The Gödel Point and Nihilism of Stanley Rosen
Section IV.1 of II.1 ("Coming to Terms with Childhood"). Where we decide if we will undergo "negation/sublation" or "effacement."
In (Re)constructing “A Is A,” there is an essay titled “The Gödel Point,” and what we can say is that history is reaching its “Gödel Point” (at “The End of True History”) where the ultimate insufficiency of A/A (as a “map”) is being unveiled. To borrow a section from that paper to help explain:
“The Gödel Point” is where we are “pinned down” between “the map” and “the territory,” “the rational” and “the truth.” This point is found where “autonomous rationality” and/or “complete coherence” is located and examined, for otherwise we cannot identify the difference with confidence between a spot where simply more reasoning is needed and a spot that is “essentially incomplete” because “maps” cannot be “territories.” It is where we realize “Gödel Points” are features of rationality not lacks of rationality, but that means to successfully identify a “Gödel Point” (with confidence, thus removing possible rationalization against it to existentially secure ourselves), we have to “fill in” all spots lacking rationality that don’t have to so lack it (in other words, we must complete “The Philosophical Journey,” as descried in “Deconstructing Common Life” by O.G. Rose). Until we finish “the philosophical journey,” we will always have “reason to think” that an area of incompleteness in our “map” can in fact be completed if we only we found the right information, right ideas, and so on. To really personally and fully experience a “Gödel Point” as a “Gödel Point,” we must go all the way. And knowing ahead of time that what awaits us is a Gödel Point might make it difficult for us to advance, but we must — hopefully the knowledge just makes clear to us what we must do when we get there—“The Absolute Choice.”
All systems must ultimately prove incomplete, which basically means that “no map can be its territory,” and it is precisely at the point where “the map” is unveiled not to be “the territory” that we find the human standing with all his/her pathos, logos, and mythos — naked. The human subject is why all systems are ultimately incomplete, which means what happens to the system is ultimately up to the human (“a flip moment”). So, if the human chooses to seek A/B and “Absolute Knowing,” the “essentially incomplete system” can practically (“as long as the human so practices it”) be “(in)complete,” which means the system or community “finds completeness in incompleteness,” a Hegelian state (of “belonging in not belonging”). “The Gödel Point” is where Affliction is unveiled as open and Affliction is most enraged and strikes hardest, but if we survive through negation/sublation — an opening.
“The Gödel Point” in which the human subject stands is precisely where we decide if the system or community is “hellish” or “heavenly” (it is where “subject and system” encounter the “/” to (perhaps) be subject/system). Same system, as God can be Heaven/Hell based on the relation, but based on what we do and become in this Purgatory (this place/point of Hegel’s “Phenomenological Journey”), everything is defined and changed accordingly (and will seem as if it “always already” such, which is the strangeness of “flip moments”). This hints at the wisdom of Alex Ebert’s thinking on death and relations, because if in “The Gödel Point” we fail to accept death and prioritize the individual over relations (A/A), both “the map” and “the territory” will become cancerous and exclusive, which is to say we will die alone. The only way to make death good is to accept it, for the living to die alive (A/B).
Another way to put this is that “The Gödel Point” is where we decide if we will undergo “negation/sublation” or “effacement” (as described in “Negation Versus Effacement” by O.G. Rose). “The Gödel Point” can be our opening into Absolute Communities or the beginning of our effacement if we do not design mechanisms for dealing with pathos at scale and/or spreading conditions which can incubate and “spread Childhood.” Both with the “loss of givens” and approaching the Technological Singularity, we face the Gödel Point, which forces upon us a choice: Is “groundlessness” empty or apophatic? This the Final Absolute Choice, and the Child chooses the apophatic. Can the majority be a Child? To ask this is to ask, “How do we break out of Affliction?” How might we leave Plato’s Cave on our own? We must be “toward” that which cannot be “captured” by Affliction, and that would be something “lacking” and “apophatic,” which is what we can “Absolutely Choose” a Gödel Point to unveil. If the world is accelerating toward a Technology Singularity, and if the world is losing “givens” due to Pluralism, this would mean we are at a historic moment where the majority are increasingly being faced to face “The Gödel Point,” which would suggest the majority will be forced to make “The Final Absolute Choice” (one way or another). This is easily an opportunity for “Childhood to spread,” but it’s contingent on the majority not pathologically reacting to Gödel Points. Precisely not reacting this way is a characteristic of a Child, which begs a question: Must we be Children before we encounter Gödel Points or can the encounter so change us? It is possible the encounter would so change us, and this would suggest a more “self-correcting model,” and indeed Hegel teaches that what history needs to negate/sublate itself often lies in “the implicit” and become “explicit” precisely when so needed (as I have spoken with Dr. Filip Niklas about in Ep #77). This is possible and hopefully is the case; however, there is also room to read contingency into Hegel, that it is not necessarily given that we will prove able to negate/sublate our historic moment. Furthermore, if this problem “takes care of itself” and we’ve learned to better “spread Childhood,” even though it might seem we’ve wasted our time, I would argue that “being a Child” opens up a higher quality of life, for one because it entails “intrinsic motivation,” which for me is easily the meaning of life (for if we are intrinsically motivated life has meaning). We also move beyond Affliction into Attention, which means we move beyond self-effacement. In this way, even if the problem “takes care of itself,” we will still have acted well to “spread Childhood.”
Gödel Points are points where we must face a “nothingness” that’s meaning we must “Absolutely Choose,” and on this point we can consider Nihilism by Stanley Rosen, (who I’m glad Guy Sengstock brought to my attention). Rosen wrote:
‘Nietzsche defines nihilism as the situation which obtains when ‘everything is permitted.’ If everything is permitted, then it makes no difference what we do, and so nothing is worth anything. We can, of course, attribute value by an act of arbitrary resolution, but such an act proceeds ex nihilo or defines its significance by a spontaneous assertion which can be negated with equal justification.’⁹²
Doesn’t this negate the possibility of a Child? On rational grounds, absolutely (which is a reason why Affliction (A/A) is so powerful), hence the necessity of nonrationality (Attention, A/B), and furthermore this description is precisely why Childhood cannot be bestowed (say by rationality, practicality — anything). Childhood must be an Absolute Choice, and a choice which is itself and only itself, upheld by the act of choosing and “(be)coming” itself. This is radical and strange and only possible where nihilism is the case, and if there is something about this choice which makes possible perhaps “the highest way of life,” then it is a blessing. Is “lack” a blessing? Perhaps.
Rosen will discuss the “language games” of Wittgenstein and consider silence, which ‘in the context of nihilism, the various forms of silence reduce finally to just one form, or rather to formlessness.’⁹³ Silence then “points toward” the ultimately “groundlessness of being,” and yet silence is also what makes possible the speech which infringes it. That said, ‘[s]ince silence is rendered articulate by speech, and receives its formal diversification from the reflexive shaping of discursive consciousness, it loses this articulateness when treated as the source of significance.’⁹⁴ What does this mean? Silence only has meaning as “pointing toward ultimately groundlessness” because we speak about it, which means we understand silence by losing it, in the same way that we can be “toward” nihilism precisely because we have be-ing. There is a paradox here, similar to how in Hegel we need Understanding (A/A) to move into Reason (A/B), and yet Understanding threatens Reason. The possibility of nihilism then possibly opening us up to “highest being” is only present because we exist in a “state of being” which seems to suggest that nihilism is false (for there’s something instead of nothing); furthermore, we exist in a natural state that, when we first encounter nihilism, naturally orientates us to internet “groundlessness” as evidence of “pure nothingness” versus something “lacking” and apophatic. We seem arranged to fail, but this is only “seemingly” the case because there is no way for us to exist in the first place (with the possibility of advancing into Childhood), without us starting in Understanding, (the possibility of) Affliction, A/A, and the like. To exist we must be at risk (there can only be value where there is risk, after all).
Rosen sets out to defend reason and clarify why we don’t have to choose between “nihilism” and “reason,” which is one of the reasons he critiques the idea that truth is found in pure silence (if that was true, there would be nothing to reason about). Absurdism is often associated with nihilism, and Rosen would like to break that association, as would I, and I also support Rosen’s defense of reason, for his is not an “autonomous rationality” but a practice which dialectically relates “rationality and nonrationality” (his defense is A/B not A/A). Furthermore, as Rosen wants to connect nihilism and reason, he also wants to make clear that what has traditionally been considered a “transcendent” like goodness, beauty, or truth are not outside the realm or access of reason — (thinking this is one of the reasons we have fallen into the mistake of connecting “nihilism” and “absurdism”). ‘The link between modern rationalism and historicism lies ultimately in the separation between ‘reasonable’ and ‘good,’ Rosen writes. ‘Thanks largely to the combined influence of mathematics and Christianity (in a positive and negative sense), the good was said to lie beyond the domain of the rational investigation of this world.’⁹⁵ This has been a terrible and arguably Kantian mistake (contributing to break between “The Truth” and “The Absolute,” as Cadell and I have discussed), leading to a “bracketing out” of the subject from the world, leading to problematic philosophy and a lack of preparation for the Singularity which awaits us. This move also contributes to “silence,” for we have “silenced the subject,” and though silence has a role, its role is dialectical not autonomous.
‘One does not defend reason by refusing to speak of the unreasonable; neither does one defend it by refusing to speak of reason. The fashionable contemporary defense of reason amounts to silence.’⁹⁶ This will not suffice, for we must speak around “silence,” as we see modeled in Dialogos, Circling, and Cyphers; simply being silent will not move us into preparation or Childhood. Rosen here does not ‘presume[] to ‘solve’ the problem of nihilism’ in his work, ‘if by a solution is meant a recipe for extirpating the unwanted phenomenon. Nihilism, to repeat, is a perennial human danger: it cannot be ‘solved’ without the dissolution of human nature.’⁹⁷ I completely agree, and as Michelle and I spoke with the LFMI about (Ep #135), it is precisely “lack” which makes us human (and possibly toward the ever-creative apophatic). To remove the threat of “bad nihilism” (A/A) would be to remove the possibility of “new life” (A/B); to be free of Affliction would be to lose the possibility of Attention. Our situation is one that needs management not erasure.
Rosen proceeds after his tremendous opening to critique “ordinary language philosophy,” the notion that ‘[w]hat counts as correct philosophical procedure is […] justified by recourse to the normative function of ordinary language,’ a notion which can ultimately set philosophy to problematically end up in “pure silence.”⁹⁸ This take on philosophy suggests that, ‘however much talk has been generated by the ‘doing of philosophy,’ philosophy has not genuinely appeared or transpired. We are at bottom totally silent, mere farceurs or satirists of sobriety.’⁹⁹ And so the road has been paved toward a Neo-Pragmaticism of a Richard Rorty or mystical knowing that remains in silence: the role of philosophy (and even theology) becomes questionable and even irrelevant. Rosen seems to have sensed this and thus ‘object[ed] to the polemical aspects of ordinary language philosophy [and/or] their attacks upon ‘metaphysics’ and ‘traditional philosophy,’ ’ an effort I strongly support.¹⁰⁰ As such, “ordinary language philosophy” has contributed to us not preparing ourselves for Gödel Points and falling deeper into self-effacement: our supposed liberation from philosophy was us stepping away from the resources of Attention and Childhood and locking ourselves inside Affliction as Last Men. Certain. Silent.
‘The language game is the source of Being, i.e. the source of meaning. And man, the speaking animal, is the source of the language game.’¹⁰¹ Yes, and speaking is necessary for philosophy, but we cannot reduce philosophy to mere speaking — that is the error. The subject of philosophy is ultimately nihilism and “groundlessness,” but it doesn’t follow from this that nihilism is proof of “mere nothingness.” Nihilism could be Apophatic Mystery (“lack” could be a blessing”): ‘[i]t is more than possible to maintain that nihilism arises not from the absence of truth, but from its tedious presence.’¹⁰² If this is so though, since we naturally and necessarily exist as “beings of Understanding” (A/A) (to start, at least), we find ourselves necessarily facing paradoxes (‘[m]an preserves his humanity by speech,’ for example, ‘yet in speaking, he destroys it’).¹⁰³ Rosen tells us that ‘desire is the desire for speech,’ for speech is needed for a Cypher in which the Mystery desire seeks can be realized (as we’ll discuss), ‘but speech [also] ‘alienates’ us from our desires.’¹⁰⁴ How do we navigate this tension? Well, it would take philosophy to find out and practice our lives accordingly.
Bringing Hegel’s fascination with tautologies to mind, Rosen also makes the point that ‘perhaps we are mistaken in assuming that (A = A) = A. Does not the left-hand side of the equation actually say more than the right-hand side?’¹⁰⁵ Tautologies were discussed in “How Do Humans Solve Problems and There Still Be Mysteries?” by O.G. Rose, inspired by my talks with Dr. Filip Niklas, and the idea there is that, in reality, there really is no “equal to” only “like” (a point which also brings the work of Alex Ebert to mind, found in Enter the Alien from Philosophy Portal). To speak of something changes it, and even if we say, “A is A,” the second “A” is different in quality to us because it came after the first. But the “to us” is central and entails the subject which Modern Philosophy has “bracketed out,” and so it becomes natural to think that only “equal to” is possible in this world. Hence, philosophy becomes “equal to” speaking, and nihilism is “equal to” mere nothingness. Speaking and orientation change nothing. “Equal to” is “end of.”
If speaking doesn’t participate in being, only represent it, then it would seem that nothing can be done about nothing: we can represent what nothing lets us represent, but that’s it; there is no hope of “participating in” or “accessing more” Apophatic Mystery. Speech that is ordinary becomes all there is; philosophical speech accomplishes nothing other than what ordinary speech can accomplish (that’s the “end of” that). But if this is so, our argument has been that we are stuck in Affliction, and doesn’t the existence of neurodivergence and mentidivergence suggest that thinking can at least be different? Even if it was true that the only possible speech was “ordinary speech” (which I don’t believe), it wouldn’t follow that only “ordinary thought” was possible — in fact, that would risk discriminating against neurodivergence in favor of the neurotypical (perhaps dooming us to “the suboptimal results” of Nash Equilibria).
For Hegel (and I think Rosen agrees), things we speak about can “gather in them” what we say about them. For Hegel, if we say that “a cat is an animal,” then what we mean by “cat” is not the same then had we never spoken. The moment we finish speaking, it “seems like” nothing has changed, but indeed nothing has changed (nothing has enough being to change). Little by little, we gain more of the “everything that is permitted” in our failures to access everything. Failure is the way, hence why fearing error is fearing truth for Hegel, but for some reason we have often instead interpreted failure as evidence of “going the wrong way.” Yes, perhaps because it simply seems to follow (A/A), but we might also have subconscious incentive to avoid failure, because failure can be a Gödel Point in which we encounter Lacan’s “The Real.” If nihilism is evidence that philosophy has failed, then we can be finished with philosophy as opposed to take it deeper with the guarantee of failure, which is practically a guarantee of encountering “The Real.” Perhaps we want philosophy to just be “a language game” so that we can avoid “The Real” while telling ourselves that we are just being rational and practical (as Affliction and Discourse would have it) — but this game of self-deception seems to be historically coming to an end. Realty will not allow us to avoid “The Real” forever. It’s coming. Are we prepared or still clinging to our plans to “plan the Real away?” If we can avoid this temptation, we might prove Real-facing subjects who could “universally birth.”
A final consideration though presents itself: if nihilism is true and “everything is permitted,” why can I feel guilt? Why can it “just feel wrong” to spit at someone? Why is it I can “just sense” when someone said something true? Why is it I can “sense fields” or just tell that a conversation is entering a “flow space?” There are things which seem “invisible” that are in operation and organize our action even though everything is permitted. How? It all could be a trick of our minds, acts of self-deception, but this is up to us to choose and decide (“The Absolute Choice”). It could be evidence of a Meta-Structure which reality manifests in and with that isn’t “Totally Other” from reality and yet not reducible to reality as we experience it all the same. If there is a noumena, it is part of us.
Everything is permitted which is permittable, and the more we “diligently fail” the more that can be permitted. There seems to be a meta-structure in nothingness, suggests an Apophatic Mystery we can “orbit” like a (“form-ulating”) Cypher (that if we love we can do what we want, to allude to Augustine). This meta-structure seems to be something we can “butt-up against” here and there (in beauty, in Dialogos, in creativity…), and then it is up to us to choose if this “butting-up against” is an illusion or “pointing toward” Something More. Again, this is “The Final Absolute Choice,” and I would note here something exchanged between Ryan Sprague and Jacob Kishere (on SENSESPACE, Ep #37), regarding how “knowing the answer ahead of time” can help us keep going in the word, for we “know there is an answer” and hence can keep heart. I think this beautifully describes the relationship mysticism is supposed to have with philosophy and theology: mysticism unveils that there “is an answer” to inquiry, and hence that there is reason to keep going. Likewise, if we “Absolutely Choose” to interpret “lack” as an Apophatic Mystery, this can give us motivation and hope to keep doing the work of being human. Might we be self-deceived and deluded? Yes, but it is precisely that risk which might make the work meaningful and noble.
If “everything is permitted” but there is something we cannot say or something we cannot do, there is “reason to think” there is some meta-structure keeping us from speaking or acting. Since nothing is everywhere, then this realization can occur anywhere, including within Plato’s Cave. A Child approaches nihilism as Rosen encourages, and it is possible for someone in Plato’s Cave to turn toward nothingness in the way Rosen discusses and, in that nothingness, see reason to “leave the Cave on their own.” Nihilism makes “everything permittable,” and that would include “leaving Plato’s Cave on our own” — but that would also include us staying within Plato’s Cave forever. This is central: nihilism as Rosen discusses makes possible both endless Affliction (A/A, Discourse) and endless Attention (A/B, Rhetoric). We “always already” have what we need to do either (nothingness), so shall we, this day, choose life? If this choice can always be made, hope isn’t naïve. Where there is nothingness, there is hope. We might be a “rive-hole” or a “white box” anywhere and everywhere—a point which leads us to Systems & Subjects by Cadell Last.
.
.
.
Notes
⁹²Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: xiii.
⁹³Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: xiii.
⁹⁴Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: xiii.
⁹⁵Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: xv.
⁹⁶Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: xvii.
⁹⁷Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: xx.
⁹⁸Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 2.
⁹⁹Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 3.
¹⁰⁰Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 4.
¹⁰¹Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 10.
¹⁰²Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 198.
¹⁰³Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 231.
¹⁰⁴Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 211–212.
¹⁰⁵Rosen, Stanley. Nihilism. New Haven. Yale University Press, 1969: 34.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.