not convinced that a detailed awareness of the contents of our basic knowledge is necessary for an epistemological system to be complete and fool-proof; only an acknowledgement that, whatever the contents are, they satisfy the basic conditions for epistemology and intelligibility.

That's not to say we shouldn't attempt to learn the contents of basic knowledge. I just think that there are more important parts of the system which should be fortified with stable articulation first, and I don't know if I will have enough time in my life to complete the project.

I think that it's common in modern society to simultaneously advocate empiricism while refusing to practice it, undermining the contents of whatever foundational knowledge we have (because the whole purpose of the foundational knowledge is to support our empirical abilities). Furthermore, it can be well-argued that this deluded rejection of empiricism is practiced by literally every person who propones an explanation for reality, because epistemological theories are naturally impossible to test. So it is unproductive to argue that a theory lacks empirical basis, or that a theory lacks consistency with interpretations of empirical data which depend on alternative theories. Therefore, an epistemological theory distinguishes itself only by being well-developed and coherent. The more thoroughly developed it is, the more complex it is, the greater its likelihood of being incoherent; thus a well-developed theory which does not sacrifice coherence is a good theory and may as well be held true by its advocates until demonstrated otherwise, or until a more well-developed while coherent theory is made known to them. I believe that incoherence is the distinguishing feature of falsehood, and there is only one set of information rightly called "true", so there is only one possible fully-developed and coherent theory.

Some people attempt to circumvent this by refusing to develop their theories; a theory which is underdeveloped can be simple and internally consistent, and so it may be difficult to demonstrate its failure to resolve the epistemological problem without first developing the theory. I recently had a discussion with one such person, who actually told me that justifying his ideas was unnecessary for him, "because I'm not a foundationalist" -- but then he didn't name any epistemological theory which he could actually advocate; he simply said "the answer is probably a combination of all theories", which was an effective refusal to develop his ideas. I might post more details of that conversation in a later blog, because he was a fascinating example of certain intellectual roadblocks, for which I am needful of constant reminders to avoid, and in which I am regularly fearful that I might also partake.

"The [...] forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small."

Listening to 1984 while I work these days, and I couldn't help but notice a list of qualities he issues to characterize a government which is treading toward dystopian authoritarianism. Here's the quote:

"And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years—imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations—not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive."

The argument here is that those things started happening in society, but society was hardened to it so they didn't think it was all that bad. In fact, they celebrated it as if it were enlightened. Where, in fact, those things were characteristic of a society deteriorating into some kind of dystopian nightmare.

Let's break down that list, for fun:

imprisonment without trial

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remand_(detention)

the use of war prisoners as slaves

• https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/07/us/terrorists-in-us-prisons.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

public executions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment

torture to extract confessions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States#Defining_%22torture%22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

the use of hostages

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_Five

deportation of whole populations

• https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1140791400658870274

So, what's my point?

Both the republican and democratic parties in the United States are going in the same direction. The left simultaneously advocates socialism and rejects the practices advocated by members of the right, while those same practices were historically performed by socialists!

Americans are presented with a false dichotomy every 4 years, and we eat it up. How many times during the last election was I told by my friends, "If you vote 3rd party, you're supporting Hillary!"

What do we do? To whom do we turn? Who's right? What system of government should I advocate? Well, Psalm 19 makes this an easy decision for Christians.

"The law of the Lord is perfect,
    refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
    making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
    giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
    giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
    enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
    and all of them are righteous.
They are more precious than gold,
    than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
    than honey from the honeycomb.
By them your servant is warned;
    in keeping them there is great reward."

When it says, "law", you know what the Hebrew word was in that passage? It was "Torah" (i.e. Gen through Deut). This is a passage from the Old Testament. That means, yes, the Psalmist is saying that Leviticus refreshes the soul and gives joy to the heart; Numbers is sweeter than honey, making wise the simple; Deuteronomy gives light to the eyes and warns God's servants, in keeping the law of God is great reward.

"Dirty Water."

I've been thinking about race and culture lately. I realize there's a distinction, but imo irl they often come coupled. I'm a white, middle-class, Christian man, and if that makes you think "this guy probably doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to race issues", then you've proved my point. My father is from England (about 4% Choctaw), and my mother is Irish. My understanding is that my mother's family fled to the U.S. during the potato famine, but my father's family was English nobility (granted, we were living in a shelter when I was born).

My wife is Korean, and she's taught me that culture isn't something which you can just decide to adapt to. There are things which I think are "just" right or wrong, without justification, and she also has that kind of cultural absolutism built into her way of thinking in certain areas. I think everybody does. Many of our prejudices are held without us even realizing it; much of what we believe has never been articulated with words either by or to us. In fact, sometimes we even recognize where we hold some (potentially false) idea to be true, but we reject the thought of changing our minds on the topic, because things are just "so" sometimes. I think I couldn't have learned this lesson about myself without having married her -- because Korean culture is so different from U.S. culture.

Many of these biases and cultural predilections are not bad things. They are even beneficial to us; enriching our lives, adding to our sense of identity, and enabling us to describe the world in terms that make sense. "I believe ____", and, "I see ____", are healthy statements of individual actualization. Furthermore, these leanings bind us to our heritage, making us feel like part of a family that reaches far into the past. More so for her than for me, I think, but nonetheless we both have certain aspects of our heritages which we are proud to identify with.

My wife taught me this lesson, but she isn't the only person who taught it to me. Contrast realizes abstract learning. I listen to a lot of rap, hip hop, R&B, gospel, and really any African American music I can get my hands on while I work and while I drive. My dad, my brother, my grandfather, my uncle, and my cousins are drummers, and my mom was a poet -- I love the rhythms and the lyrics. I'm infatuated with their art. But there's a common theme, expressed in a way most plainly understandable to me by the artist, Propaganda. I can't pretend to speak for them, but it seems plain to me that they are upset because they don't like American culture (with good reason), and their ancestors were unjustly taken away from another culture, but it's too late to go back because they've been loosely integrated into this nation by several generations. Even if they wanted to go back, they wouldn't fit in, they wouldn't speak the language, and they might not even know what part of the continent they came from. To make matters worse, the unfortunate reality is that minorities are disproportionately impoverished in America, making it feel difficult to achieve anything at all. They want to have those ancient cultural absolutes built into their way of thinking, but they don't, and it hurts their sense of identity.

But they have something I don't have, and for which I'm jealous. They love the culture of their ancestors. Don't get me wrong, I love my immediate family's culture, and that was established by my parents; I'm not ashamed to be white by any means, nor do I feel guilty for crimes which were not committed by me. But the farther I reach back into my family history, the uglier it gets. Whether it's oppressing our neighbors, and even our brothers, stealing land and moving boundaries, adultery, prima nocta, murder, abusing scripture, hating knowledge of God, or whatever other bad thing you want to mention, we've probably done it. In fact, if justice were done rightly, then my great great great great grandparents would probably have been executed, and I never born. For that matter, if justice were done right in the land, then Saul of Tarsus probably would have been executed for murder. Should I be grateful that the law of the land was unjust? I should say not, but God worked it out for His glory and His merciful plan, and so God is good when all men are evil.

I recognize that there is a place for people groups to take responsibility for actions committed by others in their land, to cleanse the land -- it's Biblical even, that land gets polluted when innocent blood is shed on it, and the land has to be cleansed by justice, and by the repentance of its people.

So what's the practical application? What does national repentance look like, at this point?

...From my frame of reference, the obvious answer is that everyone in America should first repent of their own sins, (including the sin of unbelief), and then do away with these unjust laws which passively oppress our neighbors, implement just laws, and thereby establish a more equitable system of government.

Before I close this out, I should discuss LGBTTQQIAAP (... or is it LGBTTIQQ2SA? QUILTBAG? just LGBT? Should there really be an I or Q in there? One A or two? I just want to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes) pride today because Google is highlighting it, and...you know...2 Corinthians 10:5.

They celebrate it as if it's a new thing for people to be proud of sexual deviation, but this kind of thing has been done for several millenia -- and not just by individuals hiding in their proverbial closets, but by entire nations at a time. There's nothing new about it. You see, the thing is, although they know God's law, wherein such things are so wrong as to be made capital offenses, they not only do those things themselves, but they applaud people who do likewise. (Romans 1:32)

I love my gay friends and neighbors, (says the guy who just advocated God's word, and thereby capital punishment). I'll hang out with them, and we can have a good time whenever we're together -- because everybody sins and I know that I deserve death just as much as them. But my friends know my thoughts on the matter of our sin and need for Christ. I can't be proud of their crimes with them.

Lastly, I just want to be clear, when I make fun of that movement by doing things like messing with  the acronym and stuff, it's not intended as a personal attack on those individuals. I honestly think the whole idea that our sexuality is part of our identity, and the way that that is used as an anthropo-ontological argument against sexuality-based discriminatory conversation, is really a steaming heap of poorly-seasoned sophistry. There are good, rational arguments to be made for why a secular nation should be totally accepting of homosexual marriage, etc, but those arguments come with lateral consequences that should be accepted by their advocates in this movement -- namely that they leave every form of sexual gratification in a state of moral ambiguity for lack of a clear, imminent, objective moral guideline. But that is really the logical end of secularism anyway, afaict.

"Hopeless, so we all learn Swahili as if we knew we were from that region. Silly, we know, but what are you supposed to do when all you know; your closest cultural customs are similar to your captors?"