Skip to content

Tag: Musings

War.

Published on April 14, 2026

What is a war? It seems to be that in which transpires due to a lack of will to communicate, despite possessing a present capacity to do so. It also seems to be the imposition of will from one party on the other, with the use of violent force to realize some mission contingent condition and bring it to actuality. Irrational animals fight all the time in competition seeking dominance over another for territory, mating, food, etc. No one seems to think anything that is contrary to nature is happening when witnessing two Lions fighting. However, can the same be said of mankind to partake in these irrational casus belli? It is incredibly tragic, and a demonstration of an unwillingness to be rational, and reasonable in dealing with fellow human beings. It is a distortion of what we are called to be. If misunderstandings happen then humility, communication, clarification, and negotiations are the answer to living in harmony with others. Harmony does not mean the absolute extinction of one party by the other: but simply respecting, and coexisting, in opposition while acknowledging the differences between us. To deny this, or to insist on dominating, or annihilating, another party by force seems to be an act of evil. A just war then, is fought against the party that is totally unwilling to communicate at all, and has no ears to hear, but a bloodlust to bring destruction upon all. It is this adversary which must be stopped for the sake of maintaining peace and the common good will of all. Therefore, peace then, must be that in which any opposition is held in harmony, respect, and constant communication. This peace, in a polarized, volatile, and high-speed world, seems incredibly fragile to keep.

EAR

Image.

Published on February 27, 2026

What is an image? It seems to me to be that composite oneness in which signifies or is assumed by the substance of what is. The image in which a tree assumes, simply exists, and so it is. The cat, which is irrational, animated, and moving is perceiving other images but not concerned with its own.

Why then, is rational Man concerned with his own image? Perhaps it is because of his rationality, and him having the capacity to be aware that the image staring back at him in the mirror, is actually him. It seems then, this gift of self awareness, to know oneself, and being conscience, can also be a trap. For, is it not unreasonable, to assert that the more a man looks at his own image, his entire world becomes fixated upon that image, which signifies himself? Thus, the motions in which he starts, begin to revolve around that image: decisions, thoughts, affections, inspirations, schemes, plans, anxieties, etc. It seems to me, that without realizing it, a man’s whole metaphysical perception, and understanding, becomes self-centered, because of the enamoring one suddenly develops in the act of being concerned with one’s own image. This must be vanity. Now multiply that by years and years of habitual ‘self-checking’ as it were, and you end up with a shallow man, whose whole ontological understanding is literally skin-deep.

On the contrary, assume now that this same man were to crucify this vain habit, and began to look outward, at the images before him. Of the created images of nature, of the irrational beasts, and other rational Men made in the image of God. It seems obvious to me, that taking one’s attention off oneself, and placing it outward, in exitus, is necessary for charity. If one’s perception is self-less, then the questions seems to change to: “How can I serve these other images I see? How can I help them?”

Therefore, looking less in the mirror, seems to heal the ego, and kindle a fire of charity, while being guarded by the watchful vigilance of humility in self-abasement. Starting with avoiding unnecessary and habitual “self-checking”.

EAR

Necessarily.

Published on February 24, 2026

I wondered at why a conclusion must be necessary if a necessary universal premise is present in a particular syllogism. It seems that the answer, according to my investigation with the tutor, is because the universal seems to fix what is true, and the particular draws from it. I found this to be very interesting to meditate on. I.e. if we can affirm what is true of things universally, then there must be something that is, or is not apparent with one of the extremes. So, assuming the term logic is coherent, and the figure of the syllogism is sound, it seems that we have the key to investigate the relationships of the middle to the extreme, or the extremes to each other. To be honest, I hope we do more exercises of this to make this sink in. I’m now seeing that we must track: the predication logic of the terms, the structure of the syllogism, the positioning of the middle, the ontological mode being asserted, and the type of opposition being used in the premises. 

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book 1, Chapter 9.

Perseverance.

Published on February 19, 2026

What is perseverance? It must be that in which one accepts what is, what was, and what will be. This acceptance seems to be predicated on trust, but in what? Trust in oneself, or trust in the One who made you able to trust? That is an interesting question. I suppose if one must trust in himself, then an ego, by necessity has to project an image in which it can cling to in order to subsist at all. For what is it to say: “I am nothing, therefore I know not”, rather than: “I am X, therefore all things subject to and predicated of X, I am and know of”. That seems reasonable but perhaps it is not, for X surely cannot define you or me. So, if we invest ourselves as if we are the substance in which X derives from, then we must be deceiving ourselves to believe that we are where X begins and where it stops. This must be the root of pride then, that it is the fragile state of putting one’s essence as being that in which is assumed, such as X. So then, can this persevere? Perhaps for a time, until it is severely tested, and by ‘tested’, I mean when it is existentially proven false, and unable to handle severity in truth.

EAR

Silence.

Published on February 9, 2026

Silence does not equal approval. To assert otherwise is false, an equivocation, and a logical fallacy. To assert such, seems to conceal a deceptive and desperate desire to survive at the cost of one’s neighbor. It is as if to say: “I will fall, but you will fall with me”. Such absurdities should be called out for what they are and not be conformed to. The defense seems to be to object and not grant such an assertion. For the moment we grant such a fallacious lie, we give power to someone else to assert over us. As if the sophist has the power to define things as being contrary to what they are, what they signify, and how we understand them. Silence is not affirmation, or negation, it is neither. If it is neither than how can it be of necessity, actuality, or potency? Silence is nothing, neither what is not, nor not what is. Therefore, it must be humility, the immoveable essence from which all things derive. To enter into silence, is to enter into the timeless and humiliating place of nothing. For from nothing everything came to be, because God spoke. So, silence is not approval, or privation; if it were either, then there would be no need of the Truth. And what kind of reality is that? Absurd.

EAR

Privation ≠ Demonstration.

Published on February 7, 2026

In my studies this week, I was stuck on the following passage from Aristotle: “In other things, therefore, it is demonstrated after the same manner through conversion, that the conclusion is necessary, just as in existing or being present with a thing.” I wrestled with its meaning, or rather what its point was. After re-reading the chapter, and after many dialectical sessions with the tutor, a workable interpretation came to the surface of my mind.

I noticed that in the prior passage Aristotle is speaking of privations: “For a privative assertion is in a similar manner converted, and we similarly assign to be in the whole of a thing, and to be predicated of every.” The more I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion that a confirmation of what something is not, could not be a certain demonstration of what that very same thing is. E.g. the propositions ‘no B is A’, and ‘no A is B’, co-witness a universal privation that both A and B are not each other. However, we have not ascertained what A and B are. On the other hand, the first figure syllogism Barbara demonstrates what A and B are: viz. ‘every B is A’, and ‘some A is B’ post-conversion. 

Therefore, in my notes, I wrote the following to summarize this passage: “What is affirmatively necessary, conclusively, is demonstrated by conversions.”

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book 1, Chapter 8.

Reductio.

Published on January 28, 2026

I have learned and now know how to properly do the reductio ad absurdum to valid syllogisms. Even though, I think what I learned was perhaps too far outside the scope of this chapter. During my study, I saw there was a sharp distinction being drawn by Aristotle between ‘demonstrations’ and ‘demonstrating through the impossible’. For some reason, I sensed that I needed to fully understand what these actually meant, before proceeding any further. What ensued was a confusing week in figuring out what exactly I was looking at.

The principles seemed straight forward at first: assume the opposite conclusion, convert the premises if needed, and compare with original syllogism. It seemed easy enough to execute. So, with that in mind I began to write out, and chart different reductio examples from different valid syllogisms. The problem is that I did not realize that the reductio syllogism was structurally inverted. Meaning, that the opposite conclusion was now the new major premise, thus flipping the original order of the premises. I assumed that the premises of reductio syllogism kept the same sequence, but with the opposite conclusion being different. Also, my understanding of what direction the reductio would lead us was completely flawed. I mistakenly thought the reductio would lead us in the direction of imperfection, not back to the perfection of the 1st figure. Lastly, I was not aware that the lesser extreme in the valid syllogism becomes the middle term in the reductio.

All of these things were unbelievably dense, difficult, and confusing to sort out. However, I think I’ve learned a very valuable tool and intellectually grown from the labor I put into it.

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book 1, Chapter 7.

Devotion II

Published on January 19, 2026

Devotion, discipline, habit: these seem to be choices. Choices that are possible, choices that are difficult, choices that are formative. Time is not on our side. The clock ticks, and everything is in motion. This is not a weekly or daily choice. No, this is an hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second war for order, and assuming control over oneself. If the grace is lacking, then the intellect must make up for it, and in sheer cooperation of the will must seize the moment.

Distractions must be eliminated; total presence and full attention must be given. We must wake up, stop slouching around like a bunch of dead husks. Reason must be trained, numerical wisdom must be sought, meditations must be vividly intense, the Sacraments must be frequent, the devil squashed by the Rosary, and time must be consecrated by the Liturgy of the Hours.

These things must be necessary for our souls. We cannot do this alone, we need help, and prayers.

Deus, gratiam tuam nobis necessariam esse sentimus; adiuva nos ut tibi devotamur et ita perseveremus.

EAR

Distractions.

Published on January 18, 2026

Distractions are like flies: annoying, persistent, burdensome, meddling, pestering, and should not assume priority to anyone, or anything. What is necessary, seems to be an aggressive prioritization of what is essential to the moment, and in the long run. Everything posterior to this must be deemed unnecessary. These distractions seem to actualize during meaningful pursuits of Wisdom. It then behooves the professional student to squash these distractions and not be flexible to concede precious time to these useless, inefficient, instances of urgency, obligation, and need for something, or someone else, at the student’s expense.

Time is not something we can get back, so it must be guarded, and utilized, every second to the absolute fullest. To not do so means we must not be serious in our pursuit of freedom through Wisdom.

EAR

Vocation.

Published on January 17, 2026

What do I want? To study, for the sake of Wisdom, that I may enjoy: freedom, less cognitive overload, peace of mind, confidence, substance, and connections with the Saints, Doctors, and wise men who walked the same path before me. I pray this may be actualized, and I will fight for every minute to bring it into reality. I trust that God will figure out the details. What I know now, is that I am not wise, but a fool, and I wish to change this. I desire with all my soul, mind, power, and heart to change this.

Whatever I do, I take extremely seriously. Whatever I put my mind to, I go in 100%. The problem with me has been, that I have never known, in what direction, or path may lead me to freedom. I now know, and have discovered, that it is in private, consistent, relentless studying of the Classical Liberal Arts. The crucible of the professional certification I attained last year humiliated me; yet opened my eyes to the path that needed to be walked.

So, I am walking it. God will sort out the rest of it. Even if I die tomorrow, I was free.

Liber eram.

EAR.