The Connection Between Existence and Reality

I. The Kantian Conception: Its Origin in Ancient and Medieval Philosophy and Its Modern Critics
Existence is presence. Primarily, in space and time, whether physical or mental (because there is such a thing as “mental space”). In modern configuration, we say, spatio-temporal presence. In this sense, existence is thus both perceptually and conceptually determined. This is the basic foundation of Kant’s notion in his Critique of Pure Reason that existence may not be a predicate to come up with a meaningful statement; only a tautology which technically functions for logical purposes in the formal sense. As such, “existence” is not a property that may be added to expound the concept of a subject. In other words, the statement “Madrid, Spain exists” is a tautology and hence meaningless in the Kantian signification because “existence” in relation to Madrid, Spain is an inherent and therefore a presupposed condition of the latter. So that, when we say “Madrid, Spain,” it automatically imposes in consciousness the idea of Madrid, Spain’s existence.
Ages before Kant, this framework had already been established and assumed in the ontological formulations of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas:
. . . It is deemed significant at this point to consider the meanings of certain key concepts like “something” and “existence” which are actually constituents of classical philosophical problematizations that go back to the pre-modern periods and more critically analyzed particularly by Aristotle (during the ancient period) and Thomas Aquinas (during the medieval period) and their disciples as well who unanimously held that existence is a condition and NOT a property of something´s—i.e., an object´s—being. (1)
Being a condition and not a property, existence cannot, therefore, be a predicate.
This epistemological layout–without considering the ontological backdrop in the Kantian approach–was however questioned by two prominent philosophers: the British Wittgensteinian philosopher David Pears (8 August 1921 – 1 July 2009) and the American Philosophy professor William Payne Alston (November 29, 1921 – September 13, 2009):
According to Kant, existence is not a real predicate, that is, ‘a predicate which is added to the concept of a subject and enlarges it’; and modern philosophical analysis would seem to support Kant’s view. One argument to show that existence is not a predicate is the following. In order to predicate something of X, it must be presupposed that X exists. So, if ‘exists’ is a predicate, then for example, ‘Tame tigers exist’ will be tautologous and ‘No tame tigers exist’ will be self-contradictory, but since neither of these is the case, ‘exists’ cannot be a predicate.
It has been suggested that there are cases where ‘exists’ does function as a predicate. Mr David Pears, for example, thinks that ‘exists’ is a predicate when the subject (which is presupposed to exist at one time) is said to exist at another time (for example ‘Euston Arch no longer exists’) or when existence is presupposed in one world and asserted in another (for example, ‘The house I dreamt about really exists’). Professor W. P. Alston also argues for different kinds of existence: existence in the real world, existence in fiction, existence in imagination, and so on. Although it might be said that other modes of existence depend on real existence, I am inclined to think, although I do not want to argue for it here, that there is some point in distinguishing various modes of existence and certainly, as Alston says, ordinary language does. (2)
II. “Existence” in Epistemology and Ontology
Taking the epistemological sensibility of the points raised by Pears and Alston in the above examination, existence may syntactically and semantically function as a predicate in a meaningful way, not just tautologically–and hence, meaningless–within the sphere of logical analysis. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the issues raised by both Pears and Alston are of a special character being epistemological. In the process, Alston, in particular, presupposes a multiplicity of modes of existence where existence in the real world is just one of them. In this sense, contexts are, therefore, necessarily pre-established to reckon the assumed existence of certain entities. But even then, existence is not taken as a predicate because in considering a particular context, say a fiction, the existence of a fictional character is presupposed as inherent in such a character. It is, therefore, tautological to say “Batman exists” when the assumed context is the fictional story about the “caped crusader”. In other words, it is a given that in that context, Batman exists. The statement “Batman exists” may only gain meaningfulness in a meta-inquiry called “second-order category” analysis whose contextual location is the real world or to put it in a stronger and more solid designation, the paramount reality. Standing on the platform of paramount reality, raising the issue of Batman’s existence through the statement, “Batman exists” becomes meaningful as a matter of confirmation respective of the context as in “Batman exists in the fictional story about the ‘cape crusader’.” and “Batman does not exist in paramount reality.”
At this point when the issue of context is given a preeminent role, epistemology should not be the only single factor to consider. Ontology is likewise deemed equally important for knowledge (which is epistemology’s concern and whose aim is to achieve truth/truthfulness) has to be ontologically grounded, i.e., founded or established on a reality whose existence is a condition and not a property.
The general concept of reality–considering both the matters of “paramount reality” and “the multiplicity of realities”–has to be elaborated at this juncture to give more credence to the significance of the philosophical meaningfulness of the issue of existence. In this connection, we focus more our attention on the issue of the connection of existence and reality and raise the question, Is existence a matter of reality–i.e., existence is in reality and we cannot assume existence outside the frontiers of reality–or, is reality defined by existence, i.e., if something is real, it must exist? In the first part of the complex question, reality is presupposed by existence whereas in the second part, existence is presupposed by reality. Simply put, the first establishes reality as the ground of existence while the second establishes existence as the ground of reality.
III. Is Existence A Matter of Reality?
In this case, we say that if it is real, i.e., a reality, then it has to exist. And then we ask, What is reality? Who determines reality? Is there only one single reality which we call “paramount reality” or there is a multiplicity of realities? What we, of course, cannot deny–because any denial of which is tantamount to absurdity–is the paramount reality. It is right around us. It is basically characterized by its physicochemical, i.e., material components, conditionalities, and concatenations. It is therefore objective and hence being generally perceived as such through the senses yet characterized by divergences that depend on perspectives which do not in any way impair its objective mold.
However, we can neither deny the subjective reality that is characterized by feelings and emotions, hopes and aspirations, dreams and imaginations. A denial of which is equally absurd. Still within the range of the spatio-temporal category being basically a matter of “mental space”, this reality’s apex of capability is in its creative power. It creates impressions and interpretations. This subjective reality is capable of creating a multiplicity of worlds where each world is reckoned as real. Any entity conceived within a particular world of subjective reality is, therefore, real as its existence is conditioned by its reality. Though not necessarily instantiated in paramount reality, entities in subjective reality are potential units that, barring all logical contradictions, may be clearly “seen” with one’s eye of imagination in her/his mental space.
In this light, we can presume the condition of a unicorn’s existence in subjective reality since it can be pictured in one’s mental space without committing logical inconsistency. Theoretically, subjective reality is an open field which has the potential to accommodate any conceptualization so long as it is free from logical contradiction. In this sense, the existence of a “square circle” or a “round square” can never be conditioned by its reality for such a concept can never be real. Fiction has its own reality which is fundamentally subjective but whose circumstances may be projected objectively by way of actual personification in paramount reality such as in the cinema or in the theater. It is our mind’s differentiation capability under normal conditions that recognizes the contexts that distinguish fiction from paramount.
This is mainly the unlimited arena of deity believers where their concatenation power can formulate the reality of god(s) and whose reality spontaneously/automatically conditions such god(s) existence. Using the Kantian epistemological presupposition, “God exists” is, therefore, a tautology and may be construed as a statement of logic since, in the context of the reality of their world, the existence of such a god is not a property but a condition. This explains why there are so many religions on planet Earth whose gods do not necessarily agree with each other even to the point of vehemently contradicting each other.
And a serious problem arises: These passionate god believers have reached a point where the fictional and the paramount are unwittingly blurred, i.e., the demarcating line of distinction is ultimately lost. They have “telescoped” their subjective reality whose magnified terrain has covered and overwhelmed the paramount landscape. In the process, they unwittingly confused the whole scenario and finally decided for themselves that their reality which is originally subjective is paramount after all. From their perspective, the god they believe in becomes paramount. Having this in mind, they interpret every aspect of their religion in physico-material terms, something that can never be empirically verified in paramount reality.
IV. Is Reality A Matter of Existence?
Then, we now get face to face with the question, Is reality a matter of existence, i.e., is reality defined by existence? Then, if existence is not a condition of an entity, it must not be real. This is the topography of paramount reality. This reality is called paramount because it is the foremost and overriding point of reference whose components are conditioned by existence. In other words, if the existence of a circumstance cannot be reckoned in paramount reality, it must not be real because it doesn’t exist in such a reality. Matters of imagination may exist in paramount reality but they bear the category of fictions. Their existence is a condition of their being fictional but they cannot claim such a condition as non-fictional entities. Superman exists in paramount reality as a fictional character. In other words, Superman’s existence cannot be directly conditioned in paramount reality as such since the characteristics Superman fictionally represent defy the regularities subject to certain laws of nature that operate in the paramount reality of planet Earth.
The same conditions apply to the God of Christianity which is not monolithic/homogeneous at all as this God is characterized and interpreted in so many ways (which at worst even contradict each other) by myriad sects and denominations. This God’s existence cannot be directly conditioned in paramount reality since this God has special characteristics that defy the regularities subject to certain laws of nature that control the well-ordered operation of circumstances in our paramount reality. And since this God cannot have the condition of existence in paramount reality, it doesn’t, therefore, exist and cannot be real.
V. Conclusion
In the final analysis, let us be clear with the notion that deviation from paramount reality is an anomaly. Paramount reality is the anchor of our sanity and it is the reference point of all our sensible and reasonable reckoning. It is the condition of existence that makes paramount reality real. Having this in mind does not mean that we should invalidate in the process the importance of subjective reality. We don’t. Subjective reality is real but to confuse it with paramount reality is a worse anomaly. Pitting subjective reality against objective reality which we call paramount and undermining the latter with all the components of the former and declaring it as superior over the paramount is schizophrenic.
(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 11 September 2019
(1) Ruel F. Pepa, “Is It Possible for Something Not to Exist?”, ZETETIKOS, 15 October 2013 (
(2) Vera Peetz, “Is Existence a Predicate?”, in the journal Philosophy, Vol. 57, No. 221 (Jul., 1982), pp. 395-401.

The Effects of Technology on Society

Judging the effects of something on a state of affairs requires a standard scale characterized by a spectrum that separates two opposite axiological points: the positive and the negative. The context of the present issue brings us to the question, What are the positive and the negative effects of technology on society? We raise this question this early so as not to be distracted by the unilateral notion that technology is always on the right track as far as its effects on society are concerned. This mentality gets prevalent because the loudest voices we hear and ofttimes choose to listen to are those of the fanatical proponents and users of the technology in question. Their advocacy achieves high-profile strength as media back-up through advertising blows out of proportion the spinned-off story of such technology’s best points. This strategy sways people away from getting themselves into a critical mode which generally leads them to a state of pathetic gullibility.

This line of concern does not, however, prevent us from coming up with a positive judgment. Rather, the challenge put forward is to engender a fair and hence impartial acuity on the issue of technology’s effects on society. This is deemed reasonable as the task considers the intermediary stages that run from one end of the scale to the other. We are therefore looking into the fuzzy shades that constitute the spectrum on whose basis our evaluation is intended to issue out.

Technology is generally humanity’s achievement to facilitate an otherwise burdensome endeavor. At the onset, we see the worthwhile intent that pushes onward the positive value of technology. It is not aimed to destroy but to build, not to obstruct but to facilitate, not to generate problems but to solve them. At the inaugural stage, technology is stamped with a pristine character that promotes productivity, facilitates proficiency, enhances expertise and advances competence. All these even transcend the individual beneficiary to fully embrace an entire society’s movement towards a higher level of progressive refinement. In this sense, technology fulfills its fundamental mandate in the service of humanity.

However, technology’s value is never inherent in itself; it is rather an attribution that emanates from its human users. It is also in the hands of its human users that technology could go awry and have its course diverted from its original trajectory. Technology that has originally been projected to serve the interest not only of its individual users but also of the society which has tolerated and accepted its operation can, therefore, lead to negative impacts when used irresponsibly.

In the post-modern/post-industrial era, post-modern technology has dominated the socio-cultural landscape. There’s no doubt that society has tremendously benefitted from the amazing technology that has continually been invented and innovated in a seemingly uninterrupted direction. Household chores, office works and factory operations that used to be a drag in the past have been transformed by new technology into no-sweat tasks. We are surrounded by amazing gadgets, equipment, and tools at our beck and call–facilities effortlessly operated at our fingertips literally.

In the present dispensation, the Internet dominates the post-modern technological scenario. It has brought us to unprecedented wonders in the cyber-world of instant information and facilitative applications. The exhilaration seems endless as we explore novel and yet uncharted regions that pop up along the information highway. We have even discovered recreational activities that enthrall our playfulness to the point of getting ensnared by their challenging offers to go on and on and on until the wee hours of the morning. We are caught flat-footed by the magic of this technology in the “third wave” civilization (with apologies to the late futurologist Alvin Toffler) which is more popularly called the age of information.

But what the Internet offers is not always beneficial to individual persons in particular and to society in general. It has introduced social network sites and exciting applications like online games that have led people to the point of addiction. Time wastage has increased and gainful productivity has decreased. Young people, in particular, would rather spend endless hours beating virtual adversaries, watching rib-tickling videos and comical photos on tablets, mobiles, and laptops at the expense of spending more quality time attending to serious school assignments or job responsibilities. In this kind of situation, the excitement seems endless and the passing of time is something immaterial.

Too much exposure to the aforementioned gadgets affects brain functioning and the circadian rhythm as well. In the process, what is actually affected is the brain as enthusiasts lose their sense of concentration. People in this condition cannot be expected to function effectively and efficiently in more serious undertakings both in society and in the workplace. If worse comes to worst, the whole scenario may even end up to be a serious case of a health hazard as people get too preoccupied in games and social networks so that they simply settle to consume junk foods and find it difficult to schedule a time for physical exertions.

Alone in front of the screen, they have put themselves segregated from their fellow human beings in the context of a community of warm bodies. A face-to-face conversation is no longer a common encounter as sending online messages via email or Whatsapp among others has become the order of the day. In this sense, socialization has been redefined in a way that doesn’t require the actual presence of individual persons in paramount reality.

In conclusion, we say that it’s one thing to cherish the positive effects of technology and it’s another to be conscious of its detrimental impacts on the individual and the society. We all want to enjoy the amenities and benefits offered by present-day technology but we should also be aware of their negative aftermath when utilized irresponsibly. We still have a long way to go and it is important to instill the positive value of technology to the youth of this generation and beyond if such technology is used with a high degree of responsibility, creativity, and efficiency.

(c)Ruel F. Pepa, 25 July 2019


“Life´s difficult.”
“People are suffering.”
“The economy is not getting any better.”
“The future seems to be very somber.”
“What is the government doing?”
“Are we heading to the dogs?”
“Quo Vadis?”

These are comments uttered and questions asked by people nowadays. There is a crisis—call it financial, call it economic, whatever. And apparently, people are caught flat-footed. Why?

Because they´ve been surprised and shocked?
Because they have just decided to resign to inaction and no boost up is felt from behind?
Because they are waiting for the government´s economic planners and financial gurus to come up with the magic solution?

Why don´t we act in this moment of crisis?
What prevents us from taking the first step?
Are we physically incapacitated?
Have we convinced ourselves that we just don´t have the mental capacity to handle the situation by our own efforts?
Are we waiting for some signs from heaven to pull us up from the present state of inaction?

OK. Let´s get to our senses. Let´s just think for a moment about some very common situations that usually happens to our daily lives. Let´s ask ourselves at this moment what we are supposed to do when we see the following situations at least in the context of our homes:

Touch the top of a table or any furniture and you feel some light film of dust.
You get to the kitchen and you find unwashed plates, pans, glasses, and utensils.
You enter the bedroom and you find crumpled blankets and pillows thrown here and there.
You get to the garage and you find the car smudged with dried-up mud on the wheel tires, on the side and back parts and the windshield is full of the dried-up remnants of dead insects.
You enter the storage room and you find a mess of disarranged boxes of old and worn- out objects here and there.
Now, get a clean sheet of bond paper and a pen and we will do some exercise. Write on the paper what you intend to do when you are confronted with such problems we just enumerated above.
When you are done, try to discover in your own situation right here and now similar small bits of real problems that you think would actually need some serious attention and hence your own personal action.

Afterwards, you don´t need to write the actions you need to take. ACT NOW!! STAND UP AND DO THE THINGS YOU NEED TO DO!! RIGHT NOW!!

Later, make an evaluation of yourself and the things you have and have not accomplished. About the things you haven´t accomplished, surely you have reasons why. But don´t stop there. Convince yourself that it´s humanly possible to accomplish them sooner or later and you´ll not stop to seek ways and means to finally accomplish them.

Because the HUMAN MIND is CREATIVE.!!


An individual is poor. . . .
Someone lacks education. . . .
Another can´t get into an undertaking. . . .
Somebody just can´t get rid of something undesirable. . . .
And another believes that an ambition is just unattainable. . . .

WHO SAID SO? . . .

WE are the ones telling ourselves all these things.
WE have programmed ourselves that certain things in life are just unachievable in our individual circumstances. But we have seen others succeed in those endeavors.
WE have convinced ourselves that destiny shapes human life and there are things that are not deemed for us despite the fact that ways to realize them are not entirely impossible.


Along the way, we blame a lot of instances which we have labeled as OBSTACLES . . .
– Geographical location
– Government system
– Family situation
– A country´s economic condition

But even if there are some valid reasons to believe these factors, there are also more valid reasons to infer that in a lot of instances, it is WE—our own thinking, our own mental attitudes—who have created the REAL obstacles.
We are in constant interaction with a lot of people here and there and in so many instances, we fail to be discriminating with the myriad ideas they spew out to the point that we even tend to generally believe and swallow hook-line-and-sinker everything they say.

Unwittingly, we have been PROGRAMMED by these people.


WE are the ones who have programmed ourselves to MENTALLY create these obstacles.
WE are the ones who have placed these barriers in our minds.
WE are the ones who have put LIMITATIONS in our very own lives.
WE are FRIGHTENED to get beyond these limitations we have IMPOSED on ourselves.

Let us silence our minds at the moment and get into a SELF-REFLECTION. . . .


[Quoted from Marianne Williamson´s A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles (1992)]

WE are naturally intelligent.

WE are possessors of MINDS capable to capture in meaningful and exciting ways the PRICELESS TREASURES OF OUR OWN EXISTENCES in the immense landscape of LIFE´S POSSIBILITIES in this wonderful world.

WE are vehicles of being´s POTENTIAL KNOWLEDGE.

But life is NOT only a BEING but also a BECOMING. . . .
Potential knowledge must not remain potential; it has to be USEFUL.
Potential knowledge may only be USEFUL once it has been REALIZED in life.

LIFE is in CONSTANT CHANGE. . . . Heraclitus, the Greek philosopher said, “No one steps into the same river twice.”

LIFE provides us with the path to BECOMING.

POTENTIAL knowledge MUST NOT remain potential. It has to take the PATH OF BECOMING.
Potential knowledge has to be REALIZED to serve our PURPOSES in life.
An unrealized potential knowledge is an IMPRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.

REALIZED KNOWLEDGE is PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE and its fruition towards the betterment of one´s condition in terms of a fresher and more positive view of existence and a more fulfilled circumstance in life elevates this kind of knowledge to the level of WISDOM.

WE have to ACT on whatever potential knowledge we possess.

The WORLD OF EXCITING POSSIBILITIES is out there for us to explore and in the process make our existences much more meaningful and delightful.

We have to rise up from our COMFORT ZONES, move on WITHOUT FEAR and discover more challenging experiences that await us.


NOW is the time to EXERCISE the INHERENT CREATIVITY we are endowed with. And like an artist before a blank CANVAS on an easel ready to be transformed into a colorful celebration of an exquisite work of art, let us traverse the bridge that separates the mundane and the extraordinary.

Let us be FREE from the HERD-MENTALITY that has enslaved us for so long.

Let us DEFY the limitations imposed on us by the programming of the past.
Let us re-capture of the EXUBERANCE of UNBRIDLED THINKING that gives us the EXHILARATING POWER to have a

CLEARER and WIDER VISION of the path towards a BETTER and MORE CHALLENGING FUTURE full of INEXHAUSTIBLE ENERGY to make our lives much worthier and more meaningful.
The Buddha says in Dhammapada (verse 80):

“Well-makers lead the water (wherever they like); fletchers bend the arrow; carpenters bend a logwood; wise people fashion themselves.”


The Artist as a Philosopher (or the Philosopher as an Artist) before the Canvas of Nothing

What is so philosophical–deeply philosophical–about the artist but her/his enormous capability to be excited/elated/exhilarated by the challenges of the Nothing. S/he looks at the blank canvas before her/him not as nothing but as a space of unlimited possibilities–a Nothing, a not-yet, a Becoming–that belongs to the future. The present Nothing promises a future Being–Nothing Becoming Being.

And all depends on a creativity that is purely human–a creativity that merges with a sense of the future that is likewise absolutely human, no more no less. Had this not been so, humanity couldn’t have seen the wonders of comfort, sophistication, information and ease that revolve around the present reality like a merry-go-round in a seemingly endless carnival of life.

Human creativity . . . a sense of the future . . . a philosophical defiance of certain programmed limitations where nothing is nothing, where zero is nothing. Rather, a philosophical affirmation that Nothing is something–that Zero is significant in the formation of hundreds, thousands, millions . . . ad infinitum.

The artist guides the philosopher. . . . May the former find inspiration in the latter.

At the end of the day, may the artist find a common convergence point with the philosopher so that the two become one.

The Importance of Sleep

All living organisms have a 24-hour cycle in their physiological processes called circadian rhythm. In our case as human beings, the circadian rhythm is basically “running in the background of [our] brain and cycles between sleepiness and alertness at regular intervals. It’s also known as [our] sleep/wake cycle.” (cf. This is body wisdom–something which is non-thematic in operation and doesn’t have to be thought of to be effected. It is part and parcel of everything that naturally and spontaneously comes about within our biological network. In practically all instances, it is deemed important for the well-being of our psycho-physical condition to listen–and listen attentively–to what our body tells us. The body reacts to the environment and a sensitive individual knows when there is too much or too little of something. Failure to listen to body wisdom often leads to a risky, even detrimental, aftermath.

Taking sleep as something that basically belongs to the workings of body wisdom, we now live in a civilization where it seems like people, in general, have already become desensitized to the circadian rhythm. By and large, busy people in almost all walks of life have already set aside and deprioritized the importance of sleep. It is something we can postpone at the moment and reconsider at a later time. There are a lot of responsibilities to attend to. Too much pressure beating the deadline while engaged in a project. Reports being accomplished within a certain period of time and submitted on or before a specified date. Within the vortex of all these circumstances, we have already gotten to a point wherein sleep has become a matter of choice. In other words, we can choose to sleep or not to sleep.

The common notion that has developed through the years in the present era is that sleep robs us of the capability, creativity, and consistency required to be classified as an “ace performer” in whatever productive endeavor we have engaged ourselves in. In this sense, sleep is relegated to the sideline of insignificance. Sleep, while one is deeply involved in a make-or-break undertaking, is a negative factor that can affect the final outcome of such an undertaking. Hence, the unwritten law is, there is no room to slacken the pace and disrupt the momentum of an activity that has been going on until the last leg is finally achieved.

This scenario is further intensified by the presence of modern-day workaholics. These are performers whose velocity of movement to accomplish the tasks assigned to them has created an adverse environment. They don’t only disregard the importance of sleep but likewise the normal ingestion of health-sustaining nutrients and the physical exertions necessary to keep their bodies fit and strong. Sleep, in particular, is taken as tantamount to laziness, negligence, and apathy. If ever the circadian rhythm “accidentally” hits their head, a nap is good enough to satisfy an unnecessary call.

All this conditioning is an absolute desecration of the importance of sleep. The general principle that sustains the non-negotiable value of 7 to 8 hours of sleep per day to the conduct of a healthy human life stands firm and strong. According to research studies done in the UK and Italy, “[t]he healthy amount of sleep for the average adult is around seven to eight hours each night. . . . Those who generally slept for less than five to seven hours a night were 12 percent more likely to experience a premature death. People who slept more than eight or nine hours per night had an even higher risk — 30 percent.” (

Furthermore, studies on the benefits of getting 7 to 8 hours of sleep have yielded results diametrically opposed to the common workaholic notion that sleep decreases efficiency and creativity and thus detrimentally affects productivity. The truth of the matter is spelled out in the following (cf.
1. Poor sleep can make you fat.
2. Good sleepers tend to eat fewer calories.
3. Good sleep can improve concentration and productivity.
4. Good sleep can maximize athletic performance.
5. Poor sleepers have a great risk of heart disease and stroke.
6. Sleep affects glucose metabolism and type 2 diabetes.
7. Poor sleep is linked to depression.
8. Sleep improves your immune function.
9. Poor sleep is linked to increased inflammation.
10. Sleep affects emotions and social interactions.

In conclusion, there is really no sane way to controvert the importance of sleep as a major factor in leading and sustaining a healthy lifestyle. Along with good nutrition and consistent exercise, 7 to 8 hours of sleep is an inviolable linchpin of a life worth living.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 18 July 2019

The Deep State

[Acknowledgment: This paper is partly based on Prof. Dr. Ola Tunander’s “Securitization, Dual State and US-European Geopolitical Divide or The Use of Terrorism to Construct World Order,” a paper presented at the Fifth Pan-European International Relations Conference, Netherlands Congress Center, The Hague, 9-11 September 2004]

The “deep state” is a concept that necessarily connects with the power structure of the United States of America (US). It stands in parallel with the legitimate government of the US and whose main function is to “securitize” the democratic foundation of the government as well as the institutions that represent and strengthen that government. It is, therefore, the fundamental responsibility of the “deep state” to protect the US government from both internal and external attacks aimed to undermine and destroy its democratic underpinning. It is precisely the reason why the “deep state” is more technically known as the “security state”.

The world, in general, has been conditioned to believe that the legitimate US government is the leading paragon of democracy. Hence it is principally construed that any attack against the US government is tantamount to an assault to democracy. This mental programming has created a condition that weaves the fiber of democracy with that of the US government. In literary critical analysis, we call it “telescoping”. In telescoping events, the characteristics and properties unique to each event are blurred and rendered insignificant to the point of unifying such events and hence making them identical. Expressing such a situation in the formal logical propositional pattern, “There is an x such that if x then y,” yields the following substantial statement:

“If the US government is democracy, then an attack against the US government is an attack against democracy.”

And to prevent such an attack against the US government or to defend the US government from such an attack, as the case may be, the “security state” which, under normal circumstances stands at par with the “legitimate democratic state,” takes control of the present abnormal situation using its autocratic power. In other words, when circumstances are normal, power is tilted on the side of the legitimate democratic state while in an emergency situation, it is on the side of the autocratic security state. This condition is theoretically deemed as a matter of exigency and therefore temporary. By and large, the essential dynamic that constitutes this state of affairs is drawn from the non-negotiable importance of “securitization” to defend and protect the “genuine” bearer of the ideals of democracy which is the United States of America.

Nevertheless, what we simply see at the moment is the epidermal surface that projects the finest and the best of what this “prime model” of democracy exudes. Yet, there is more than meets the eye. Under the superficial configuration is a more complex network of hidden infrastructure reckoned to be more crucial and paramount than any of those located overboard and visible to the naked eye. Like in the case of an iceberg, what we see is just the diminutive tip but the bulk of its solid formation is deep underneath. And this is precisely comparable to how the security state operates to which we give the alternative epithet, “deep state.”

What the deep state/security state is concerned about is more than the democratic state of the US government. It is more concerned about the massive business industries comprising the multiplex cogs of US economic enterprises that dominate the globe. These are the machines that are in full control of the US government. In other words, the latter doesn’t possess the power inherent in itself but draws its strength from these colossal industrial establishments of global magnitude. In this connection, what we see is a government beholden to big business industrial conglomerates and whose decisions and actions are incontrovertibly at the behest of such business industrial giants. These are the “omnipotent” gods that the deep state/security state defends and protects.

The whole gamut of this arrangement leads us to a confirmation of the reality that the socio-political fabric of the United States of America is just a semblance of democracy–a counterfeit democracy. Its government, contrary to the Lincoln formulation presented in the Gettysburg Address, is not “of the people, by the people, for the people.” The US government is of the big business industries, by the big business industries, and for the big business industries. What its citizens get are just the bread crumbs that fall from the dining tables of their “all-powerful” gods–the industry tycoons who own the machines that run the US economy. These are the mighty economic dictators who walk the corridors of power and are actively defended and closely protected by the deep state/security state.

The deep state/security state’s clout goes beyond the geographical location of its protected and defended “land of the free and home of the brave.” Its power is felt in every country where the US foreign policy reigns supreme. It dominates the western European region through its proxy known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In Southeast Asia, it lords over the member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Its aggressive posture has been tremendously exerted in the Middle East as it creates all forms of destabilization campaigns mostly by way of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen with the able assistance of its destructive allies, Wahabbist Saudi Arabia and Zionist Israel. To promote and protect its economic interest in the Eastern European region, it has made all possible aggressive efforts to hold Russia at bay with veneer threats of violent confrontation if Russia reacts with an air of hostility. In South America, it has been fueling destabilization in Venezuela to topple the democratically elected government of Nicolas Maduro and take full control of the country’s petroleum industry. In the most recent developments, it has been challenging Iran into a nuclear war which, on the basis of certain honest-to-goodness assessments made by experts in the field of geopolitics, is nothing but a hot-air provocation, i.e., an empty bluff.

Focusing on what’s been happening in the Middle East, the main goal of the deep state/security state is to take full control of the entire region to effect the final success of the Greater Israel Project wherein Zionist Israel is considered to be the sole political power dominating over all the Arab nations around its illegitimate territory stolen from the Palestinians. This project which puts Zionist Israel at the central hegemonic position of power opens up the reality that the deep state/security state is not only a league of powerful American big business industrial tycoons; it is also a Zionist-dominated cabal whose allegiance is more to Zionism than to the US in general. This leads us to consider the fact that the deep state/security state is a Zionist-controlled syndicate since most–if not all–of the powerful personalities that constitute the deep state/security state are Zionist industrial tycoons who hold dual US-Israeli citizenship.

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 11 July 2019

The Use of Language to Manipulate People

We have encountered day in day out language-using manipulators in practically all areas/sectors of life. In one particular instance, we regularly hear them over the radio and see them on TV. We read their messages on the pages of dailies and magazines, even in posters that line-up walls of public places. The Internet is full of websites that banner the captivating ideas of these thought influencers. The term we use to specifically refer to their kind of game is advertisement. This is the basic intent of an advertisement: To attract, fascinate and ultimately persuade people to dig into their pockets for the amount needed to satisfy the desire that has so far been created in their minds by the power of advertisement. This is manipulation at its most subtle and sophisticated refinement.

Nowadays, with the advancement of cybertechnology, professional advertisers have literally at the tip of their fingers all conceivable tools to come up with the best presentations of product promotion in all forms of the available media. Striking logos, snappy slogans, attention-grabbing illustrations, mellifluous jingles, eye-catching photos, among others, conspire altogether to create a powerful advertising stunt, so powerful that it can knock out analysis and reason in an instant. Using the classic Aristotelian categories of persuasion modes or artistic proofs, this is a case of how pathos (appeal to emotion) exerts a significantly tremendous edge over logos (appeal to reason) and ethos (appeal to a person’s credibility and ethical character). Manipulation of this type is so easily effected because its operators have already mastered the art of handling the general tendency of people to succumb to what their “hearts” dictate at the expense of what their “heads” would reasonably tell them.

This is humanity at its most prevalent and persistent configuration: a creature of emotions. And the modern–as well as post-modern–commercial sphere has taken advantage of this seemingly perennial reality to its extremest point, full steam ahead, so to speak. Within the warp and woof of the human fabric, the pathos reigns supreme and is deaf to the call of logos most of the time. It even has the forceful motion of a whirlwind to bypass and ignore the wisdom of the purveyors of ethos. The pathos is, therefore, the central arena where the ebb and flow of manipulative undertakings function with clockwork efficiency.

But there is nothing new in this consideration. As an emotional being, humanity has always been the subject of manipulation since time immemorial, i.e., long before the age of advertising. Well concatenated words that constitute a delightful message can instantly–i.e., spontaneously–capture the heart of an individual person. The head equipped with its reasoning power has to get through a more tedious process of coming up with a clear-cut and rational/reasonable decision on whether to accept or reject something presented before it. Besides, the individual who is supposed to be at the disposal of both heart and head has a much easier predisposition to utilize the former and set aside the latter. As has been observed time and again, it is the heart that easily gives in–even caves in–to the pleasing lines articulated by an apparent persuader like an irresistible confectionery offered to a child by someone who wants to win her/his friendship.

Friendship is basically a matter of the heart and could breed manipulation on the wrong side of its broad layout. It starts with a proposition along the line of amity that in many cases gets deeper so that it could even reach a high degree of intimate connection. And once the target has already been taken over, that’s the point where manipulation sets in. A well-stringed set of pleasurable words can easily disarm and capture the emotional framework of an individual and put her/him in a situation of non-resistance. Again, this is nothing new to us even in a large-scale scenario wherein the power of a minister’s preaching becomes a manipulative tool to gather together unquestioning believers in the context of a religious assembly. This is not advertising but all its components run parallel to its commercial counterpart.

Many religious assemblies–whether you call them “fellowships” or “churches”–in the present modern dispensation have gained the notoriety of being called manipulators of the first order as their leaders have transformed themselves into multi-millionaire and billionaire high rollers who own luxurious mansions, travel by land in their chauffeur-driven limousines and visit their overseas congregations on their sophisticated private jets. And it is a known fact that all their riches are drawn from the ten percent of the incomes sweated out by their hardworking members. This shows how powerful manipulative words are as these preaching conmen put them all together in the language of a homily that they deliver from the pulpits of their churches’ sanctuaries “Sunday in Sunday out”.

But why specifically zero in on the religious preachers when these guys have their exact kins on the political arena? We see the same manipulative acts among politicians during the campaign period prior to an election. They all want to get elected and in their campaign sorties, it is not unusual to hear the manipulative promises of these political thugs whom the electorate tend to give in and give up their votes when election day comes. But it does not stop after the election. Those elected officials continue to use the power of political rhetoric to further deceive their constituents with more promises despite the fact that those they had promised during the campaign period haven’t even been implemented, much less fulfilled. However, in this particular scenario, what is so strange is the reality that the people who have been manipulated in the past continue to allow themselves to be manipulated more.

In the final analysis, it is with a certain degree of logical accuracy to conclude that the majority of the people in the world have the general tendency to let themselves get manipulated in whatever life condition they are located. This reality is sustained by the dictum that human beings are predominantly creatures of pathos, i.e., people who find it much easier to cope with life’s complexity by way of emotion rather than by way of reason. But on a more serious note, the more honest-to-goodness question is, Is that really the best way to cope with life’s reality with all its complexity and difficulties?

(c) Ruel F. Pepa, 26 June 2019