The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Ketosis Lab Notes – Mitochondrial Suppression Disorder

Some people merely need cut out desserts for a month in order to lose the weight their doctor recommends. Others can consume and burn that same amount recommended by their doctor and still gain a substantial amount of weight throughout the course of each year. This despite matching their lower weight peers food for food, activity for activity. This latter condition is what is known as mitochondrial suppression.
Until the mitochondrial suppression sufferer can get into a therapeutic daily state of endogenous (and not exogenous) ketosis, they will continue gain more weight over time, and suffer more diseases of chronic malnutrition, than do their comparable practice non-sufferer peers.

Have you ever had a friend or an advising physician who seemed to be able to keep the weight off simply by cutting out desserts or initiating a little bit of exercise every once in a while? Have you experienced the challenge of exercising every single day, and constricting calories until you suffer severe malnutrition and the associated chronic diseases, for decades – yet you are still statistically ‘obese’? Well, there is a reason for this apparent inequity. Most Americans who do not suffer from this inequity, have no idea the extents to which its sufferer must go, in order to maintain a trim appearance and remain physically healthy. What is contained inside this blog article is not a study – rather a disciplined set of observation to intelligence to necessity. It stands as an appeal for plurality under Ockham’s Razor, concerning this very real physiological condition which I call: mitochondrial suppression. The efforts you will observe in this article constitute the obfuscated start of our scientific method, which labors truncated, beneath the overweight burden of our elitist, apathetic and fake form of skepticism. Herein we actually go there, look, experience, live for years inside, record observations, conduct analysis of, and develop a dissenting intelligence regarding an issue which they and their cronies have had all figured out through mere armchair plausibility.1

Below I have run a series of tests in incremental critical path progression, and shown the associated bench notes upon a test subject’s2 physiology and blood chemistry, as it pertains to ketosis and the key energy centers inside the human cell, the mitochondria. I have identified an issue with regard to normal caloric consumption inside a particular human body physiology: that of the mitochondrial suppression sufferer.

There exist two states of human caloric burn profile, the normal function modeled by the orange curve in the Exhibit above, and the mitochondrial suppression curve modeled from the below observation data, in blue. While the below observation appeal does not pretend to suggest a cause for this malady, let’s take a look for a moment at an article which does. The below Time Magazine article suggests that much of medical science today not only understands that this condition exists; but moreover, after decades of enforced false moralizing wisdom, is finally in pursuit of its root, and fairly recent, cause.

What the researchers believe could be responsible for these differences [in metabolic profiles] is the microbiome—trillions of bacteria that live in the gut and differ wildly from person to person. Another recent study published in the journal Obesity Research & Clinical Practice found that even if they exercised and ate the same amount, an adult in 2006 is heavier than one in 1988. The study authors also suggested that changes in the microbiome could be at play, amid other possibilities. ~Alexandra Sifferlin, Time Magazine: “Why Losing Weight Is So Hard for Some People”3

The Normal Mitochondrial Burn

In the normal mitochondrial burn human physiology, a typical active person can consume on the order of 3000 calories per day, achieve the necessary USRDA 100% critical 90 human nutrients, and still initiate a condition called endogenous ketosis, wherein the body uses up its stores of glycogen, and begins to burn off a bit of body fat each day. In this type of body mitochondrial energy profile, if one gains a bit of weight over the years, generally all one has to do is cut out desserts or another favorite indulgence for a month, or exercise a bit – and things will be fine in a matter of weeks.  This is the type of person a typical doctor thinks they are encountering with every single new patient. I mean, it works for them right? Then why would it not work for everyone? Of course it works for everyone. Formula, rote, easy – the essence of abductive inference and diagnostician’s error. This type of physiology (orange curve above) generates a mitochondria-to-energy supply environment which produces a steady stream of ketone based cerebral and physical energy throughout most of the day. This type of endogenous keto-energy is clean and not brain-fog inducing. A tremendous resource which makes addressing the challenges of school and work, a bit less daunting. One would find it very difficult to attain a PhD, or much less become a doctor, were this beneficial physiology not in play. This, to my understanding, is why we have few doctors who know how to treat or have faced themselves, mitochondrial suppression.

My buddy from the Navy is like this. After 5 years, with no exercise regimen to speak of, he found he had gained 5 pounds since he left college. His pants were getting a bit tight. He cut out moose tracks ice cream for a month and everything was fine. He spent his extra time not exercising, by studying for his MCAT and medical school. He did well. ‘Why can’t everyone do this?” he would ask.

The condition cited in the case of my buddy above, is called ‘being overweight’ – this condition has nothing whatsoever to do, statistically, causally nor epidemiologically, with the condition of being obese. Most of our doctors today do not realize this, because they have been disinformed on this subject – both by their advisory resources and by their own life experience. Not everyone is like my friend above, especially when it comes to mitochondrial activity and a body’s ability to sustain an endogenous ketosis state on a daily basis.

The Suppressed Mitochondrial Burn

Those suffering mitochondrial suppression and the incumbent lack of nutrition and mental alacrity, who do manage to complete advanced degrees, work achievements or become doctors, are persons of extraordinary fortitude, persistence and character. They suffer through every single day of their lives – abjectly unaware that this level of suffering is anything but normal.

Fully unable to benefit from the pure mental energy derived from the ketone flush, they instead rely upon carbohydrates, alcohol, sugars and coffee to feed their cognitive endurance, and power through the challenge of each new day by means of utter survival. Their bodies bearing testament to the incumbent malady – mitochondrial suppression.

In the physiology exhibiting mitochondrial suppression (the blue curve in the Exhibit above), the sufferer is unable to consume a sufficient level of food which imparts the USRDA 100% for the majority of the 90 critical human nutrients, without greatly exceeding his or her caloric burn curve. By a good 650 calories per day. Exacerbate this condition through the most recent two-decade dilution of nutrient versus caloric biomass in our new growth-accelerant based agricultural products, and you have a stark and challenging epidemic at hand. In other words, if the mitochondrial suppression sufferer, despite a normal diet and exercise lifestyle, were to eat enough food in order to avoid the chronic diseases related to malnutrition, they would gain on the order of 30 lbs per year. Comparatively, the normal mitochondrial burn physiology person would remain at the same weight, and obtain all the nutrient they need.

The bottom line is that the person, like our test subject, who exhibits mitochondrial suppression, must undertake physical exercise above and beyond a normal active day burn curve, to the order of 650 calories per day – in order to consume enough food to ward off chronic diseases of malnutrition.

The old adage that ‘You get all the nutrition you need in a typical Western Diet’ – is a load of baloney for those who suffer mitochondrial suppression. Below, you will find my bench notes, developed from my study of the subject over the last 8 months. It took me some time and diligent measuring, to begin to observe what was going on (in the scientific method, this is called observation, intelligence and necessity – the part fake skeptics leave out). Once I had my observations, thoughts, measures and critical line of questioning/testing/reasoning gathered, I digested them into the set of bench notes depicted below.

A side discovery gleaned from the bench notes: Exogenous (provoked) ketosis is not the same condition as is endogenous ketosis. Exogenous ketone or BHB salts4 are a way to stimulate the body to produce a blood chemistry very similar to that found during endogenous (natural internal) ketosis. However, exogenous ketone salts and exogenously provoked ketosis, do not stimulate the body out of mitochondrial suppression to the same degree as does endogenous ketosis. Therefore the only effective therapeutic use of ketosis, is to create it naturally in the body. I was very disappointed as I deduced this answer, but this appears to be a sound principle (see bench notes below).

Round Up the Usual Suspects

Before we examine actual evidence however, let’s conduct a Google search to observe the current common wisdom surrounding this topic. I took a sweep through Google to see the top 40 sites which comment upon certain peoples’ inability to lose weight, and here is what they said in summary. The first two reasons are mutually exclusive, but cover all the options through a guaranteed-to-send-you-reeling bifurcation. Pseudo-theory spun inside the very first quips I encountered. The deceptive nature of pseudo-theory hinges upon the critical principles that – it is comprehensively covers every plausibility, explains everything, and tenders conjecture inside realms of victim blame, or where testing is not easily conducted. Fortunately, there are people like me who do test these axioms. The advice below has consistently failed Americans for decades, and upon disciplined scrutiny, consistently turns out to be false.

   The Bullshit Blame of the ‘You Are’s’

  1. You are lying and you eat more than you say you are.
  2. You are not eating enough, your body is in ‘starvation mode’.
  3. You are mistaken that extra physical activity or exercise will cause you to lose weight.
  4. You are eating the wrong foods (what are these? what you are eating of course!) or the same foods all the time.
  5. You are doing the same exercise, or too much cardio, or are lifting weights too much or not enough.
  6. You are not getting enough sleep or are sleeping too long.
  7. You are drinking soft drinks or too much alcohol.
  8. You are too stressed out.
  9. You are gluttonous and lazy – and your memory of this is flawed – because memory is an unreliable form of evidence.
  10. You are ‘dieting’ and need a ‘lifestyle change’ – usually involving 6 am workouts and consuming 1200 calories per day and buying lots of high cost products and magazines.

Boy, they pretty much nailed 100% of the US demographic with these pearls of wisdom. Well done. Based upon this set of infallibles, everyone should be obese. The principle contained in this plethora of bullshit paid-pseudo-advice (pseudo-theory, which inhabits 38 of the top 40 rankings in a Google search5) doubles down upon the agenda of accusing the mitochondrial suppression victim of being the cause of the problem themself. Do we smell corporate social skepticism at play here? These old worn fables bear the very exploitation of journalism, plural arguing and Art of The Professional Lie characteristics which are the core habits of the social skepticism cabal. The straightforward critical path is, as a grouping, everyone does the things above. And among everyone, there exist some who are obese, some who are overweight, and some who find it hard to put on weight at all. So another differential factor is at play, undercurrent to this group of ignoratio elenchi disinformatives.

Fortunately for purposes of this eight month study, the test subject had already addressed all these pop-science factors. They were not effective in the least at contributing to weight loss. As well, please note with caution that a 1200 calorie a day Hollywood Starlet diet for the rest of your life, will make you chronically sick for the rest of your life – or even kill you. Do not do this. In order to obtain enough nutrient and to avoid chronic disease, you will need to consume 1800-2400 calories per day and supplement with 90 nutrients, and initiate a therapeutic endogenous ketosis each and every day (see below).

Ketosis, and the inability to enter that state, is the key problem. This is an issue of environmental compromise of body systems – and NOT human personal habits, within reason. If you are gluttonous and lazy, this is not the relevant domain nor context of our argument here. This serves to point out two rules about social skepticism, from the pages of The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation.

Google Blame Ranking Effect – If advice about what you are personally doing wrong, inhabits 90% of the first three pages of ranked responses on Google, it is most certainly wrong.

culpant et victima – Whenever a culprit is being concealed as to their introduction of a deleterious contribution, the victims will be assigned the blame for their handiwork.

So, without further ado, let us get back to the primary subject of this blog. The test subject initiated an 8 month protocol of ketosis testing, tracking and charting blood chemistry, detailed caloric consumption, life factors, exercise and weight, each day. Detailed charts were maintained and compiled into a series of bench notes below. A sample daily diary entry is shown in the chart immediately below. What follows hereafter are the results.

The Key Finding: Mitochondrial Suppression

The key finding of the 8 month effort was as follows.

A subset of normal health Americans are unable to lose weight at the medically established, and otherwise commonly attained, rate of 1 pound per 3500 calories of shortfall between physical activity burn and dietary consumption.6 It is conjectured that the experiencer of this disadvantage in physiology is suffering from a specific underlying condition which prohibits their ability to attain this normal physiological energy to meta-weight profile. This test, and the body of other studies like it, demonstrate that the sufferer of this conjectured disadvantage condition will also coincidentally experience difficulty in establishing daily therapeutic inception of natural endogenous ketosis. It is further conjectured that these two phenomena are causally linked, and as a factor set, far outweigh the impact of all other factors in terms of contribution to the sufferer’s healthy weight and weight loss. Therefore, it is conjectured that there exists a phenomenon of unknown cause among some of the American population, wherein a suppression of endogenous ketosis, as a reaction of the body’s cell-energy mitochondria management, is indicated.

Same individual, same lifestyle habits – two different seven day periods of 14,000 calorie shortfall between physical activity and food consumption.7 During the first test week (Exhibit A) the individual did not attempt any ketosis stimulation (shown in list below) and did not subsequently enter endogenous ketosis of any significance for the 7 day period – herein a weight loss of 1 lb was experienced. During an earlier week however (Exhibit B), the same profiled 14,000 calorie shortfall and practice set produced a 4.5 lb weight loss. However this week (Exhibit B) featured an average 35 mmol/L-hour sustained ketosis profile each day of that period. This same circumstance was replicated 3 more times. The weeks were separated in time so as not to be adjacent and influenced by weight measures shifting from one week to the next.  As a benchmark, the individual should have lost 3 to 4 pounds under normal expectation, even during the weeks which did not feature a ketosis mmol/L signature (as typified by Exhibit A). Yet consistently the individual failed to lose weight at this rate during the weeks in which endo-ketosis did not emerge. However, consistently during the weeks in which an endogenous ketosis profile was achieved (as typified by Exhibit B), the individual actually slightly outpaced the anticipated 3 to 4 lbs of weight lost under a 14,000 calorie shortfall for the period under consideration.

It is conjectured therefore that, in some Americans, there exists a phenomenon of mitochondrial energy consumption suppression, which prevents those individuals who suffer the condition, from entering a normal physiology of body energy-to-mass management – and results in chronic, apparent-stubborn and unhealthy weight gain in an otherwise healthy and reasonably lifestyled individual. Finally, it is conjectured that these same individuals, by means of the same underlying physiological contributor which expresses as mitochondrial suppression and/or through undertaking extreme measures to mitigate weight gain, may experience higher rates of chronic disease precipitated through persistent shortfalls in daily nutrition.

Stimulating Endogenous Ketosis

Stimulating endogenous (not provoking exogenous) ketosis is the only way to sustain weight loss in the mitochondrial suppression physiology. In the chart to the right you may observe that endogenous ketosis comes in the late morning or early afternoon, only after making the required disciplines (listed below). Once endo-ketosis is established, a limited amount of calories may be eaten. In the chart to the right you will see the impact of this caloric intake (yellow arrows) upon the overall state of endo-ketosis. The diary entry to the right constitutes a 70 mmol/L-hr day. Under this sustained profile, a person with mitochondrial suppression would lose 2 – 4 lbs per week. In absence of this ketosis curve, a person with mitochondrial suppression might lose nothing at all or very little, despite featuring the same caloric intake and activity profile. Taking BHB Salts will not produce this necessary endogenous condition the mitochondrial suppression sufferer needs – constituting merely an emulation of the same or similar blood profile acetoacetic acid mmol/L (millimoles per litre).  Below I have listed some tactics the test subject employed successfully to create ketosis (shown in the graphic to the right) on a regular basis (measured in the bench notes as mmol/L-hr, or millimoles per litre-hours – or “Volume’), under the period of this study.

   Tactics of Successful Endogenous Ketosis Under Mitochondrial Suppression

1.  Keep carbohydrate and sugar consumption low in the latter part of the day, after 6pm. Keep carb and sugar consumption low as an overall intake profile.

2.  Avoid consumption of food after 8pm each day. This benefits in ketosis the next day.

3.  Drink coffee in the AM and early PM, with 1/2 oz of MCT oil. This encourages the brain to release the body from the mitochondrial suppression state.

4.  Exercise is a must. Every day. Exercise does not immediately induce endogenous ketosis on the day it is performed, but it contributes to the next day’s endo-ketosis level.

5.  Psyllium husk added to the diet later in the day, will assist in attaining ketosis the next day, by helping keep the colon clean of debris. You will find that the ability to enter endo-ketosis and the state of the colon, are intimately linked. This will stand as a hint as to the cause of mitochondrial suppression later on.

6.  Bio-Available forms of vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, NADH (B3), methylfolate (important: do not take ‘folic acid’) and methylcobalamine (B12) – all these MUST be taken early every morning and in the evening as well on hard activity days. The body will not kick off its Kreb’s Energy Cycle (and the resulting endo-ketosis) in absence of these critical nutrients. If you delay the intake of these vitamins, you will delay the onset of endogenous ketosis each day and reduce the resulting mmol/L-hrs you benefit from.

7.  Fasting, after breakfast and through the entire day all the way to a vegetable and protein 8pm dinner, is essential. If you can, fast for an even longer period, once a week. Eating steadily throughout the day only works AFTER you have established an 8 mmol/L endogenous ketosis or higher, and reasonably early in the day.

8.  Caloric intake must be well below the nutrient-sufficient 3000 calorie day (1800 – 2400 at most). Therefore you are going to NEED to supplement with critical proteins, vitamins and negative ion fulvic acid.

9.  Consume foods which match your genetic disposition and health. A good resource for this approach can be found at Dr. Peter J. D’Adamo’s site: Eat Right 4 Your Type (or book of the same name on Amazon) For me this involved cessation of wheat, barley, oats, corn, soy, canola oil, cottonseed oil, as well as pretty much anything bearing a risk of being sprayed with glyphosate (including to desiccate beans and seeds).

10.  Track your blood acetoacetic acid levels, via urine test strips, every two hours throughout the day until around 10pm. Keep track of what influences serve to therapeutically sustain endogenous ketosis day after day in your body.

11.  Ketosis can be earmarked by a very clear and alert mind – the pure energy of ketones in the blood performing much better as a cognitive energy source than either sugar or carbohydrates. However, one must eat steadily and in small quantities, once 8 mmol/L or higher has been established each day, in order to avoid keto-crash flu. Keto flu takes about 4 to 6 hours to recover from, and risks prompting the mitochondrial suppression victim to over-consume in response to its feeling of sickness/weakness.

12.  Ketosis is very hard to establish until one has taken a bowel movement. This is a sign, I conjecture, that the body is using every single calorie it can find – including ingesting ‘bad’ or contaminated calories, in order to sustain a substitute in its avoidance of using stored ketone energy.

Below, please see the notes I have assembled on this process of critical reduction.

The next question, and the one which social skeptics do not want answered, is: “What is the cause of mitochondrial suppression in its vulnerable American demographic?” It is something which kills microbiome bacteria and was introduced into our diet in the late 1990’s. Not sure what that could be. 🤔

We will get to that question in the coming years, as a group of pro-science and ethical skeptics.

Bench Notes on Mitochondrial Suppression and Ketosis

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Ketosis Lab Notes – Mitochondrial Suppression Disorder” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 17 Aug 2018; Web,


August 17, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | | 2 Comments

The Nature of Elegance

One should draw hint in observing that a lie is often both simple to craft and complicated to defend at the same time. One should not fear complexity, rather complicated-ness and over simplicity; as these are descriptives of systems which lack elegance. Elegance is scientific parsimony in design; often breathtaking to behold, not because of its complexity, but rather because of its reach.
Elegance can sometimes be hard to discern if one is merely an administrator or blind recipient of its benefit. The ethical skeptic therefore always strives to determine the why, and not simply the how. To seek complexity when necessary and straightforwardness when not.

I have always been a why-man, and not a how-man. This tended to piss off my instructors in undergraduate school. But I have found the trait to be of enormous advantage ever since. Accordingly, I was examining my new espresso maker a couple months back and noticed an interesting little feature, which at first perplexed me as to why it was included in the coffee maker’s design. You see, if you press any of two buttons on the espresso maker’s unit control, then both the espresso and lungo lights flash simultaneously, until the unit has heated up, whereupon they both burn solid fluorescent green – and then the unit does absolutely nothing. Upon my first use of the maker, I paused for a moment at this inactivity, and wondered why the buttons just did not function under an ‘on’ and ‘off’ philosophy. Just press the button and as soon as the heating element heats up, the unit starts pumping water into the espresso glass. Such simplicity! Until 3 days later, when I did not have an espresso glass under the dispenser. That scramble to get a glass quickly under the spigot taught me what I needed to know. The why. What I realized through using the unit for a couple days, is that there are three steps to this particular espresso making process: 1. Heating the element, 2. Positioning the espresso glass and 3. Starting the heated water flow/pour. And since the heating of the element in step 1 took some time, what the two step button procedure afforded me was a chance to fill the unit with water, place the espresso capsule inside the machine and finally set the glass under the spigot before I then pressed the solid green button a second time, to start the aromatic flow of espresso. More complex for sure as a process, but also elegant.

The process I had gone through was what is called in industry, a ‘learning curve’. I had accomplished two goals in my learning curve. First I had discovered how to operate the machine correctly and, second and most importantly, why it was designed to operate in a particular fashion. The knowing of why, not just how, is the key which differentiates a designer from an administrator. My administrative assistant, ‘M’ as I call her, would have tackled this challenge much more quickly than did I. She, would have simply read the instructions for the maker and then just followed them. But I bear this nasty penchant for wanting to understand why the starting element for the espresso maker was designed the way it was. I wanted a period of discovery, not just instruction. I wanted to own the machine, and not have the machine own me. I was not an administrator by heart, but am an excellent researcher. M kept me out of trouble for years and years of administrative tasks which I did not accomplish with efficient skill.

Now I once used this penchant for discovery as a young officer in the Navy. Not satisfied with merely knowing how to operate my missile fire control system, I spent a night researching its configuration protocols and reviewing the algorithms used for a launch, so that I could understand the nuances of targeting and engagement. Why? I don’t know. I just felt it important that I understand more than simply the sequence of buttons one needed to push in order to get the missile to lock on, and launch. As a lark in curiosity therefore, I pulled out the engagement protocols and programmed them into my Hewlett Packard 15C programmable calculator, so that I could run through them back in my officer’s stateroom. I forgot about the program stored in my HP-15C’s memory until two days later, when we were ordered by our scene commander to simulate a missile engagement strike. Unfortunately, the missile fire control computer had malfunctioned just hours before the exercise was called – and the fire control team found that they could not calculate a solution for launch, which to successfully feed back to the scene commander. There would be hell to pay for this. So, I offered up to the senior tactical action officer “Sir, I have the launch protocols of the fire control computer programmed into my calculator.” To which he replied “Bullshit!” “No sir, I have all the input variables, output variables and protocols replicated exactly as the fire control system executes them, in my calculator. “Why the hell would you do something like that?” I shrugged and did not pretend an answer.  So we loaded the inputs into the HP-15C and plotted the telemetry and settings for a simultaneous time on top engagement solution. The scene commander replied to our launch report with the hoped-for response, “Roger, out.” Those two confirmatory words over the radio tendered permission for the entire combat team to breathe a sigh of relief. The senior tactical action officer just looked over at me and shook his head, grinned and then walked off. Two months later, I received orders to be discharged from my Persian Gulf billet and take a senior Intelligence Officer role in Washington, D.C. A place where why-men rise to the top, and how-men sit in cubicles assembling reports.

Knowing Why – What Differentiates the Straightforward from the Simple & the Complex from the Complicated

Over the years since, I have designed over 150 million square feet of industrial operating space, some of the most elegant, successful or even award-winning designs in the world. I have developed numerous information systems and novel information technology applications, and even led the crafting of entire national trading markets. This penchant for wanting to know the why – has served its purpose. Knowing why something works the way it does – or should work the way in which it will – this is essential for a systems designer. The systems designer relies upon an important early and foundational study effort, prior to designing anything, called a Requirements Definition. And whether one is designing a missile fire control system, an operational facility for a major corporation or a trade market between the nations of the planet, all such mechanisms hinge upon the important thought processes wound up inside the Requirements Definition phase. What one learns, what one gathers through the learning curve involved in applying Requirements Definitions to effect actual systems designs, is the distinction between a design which is complex, and a design which is straightforward; and hope to avoid systems feature simplicity or complicated-ness. A systems design principle known as ‘elegance’. Elegance, in science, does not mean fancy or highminded, rather it means:


/philosophy : science : systems design/ : the expression of parsimony in design. A descriptive which identifies the inherent trait of a design or process, wherein it comprehensively and completely accomplishes all goals of its crafting in the fewest stacked set of entities possible, and not one entity less.

The two design features indicating elegance (green in the graph above):

1.  Straightforwardness

2. Complexity (plural entities) – when critically necessary

Elegant systems are often breathtaking to behold, not because of their complexity, but rather because of their reach.

The simple translation for those who are Social Skeptics:

Complex –               Good 🙂       =  The goal is understanding

Complicated –         Bad   🙁       =  The goal is rent-seeking or money

Straightforward –    Good 🙂       =  The goal is effectiveness

Simple –                   Bad   🙁       =  The goal is promoting a sales job or lie

To understand why ‘simple’ can be a misleading principle, please read here: When Simple is Just Simply Wrong.

Elegant systems are often breathtaking to behold, not because of their complexity, but rather because of their reach (in effectiveness and extent). Straightforwardness can be breathtaking in its reach just as easily as can complexity. But these types of systems sometimes can be hard to discern if one is merely an administrator or blind recipient of its output/benefit.

As an ethical skeptic, always strive to infer or determine the ‘why’ of a system, and not simply its ‘how’.

In such a context, our common use of the terms ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ reveal an inadequacy at describing elements of professional systems design. Just as ‘rest’ is not synonymous with dreaded ‘idleness’; we fear complexity when we should not. What we should fear is ineffectiveness and bureaucracy. What is in slang described as being ‘complex’, is in actuality rather, complicated; and what is often described as being simple, is in actuality, straightforward. Simple and Complicated serve to damage mislead and destroy. Straightforward and Complex, are signature descriptives of designs involving elegance.

The Axis of a Lie: Simple to Issue – Complicated to Defend

The astute ethical skeptic should take note that a lie is often both simple and complicated at the same time. A lie is simple in its crafting, as the tip of an iceberg is simple, and often thrives inside an ocean of lack of information or complex understanding:

“A lie can travel half way around the world while truth is still putting its pants on.”  ~ Winston Churchill

But a lie is also complicated thereafter in terms of the level of effort needed to then protect it. Religions thrive on simple concepts of god, and thousands of years of apologetics and countless philosophers and reformations necessary in explaining why this simple model constantly fails to make any sense. A simple, yet complicated lie.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave …when first we practice to deceive.”  ~ Sir Walter Scott, Marmion

Both ‘Simple’ and ‘Complicated’ are errors in a system requirements design. Errors which must then be concealed through even more non-elegant tom foolery to in order to protect them.

In contrast to system designs which feature elegance, are those systems or ideas which have reduced entities to the point where the system no longer accomplishes its goals.  Such ‘simple’ systems may function, yet take a long time to betray their flaws to those who hold skin in the game inside their stakeholder base. They end up blowing up on their victims and causing sometimes enormous damage through being crafted in too simple a fashion.  Thereafter, since the liar is often in power and someone has benefited from this damage, the lie must be defended at all costs, and through enormous complicated-ness.

Take note, that complicated-ness often exists in the form of a woven matting of explanations, arising from the liar being in chronic reaction mode in exhaustive defense of the simple lie. Note this about the club of skepticism as well.

Some examples might include these evolutions of simpleton science, which now reside in the complicated defense stage of the lie:

Vaccine Safety Science – the ‘cost benefit analysis’ and followup protocol which served to justify a 49 event US vaccine schedule was – SIMPLE

Agricultural Technology – the impact studies on glyphosate which justified its over employment and ubiquitous presence in our food, came from studies which were – SIMPLE

CICO Weight Paradigm – the prevailing focus on calorie metrics as the sole source of obesity, diabetes and chronic inflammation are the results of dietary study which was – SIMPLE

In compliment to simplicity-lacking-elegance, is the condition of a system which is designed with too plural a set of entities, more than is required to ‘comprehensively and completely accomplish all the goals of its crafting’. This condition is known as Complicated-ness. Complicated-lacking-elegance. When a system is designed to be overly complicated, this is typically done in order to protect the parties benefiting from such complication. Banks, governments, money supplies – all complicated so that the system managers or the system itself benefits from its weakness in design. Some examples of this condition might include:

National Tax Codes/Governance – the government bureaucracies and codes managing the confiscation of assets from private citizens are purposely – COMPLICATED

Monetary Transfer and Banking System – the means of SWIFT and bank to bank transfers of large sums of money are designed to exploit the delay of fund transfers due to processes which are – COMPLICATED

Collegiate and Post Graduate Educational Systems – the paucity of lessons learned and actual knowledge imparted by colleges and universities is designed so as to extract the maximum amount of money possible from citizens, pamper academicians and create a labyrinth of activity necessary in obtaining a degree from a process which is overly – COMPLICATED

The amount of damage imparted through these six simple and complicated systems alone is immeasurable. But we as stakeholders, those who know the ‘why’ of these systems, do not hold the power to influence their design by the how-men. This is backasswards. As you can see, simple and complicated are facets of design – where the process does not involve serving the stakeholders inside a design’s impact; rather serving its operators instead. An issue of ethics.

Something in which we at The Ethical Skeptic are highly interested.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Nature of Elegance” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 8 Jun 2018; Web,

June 8, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , , , | Leave a comment


“The gentle outlasts the strong” or so it is observed in the Tao. Ignosticism – it is not a belief, rather a gentle idea and personal discipline – a refusal to act in the contrivance bullying of the nihilist atheist or fundamentalist theist. It is the only ethical pathway to a metaphysical choice. If you have made your journey through the path of ignosticism, I do not care where you land, but I will at least believe you in that quest.
When we are born, we bear no awareness of arguments around god and deities, nor do we even hold a coherent definition of such. We only learn these constructs later from agenda laden contributors. Ignosticism is an effort to reclaim that virginal status and no longer be tainted or burdened by antiquated, imperious and incoherent arguments – a position unimpressed with obsessions over proof, rational thinking and divinely revealed truths.
Ignosticism is freedom.

As an ethical skeptic and a pursuer of science, the gentle outlasts the strongignosticism is the branch of atheism to which I subscribe. Ignosticism is a discipline of thought which seeks to avoid the common social discourse pitfalls regarding the discussion of theism: specifically those of Wittgenstein (sinnlos and unsinnig) and Popper Demarcation error. I simply contend that the concept ‘god’ bears no scientific Pathway to Accepted Knowledge, and therefore I cannot conclude anything nor make further comment on the matter. Ignosticism is a personal discipline based upon the idea that most or all theological views assume baseless underpinning extraordinary claims to knowledge, as demonstrated by Wittgenstein unsinnig and/or Popper nonscience disputes, coercion, polemic and philippic discourse.  Ignosticism is silent in the face of rhetoric over undefined concepts such as divinity, god, spirituality, heaven, afterlife, null sets, damnation, salvation, alternative life forms, sin and the soul. In ignosticism, I do not run around telling everyone (on any side) how ridiculous their beliefs are. This arrogance is anathema to the character of the ignostic. In ignosticism, I do not feel compelled to mock Muhammad or Jesus, nor marginalize believers as Inquisitionists or Nazis, nor blame atheism for Bolshevik/Stalinist/Maoist purges.


/ihg-ˈnäs-tih-sih-zum/ : ontological silence : a personal discipline that holds that the concept ‘god’ bears no falsifiable (Popper) definition (Wittgenstein), and therefore prohibits me from concluding or making further scientific comment on the matter. A personal freedom from antiquated, imperious and incoherent claims of traditional religion and atheism.

To the ignostic, the mere fact that we exist, and the fact that I reside in this vessel and experience this realm is orders of magnitude more fantastical and improbable than any other claim which has been submitted to me. Beyond claiming my rights as a being, I cannot make any other claim to truth. I expect to be utterly amazed as this gift unfolds.

There is a list of positions however (below) which the ignostic cannot in good conscience make in statement. Instead the ignostic chooses the simple distinguishing of one’s philosophy as a gentle idea and not a religion, an aversion to citing others as being materially incorrect, the refusal to boast of knowing the right question to ask in the absence of sound falsification based science and the lack of any theological position, conclusion or commentary for which one must develop an apologetic to defend.I favor ignosticism because of its discipline in applying The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism.

The First Duty of Ethical Skepticism

/philosophy : ethical skepticism/ : In the same way that science is a method, even so ignorance is also a method. But the scope of cultivated ignorance extends further than that of science itself, in that it is also a method of conditioning and contagion. It propagates through exploiting all manner of cunning and deceit. As an ethical skeptic, your first duty of philosophical acumen is not to execute the scientific method per se, which is straightforward in comparison. You are not here to promulgate conclusions, as that is the habit of your foe. Your ethical acumen is necessary rather, in spotting the clever masquerade of science and knowledge.

As a result, under such a discipline of real skepticism, my personal discipline contrasts with the impetus behind the following list of claims made by philosophy, pseudo-science and religion (denoted by –  see What Constitutes a Religion? and The (Ethical Skeptic) Definition of God).

As an Ignostic I Do Not Make Any of the Following Claims:

= Qualifies as a Religion

ø = Qualifies as a Pseudoscience

despite all the rhetoric - CopyAgnosticism – make the nonsense (Wittgenstein unsinnig Error) claims that

  • you/we have not defined god for me (this is not the same as mute ignosticism) – agnosticism (passive)
  • I do not know if god is knowable – agnosticism (strong)
  • I do not know if there is a god or not – agnosticism (weak)
  • god might exist but it does not/no longer matters to me – Extheism
  • I have no idea so god is irrelevant to me – agnostic apatheism

Nontheism – make the nonsense (Wittgenstein unsinnig Error) and/or nonscience (Popper Error) claims that

Personal Nontheism

  • I lack belief in god(s) – atheism (neutral)
  • I do not believe in god(s) – atheism (weak)
  • I do not believe that any god exists – atheism (strong)
  • I am mad at god or religious people so I claim to believe that god does not exist, as my revenge – extheist Atheism

Social Nontheism

  • there is no such things as a god of any kind, nor should anyone believe in them – nontheism (strong)
  • we are opposed to/seek elimination of any form of god worship – Anti-theism
  • I claim to be an atheist because it sounds better, but really am an Anti-theist and vehement Nihilist – Atheism √ ø
  • we are/I am god by implication (the functional placeholder thereof) – Social Skepticism ø
  • only the material and directly observable (approved by me or my club) exist – Material Monism ø
  • material monism is rational, proved science or scientific – Nihilism ø

Igtheism – make the nonscience (Popper Error) claims that

  • god is meaningless (this is not the same as ‘not holding falsifiable definition’) – igtheism
  • the concept of god does not make sense – theological noncognitivism
  • the senseless (Wittgenstein sinnlos) concepts of god render it irrelevant to me – apatheism (weak)
  • the senseless (Wittgenstein sinnlos) concepts of god render it inherently irrelevant – apatheism (strong)
  • gods exist as an advanced terrestrial, extra-terrestrial or Inter-dimensional culture – interventionism

Deism – make the nonsense (Wittgenstein unsinnig Error) and nonscience (Popper Error) claims that

  • some form of god or gods might or must exist – deism
  • the elegant interleaved dependencies of nature/physics hint that a god must exist – natural theism ø
  • the god or godhead exists – theism
  • a council of gods exists – elohimism
  • god is an omni-empowered person seeking to eternally love, punish or forsake me – fundamental theism
  • I am one of god’s chosen people – electism
  • a certain person is god – hominem-theism
  • I am a god – egotheism
  • I am god’s chosen one – messiah complex
  • I am the god – ego sum deus/insanity
  • I am god’s messenger – prophet complex

Forsantheism – make the nonsense (Wittgenstein unsinnig Error) and nonscience (Popper Error) claims that

  • god is indefinable and might or must exist in several disparate forms – forsantheism ø
  • god is indefinably everywhere including us – pantheism ø
  • god is indefinably in/all of us as a collective – iptheism ø

Neologism – make the senseless (Wittgenstein sinnlos Error) claim that ignosticism is a neologism

The philosophical construct placeholder, as well as the scientific basis of its discipline have always existed, both distinct in approach from the above list of thinking and philosophy, ∴ ignosticism is not simply a new word, and holds specific isolate and logical critical path roles. Therefore the term fails the three tests for rejecting a neologism (novel, non-isolate, non-critical path).

For example the word ‘five,’ was never a neologism. While the word five was new at one time, it was an isolate (basic element) in the sequence of numbers, and held a preexisting critical path role in math logic. Therefore the word five failed two of the three tests to qualify as a neologism. To claim that a word is a neologism, simply because it is novel, under this circumstance where the other two tests of a neologism fail, constitutes a Wittgenstein Error (Descriptive). To claim that a word is a neologism, because it is superfluous with another term (above) which in reality does not, or only slightly overlaps it, is a fallacy by proxy equivocation. The word ignosticism only overlaps with the terms above, to the shallow and untrained mind.

Unless of course one makes the contention that ignosticism is a version of ‘science,’ a fortiori – in which case one might have a point; as the term would hold utility, but also be superfluous.

Freedom to Let the Mystery Be

Additional good news is found, in that, since ignosticism is not a form of theism-abstracted argument, I am also free to not comment or conclude upon a whole host of other ethereal/mystical/spiritual issues aside from the concept of god. No forcing any personal ontological or pseudo-epistemological contention upon others! Such a concept! Ethical Skepticism in application.

A key understanding is this – inside ignosticism, one is free to make a metaphysical selection, or not make one, or even wait until one is ready to make one. All these are possibility, provided one does not force this decision upon others, nor promote their decision as being ‘based upon truth or science’. Such imperious claims are indicative of a heart which was never ready to make its own selection in the first place. It betrays an internal spiritual dishonesty. If you have made your journey through the path of ignosticism, I do not care where you land, but I will at least believe you in that quest.

Ignosticism presents attractiveness for me as a philosopher, former arch skeptic and former studious religious youth, in that it allows the unknown to persist and does not force abject conclusions to the pro or con upon science, self or others.  I spent almost two decades in the ‘atheist/believer’ camps, and eventually began to see the philosophical folly of both as part of my formulation of thoughts around ethical skepticism.  Ignosticism’s central argument is intrinsically a discipline, and not a tenet – it does not possess something to be forced upon others. Much like the Tao is a difficult faith to force on others, because of its ethic of self discipline of thought (and the fact that once you force the philosophy, you are no longer acting in the Tao anyway (see footnote 1). The essence of ignosticism is an ethic of personal choice to disarming the consideration of absurd contentions – Their conversion to the ethical discipline of silence. Neutrally rejecting forced-religious presumptions and definitions. It is a refusal to claim that one knows the penultimate question to ask in the first place. Ignosticism is ethically skeptical.

Indeed, in many ways ignosticism is like good science and skepticism. It is honest, lacking boast, neutral, observing, data collecting, making no claim nor possessing an eagerness to do so without sound basis. It demands that the right questions be asked first, and that no presumption to personal inerrant knowledge underpin one’s search. And in absence of good data and an appropriate question, ignosticism refuses to force a conclusion.

The reality is stark: that among the three forms of logical inference, I cannot apply deductive inference to the issues of god and infinity, nor to a good degree inductive inference; nor can I ethically choose to deescalate to abductive inference. I simply must establish boundaries to the realm inside of which I allow the mystery to be. Be what it is, and not what I would make of it. This mystery, its reality and persistence, not only forces one to be humbly honest – in not knowing, but once one has settled their heart and begun to understand, reveals four of its own truths. Truths which I call the fourfold Law of Advanced Intelligence.

Letting the Mystery Be

Everybody is wondering what and where
They all came from
Everybody is worryin’ ’bout where they’re gonna go
When the whole thing’s done
But no one knows for certain and so it’s all the same to me
I think I’ll just let the mystery be

~ Iris Dement

The Philosophical Foundation of Ignosticism

This hypocrisy of attempting to define that which is not approachable by attribute is illustrated by the principles I call ‘Neti’s Razor’ and ‘I Am that I Am’ (or if you prefer a Sanskrit parallel, Aham Bramsmi). These are the horizontal boundaries of ethical skepticism and ignosticism, which I frame as part of four ordinates when combined with two additional corollaries, the Principle of Indistinguishability and the Non-Existence Definition. All forming a unified resulting and standing boundary of ignosticism – the letting be, of the mystery:

The Ethical Skeptic’s Law of Advanced Intelligence (Ignosticism)

I.  Principle of Indistinguishability (vertical)

/philosophy : science : boundary conditions : limits for claims/ : any sufficiently advanced act of benevolence is indistinguishable from either malevolence or chance.

The ethical heart of ignosticism (the vertical dimension of the graphic below), framed by the first two corollaries below in the horizontal, and the last corollary below in the vertical:

II.  Neti’s Razor (horizontal)

/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : one cannot produce evidence from an entity which at one point did or will not exist, to derive a conclusion that nothing aside from that entity therefore exists.

The principle which serves to cut secular nihilism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of atheism as either philosophy or belief. From the Sanskrit idiom, Neti Neti (not this, not that). Therefore, you are wholly unqualified to instruct me that this realm is the only realm which exists, and efforts to do so constitute a religious activity. So, nihilism falls into a lack of allow-for domain.

III.  I Am that I Am (horizontal)

/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : that which possesses the unique ability to be able to define itself, renders all other entities disqualified in such expertise. There is no such thing as an expert in god.

The principle which serves to cut theism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of belief as either philosophy or religion. From the Torah idiom, I Am (I Am that I Am or in Sanskrit, Aham Bramsmi).  Therefore, if god existed, you are unqualified to tell me about it. So, theism falls into a lack of allow-for domain.

IV.  Non-Existence Definition (vertical)

/philosophy : science : skepticism : elements of attributes/definition/ : six questions form the basis of a definition: What, Where, When, How, Why, Who. The answers to this set of six questions still form an expert definition of attributes, even if the answer to all six is ’empty set’.

Therefore, when one applies the ethics of skepticism – one cannot formulate a definition which is specified as ’empty set’, without due empirical underpinning, a theory possessing a testable mechanism and a consilience of supporting research.  We have none of this, and can make no claims to ‘non-existence’ expertise in god.

Violating Neti Neti is akin to having your mistress stand as an alibi witness in your adultery trial. It is a self-defeating condition of epistemological hypocrisy. In significant contrast, elucidated by means of this Razor therefore, (non-secular, non-nihilist) atheism itself is either a lack of belief, lack of conclusion or lack of allow-for concerning only deities. In parallel to this boundary is the bookend condition wherein one makes a claim that they have a definition for god, such that measurements and tests could have and can then begin to be taken.

The Secular Nihilist and the Theist are making the same premise claim “I have successfully defined god through my expertise and now the next burden step of scientific methodology is to conduct measurements based upon this definition, in order to prove his existence.”

Both the nihilist atheist and the theist are selling expertise in god. Agnosticism is expert open mindedness inside this debate. Ignosticism is in-expert open mindedness. There are no such things as ‘experts’ with god.

To the ignostic, this is an absurd claim and flawed logical process. The question asked is premature and incoherent, and suffers from a shortfall in domain intelligence and foundation philosophical work. In fact, to the ignostic, both secular nihilism and theism are pseudoscientific and absurd beliefs – ie. religions:

Atheism Spectrum

Not that I am instructing anyone to do so but, personally, I choose a ‘Lack of Allow-For’ rather than simply a ‘Lack of Belief.’ This because a ‘Lack of Allow-For’ adheres more closely to the tenets of ethical skepticism. But at the same time I do confess an affinity for both the atheist and agnostic positions. I consider those who hold to those tenets as being individuals who are sincerely deliberating the issue. I do not consider the 3 belief category proponents above to be sincerely deliberating anything – rather trying to instruct me as to what I should believe.

Of the most commonly held contentions, theism, strict atheism, Nihilism (‘Big A’ Atheism), agnosticism as well as fundamentalism are all religious philosophies to the ignostic. Faiths distinguished by holding definitions for that which bears no Wittgenstein language of definition. Distinguished by the way in which one presumes to ask questions, or for all but the agnostic, the choice one makes to subsequently cite all others as being materially incorrect. The religions of Nihilism and Fundamentalism in particular, take absurdity to the extreme of bullying. This is where the social rancor over ‘atheism’ and ‘theism’ originates. It is a fight between extreme dogmatists. Ignosticism cannot boast of material certainty, or that such questions can even be asked. Nor can it be forced as a religion; as it is simply an idea. 

In ignosticism, I do not know what a god is. I have no basis to declare others as being wrong. Therefore I have no belief which to defend. Ontological silence. This is why you do not hear much from the ignostic.

Its Contrast and Reconciliation with Atheism

I could care less therefore, what you choose to believe. Just don’t force it upon me as science, divine revelation nor righteousness. When you do that, you act under your religion. In contrast, ignosticism is simply a lens by which this issue can be viewed rationally. Choices can be made from there, if one so chooses. Ignosticism contends that there can be no proscription nor prescription with the term god or deity. Just as there can be no null hypothesis. A hypothesis requires a base of observation, intelligence and a coherent definition. We have none of this. So all the claims of belief, neutrality, lack of belief, counter-belief, science, ‘science did not observe this,’ or ‘science proves that’ are all misrepresentations of science and discussions of absurdity or reaction in anger, to the ignostic.

Indeed, ignosticism is a deliberate path of ethical exit by means of the door through which one originally and unwittingly was shoved in the first place. The 27th quatrain of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (Fitzgerald’s translation) laments expertly about recovered ignosticism:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

I do not possess a frame of reference on the subject over which you obsess, so how can I possibly recommend or force a view of it upon you? Were you a Hollywood producer asking me to chime in on the tag-along restrictions of the latest version of a Screen Actor’s Guild contract, I would respond that I have absolutely no idea what any of those things are indeed. Ethically, I could not comment. But with atheism and theism participants, un-dawned on their mindset, is the fact that the principles of the SAG, tag-along laws, and Hollywood contracts do not even exist, so the questions are much more basic than the participants of those philosophies even realize. They simply pretend that there is a SAG, and that there are contract laws or tag-along clauses. This pretense constitutes a Wittgenstein Error (unsinnig) in that no language exists, no definitions exist in reality, the context is unframed and the basis of understanding is solely ontological. We pretend that we know the meanings of such words.

The ignostic is ‘unskilled in the argument by choice’ – it is an ethic of attempting to regain the virginosticism of a newly introduced and dispassionate player. A refusal to enter the game of either the duality (belief/anti-belief) or the pretense of knowledge of what the word ‘deity’ means.

But since one can never reclaim a virgin status, sadly the state of ignosticism is the ethical stance of the atheist who refuses the game. It is a circumspect and well considered choice (yellow text in the graph above).

In the above graphic, you see differentiated a position of knowing the definition of god, and choosing whether or not to hold belief, as distinct from either an ignorance of or a refusal to acknowledge god as a coherently defined subject. These are the two categories on the right hand side represented by the gnosis and ignosis boxes respectively. The third box, ‘virginosticism’ is simply a term I made up to elicit the circumstance where we are not even aware that such a debate even exists, moreover nor are we aware of our own lack of belief in the circumstance – as a result. As in the case of aliens or newborn babies – they are brought to the table without any introduction into the debate in the first place. Ignosticism can be viewed as an attempt to try and regain this virgin status of gnosis. To go back to the circumstance where the argument did not even exist in the first place. And while one cannot step back to a status of pure virginosticism – ignosticism can be a viable alternative to knowledge based lacks of belief (agnosticism and atheism).

One must remember that a ‘lack of belief’ is not a scientific argument, rather a personal position. An ignostic ‘lack of allow-for’ is a scientific argument which precludes nihilism every bit as much as it precludes theism.

For the ignostic, only two conditions prompt a ‘lack of allow-for’ disposition:

  1. Something which has been Popper falsified by science, or
  2. Something which lacks Wittgenstein valid scientific definition (as is the case here).

Therefore, to the ignostic

1. agnosticism and atheism’s lack of belief are not scientific mindset disciplines, rather personal dispositions (albeit understandable ones),

2. virginosticism is moot from a practical sense, and

3. nihilism and theism are moot from a farcical sense. They are beliefs which are being taught through non-scientific means (Wittgenstein unsinnig).

Even more so with this concept you call god, I have no idea what a god is – so I can make no claim as to whether or not one exists. Under a Wittgenstein definition of science therefore, it is moot whether or not I know or do not know that I do not hold a coherent definition for ‘god,’ therefore to Wittgenstein and an ethical skeptic, virginosticism is farcically moot (and indeed it is only posed as a lever for understanding here) and the two concepts merge into one philosophical entity called ignosticism. I refuse to acknowledge that the concept has been given a coherent or observation based definition. I adhere to what the Tao says about declaring the duality (gnosis state resulting choice of belief or anti-belief in the graphic/belief-superset above):

The Tao Te Ching cites in Classic Tao Chapter 2:

ttc - CopyThe gentle outlasts the strong

When the world defines beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it defines good as good, evil arises
Thus extant and nonexistent produce each other
Difficulty and ease are their own co-creators
Long and short reveal each other
High and low only exist because of each other

To the ignostic it is the defining of the principle and character of a god which creates both the theist and the atheist. They are the same form of circus clown, both wearing makeup, just painted with different faces. They both worship the same creature crafted of their imagination and seek to enforce that version of worship, veneration and null-veneration, as a set of truth on mankind. To be fair, the nontheist atheist offers the special pleading exemption from this reality by citing ‘well then I don’t believe in gods of any kind, any definition!’ (nontheism). To my friends who are nontheist atheist, I cite this special pleading as a false pluralistic single, a version of the Plurocratic Fallacy.

Pluralistic Single Plurocratic Fallacy

/noun – apologetic/ : a special pleading wherein one claims that their argument applies not to just one version of its claim, but all possible versions of its claim – while failing to define a distinction of such versions – so as to cover all bases in advance. It is therefore a special pleading distinction without a difference.

It is the same exact argument, painted to appear as if it resolves the primary critique.  It does not.  It is purposely crafted to flex one’s philosophy so as to accommodate any objection that can be brought.  This renders the philosophy, a philosophy in name only. The argument is an apologetic grasping for the ethic of ignosticism, when ignosticism does not have an apologetic to begin with. When one chooses to negate an idea, as the Tao Te Ching adeptly cites, one has revealed both itself and its antithesis. One is dancing in the duality, just pretending to not dance.

This broaches the key weakness of pluralistic single atheism.  If you reject all ‘gods,’ by nature of their being and bearing a minimal set of characteristic skills in this realm, where do you draw the line? Omniscience? Omnipotence? Fathomless Compassion and Love? Or simply some reduced specter of each along the road thereof?  You reject then higher beings and caring intelligence of any kind, benevolent celestial life, advanced technology or inter-dimensionality? In the false pluralistic singular, pretty much any definition or domain you craft for this specially pleaded ‘god,’ might well exist. The only reason in your philosophy it does not exist, is because you said that it does not. Where did you get the exhaustive method and evidence from which to underpin this conclusive claim? Ah, someone told you, and said that they were correct because ‘science’ proved it to them. Yes, my dear atheist/igtheist, we have heard this type of claim before, from the very people you disdain. The simple fact is that you are dancing the duality – and pretending to not dance.

You are ‘acting in the contrivance‘ according to the Tao.1

Ignosticism is the idea that any religious term or theological concept presented must be justified through coherent epistemologically derived definition (Wittgenstein), backed by falsification reduction and sound science (Popper). Conjecture is allowed in such a role as to exemplify philosophy, without trivialist’s critique.  However, beyond this, without a clear definition, an ethical question cannot be formulated, and such principles cannot be meaningfully discussed. Once one broaches the threshold of implying such underlying extraordinary claims – as often expressed in the contention that others are materially incorrect, correct or irrelevant; to the ignostic, one is now participating in a religious argument.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as superfluous neologism; because it is simply a variation of agnosticism or atheism. This is superficial and incorrect. This equivocation allows for cognitivist apologetics to be broached, and therefore is not consistent with the core idea of ignosticism : ontological silence : to begin with.

Indeed in this nascent field of ideas, independent author Tristan Vick makes the argument that ignosticism, is the only valid pathway to atheism.2

The atheist, by his own definition, can make no opinion on matters of afterlife, spirituality, the soul, or alternative life forms. Those topics have no context inside of Strict atheism as atheism is only a conclusion about ‘gods.’ The Nihilist possesses final definitions and conclusions about all such concepts, and the debate is closed. This is the strong, it is the power of undeniable conclusion acting inside the contrivance decried by the Tao Te Ching; which eventually falls to the subtle whisper of evidence/lacking evidence rending the original presumptions absurd.

The ignostic in contrast is free to ponder the gentleness of ideas, and is free from the strong of defined conclusions.

Familiar is not congruent with defined and coherent. Be wise in understanding this.

Free to research and consider such principles as their epistemological framework comes into clarity, as they have detached their ideas from the artificial construct of god or ‘no god.’ In the end, the diligent atheist who no longer wishes to instruct others as to what is and is not, in absence of enough knowledge, must find their path through the integrity of ignosticism; both in freedom from religion, and freedom of discussion domain. The diligent theist must likewise step off the pulpit of certainty and regain the wonder of not knowing and model the integrity to withstand the cognitive dissonance which arises from being intellectually ethical. Otherwise they both are forever fixated on the religious duty of telling others that what god and all these things are, and indeed that they do or do not exist. All a life spent dwelling inside absurd noises and wasted philosophy.

epoché vanguards gnosis


How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “Ignosticism” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress,30 May 2018, Web;

May 30, 2018 Posted by | Ethical Skepticism, What is Ethical Skepticism | , , | 12 Comments

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: