From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat 03 May 2003 - 03:44:17 GMT
The Human Dialectic of Absolute Premises: Christianity and
Marxism
By Joe E. Dees
I. The Fundamental Contention
In the comparative analysis of two systems of belief, one
immediately encounters problems as to the validity of one?s
methodology. If the belief systems in question are not amenable to
correlation, one has three choices: (1) to bias the analysis by
assuming one belief system?s methodology over the other?s, (2) to
render the analysis non-relational by choosing a methodology
foreign to both, and (3) to beg the question by synthesizing the
methodologies of the two systems prior to the comparative
analysis.
Since a comparative analysis cannot take place without two
distinct belief systems to compare, the question arises whether or
not such an inquiry is possible. Certain pairs of systems, however,
are indeed correlative and at the same time distinct. This occurs
when two belief systems directly oppose one another; they are
then relational as correlative opposites, and mutually contradict in
their conclusions as a result of the operation of a single logic upon
mutually exclusive premises. Two belief systems bearing this
relationship may be viewed as thesis and antithesis and compared
dialectically.
Such is the relationship between Christianity and Marxism. One
asserts primordial Mind as the ground of being for the presence of
matter, while the other asserts primordial Matter as the ground of
becoming for emerging mind. One sees history as the temporal
manifestation of transcendent intention, while the other sees it as
the temporal evolution of immanent action. Both are absolutist,
both are deterministic, and both accept deductive logic as valid
and the principle of noncontradiction as sound.
If these are indeed systems of belief, the basic premise of each
must lie outside the purview of knowledge. This means that
neither premise may be undeniably demonstrable by example, nor
may either be unequivocally denied by counterexample.
Furthermore, induction proceeds from empirical data to
statistically probable conclusions. The presence of a single
measurable and repeatable datum would, due to their mutually
antithetical nature, render one of the premises untrue while
placing the other within the realm of probability, which is not
belief, but statistical knowledge. Our two systems thus must be
grounded upon absolute and not relative premises. This entails
that neither premise may be statistically probable, in other words,
neither may be either empirically verifiable or empirically
falsifiable. This of course means that neither system may proceed
from induction.
This is true of Christianity and Marxism. Our sciences, which
proceed by induction according to the Verification Principle, are
sciences of matter and energy. The sine qua non (condition in the
absence of which they would not be what they are) of matter and
energy is that they be sensorily perceivable phenomena. These
immanent objects of perception are then measured by relating our
perceptions of them to our perceptions of intersubjectively agreed-
upon standards of measurement which are themselves physical.
These quantified perceptions must then be amenable to repetition
at will by means of any duplication of the conditions under which
they appear. This method cannot be used to either verify or falsify
the presence or absence of transcendent nonphysical Mind. Our
sensuous perceptions, our technological augmentation of them,
our devices of measurement, our method of repetition are all
immanent and physical; they are categorically incapable of this
task. We cannot prove God is anywhere, and neither can we prove
that there is anywhere God is not. Induction is useless with respect
to either Christianity of Marxism; the basic premise must be
believed in, rather than known, and in either case, conclusions
must follow by means of deduction from the basic premise, not
induction from empirically obtained data. This explains why both
belief systems accept the principle of noncontradiction as
apodictically (self-evidently) true.
[/b]They both proceed by means of deduction from assumed a
priori postulates.[/b]
What is this concept of Being, however, about the existence of
which these two dogmas incessantly contend™ It is a concept of
absolute Wisdom, Justice, Goodness, Beauty, Power and Unity
existing both a priori to and simultaneous with the temporal
universe. It is the concept of a universal Creator, Circumscriber
and Subsumer who provides source, impetus and goal for every
act, passion and inspiration, and in whom is found the purified
synthesis of all that is, was and will be, the common essence of
apparent multiplicity in space and time.
Capitalize any human virtue and it becomes an attribute of God,
the Perfect Mind.
Ludwig Feuerbach™s analysis of humanity™s relationship to this
concept proceeds according to the Hegelian dialectic. Declaring
religion to be anthropology and its evolution to be the history of
humankind, he states clearly and the three movements of this
dialectic and what is being moved. They are:
(1) The animal, becoming human by becoming aware of the
humanity emerging within it (which is part of it and yet still
controls it), purifies and projects this awareness into an absolute
and transcendent realm; emerging mind becomes crystallized in
Mind, an Other Mind. This objectification of self as Other,
Feuerbach contends, is necessary for the humanization of
humanity in abstract terms.
(2) Now, however, nothing is left to the human. It has all been
invested in the Other. Humanity finds that it has bankrupted itself
by giving the Other all that was recognizable in it as more-than-
animal. Humanity finds itself an object, having given its
subjecthood away.
(3) Humanity now œreally emerges, or rather finally merges with
itself. Seeing that it has alienated itself from its own soul, which it
has called God, Humanity shreds the veil of self-delusion and
reclaims its own heart from the transcendent altar-prison that it
had itself built. This synthesis of animal and God becomes the
new thesis, the thesis of the human.
However, the movements of the human dialectic are not at an end,
Feuerbach notwithstanding. The God of Absolute and Perfect
Mind has been disputed, true, and by a premise both as basic and
as absolute. œGod is found itself facing œGod is not. But then,
what is to be held holy? We must have some common unity or we
must call ourselves nothing, and, for the great majority of us, that
is existentially unbearable. But an understanding once achieved
could not in good faith be forgotten, and once our eyes had been
opened, we could not close them again. Personhood had been
fragmented non-relational persons; what God could reclaim the
altar, to replace the God whose throne humanity had usurped, the
God whom humanity had conquered, and therefore lost?
The new God-concept was provided by Karl Marx, and was both
as absolute as the old God-concept and antithetical to it. In fact, it
was not addressed by the name God but by the name Reality. The
geist of Apollo was met by the geist of Dionysius. Jesus? God was
a God of Mind; Marx™s God was a God of Matter. Jesus? God
inhabited our souls; Marx™s God constituted our bodies. The
invisible God promising the invisible Heavens was faced with the
visible God promising the visible Earth. Dialectical idealism was
opposed by dialectical materialism, and contemplation by action.
The doctrine of immanence as illusion was no longer an
imperative, but an alternative; now another alternative existed; the
doctrine of transcendence as illusion. The slave was to spend
nights no longer in pursuit of a justification of slavery and the
justification of self as slave in the higher order of things. Instead,
both days and nights were to be spent correcting the injustice that
forced the worker, the producer, and the priest at the altar of the
Material God, into servitude for the sake of parasitic inferiors, the
bourgeois masters.
Philosophy™s task was finished, and now its products must be
implemented. There was work to be done. The thesis, Christianity,
through Aquinas, Kant, Hegel and Feuerbach, had finally spawned
its antithesis, Marxism.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 03 May 2003 - 03:52:53 GMT