W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page     Volume  What is New



Returning to Logic from De-mented Meanders


The term 'de-mented' is neither a spelling faux pas nor a term of abuse. It is an attempt to signify what has not applied mind, that organised and scrutinised form of thought such that one thing may validly lead to another, rather than a collated chaos of flimsy fabrications that cling together very much as do the parts of a vast explosion.

That is, their chief feature in this field, is the lack of what is necessary, a good example of which in the field of fun, often useful when you come to the ultra-serious, is that in the comic cartoon of Calvin. Here the kid is wanting to know what causes wind, and is told it is a matter of trees sneezing. The wife is unimpressed but the husband thinks it easier to  explain that way.

Now for imagination this is both tasteful and impressive; but for serious thought it is not worthy of F for failure, but Z for abysmal sub-zero. The actions of mind are here dismissed except for the vivid part, useful for entertaining children perhaps, but neither for education nor induction nor deduction.


Thus when your field of interest comes to different domains, like the sex-life of slugs and the cracking in the case of metal fatigue in an aeroplane, you realise that this is not just one field of study, and that while there may exceedingly far off sub-areas in common (like visibility, if you try hard enough), there is no sequencing, or aggregating of considerations in one direction of explanation, the one in terms of the other. Indeed, the variations in methods of procedure in the domains is in this negative instance, so notable, that the one is not only not of first rank facility in explaining the other, but dissevered, discordant and divorced. In this slack folly, mind is missing.

Thus as to different domains, with different functions, foci, features, ways of procedure, derivation of power and the like, you don't move from one such domain to another, just because you have a lot of the first, or find it arresting. Many stars are made; they are not made by being many, since at first you need one, and its making. You do not manufacture some make of car by having millions of them spread throughout the earth. That is the RESULT of being made, not relevant to the METHOD of doing so. Indeed, multiplicity is not a mode of original manufacture but puts more stress on means of manufacture of these available energy leaking bodies. The passout parade of available energy, moreover, is not a way of getting it, but losing it. In the grand scale of authoritarian and often totalitarian unbelief increasingly invading even democracies, such little items seem able to be mixed as in the mind of a  young First Grader.

Cogent correlation is what is needed, a shrouding commonality in major areas relevant to derivation, this being the topic. You don't move from  the operation of something in its own kind, to some kind of derivation of it from another in parallel, just because you have a lot of the first, and want to use them up, or like them and can't seem to bring your mind away from them, like a swain in love, who in his chemistry work cannot seem to bring his mind far from the arresting  personality of some young lady.

 Wandering can be very nice for a holiday, but it does not normally accomplish very much for directed work, with highly specific intentions relating to highly specific and specialised, co-ordinated and systematised result, in which much depends on assigned meanings to codes, and fast action on that mental-kind basis. Matter does not assign, and the reason is that this involves categorisation, differentiation and indication by mental means - THIS means THAT - a directive in which matter is shown to be the butt, not the informant. It just is not like that. This is not what is found. This sort of disregard is not science but sign-off from intellectual labour, in terms of understanding in particular. It disposes of evidence and invents imagination, and then confusing the two, lodges amid antithesis and antinomy as if this were its native land.

But it does not use this method when it is seeking for matters that matter in the necessities of life. If it did, it would not live long: that is the race that performs in this way, as it does in originating ideas of origins so ludicrous that it seems suitable only for comedy. But light relief brings no help to heavy needs.

In short, MULTIPLICITY does not equal TRANSFORMABILITY, despite the dictum of Dr Lewontin of Harvard (cf. Lord of Longsuffering Ch. 2, *2) and the notions of others. A love of an empty philosophy is not a contribution to validity but an admission of an alien directorship masquerading as thought,  limited, contained, controlled by irrelevance, irrationality or wry distortion (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7). It is not experimentally apt or disciplined by events. The fallacy of the philosophy (materialism*1)  aggravates the position, making all such efforts not only tilted, but constrained to fail, as if you INSISTED that two and two MUST make five, whatever else may happen. Since this is not so, MUCH will happen, but in a bleary peril, as with other types of drugs that may be chosen.

If in the matter of origins, you should want an imaginary other, or an actual other domain to yield this one, that of your interest, then you need in both cases, first to know and then to show it. You need to know what you are talking about, and to know it with what logic demands as the requisite amount for detail to secure the relevance of the hope of making one turn into the other. Even Volkswagens do not turn into Cadillacs just because you find the latter more attractive, and they are both cars! Even in terms of this illustration, in view of the inventive character of man, some cars are manufactured separately, many are not, but are variations on an original theme, or in a given factory. It depends on the design, the designer and the material. In the origins case, the latter is as free as the rest.

You do not need to have a fixation on their ALL being created separately, or none. Some may have remarkable provisions for adaptation built it, as is now reported of DNA and its various control units, and some are diverse. Then you have another kind, like a new vehicle entirely. You cannot logically dictate what is what; you have to find out, and correlate logically, and in every aspect of outcomes from the mode in view.

As to capacity to adapt built into a kind, on the one hand, and a distinct kind, you have to study it. As to the making of the logical coherence, symbol and signification, disciplined timing of the availability of all ingredients, patter-to-pattern procession, as for effecting any directive language such as DNA, brilliance in construction of the command-consequence duality can manage all these correlations by choice. This however exposes, and does not deny the concept of kind, or the concept of variation within kind. In practice, with life, variation within kind can be as broad as that of dogs, but the means of the divergence in micro-biology are not found to be invented by nothing, but assigned hierarchically, distinctively, without a gradual merging, as Denton details (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Ch. 6).

You are left with the further diversifying element of outcome of failure as in copying error, a disruptive divergence from the sophisticated working plan, or response criteria in the magnificent magnitudes of DNA controls and coverages, allowing co-ordinated response patterns to exigencies*2.

But whatever the diversity, you need the things to come! you need to exhibit what concerns you.

THEN, having  both known and shown what you are talking about, and specified it in the relevant respects, now you can begin to move from imagination to reality, one part. You STILL need  more reality to get beyond Tonkin-land and its ilk, once the possibility and propriety of such hope is shown, the ingredients and the hoped for triumphantly transformative powers: then you can hope to move in reality.

Then you need to show HOW the transformation happens, better yet WHY, but best of all THAT it happens. This is the empirical part.

Suppose for  example we are looking at the arcane idea that we can  transform matter into mind, slave to master, event into proposition, a land of working formulations into one of formulating what is workable. We need all  this and have never in the history of man and his thought, has anything to begin to meet the case: only the irrelevant, the unempirical, the irrational and the absurd. 

The whole presentation in this field of endeavour comes no closer than a speck of dust in a storm, to a purified metal,  and is in fact much further away, since matter is under surveillance by various modes, and thought DOES the surveyance and the conception and the formulation, and both conceives and appoints the functional correlations,  together with the vocabulary or code work; and the imaginative contemplation depends not least on it, and its specifications, and much more if we should pause to pursue it. It is a domain like the Rockies, Mars, Space, but further off than any of these, from any material consideration, since those are all in material  format (though engineered to fit laws which one can  make to match what is  already in them), while thought is of a mentality milieu, with its own species of constraints and opportunities, giving scope in its own creativity and derived creations, for actual creations with summary warrants from due cause.

Vain are production exercises from some chosen bit of the universe, which does not exhibit any of this ability, or in some cases, even itself is merely an imposition of irrelevance, a glint of imagination and readily becomes an imposture. Whether something is made-up or nothing is directly assigned as the basis, the two having the same degree of expression, and limitation to imagination, the case is this.


Indeed, the whole nature of what is to be explained, in such exercises,
is largely omitted, and it becomes like an  exercise in longing,
to escape the double bogey of confusion. These errors are shown below.


a) One is that matter or a universe need have no assignable source 
though it is operative  within itself by causative means
and media (part of its milieu*3).


b) Secondly, in essence the case is that bits of it
are deemed able to  collect other bits of it from nowhere notifiable,
and these  in some unspecified way like scum in a drain, can  float together,
and even do so in notorious organised order and mutuality of premises
and functional correlation to make system out of non-system,
cause and consequence out of an assumed and even asserted absence of the same. .


c) Otherwise, for the second, it is claimed that they are already sitting there,
aggregated, congregated
but not visibly activated or exhibited, invisible to all scrutiny. But
the cause both of bits and specifications for them is inconsequential
for these physics type nostrums living nowhere. Assuming what you have to prove
is always attractive to lazy or confused students, but is unbecoming to those
called scientists who practise these illicit arts.

  How interesting it would be for a 3 year old, not good at reasoning and wafting
  into clouds of imagination to  satisfy desire. Desire however is not the point,
  in theory, only evidently in practice! Rarely is human will and wilfulness better


But nothing is inconsequential, when what IS is the topic.
Having it all there, and not exhibited and given a simplistic domain as all,
a mere physics function, without witness, merely increases the awareness
of what needs explanation, while using the limitations of kind 
EVEN in the imagination,
to what is the very ground
of discontent and inadequacy.

Not merely is what is relevant to actual  cohesion, as well as causatively creating the universe into being, attesting its source, conspicuous by its absence, in all such approaches;  but dumped is the domain of identifying the necessary reason to show it as what with ample grounds combines and concocts both and all domains in their discursive divergences, directive, corrective CONVERGENCES, mental, moral, aesthetic, intellectual and volitional, including imperative and subversive, amid the personal. This sort of roving imagination therefore is  regarded as missing the ENTIRE  point both as to  description, actuality and functionality, a mere mirage of words without anything for their assignment, a bogus verbal explosion without relevant counterpart in the field in view.


Further, the things summoned  in the physics phantasm in view,
although notably unviewed in actuality,
need to relate at all to this world,
to aggregate with it systematically, to be coherent with it,
adequate for it, and so be impelled mathematically, modally,
in the relevant operative structure,
conceptual or concrete; and to occur in conjunction
with these elements where they relate.


Unrelated, it is just a dysfunctional dream.
Related, where is the connection ? monistic*1, where is the diversity,
of one kind, where are the others ?
Misuse of words, of definitions does not create categories
outside them, or legitimise worlds apart.


In all things, wisdom requires evidence, and mere circumscribed imagination
is worse than gambling, which at least may have some possibility!
When it comes to love and hate, truth itself and fiction, there is as the Bible
so frequently and pointedly shows, a primary question. If your heart at THIS
arena, domain, is fractious to factuality, rebellious to reality -
rather like a divorce case very often, then mental calibre is not the main
difficulty; for it lies in a distorting thrust that conquers normal capacity
in a flushing show of the spirit that is in man (cf. Ephesians 4:17ff., Romans 1:17ff.)


Sin, personally readily available, is not a disease controllable
by man alone, and it is a generic matter. Man needs spiritual repair from his source, and mercy from his Maker. But let us return to our major theme in this Bulletin.


What then is the result when lust for what does not give evidence, is replaced by desire for that which does in this multi-function series of fields ?

a) There has to be an eternal source of functionality, to combine but not equate these domains, eternal since when ALL is involved, ANY failure at ANY time means nothing for all time. There is nowhere else when the universe(s), equal to one by their very correlativity, are in view.

If this very entity is not there, nothing ever will be; and as one specialist once cried, Nothing is nothing. It has no entity-ship whatever.

You need an eternal source for derivation of any domains, laws, functions, modes of procedure, formats, correlativities, joint working or organised wholes. In this way, you avoid production nullity, and so leave the  universe no longer an aetiological orphan (cf. SMR Ch. 5, and *3 below).

b) You need to recognise that as normal in construction, bits are not from NOTHING, which is SO incapable, but from what instituted the type of controls or characteristics apparent in different domains of our universe,

c) You require what places these into  functional formulations (for it actually DOES work exceedingly well), brought to birth by adequate power - and this available, and if original, then forever without running down, for that type of  entity cannot be the ultimate source of anything.

Familiarity with SOME methods of operation in SOME fields gives null access to other fields (as for example in the physical vis-à-vis the mental). Thus failure to identify other fields, as with universes, merely compounds the confusion.

For illustration, take an analogy. Large amounts of capital do not create intelligence. The domains do not meet. You may develop your intelligence, but only if it is there - like muscles in another field. Logically needed to advance from particles to mentality, you need facilities in what has sufficiency in both fields to manage their mutuality. in their respective functional sites. Such things, as an internal feature of matter has never been displayed, any more than rapacity in a sunbeam.  Thus you manage movement of undirected forces from work of mentality to associated work of mentality, in observable or manifested kind. Everything requires mental or physical dexterity and coherence both in itself and in what is in view. Rubbish is easily made; but this is not the question. Such imagined steps are not per se retraceable, as if some sort of highway was stretched out, with component causations. It is the results that are perceptible.

As in general, causes must match consequences, or the theory is inconsequential; and hence constitute a failure mentally, imaginatively and structurally, whether that structure be logical or material.

There is always the necessity to distinguish between what CONTAINS the CONSEQUENCES of causative adequacy*3, and what USES these: the origination and the continuation, between the painting and the artist. That these are correlatives is clear; but it is managed by  intelligence and imagination, both actual and adequate. They are not mere associates, but causally connections in series. The One creates the other; and that is what is needed where specifications are to be not only energised, but qualitatively engineered, or otherwise given the necessities of their creation into being, existence. You cannot command even the components on this side or that of the domains, to dance, or their originator to do so. They must be approached where and how they are, by what has power to figure the features, and configure the structures, mental, physical,  aesthetic, moral, ethical, personal or correlative in co-operative qualities, the one to serve the other for example.

For the necessarily eternal nature of commanded and commandeered matter, into being and function, you need approach from the Eternal Being, whose thoughts (making their facilities in others means much more in the powers of Himself) unify several domains, making the diverse functional in ways complementary. But He does it at will, His and not yours, nor ours, as the DNA in its far off institution shows, and the stoppage of its observable institution now. It is as the Bible declares*4, and our own mini-parallel as people indicates, a matter of purpose and plan and  program and imagination and institution and satisfaction (or otherwise) at any given phase, and completion of a given project when the time comes. It is futile to look for Him personally as if stranded amid our universe, as if you looked for an author at some place some paragraph in a book, say especially in some dramatic context, or for an aircraft designer to be  perpetually flying. God is not to be expected hanging on a moonbeam trembling, or available as if man is coming for inspection, as a de-mentalised Russian astronaut (say USSR) apparently in type, was expecting.

Using irrational and chaotic methods will never account for what is neither. To attempt what is the maximal result from the minimal methods, the multi-generic from the monistic midgetry of kind, is a work in frustration, born of stubbornness, exquisitely contrary and far from scientific method, all but incredibly divorced from all that is causatively composed or logically aligned.

To find actuality as to advent, you need competence as to output, eternity as to time (not of our type, which is correlative of what is created, but of what creates times as an object), imagination as to infusion, power as to diffusion, conception as to mode, a spirit for desire, and endurance and so on, in a list of cohesive attributes touching all that is. It touches it creatively and brings it from nothing at will.Man may try to bring it FROM nothing, but nothing doing there, for nothing does nothing. As a domain, it does not exist! but as one brings thoughts from their own lair in originality, by the necessary means, power in the translation field, here matter, mind and spirit in the creation called man, each specifiable (cf. SMR Ch. 1), are given sanction by what is eternally able, and being self-sufficient, subject to none.


Instead, then, of inventing a (currently and so actually) unknowable something, which somehow gobbles up the admitted deficiencies of secular reductionism, as shown in the last Bulletin, and as in Darwin, Freud and Marx, which omit not only source for support  facilities, but for their integration, you need to move to the sufficiency basis. This acts, instead of a busy wharf for export from a sea which is absent, and labourers which are not there. True in all magic, means are not needed; but in all logic, they are. If these be invented means, or the inventor, it is all one in the end: it is this personal creator of mind and imagination which having the power to make them, is needed for our results, and does so AT WILL, in fact leaving His card not only in the DNA, which you can actually inspect for what its given by its unique compiler, the mind-operative-matter-detailer artist, but for His other works by other means where the speech is not seen, but its laws are operative in their field, and this MAY be found out, formulated and known, even by man on the hunt.

But as to the nothings on  their own vacant ground, authors in symbolic sites where there is no truth area from which to proclaim it, all being relative, nor anything on which to stand, there is the model of vacuity and vapidity. It must though nothing, make from non-nothing, while itself not there to do it, so that it may bring in first matter and then mind from a non-source, and then correlate the domains with nothing plus other ingredients from the nothing-bag from time to time, to build mansions of fantasy, making perhaps gradual action from nowhere God, and creator. It is marvellous what nothing can do slowly, in the fiction phases of much contemporary scientism in this field. But as to these non-builders standing on no-ground: it is sound to leave them where they do not exist to do what non-existent things may be imagined, and to get on with reality, which does exist and is able to do extant things at every level of existence, co-existence, correlation, power, model aid and grounding.

Leaving self-annulling notions, then, in favour of rational solution, you need to proceed to causative capacities with cohesive imagination back of them, that cover the case, and verifying empirically the needs of logic and origin (it has to be there from the first like the other ingredients of operation at this level, and hence mind and its rigour), proceed to account for and validate what is there. This array of data, splendour, wonder and accuracy, law and inner law is what adds depth upon depth, height upon height, beauty, duty, refinement, ideational  splendour and capacity to the scope and nature of research, as well as reminders of the follies of acting as if god, when only man. It is this that is rebuked in Ezekiel 28:9, with all due lèse-majesté to human lords  in their illicit pomp and undue circumstance! They themselves and their logic had to be born and implanted before they could even think, using will to conform, or to deform as the case may be.

 Always aspiring to what must and will happen,  man has proceeded from the days of early Greeks to now in NON-PROVISION of testable and consistently realised aetiological basis, except when he turns to the Eternal Creator, as did, in point of fact, many of the greatest scientists of all time, the most inventive.

Now there is a paralysing suspension. We are it seems,  always we are going to be shown the evidence of self-creation, if not from what is not there, then from what is, superficial as even that would be, to the point. But it never comes. Like a suspended railway, it never finds the ground. Such is the curriculum vitae of the category of scientistic propagandism, given in principle, exclusive access in most schools in many lands. Void to the realities of scientific method, apt for those who would exclude the Creator at the outset, and never recover reason, or to the last, and never cover their own need of such qualities as reason, power and discovery of legislative magnificence as found in the universe. We have even found testimony to the effect that this is the way it is going to be, even if it KILLS them, and invests the presentation with what appears ludicrous.

This, this form of idolatry is now doing on a scale which even the blind must see, and the deaf hear.


You can always invent material universes by thought, so long as you do not actually want them to come into being, but just seek fruit from a figment in your mind. It may satisfy something in some, if there is no serious thought for the quenching of the thirst or blenching of the problem; but unless you can identify both these and their source, in a logically consistent, a data-covering manner, a definable reality, all such endeavour can have nothing to do with science or with reality.

For a universe with the properties, multiple and magnificent in many dimensions, qualities and encompassments (like mankind), you need not only something from the first (thus allowing escape from having something from nothing), but something adequate not only for every feature taken separately as a brilliant excursion from the institutor of temporary existence, but for all these, and their potentials, their shuting, their issuance into a common combination, ranging from the furniture of  impersonal background to the occupancy of personal presence,  and partial manipulative capacity, in the world of thought and the domain of spirit.

  Futile is the apparent endeavour seen in the record concerning David Deutsch
(cf. Bulletin Ten), to


institute an unseen, unevidenced, unarticulated, unlocated world of his imagination,


make the discernible world of evidential data merely a part of it, and


make this concoction of knowable and unknowable all there is
(despite his felt need to expand mightily from the
impoverishing reductionism in Darwinism).

This appears a domain of physics in its simplistic and self-contradictory flurries,
thus putting a word as the type of what is outrageously past and beyond any part
of its characteristic domain, 
all known operations which give that word its meaning,

but it does have one value.

It is this.

It shows the admission of the utter inadequacy of the works of the material domain chosen - including the omission  of the spirit with which we argue, the glory of which we are aware, the wonders of life which have many more dimensions than found in surviving - which nakedly tends to incorporate existence as the ultimate benefit.

The screech of  dissatisfaction apparent in such theories, now appearing, and the related disillusion shows some alertness at last to the scope of the data with which we are acquainted, but quaintly, with this, there is renewed flexing of the muscles of conformity to make it all somehow, anyhow, part of physics, so in this case, imbibing at the fountains of fiction. Physics is a very limited domain in man, a type of furniture for action, whether that action be academic or political or philosophical or psychological or spiritual; and the worship of this world in terms of one department which has seized so many, merely ruins all pretence of  explanation and makes a kind of delusion the ultimate, as in all idolatry.

Idolatry, wilful worship of the partial or illusory, depending on the case, is now as great a destroyer of man's relation to  reality as it ever was, and to take one example, Deutsch's anguish is on the one hand, an acknowledgement of this (in its demeaning results which he rightly seems to abhor), and on the other, an illustration of the depth of the delusion that is almost as common as mankind, a partial pandemic, in that he must confine remedy to the same gruesome gullibility of ... misusing the domain of physics.

To be sure,  the SORT and DIMENSION and DEPTH and HEIGHT of existence available and directive is inseparable from the position, placement and encasement of man (what materialist does not use the dimensions of mind and the validity of logic to argue for it, in miserable mish-mash of contradictions). Ironically bypassed by the brash crash into materialism*1, this common pathway ignores the very dimensions of the logic with which it is dismissed (cf. Matter-Chatter above*1 ). Whether you want to dismiss it however by a misuse of the meaning of words, or of ideas, is a choice. What is not a choice for the godless as a category is the folly of taking something or other from the scope of things and trying to take what simply EXISTS as a full time job, and turn it into what creates it all, contrary to all empirical evidence. That is merely the additive, after the dream of having what you want somehow there to make itself  ('nature' is usual) before it is there to do it. Indeed,  having it there is the problem, not the solution. This self-contradiction involves double-barrelled idolatry and irrationalism.

This is simple wilfulness, and like other wilfulnesses, has trouble when it clashes with reality. If you want to deny the necessary, there is no other option. The case is sharp, clear and insoluble by exotic substitutes, toying with words or using the logic that establishes in theory, while denying its operation in reality.

Let us then return to the kind of position expressed concerning Deutsch. Thus this particular clash, which cannot be disguised and almost appears a confession, is certainly an indication of the RESULT of materialism, whatever its mode. It is a warning which may be aborted or contorted, as appears here, but one which remains after the commotion is over. The facts always do, in all their amplitude.

So that is one advantage of any partial realisation that current trends have long been exercises in the simplistic, the exclusive, the idolatrous and the fact-dismissive (cf. The gods of naturalism have no go!). It tends to wake up, and to illustrate the folly in some details.

Again, the broader the domain donated to physics, the more what is not physics is emphasised, and the vaster the need for provision from what laid down these characterisable features found in our world. The verbal confusion and distortion shows the depth of the pressure to awaken to reality and forget the surreal world of illusion. This in passing tends to sharpen for some the awareness of what is missing in current philosophic-materialistic biology, such as Lewontin exposes so directly.

Since neither matter nor nature nor anything else that is NOT self-sufficient and eternal (the only adequate logical basis for non-nothing such as we have) can create all that is. even before it is there to do so, leaving nullity as the contra-factual necessity, you need vocabulary to designate the distinctive Being who IS. You could call it the hyper-natural, the supernatural or the ultra-natural, but the more direct name is God, and the rational identification is as found in the Bible*4 and in Jesus Christ (cf. SMR, That Magnificent Rock). History contains nothing remotely comparable either in content nor in attestation to Jesus the Christ, for God has not forsaken the world He so laboured to create; nor the Bible in written form, for it foretells its ways in words.





See for example Lord of Longsuffering Ch. 2, *2). A love of an empty philosophy (cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7



See Dr. J. Sanford, in his Genetic Entropy, e.g. pp. 131-156. The multi-gene, jointly moulded provisions for certain types of response to environment are an increasingly fascinating line of study and research. In this, more and more reports come of the artfully contrived and slowly exposed secrets of operational unity in activating prepared segments within a specimen, to act functionally at need.



See for example SMR Chs. 1 and   3, and   5, with Predestination  and Freewill thesis, Section 4.


See for example, SMR, That Magnificent Rock, The Magnificence of the Messiah.