Antinomic Syntagonism

Antinomic Syntagonism

A synthesis of mind, body, and action, this is what we desire. Not solely for ourselves, but for civilization as a whole. Absolute
moral conceptions of universal truths are inherently flawed in their deductive processes, as they are insufficiently substantiated
to be verified by investigatory processes. To have a conception of moral absolutism while possessing a, inherently, limited range
of understanding, and proposing said perspective to be totalistic in its’ philosophical implications is erronious. If we cannot ensure
truth claims, in relationship to morality, are objective then what validates the beliefs and practices that make up the theoretical
and functional elements of morality? The justification that lies beyond is the system we intend to articulate. Antinomes are,
what should be referred to as, opposites. The characteristics, outcomes, or relations we deem analytically significant enough
to proclaim to be explanatory and representative of a significant aspect of, or the whole of, an entity, contrasted with these, or segments of these, particulars with another; what is opposite is what is antinomic. Syntagonism is the status of relations
that are complimentary to one another in their processes and relational outcomes. The validity of moral conception is to be
found in the fusion of these two statuses, in this method of moral evaluation axioms, or moral foundations, are grounded in situational validity, and utility, relative to intent. No man warms himself intending to be cold, no man walks intending to be
stationary; they do these things because of the situational utility they’re likely to entail, but just as the consequences of any
of these particular pursuits can entail their effectual opposite, all intents that entail a conception of “good” will, presupposing
scale and consistency of effort, entail an effect that is “wrong,” this is relevant because all men seek balance relative to their situational characteristics, in effect all humanity practices antinomic syntagonism. Society itself is but a series of compromises.
What is a compromise, if not the balancing of the righteous with the wrong? Our axioms are situational, and they ought to
be, if we are to presuppose an inherent furtherance of development with all actions we undertake and manifest and we
believe ourselves to be conscious agents, if conscious and if intuitive we possess a set of moral norms, regardless of
what they’re predicated upon.

These are norms because they are relative to the predicted ramifications of external pressures, we cannot, in large part, control. External pressures, in so far as they’re “artificial,” relative to the non-conscious, intuitive, and socialized, are the manifesting of “natural” balances to the processes we have put into motion, they offer physical balance and complexities to our externalized
will, in this balance we find the need for the expansion of understanding, for if we cannot understand how can we act? Society
is this “natural” truth extended to the realm of human inter-play, what is resonative and effectual, relative to higher intent, is what
is right. We discern right from wrong by virtue of our understanding, inter-twined with our potentiality for the fullest actualization
of moral prescription. We are informed as to what is right, only in so far as it is sufficiently resonative, gratifying, and pragmatic.
If there are degrees of what is good and categorical moral obligations in relationship thereto; I posit that this moral obligation of
rank, and this degree of necessity in relationship to want is the foundation of human rationalization in the sphere of morality. The
appropriate degree of necessity in relationship to want is better understood by some than by others, in regards to our conception
of resonative truth, civilization, which encompasses the human element, bestial, aswell as the vegetation, is the mechanism
by which our understanding of truth is counter-balanced by the practical, this aspect of moral affairs is often looked at as, little
more than, a barrier that’s inconsequential in moral reasoning, as, while it exists, it is a status of being and not an aspect of an alternative moral system to be compared thereto, it is a state of affairs in and of itself, but I posit that within this state of affairs
lies the ultimate mechanism of moral deduction, as it is this structure that is the physical foundation for our moral conceptions,
I do not mean, in this statement, to say that this structure ought to be, but only that it is, and in so far as moral deducations
can only, meaningfully, be made upon a bedrock of the verifiable and the likely to be, this structure acts as the guide for what
will come to be within our immediate circumstances. Resonative truth is made manifest and right, for all those therein, as it is
functionally effectual for the ends they desire, we infer what is resonative by virtue of what is manifest, as the degree of
resonance is the degree of manifest action.

If it is absolutely resonative it will be absolutely, if it is without resonance it will never be. The ramifications of personal necessity
compel those who provide the analysis of what is and what shall be to act, and in their actions they manifest implied resonance,
the ramifications of the counter-balancing of the pursuits of all of human civilization is a manifestation of antonimic syntagonism.
It is the conversion of opposites, as all opposites have their places, and what is place is varies depending upon circumstances,
likely effect, intent, and consistency. Absolute righteousness is not to be found, categorical situational immediate appropriateness
is what is and always has been. We must disregard totalistic axioms and instead adopt situation inferences and untuitive advocacy
rooted in what we understand and where our will, both manifest and counter-balanced, leads us to be. All things are within their
place and the place is dependent upon the utility in relationship to the need which is informed by the mechanisms that ones’ surroundings imply. If we can never have, functionally, a perfect morality then I believe it appropriate we strive to balance all
things as a foundation for resonative deductions and the furtherance of our understanding, if there is absolute truth we must
work for it in uniformity as to best understand the regiment of man in relationship to the confines of existence, in this we desire
syntagonistic living, a synthesis between all relevant parties to the ends that are made manifest by virtue of their actions in relationship to intent, regardless the method of procurement. This balanced set of harmonious relations should be the basis
for the justification of the will of man and a higher conception of the purposes related thereto, although there is not absolute
deducible moral truth, there is a theme of action corresponding to resonative belief, in this we find the very fundamental essence
of what is being and existence itself, all wrongs in synthesis and modified will be right, but no standard of right, regarding the
human condition, can continue to be so, all conceptions are rooted in what is necessary, if you take a random point that is studied
by a single being and take that same point, whether it be theoretical or physical, and put it a thousand years into the future can
you say absolutely it is to be desired?

If not then we must speculate and just as it’s true for individual agents separated by “long” stretches of time, it is “equally”
true for many separated, solely, by circumstance. Bonds are representative of this eternal search for truth, being in name
only, “truth” is resonance, the route to “truth” is the route of meaning, meaning as interpreted by the one providing the analysis,
this norm of being is represented in all things. Is it a truth statement to say there is perfect or even a relatively strong moral compatibility between the reader and the one they’ve pledged themselves to for “eternity?” If so then the conclusion is anecdotally verified, if not then I believe that’s in contradiction to consensus as to the point of the institution. If we are to conclude this
unity of thought exists where is it located? In what respects do we understand and prioritize an understanding of those
around us, we do this through situational convenience as a “rule,” and in this convenience we are left necessarily ignorant.
If we contemplate the potentiality of passion, the tendencies of fanaticism, and the manifest conception of betterment how
much do you trust those you deem good, how far would your trust go the more pressure is added? In that we see the
experience of the collective human “spirit,” even the most attached set of free people could not assure a “perfect” moral
code of conduct, this code is tempered by the ramifications of what is and will be, we must see “truth” through force and
resonance of understanding through ensuring there is a uniformity of thinking and acting. Thus slave society is justified
and free society is condemned, liberty grants divorce and the divorcing of a good union is a crime to moral hegemony,
this totalism in humanities search for truth is made manifest in our understanding of God, note: It’s infrequently a search
for “God,” but instead an understanding, contemplate the humor in this if you like, this “understanding” of the apex of
“perfection” by the, inherently self-admitted within the concept of “God,” inferior mankind is not an understanding of God,
in any meaningfully verifiable sense, but instead the lived experience of resonance, God is the term used as a bridge
to route this synthesisof right and what would be referred to as sin, but is, in “actuality” wrong by another name. Symbols
of God are implied archetypes of being, perfect being, and in this perfect being we find the moral aspirations of humanity,
humanity, in searching for what it means to morally aspire, creates bonds, we refer to the consensus regarding the
propriety of those bonds as society.

Society is meant to be a framework by which individuals therein can securely construct their moral conceptions and impose
it upon those, at the point where pragmatism meets aspiration, thereunder. The context of the child within society is distinct
from the context we grant the parent, it is distinct because of the ramifications of their existence, not just their immediate
potentiality but also their aspirational fitness, they are not simply excessively emotive, ignorant, and wholly inferior in their
status, but also need a degree of guidance that meets and balances or puts these characteristics in synthesis with greater
society. In the same way the archetypical slave must be given order for his own good, this good dictated by inter-subjective consensus, the child must be given the same, the only distinction being one is absolutely finite and the other is not inherently
finite, a contract of harmonious relations is what is proposed, this proposed in the childs’ relation to the family, the family’s
relation to society, and society’s relation to the state. In these relations we find the perfect representation of antinomic
syntagonism, what features more opposite characteristics than the youthful child, ignorant of even the most basic of
meaningful moral refinement corresponding to practice, as opposed to the learned paternalistic elder. What is a greater
inversion of norms than the common masses of varying abilities, degrees of knowledge, situational norms, etc than the
commoner with this paternalistically minded familial patriarch? The world is too little governed, and as much as the patriarch
should govern the child, the state should govern the commoner. Governance is not merely local, nor is it exclusively for
pragmatism of circumstance, but it entails a higher moral conception, this higher moral conception is rooted the repetition
of themes corresponding to positive resolutions. We want the world to be as it could be, because we’ve seen what could
be within our understanding. As much as the child demonstrates what is resonative to his needs through his actions and,
generally, eventual confessions; the masses require the same. In this requirement the masses need every degree of
governance, not always by the state, but often by their neighbor, who knows them better to hinder their vices, tempt
their virtues, and refine their dispositions?

The degree of governance that is needed is in direct and, generally, causal relation to the degree of impropriety expressed,
this degree of government, this degree of direction, corresponds to the moral necessity of guidance, it is a moral necessity
because it’s a method of utility in relation to what is, cumulatively, resonative. This cumulative resonance should not be
informed by consent, verbally or implicitly, but instead by manifest action; which is the only true metric we have for analytical affirmation. Do we know what all men fundamentally, and absolutely, think, or, if we grant we are ignorant of these thoughts,
do we know what any interested, and inquisitive, mind must know to form a foundation, by which we infer and assess moral
notions through a “proper” set of moral standards, which is how they rationalize their conclusions, and what their greater
intentions may be? No, we can only judge them by what they do. We must recognize that the sole metric we have for
gauging resonance is cumulative action, this is not to say that statements cannot be advisory, nor is it to say that they
cannot be truthful, and with honest intent, however, it is to say that we, the external participants who are obligated to
assess this purported intent, are inherently ignorant, as we only have the ability to undertstand the ramifications of
intent thereafter and cannot analyze, nor, even if we believe we know what is in a man’s heart and, on the basis of
our ignorance, we are obligated to judge through action, action corresponding to what is made manifest by the
propriety of the actualization of will, as we infer it. This morality, above all other descriptors, is communalistic, a
doctrine of community as is manifested through the will of its’ governors. A conception of morality that views the
community, and thereby humanity, not as the sum of its’ parts, but, instead, as the observable whole.

This article is meant to be a companion piece with, and a continuation
of, an article written by George Fitzhugh titled “Antinomic Pathology.”
The article can be found here:


Antinomic Pathology – George Fitzhugh, 1863

call to chat