Skip to main content

Overthrowing Eastern and Western Economics: Chan Economics (Serialization Part 4)

2006/7/25 20:57:32

IV


Human stupidity and shamelessness are both infinite. Any theory that assumes humanity can enter or maintain some fixed, ultimate state is as laughable as assuming that steam could be the only state of water. When the West hallelujahs the capitalist triumph of global capital, when the East hurrahs at how planned economies turn the gears of the Earth with Swiss-watch precision, it is merely some people consuming the excess moisture in their brains through the medium of saliva. Even the electron orbitals in the simplest hydrogen atom hold infinite possibilities — in an infinitely complex human society, what on earth could ever be hallelujah'd or hurrah'd once and for all?

Any notion of progress or advancement is suspect. Progress and advancement first require a reference point for comparison — otherwise, where does progress or advancement come from? For instance, if we set 100 as the maximum, then going from 20 to 50, under the assumed premises of a corresponding natural-number-like system and the "greater than" symbol designated by a order-like structure, we might barely have a sliver of so-called justification to label so-called progress or advancement. But does this 100 exist? Must this natural-number-like system and order-like structure necessarily hold? And which God's little brother from which backwater established this standard of 100 and the necessary validity of said natural-number-like system and order-like structure? All standards, without exception, correspond to the climactic fantasies of ideology. Of course, there is another possible dodge — making the standard intensional, playing with oneself, thereby achieving the ideological climax of fantasy.

Here, there is no question of relativism. Relativity first requires something to be relative to, and having something to be relative to first requires assuming that the concept of relativity holds within the domain of discourse. And what absolute thing absolutely guarantees the validity and existence of this relativity? Garbage concepts like absolute and relative are merely the products of brains with too much water that must be consumed through excessive oral friction and movement. Fools always use commonsensical fallacies to cover their own eyes and those of the masses. So-called common sense — those commonsensical garbage concepts — are all products of ideologized fantasy or fantasized ideology, which in turn cyclically produce even more commonsensical garbage.

For example, when fools refute so-called "negating everything," they say that since the proposition "negate everything" should itself be negated, this creates a contradiction, and therefore the proposition "negate everything" is incorrect. This worn-out argument smugly considers itself a very logical refutation. But if one truly "negates everything," then even the logical possibility of "the proposition 'negate everything' should itself be negated" is also negated — doesn't this "'negate everything' should itself be negated" belong to "everything"? Similarly, for "affirm everything," of course even the negation of "affirm everything" is affirmed — otherwise how could it count as affirming everything? "Negate everything" naturally first negates the system that would prevent "negate everything" from holding; "affirm everything" naturally first affirms the system that would allow "affirm everything" to hold. The problem is not the proposition itself, but the logical system upon which the proposition is based.

The reason fools produce such laughable arguments is simply that they take the commonsensical first-order predicate system as self-evident truth, not knowing that so-called logical systems are merely products of human fantasy. You can fantasize a first-order predicate system, so why can't others fantasize a different system? A logical system is merely a special mathematical structure with infinite possibilities. When someone says "affirm everything" or "negate everything," why can't they fantasize within a non-first-order predicate system where "all propositions are correct" or "all propositions are wrong" serves as the premise? Why must everyone, without exception, love the law of excluded middle, the law of contradiction, or even the law of identity? Logic is merely a form of inertia. Logic needs no justification, because all justification is logical — any reason that can prove a logical system valid is merely a tautology of that logical system, just as fantasy needs no reason, just as maintaining inertia within an inertial frame needs no reason.

(To be continued)