Validating the Proof
Home Up Site Map

Certainty Defined


ver the last 8 years some 700 of the world's finest scholars received a "formal" request to review the logical construct that you're about to consider [see Reviewers].  This was done in order to identify and resolve all legitimate concerns, capable of being voiced by credible authority, prior to the introduction of this material to the general public.  The reason for this thoroughness should become self evident, once the enormous implications inherent in this construct finally sink in.

Many authorities responded enthusiastically.  Others did so begrudgingly.  The rest chose to circumvent this issue by remaining silent -- in spite of repeated attempts to engage them.  The exchange with participants was both intense and productive.  It also confirmed that no one was able to find a way to invalidate this construct.  This caused many authorities to endorse it.  Given the results of this Herculean task a claim to valid "proof" for this construct is now justified.  Hence, it is being made.

The 'proof' that you are about to consider marks the end of an age old quest to find the missing link that allows for a coherent representation of human understanding.  With its emergence, we are now able to visualize the true relationship between the universal and particulate forms of unity -- i.e. quality and quantity, or the ideal and the real.  In addition, because it promotes a representation of the Ultimacy of reason's function, it cannot be denied without invoking self-denial.  Since nothing more fundamental to human understanding can or does exist, this construct stands as a moral /ethical imperative of the absolute highest order.

To Summarize:  'Foundational theory' promotes a succession of ideas that cannot be logically denied.  It does this by exploiting the logical link that makes possible the recognition of our own existence.  Since the idea of the greater self is the inherent qualifier of all forms of the lesser self, all claims to existence made by us simultaneously confirm Ultimacy's existence -- albeit the existence of a Deity as It finds cause to be manifested within time.




onsistent with including all recognized authority in the validation process, MENSA (USA) was "formally" challenged to try an invalidate this construct in June of 1996. For those who do not know what MENSA is, it is a collection of high IQ individuals that comprise the top two percent of the population.  Given its claim to "collective genius" the request I made of them was more than appropriate.  After nine months of negotiation an agreement was finally reached to disseminate this proof to their 55,000 members in March of 1997.  Then, without prior notification or reason, officials within MENSA went back on their word.  Calls to senior officials, including the chairman of their board, yielded no explanation.  Instead, he justified the action as being one of "prerogative."

Hoping to circumvent national irresponsibility, I submitted the same challenge to MENSA International.  Included were copies of all my prior correspondence with their US affiliate.  Ashamedly, they too backed down without reason.  So nineteen months and 21 pieces of correspondence later, the genius of MENSA has yet to have the opportunity to address the 'formal' challenge extended to them.  This is a sad commentary on their "intellectual superiority;" when by association, they allows themselves to become publicly discredited by officials that supposedly represent them.  Hopefully the more insightful within MENSA will eventually rectify this situation and act accordingly.  Until then my challenge stands.




recap: Human thought necessarily promotes the existence of an 'ordered unknowable' that cannot be denied without invoking self denial.  It is this idea, of an 'ordered unknowable,' which is fundamental to all Deity concepts. 

So, by demonstrating 'certainty' in the form of a logically undeniable construct, we gain an understandable definition for Ultimacy that simultaneously proves our necessity to recognize Its existence.  In addition, by defining the constraints of relative knowing -- a by-product of this exercise -- we now have a way to qualify the meaning of truth.  This is something without which we would remain forever ignorant of the meaning and purpose of life; since we would have no way to consciously construct an approach to self-justification without awareness of the necessity that truth implies.

Also, in the process of confirming that Deity must exist for us, this proof inadvertently qualifies the nature of our shared reality (with It) within the field of knowing.  By so doing, it gives us a meaningful tool by which to anticipate the future.  Thus we can and do know that Deity's next affect /effect upon the world of 'time' is imminent and logically inevitable.  It became inevitable when existing knowledge first exceeded our temporal ability to qualify its purpose relative to ourselves.  This in turn destined us to a divisiveness that necessarily obstructs our ability to realize unity.

Coupled with the sophistication of existing technique, current knowledge now threatens the existence of all sentient life on earth.  Unable to control our own destiny, it necessarily reverts to the foundational dynamics that provided for its arising.  In the process of reassuming dominance, these dynamics are inherently unforgiving.

So by quantifying knowledge past the point where it is capable of sustaining the difference between diametrically opposed forms of self, we inadvertently activated the primal movement of Ultimacy.  In other words, by violating ourselves to excess, we have now become guilty of inevitably and incontestably violating the ultimate form of self -- or Deity.  This in turn causes the grounds for judgment to arise simultaneously within both Deity and self; thus preventing them and the necessity they demand from being contested by either.

Back to Top