Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Spiritualism, Assimilation, Civilization


SPIRITUALISM:  Suppose each separate Identity of Conscious Perspective is in a constant and continuous process of feedback at spiritual, sub-quantum, fractal-receding levels of math.  Each would be coordinated, selected, and conditioned, via evolution and from birth, to understand and relate to such transmissions and feedbacks, at levels below self-awareness.  Maybe affecting how dreams are coordinated with present accumulations of information.  May this be part of how fractals and evolution unfold and are reconciled?  May such processes forever recede and elude complete control under science-based technologies?  Yet, may such processes allow special masters to intervene as control-coordinator-reconcilers at various fractal-levels of limitation-definers?


***********

ASSIMILATION:

So our Fed gov now deploys "Education" officials to groom school children to deviant sex. Likely soon to normalize transgenderism, pedophilia, polyamory, bestiality, polygamy. To grant rights to multiples of same sex partners to adopt children. To outlaw free speech when it opposes PC-approved perversion. To fund deviant "charities." To agitate students to protest the defense of our borders from sworn jihadi enemies.

So why be surprised when our gov authorities call Islam a "religion" of peace, or Satanist Clubs tax-exempt charities?

Assimilating faith, family, fidelity: Undermine those, and no representative republic can long stand.

*********************

FOOLISH CONSISTENCIES:

A foolish consistency is the downfall of linear minds. Foolish consistency is how marriage is expanded to meaninglessness. How citizen status is rendered meaningless. How forced acknowledgment of a worldwide murder cult becomes a "religion." How worship of evil becomes protected as a religion. How republics are destroyed.

**********************

REPUBLICAN CIVILIZATION:

Law-drooling linear thinkers bent on foolish consistencies tend to assume the sides of an equation, with regard to its terms, remain static. That the terms will change and balance in number, but not in kind. But reality often entails terms that change by fluxing and phase shifting into terms that are different from those of the original equation with which they were being observed, recorded, or considered.

Methods of observation, recordation, and consideration flux with phase changes in status.  Rebalancing is often pulled from a wider context, not from a simple linear formula. Especially when terms under an original formula are stretched beyond their point of consistent application. When attempts at consistency become morally foolish.

This is often the case when an oligarchy of self-pleasuring hedonists becomes too wealthy and powerful over a representative republic. Linear thinkers may presume oligarchs "earn" their money, property, influence, and power and "should" be entitled to keep them. They often fail to comprehend how power, beyond a point of balance, easily tips and phases to absolute corruption.

For a republic to fail to implement checks against the rise of oligarchs whose only principle is for self-pleasuring is for that republic to sleep with devils. And to promote devil worship to a protected form of "religion."

Friday, March 10, 2017

Health Care


I wonder what would happen if Congress took us to Single Payer, to be phased into State Payers, conditioned on limitation to persons with permanent legal residence status, with revenue sharing to that purpose? (Given the revenue sharing aspect, Roberts could call such a scheme a "tax.") Let the States figure out the insurance issues, provided that insurers must be allowed to compete across state borders.
Get the insurers out of the central lobbying. Make them compete across borders. Don't license them to sue individual non-payers or to convert them to debt slaves.
Take the burden off employers and corporations.
Take most of the benefits away from illegal invaders.


Re: " Fines are payable to Insurance Companies instead of the Treasury (Fascism)"
Sounds like it would empower Insurance Corporatists to confiscate the holdings of people too poor to pay for insurance and to turn those people into debt slaves.
This does sound like a kind of fascism that would empower corporations to make perpetual serfs out of the masses. Which fits almost perfectly with the NWO ideal of oligarchic collectivists.
The flimflammers will never give up their flimflammery, will they?

Reverse Flush


The gap in wealth between ordinary people and oligarchs has increased far beyond the point of diminishing social returns. It is true that entrepreneurs need to accumulate wealth and capital to be able to offer jobs and organize productive employment. Better that they do that than bureaucrats. But to allow oligarchs to agglomerate more wealth than they can put into productive employment is to encourage them to invest the excess by buying political favors for the purpose of pulling the ladders up.
Then the system becomes perverse, similar to what we have now. Evil gets promoted, while virtue is sent packing. We end up with people in power who, like Obama, are evil, cynical, lying, deceiving, chooming, grooming, abusing shills and agents for self-godded, people-farming, fascist-oligarchic collectivists.
Once the ladders are pulled up, inefficiency increases much the same as if productive work were taken over by governmental bureaucrats. That's when fascism becomes much the same in effect as socialism. How then to reduce the gap in wealth, so that fascist oligarchs stop investing so much in buying governmental favors and instead invest in more socially productive endeavors?
Assuming the political will were gathered to reduce the oligarchic insults to humanity, I have not been able to think of any clear way to accomplish that purpose, short of redistributive catastrophe.
I have mused about a fuzzy way, but I am by no means confident it would work. That way would take a few generations. It would entail a progressive tax on each citizen's consumption --- with all governmental lobbing investments to be treated as personal consumptions charged to the agent who exercised authority to approve such investments in buying political influence.
To work, such a plan would have to entail ways to capture fleeing accounts. I am not confident such a progressive tax on personal consumption could work. But, short of redistributive catastrophe, I don't see much by way of an alternative.
I suppose there is RICO. However, the RICO rules will always be subject to oligarchic buying. And, to work, they would have to be applied hundreds of times in the courts --- even though the courts are easily perverted simply by bribing judges, shopping forums, and propagandizing the public with oligarchic owned media. The Oligarchy and its ACLU own the Game of Courts. The people at large have as much chance at incrementally prevailing in the Courts as a small better has of taking a Casino House down.

Re: " Fines are payable to Insurance Companies instead of the Treasury (Fascism)"
Sounds like it would empower Insurance Corporatists to confiscate the holdings of people too poor to pay for insurance and to turn those people into debt slaves.
This does sound like a kind of fascism that would empower corporations to make perpetual serfs out of the masses. Which fits almost perfectly with the NWO ideal of oligarchic collectivists.
The flimflammers will never give up their flimflammery, will they?

Re: "A powerful mental construct – the liberal myth of a progressive utopia brought about by surrender of the individual to state control – is at risk of being swept away by a great movement to free consciousness from the controlling ideas of the liberal past."
Indeed! The work of the ACLU and its fellow-traveling legalistic-utopians can be summed up as law drooling. Rabid droolings of godless and/or godforsaken, wannabe people-farmers. Funky S for brains.

Why are people who identify as Jews, even when they are atheistic, so unlikely to marry people who do not identify as Jews?
Why do these same people tend to promote the diversification of every other tribe/society/culture?
Why are they so opposed to applying their preaching about diversity to themselves?
Why are they not called more to account for this?
Why do they tend to incite "privilege" ideas by all minorities against all whites, except Jewish whites?
Is it "anti-Semitic" to call a white Jew to account for his privilege and his tendency to prefer supporting and promoting his own tribe. even as he tries to shame others that may do the same?
Better yet, why have other whites allowed this hypocrisy to go unchallenged for so long?
Why are you always preaching about anti-Semitism? What are American Jews being denied? How are their rights being restricted? If they are so mistreated, why are nearly all our institutions and much of our nation's wealth under strong Jewish influence?
There are billions on this planet who really are mistreated. How are you being mistreated? What is society denying to you that you think you should be entitled to?

I would rather that needed social incentives be general, rather than applied as direct force. I don't trust elites to make detailed, intrusive decisions for each member of the masses. I prefer a society of educated, responsible citizens, who are respected and trusted to do what's best for themselves --- subject only to such general constraints as are necessary.
The problem is, as difficulties approach becoming emergencies, ever more specific and intrusive constraints and rations are soon deemed to be necessary. And sometimes the emergencies are hyped or invented, to facilitate elitist rule. I would rather societies acquire vision enough to instigate general (tax) incentives to reduce populations.
Some societies are less suited to individual trust, responsibility, and freedom. But that is not a good reason to flip our demography to become like them.
Too many unwise and abusive people want to run other people's lives. Maybe they can be trained or diverted more to identify with virtual worlds of X Boxes, where they can interact in virtual worlds, without harming ours so much?

Many years ago, I believed in affirmative action to be encouraged or imposed by the government. Since then, I have learned how it produces ingrates and hollows out real charities. Indeed, most charities nowadays seem to be about lobbying for more gov welfare in order to produce more ingrates --- who tend to be incompetent, both in skills and in moral purposefulness.
I raised children who have become good citizens. I did not do that by raising them to feel entitled to reparations. Mommas and Daddies, don't raise your children to be ingrates. They'll always be unhappy -- even when they're looting.

Ingrates owe gratitude, but they will never find it in themselves to show it. They think this makes them righteous. In reality, it makes them unhappy and spiritually deformed. And harder to love or want to help. Trying to help an ingrate is like pouring time and money down a pit.

One of the worst traits to instill in a child is a general sense of entitlement to everything.  When a person believes he is owed, he is not grateful when he receives volunteered help or charity.  More likely, he sees the volunteer as a mark.  He does not learn charity from a mark, but he does learn how to bait and take from marks.  Moreover, this ugly character trait is soon seen by his relatives, friends, and even acquaintances.  Not many people want to volunteer their time to help an ingrate with a permanent attitude disorder.  Not even a dog will play with an ingrate dog.  A jealous, envious ingrate is a walking sin, looking for a place to happen.
And why the crazy concern about equalizing material goods?  Above what is needed for shelter, sustenance, and community, how much value is there, really, in additional material stuff?  How many real friends would you surrender in exchange for more material stuff?
Our society has free access to libraries, with computers, with access to an internet of information of which the richest Kings of old had but a tiny fraction.  This was developed, not by a communistic society, but by a society that respected the dignity of individuals and their freedom of expression and enterprise.


Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Enlightened Governance





With regard to taxes and regulations, it's complicated to say what we should worry about. My take would be this:

We should worry about our tax incentives that are perverse. We need incentives and ways to gradually trim population, trim gov size, trim gov expenditures, delegate gov functions to states and localities.

If power players are not to evolve and devise ways of divisiveness and technology to kill us all, we need less stress. More assimilation of a kind of empathy that is strong enough to pre-emptively defend its liberty against sociopathic people abusers. Less meekness and more strength in social values related to Christianity.

Less race baiting. More tolerance for the spiritual value of each person. Less tolerance for sociopathic gang-bangers, fascists, and narcissistic despots. Less tolerance for the idea that it's ok for societies of proven fascists and despots to use gov funds to indoctrinate populations with tribal based hatreds and to acquire dangerous technologies. Less tolerance for sub-humanizing cultures seeking to acquire instruments of mass destruction.

We should not allow sub-humans to grow technologically strong. We should not allow oligarchs to gain absolute or worldwide power.

Problem is, our schools and institutions are teaching and promoting opposites: Weakness, toleration of monsters, political correctness as defined by despotic oligarchs, safe spaces, delusionary free stuff, doped up vacations from reality, gender fluidity, family de-definition, polyamory, gov as nanny, social and individual irresponsibility, undue faith in the noblesse oblige of people abusing elitists, and so on.

**************

I would rather that needed social incentives be general, rather than applied as direct force. I don't trust elites to make detailed, intrusive decisions for each member of the masses. I prefer a society of educated, responsible citizens, who are respected and trusted to do what's best for themselves --- subject only to such general constraints as are necessary.
The problem is, as difficulties approach becoming emergencies, ever more specific and intrusive constraints and rations are soon deemed to be necessary. And sometimes the emergencies are hyped or invented, to facilitate elitist rule. I would rather societies acquire vision enough to instigate general (tax) incentives to reduce populations.
Some societies are less suited to individual trust, responsibility, and freedom. But that is not a good reason to flip our demography to become like them.
Too many unwise and abusive people want to run other people's lives. Maybe they can be trained or diverted more to identify with virtual worlds of X Boxes, where they can interact in virtual worlds, without harming ours so much?

Well, I have no way to determine the cause. I can see correlates. And I can speculate on spiritual causes. But I could no more prove "the cause" than I could prove ramifications from the flight of a butterfly.
For correlates, I see economic successes leading to soft lives, leading to parental indulgences, leading to non-merit based feelings of entitlement, leading to shame unless reinforced by others similarly situated, leading to denigration of "acting White," leading to greed and jealousy and envy, leading to tribes and gangs justifying gratifications and predations, leading to disloyal and foreign opportunists cheaply buying our politicians and political favors, leading to phony governmental promises, leading to the breakdown of families and individual discipline and responsibility, leading to cheap pleasures and thrills, leading to the hollowing of America.
The signs are increasing numbers of Mosques, diminishing numbers of Christian congregants, increased divorce rates, more stressed and troubled and alienated children, increased disrespect for the flag and nation. Basically, the hollowing and desecration of faith, family, and fidelity.
For a main cause, I think too many people have expected too much from scientism, and so they have turned away from spiritual-based good faith and good will. They are trying to fill the void with superficial, cheap, meaningless pleasures and thrills.
This may continue until it can't.
How to reverse it? A Moses or Jesus. We need some wise and inspirational leaders to smash through the prevailing moral idiocy and point a way to a better way of being. My faith is that the need will bring forth the personages. But it won't be cheap or easy. Nothing worthwhile is.


Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Peaceful Protestors





A lot of Lefties are more like infants, looking to force the gov to take the place of parents that over-indulged them. Their tactics are not that far from temper tantrums. Some toddlers aren't used to having to articulate their concerns. They expect their parents to read their body language, i.e., frowns, wailings, tantrums, fits, feces throwing. They increase the protest volume when that is rewarded. So it comes to pass that thugs are given space to destroy. They haven't learned about t for tat.

Mathematically, the best strategy tends to be this: Start out nice, then exchange t for tat -- subject to forgiveness. Or a smiley face. :)

https://plus.maths.org/cont...

Not so good is to give out participation trophies or to pass out rewards for nothing. Watch The Miracle Worker sometime, about Helen Keller.

This is basic. But it seems to have escaped most teachers and profs. Have they been educated into stupidity? Given the damage they have done to the society at large, I don't see the point in trying to put it more politely. They have earned far, far worse.

This seems not that much different from what God/Nature does to us, over the long run. Like Karma.





The peaceful protestors are those supporting Trump. The people spraying pepper, shouting down speakers, undermining free speech, banning books, faking affronts, and vandalizing property are Dems.



Who is more corrupt and has the lower IQ: The typical Klansman, or the typical BLM Looter/Vandal? Well, check the crime stats.



I suspect the stock of genes that indulged the lynchings of the past is similar to the stock of genes that presently provides useful idiots, agitators, and thugs for the Paymasters who profit from divisiveness.

Genes and Memes that made Klansmen now make Progsmen. Still working for the corrupt Paymaster. An incompetent, infantile, incorrigible, blood-sucking Dem is a blood-sucking Dem.



This is the double-plus double-standard of double-thinking disciples of Marcuse. This is rationalized as necessary, to even the playing field. Even though the playing field (most of the institutions of persuasion, bribery, seduction, and force) is largely owned and operated by godless and godforsaken paymasters of Proggies (who nevertheless cherish membership in their fellow gang-banging tribes). Why do secular atheistic Jews cherish their Jewish membership? Why do Blacks want to exclude Whites? And so on.

There is nothing good or decent about perpetual infantilism or gang-banging rationalization. They are little more than rationalization for evil parasitism and predation. Infants, after all, start off as parasites. If they do not grow out of that phase, they remain parasites indefinitely. You cannot fix Proggies or talk them out of parasitism by rewarding parasitism or by being nice to it.





First, you seem to target Conservatives. Then you want to target Whites. Then to imply White Klansmen are more likely serial killers. I don't trust your notions.

I suspect you want to claim to be fair minded and not a racist, yet want to blame some kind of "white gene" for an increased propensity for mass crime. I was talking about the distribution of corruption, intellect, and crime at the fringes of both Political Parties.

I do suspect that the more indoctrinated a person is, the more likely he is to take his violence outside of his family and community.

With regard to your race-based notion, I checked https://www.fbi.gov/stats-s..., to see if there was any substance in support.

Some pertinent quotes from that source are:

"The racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population."

"The difference between these types of offenders [killers] and other serial murderers is the nature of their traveling lifestyle, which provides them with many zones of comfort in which to operate."

"Serial murderers, like all human beings, are the product of their heredity, their upbringing, and the choices they make throughout development."

"Neglect and abuse in childhood have been shown to contribute to an increased risk of future violence. Substance abuse can and does lead to increased aggression and violence."

"The development of a serial killer involves a combination of these factors, which exist together in a rare confluence in certain individuals. They have the appropriate biological predisposition, molded by their psychological makeup, which is present at a critical time in their social development."

"The majority of serial killers who are sexually motivated erotized violence during development. For them, violence and sexual gratification are inexplicably intertwined in their psyche."

"Attendees did identify certain traits common to some serial murderers, including sensation seeking, a lack of remorse or guilt, impulsivity, the need for control, and predatory behavior."

"Psychopathy is a personality disorder manifested in people who use a mixture of charm, manipulation, intimidation, and occasionally violence to control others, in order to satisfy their own selfish needs."

"The lifestyle behaviors include stimulation-seeking behavior, impulsivity, irresponsibility, parasitic orientation, and a lack of realistic life goals. The anti-social behaviors include poor behavioral controls, early childhood behavior problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, and criminal versatility."

"Psychopaths are not sensitive to altruistic interview themes, such as sympathy for their victims or remorse/guilt over their crimes. They do possess certain personality traits that can be exploited, particularly their inherent narcissism, selfishness, and vanity."

"Ideology is a motivation to commit murders in order to further the goals and ideas of a specific individual or group. Examples of these include terrorist groups or an individual(s) who attacks a specific racial, gender, or ethnic group."

**************************

See also https://www.scientificameri...

"African-Americans comprise the largest racial minority group among serial killers, representing approximately 20 percent of the total. Significantly, however, only white, and normally male, serial killers such as Ted Bundy become popular culture icons."

**************************

At bottom, we are all human beings. The more we focus on race and other superficialities, the more we miss the more important social issue, which is: Do we as a society want to retain a decent respect for the freedom and dignity of individuals, as availed under a representative republic? Or do we want to subjugate the republic to a new, lowest common denominator, globalism -- to be ruled by "morally beneficent" (fair minded and equal) elitists and their oligarchic paymasters?

With regard to taxes and regulations, it's complicated to say what we should worry about.  My take would be this:
We should worry about our tax incentives that are perverse.  We need incentives and ways to gradually trim population, trim gov size, trim gov expenditures, delegate gov functions to states and localities.
If power players are not to evolve and devise ways of divisiveness and technology to kill us all, we need less stress.  More assimilation of a kind of empathy that is strong enough to pre-emptively defend its liberty against sociopathic people abusers.  Less meekness and more strength in social values related to Christianity.
Less race baiting.  More tolerance for the spiritual value of each person.  Less tolerance for sociopathic gang-bangers, fascists, and narcissistic despots.  Less tolerance for the idea that it's ok for societies of proven fascists and despots to use gov funds to indoctrinate populations with tribal based hatreds and to acquire dangerous technologies.  Less tolerance for sub-humanizing cultures seeking to acquire instruments of mass destruction.
We should not allow sub-humans to grow technologically strong.  We should not allow oligarchs to gain absolute or worldwide power.
Problem is, our schools and institutions are teaching and promoting opposites:  Weakness, toleration of monsters, political correctness as defined by despotic oligarchs, safe spaces, delusionary free stuff, doped up vacations from reality, gender fluidity, family de-definition, polyamory, gov as nanny, social and individual irresponsibility, undue faith in the noblesse oblige of people abusing elitists, and so on.

God and Freedom


Without respect for innate spiritual higher-mindedness (the Godhead), science-reason-secularism would be lame. Science is powerless to derive or inspire higher-minded morality and empathy. Pure reason cannot derive ought from is. That requires receptivity to the immeasurable Source-Reconciler. And that receptivity is only available in direct intuition, innate empathy, good faith, and good will. Organized religion merely provides forums for assimilating the sustaining values of good faith and good will. Without that, we would be mere serfs and slaves to law droolers, who would rule us and exempt themselves. Christian values inspired and sustained America's Founders. No other system or religion has come close to that record for promoting decent human values of individual freedom of expression and enterprise. Too often, scientisimists rush from moral lameness to spiritual blindness.


CONCERNING SCIENCE, COMMUNICATION, AND CONSCIOUSNESS:

We often think of simple "cause and effect" communication as being inanimately unconscious and billiard-ball like. Then we consider communication among conscious beings with multi layered brains, using symbols and words of multi, fluxing, and ambiguous layers and levels. Such communication entails processes of feedback, to refine communication and make it clearer in perspective and context.

Feedback is essential to communication among conscious beings. Without communicative feedback, there could be no tendency towards clarification out of the background of fuzz, noise, and chaos. The essential aspect of Consciousness is communicative feedback. (This implicates conscious modeling, i.e., representation-communication-clarification.  Re-presentation means presentation of something other than the original thing-in-itself.  Re-presentation is what is accomplished when a photon, impacting a substance, leaves/imprints an image, and receives/carries another.  An image of something is not the original thing itself.)

Among mortals, this entails a body (Substance) with memory (Mind) and time (recorded Information). Human beings do not interact simply as pre-set billiard balls, but as evolving identities that process feedback.

Is consciousness limited to human beings? Maybe consciousness of self is limited to higher-brained creatures. But what about sub-consciousness of identity? How does any so-called inanimate part-icle retain its measurable identity even as its various layers and levels inter-function with other particles in ways that, on individual levels, retain some aspect or degree of innate uncertainty? Out of the allowed range of possible expressions within the limits of defining parameters, how --- except with communicative feedback --- is the relative locus, vector, charge, mass, inertia, relative speed, density, frequency, wavelength, and intensity of any particle/wave conserved, phased, renormalized, and reconciled? And how is this dance of feedback communicated and coordinated within the cosmic bubble that we happen to share?

Often, we forget that even communication (transference of force and/or energy) among the tiniest of billiard balls entails fractals of many layers, levels, and fluxing perspectives, contexts, and phase shifts. Just when we suppose we have found the tiniest building block billiard ball or particle, we find it phase shifts into something more ambiguous and receding, like a rainbow. We may come to intuit that no particle really abides as a thing in itself, but that the measurable substantiality of every particle is renormalized to perspectives to the extent they happen to share a frame of reference.

If conscious perspective is essential to avail any particle of meaningful, measurable, recordable existentiality, then consciousness must abide as an innate aspect of beingness. So, of beingness, we have the present measurability of substantiveness (Substance), the past accumulation of records of previous substantiveness (Information), and shared renormalization of perspectives to context (Consciousness). Thus, our existential reality consists of three fundaments of equal essentiality: Consciousness, Substance, and Information -- CSI. Immeasurable Consciousness must inter-permeate with all of Substance that is measured out and then recorded into re-derivable Information. Thus, the unfolding source (Godhead) must feedback and flux with Consciousness, Substance, and Information.

Of Measurable Science and Cause and Effect:

As the measurables around our bodies and minds change, so do we -- coordinately. We do not cause the measurables to change, nor do they cause us to change. These measurables are merely the coordinate significations of change. But, intuitively and empathetically, some inter-functioning, feeding-back, Reconciling-Source of innately spiritual and immeasurably conscious apprehensions and appreciations does part-icipate -- in Itself and with us -- to facilitate all such change.

Our apprehensions, appreciations, coordinations, and observations of chronological unfoldings ("causes and effects") do not cause such change, but are interwoven with it. We appreciate the signs that are "written on the wall."

As the rules and formulas that nurture us change, we are facilitated to notice and sometimes measure perspectivistic and relational rates of such change --- even though our conscious Will to "cause" such change is not free, but only part-icipatory.

The measurables we notice are not "in themselves" measurable, but measurable only to perspectives within contexts, relationally. From points of view that are normalized to a shared frame of reference ("bubble").

The CSI Godhead (Consciousness/Substance/Information) applies presently operational rules to appreciate new rules, which in turn eventually coordinate with change in the previous rules.

*********************************



TWINS DIFFERENTIALLY TRAVELING IN SPACE-TIME:  An identifiable particle in space, to the extent it continues in time, is necessarily functioning both as a particle and as a wave, through space-time.  Its accumulation of relationships is how it records relationships/chronologies in time.  Different particle/waves accumulate relational information at different rates.  When they mix, they renormalize with one another.  A photon imparts information concerning a pervious record of an image as it absorbs a new record of an image.  This entails a process of image-ination and in-form-ation.   Differently traveling twins may differentially experience and absorb in-form-ation, so that, when they return to re-mix together, one may be of a different entropic aspect in wear and tear from the other.  One will have experienced information at differently renormalizing rates, intervals, and interpretations from the other.


*****************

A photon is a particle in space and a wave in time.  In space-time, a photon is a particle-wave.

***************


Science, in itself. is not real.  Rather, science, as an unfolding process, is real only in this respect:  The CSI Godhead (Consciousness/Substance/Information) applies presently operational rules to make new rules, which in turn eventually change the previous rules. 
Once the previous rules are changed, their old formulas and formulations may or may not be preserved as part of the past -- depending on the extent to which the information accumulated and recorded concerning the past is preserved.
If our cosmic bubble were burst or dissipated, would its accumulation of Information (or "science") be preserved as part of what is real?  Who can say?

Welding as a science remains real only to those of us who happen to share a bubble in which the process that we call welding is reliable. Apart from that happenstance, the reality of welding, as we know it, is temporal. Against the time of the Godhead, the reality of our science of welding may be fleeting, at best.

****************

To my conceptualization, a feedback situation applies between the Trinitarian Godhead of (immeasurable) Consciousness-(measurable) Substance-(accumulation of past recordation) Information and the various individual and particular perspectives of it, such as the personages on our planet. 
I conceptualize that the CSI Godhead appreciates moral purposefulness, but that its appreciation fluxes with feedback regarding us.  We do participate in defining how our destinies can and should unfold.   That has to do with how our prayers and purposes are reconciled in ways that do not threaten the rules that limit and define our shared bubble.
The Great Commandment is merely to love (appreciate) the Reconciler (CSI).  It is absolute.  Subordinate moralities are relative.  They are reconciled out of the mix.  Regarding them, I can say or judge, given such and such a purpose, such and such was counterproductive (or evil).  But, if we are to speak of morality, I believe all subordinate moral codes should serve in some respect the Great Commandment (good faith) and the Golden Rule (good will).
What is an I-ness?  Simply a perspective of the holistic CSI, given particular form by limiting its capacities and senses.  Without limits to our particular forms, we could not be humans or evolve as humans.  Homeschoolmom expressed some related ideas concerning how evolution unfolds consistently with entropy.

*******************

Is there really a foolproof Turing Test?  I don't see how objective-measuring can remove all potential for subjective other-directing.
The eye has evolved to allow us to see, tune, and take approximate measures of relational size, form, and distance.  Other of our senses allow us to take approximate measures of heat, pressure, taste, sound, balance. Together, I think our senses facilitate a general sense of consciousness of self.  A qualitative sense of being.  I think various receptors allow sensations of pleasure.  Together, I think that allow a qualitative sense of purposefulness
I think a qualitative sense of morality is an upshot of the mix of senses of being and of purpose.   (Dogs are readily seen to exhibit a sense of fair play.)   However, apart from good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule) that seem to flow inherently from the general senses of being and of purpose, I don't think the cosmic Godhead sponsors any other permanent rules of morality.
 Rather, evolution unfolds generally in coordination with a generalized sense of being and of purpose.  Societies of laws and governance evolve in coordination with their capacity to endure and to facilitate various aspects of good faith and good will.  I doubt any person or society that was entirely devoid of good faith and good will could long survive or replicate. 
Dawkins seemed to hypothesize a kind of good will attraction among "selfish genes."  He modeled that, and engaged in statistical analysis.  But I doubt individual genes are "really" selfish.  I suppose one could engage in statistical analysis to  "measure" degrees of "sensations of being" or of "sensations of purposefulness."  But I suspect such analysis would amount to circular rationalization to a contrived purpose.  Fundamentally, I think of the sense of being and the sense of purpose as being qualitative, not quantitative.
The relative power and freedom to give expression to moral purposefulness (good faith and good will) fluxes between societies and their individual members.  Some societies tend towards collectivism, others towards individualism, others towards empire or globalization, others towards nihilism and anarchy.  These varieties of social expression compete.  Whatever the upshot, historians (and scientisimists) of the time will be paid to rationalize it as moral (or perhaps even the best of all possible worlds).  Some may even call the desired upshot the everlasting will of the Godhead.  I don't dwell much on that.
I don't think there are many specific rules of cosmic morality.  Rather, most rules of morality are subordinate to a purpose.  If we are of a society that values freedom of expression and enterprise for individuals, then we will promote a different set of rules than would those who aspire to a society that more values longevity, security, equality, servitude, and diktat.  If one considers the power of the human brain, it seems a wrong and a waste to confine it to servitude.
For a decent, civilizing society that respects and facilitates the freedom of expression and enterprise of individual citizens, I think a model for a religious faith is invaluable and essential.  That model may evolve, but it would need to inspire respect for a caring, empathetic, inviting, tough-loving, Reconciler.  It would need to accord forums for congregants of good faith and good will to coordinate their rules of social engagement.   Preferably, more in terms of general morality than in terms of stifling elitist regulations down to the toenails.  However, when the citizenry is unassimilated, divided, and ruled by oligarchic collectivists, then individual freedom of conscience will tend to be replaced by stifling, arbitrary, ignorant, sub-humanizaing, elitist diktat.
If the Reconciler smiles on the efforts of American Idealists, we will preserve the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, and the idea of Christian Charity (not Gov taxation).  However, if the ACLU has its way, oligarchic collectivists will run most Christians out of the public square.  Presently, the ACLU and its fellow travelers have made long strides towards a general course of sub-humanization.

**********************

There aren't many substantive expressions that do not yield in aspects to approaches for mathematical analysis.  The more we happen to depend on a shared bubble of approaches, the more we will tend to communicate among ourselves AS IF those approaches were "real." 
However, even for the most reliable of dependencies, such as, for example, the speed of light,  it is becoming more apparent, over a wide and long enough haul,  that even those change.  There are no non-trivial formulas that are true-in-themselves, apart from a limiting and happenstance bubble. 
While everything that we communicate can be subjected to math-based analysis (some in more detail and encompassment than others), all such communications (the non-trivial or non-tautological ones) are incomplete.  There will always be unmeasured or immeasurable qualitatives at the fringes and in the fuzzy transitions and phase shifts.  In some endeavors, those qualitatives often lead our best laid plans to go awry.  We proceed then with leaps of faith, tinkering, searching for better explanations and models that are more complete or reliable to our purposes.
I doubt a philosophy based purely in substantive and math-based analysis can well serve the moral needs and chosen purposes of humanity.  Or even a "best" model of "reality."  I think reality tends better to be modeled as Trinitarian.  Past, present, future.  Substance, Information, Consciousness.  In constant and continual flux.  (Moreover, I suspect even the very bubble we share is reconciled to flux in feedback response to the ways we happen to model and tinker with it.  Like a living X-Box Virtual Reality Holodek of feedback reconciliation.  How many more cloud advancements before players become more like virtual gods to their chosen X Boxes?)
Sam Harris would likely agree with you and disagree with me.  So, if one were to swallow that pleasure is the most important or only worthwhile human purpose, then one may suppose that the only test of morality is what would facilitate the most pleasure for the most people.  There are problems in logic with that, but put those aside.  If one takes the leap of faith that what is moral is what is most pleasurable to most people, then one could, like Ron Hubbard, audit for brain wave evidence of pleasure sensations.  Then a team of moral scientists could endeavor to apply findings to the mass herd of humans.   Thus could a Church of Scientology evolve to a Church of Scientism.
But that cup of tea would not be for me.

******************

It used to amaze me how little insight and common sense people have who think like you. Yes, God is irrelevant to an attempt to find a theory of physics to explain and control every measurable thing. No, God is not irrelevant to innate spiritual insight, intuition, and empathy. Nowadays, I tend to feel sorry for people who lack the common sense to understand that, but I cannot fix them.
The Godhead does inter-function with our cosmos. The way IT does so is by effecting choices within parameters of possibilities. Because the way IT does so with regard to measurables is necessarily consistent with math-based rules for measuring, neither math nor empiricism can be used to prove or confine the Godhead. So, the only way the Godhead is relevant to us is through innate spiritual intuition and empathy. It is with those that we derive our moral codes and meaningful purposes. Not through some grand theory of moral science for measuring degrees of morality.
Regarding morality having "nothing to do with science," I would not say morality has nothing to do with science. I would say that morality has nothing measurable to do with science.
When you say morality pertains to "what is best from the society it represents," you use that word "best" in an ambiguous way. Do you mean measurably best, or do you mean intuitively, empathetically, and immeasurably best? Unless you mean measurably best, then you are in effect, however unwittingly, in agreement with me. But if you do mean measurably best, then you need to provide a more rigorous, scientific definition of your term "best." It does not appear that you have thought this through.

My only proof is in direct experience of a general (qualitative) sense of being.  Not in any specific (quantitative) measure to any specific sense.

Re:  " what the society as a whole agrees that is best"

And who is the judge of what society as a whole agrees (or should agree, or changes its mind to believe, i.e., have faith) is best?  To think this is some kind of objective or scientific test is silly.  How does "society as a whole" agree?   Is "settled morality" like "settled science"? 

Surely, you can do "better" than that.  Are you saying that some kind of utopian representative republic should be forced on every society, culture, and nation --- regardless of the traditions and desires of its people?  How chauvinistic of you!

Regarding proof:  Yes, by definition, to confine holistic God to a definition or an empirical proof is beyond any mortal's particular capacity.  I don't deal in silly empirical proofs of God.  I deal in reasons to have faith in a Reconciler of unfolding moral purposefulness. 

Not all reasons for all issues can be subjected to rigorous measurements or material tests.  Some are based in direct intuition or empathy.  Not in measurement by any particular sense, but in experience of a general sense of being. 

For example, "you" (and any other Turing Bot) probably believe you have an essential identity.  So, prove it to me.  Or to "yourself."  Prove you're not a bot who only deludes himself that he's a human being.  Prove "├┐ou" are "more reasonable, less deluded, or more enlightened" than a person who believes Consciousness is innately tied to beingness. 

If you can't prove that, in empiricism or in math, then does that make you "deluded"?  Do you foresee a Church of Scientism, to inspire and spread the gospel of the "best moral way of being"?  Do you have a list of Ten Tolerances, to provide a consistent, coherent, complete guide to end conflicts regarding that which should be tolerated and that which should not?  Maybe you can join with Sam Harris, to study up on how to produce the best, biggest, longest, orgiastic burst of dopamine in the most human beings.  Or with Jim Jones, to produce the "best" Kool-Aid to put everyone out of their misery in the fastest, least painful way.


*****************


Regarding Freedom: There is no such thing as free will for an individual to do everything he can imagine he wants to do. There is participatory will, that allows an individual, within the parameters that nurture his body and mind, to participate by appreciating his context and his choices --- that are reconciled within it. His choices are necessarily constrained by math-based rules that define and conserve his encompassment. The very idea of parts implicates an idea of an encompassing holism, to whose rules and parameters the parts must conform. The parts cannot unfold in any way beyond the extent of the conservatory math that is applied to or by that with which they are encompassed.

If all choices were pre-set, then the holism would amount to no more than a set of pre-determining rules, for which any creator would have no further role or involvement.

However, that does not seem to be the way our cosmos works. In broad parameters, our cosmos does seem to have been reliably pre-set. If it had not been, our bodies would have had little chance to evolve from the slime.

However, our role as appreciating and apprehensive observers seems to affect directions for how particles and particulars unfold. Something about our cosmos seems to require an interplay with observers from transitory points of view.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine how there could be any such thing as any independent inanimate unconscious fundamental building block thing-in-itself. Rather, every measurable thing seems to necessitate a context and a measuring point of view (appreciative, conscious, and part-icular observer/part-icipant).

Moreover, our attempts towards unifying explanations seem to implicate an origin of substance and anti-substance out of no-thing-ness ---- which "really" abides as some-thing-ness (however immeasurable IT may be).

At fuzzy fringes that limit us and facilitate our phase-fluxes, there seem to abide essential qualitatives that defy rigorous, unifying, particularly pre-set, quantification.

Perhaps this leads some philosophers of science and morality to intuit an inherent, innate role for consciousness and pure math in the unfolding of what could not otherwise appear to be our substantive cosmos.

IAE, there is nothing in logic, math, or empiricism to make a belief in an inanimate and entirely pre-set cosmos any more probable, necessary, palatable, or scientific than a belief in a consciousness-based cosmos.

Moreover, the idea of an inanimate and entirely pre-set cosmos tends to deaden inspiration for moral purposefulness, while the idea of a consciousness-permeated cosmos implicates an intuitive and empathetic appreciation for good faith (Great Commandment), good will (Golden Rule), and pursuit of purposefulness. it facilitates churches and forums for people to congregate to inspire and assimilate moral values and meaningful lives. It facilitates intuitive, appreciative, personal, feedback-receptivity, respect for Something Spiritual that Guides and Reconciles our unfolding experiences.

In these days of moral overreach by too many scientisimists, we are seeing how a representative republic unravels as its citizenry replaces the moral values of spiritual-based good faith and good will with little more than a "scientific" pursuit of the biggest and longest orgiastic send off. We are reaping the fruit of "moral scientists" who decided that spiritual-encouragements of faith, family, and fidelity were of little import, if not humbugs.


We don't have free will to suddenly change the rules for the niche without whose nourishment we could not survive. However, over time, the chassis with which our consciousness is adapted will be modified. We don't individually have free will to effect those modifications all at once. But, over time and space, working in a feedback flux with the Holism and one another, there does abide such power! That is what I mean by Participatory Will. We participate in a feedback dance with the Holism, as IT reconciles, unfolds, and guides our choices.

I don't believe our substantive cosmos is entirely pre-determined in its path of unfoldment. I think the Reconciler is involved with us! I believe spiritual intuition and empathy are innate to every perspective of consciousness. I believe congregations in respect of that are advantaged to assimilate sustainable and civilizing values.
However, because whatever the Reconciler measurably effects will be consistent with rules of measurement, the existentiality of the Reconciler is necessarily outside the proof of measurables.
In an array of ways (quantum uncertainty, observer effect, butterfly effect, lack of ultimate building block thing-in-itself, paradoxical nature of philosophy of particulars, etc.), the spiritual entailment of the reconciler seems to be qualitatively interpenetrating in ways that will forever defy reduction to scientific quantitatives.

(All good bacteria go to heaven. Or not.)
I am agreeable to a belief in a powerful, caring, Reconciling Consciousness. I suspect IT seeks all manner of possible experiences through each and every perspective of consciousness. I suspect each such perspective is eventually restored to, re-absorbed by, and subsumed in, that Reconciler.
I suspect what makes us mortals is what defines and limits us to particular spatial-temporal perspectives. Without our defining limitations, we could not have power as mortals. But because we are particular derivatives of the Holism, none of us, while alive, can be tasked to carry a bigger cross than we are able. Because when the cross exceeds our limits, we die. We are then transposed.
As to eternal rewards or karma for mortal perspectives, I claim no knowledge ....
Regardless, I do not intend to be antagonistic to a heavenly faith -- unless or until it becomes twisted to rationalize some kind of despotic communism on Earth.
I celebrate faith that inspires and sustains a representative republic that can facilitate individual decency, freedom, dignity, good faith, and good will. I celebrate forums and churches that assimilate sustainable values in respect of such faith.


You are very confused because your brain is self-blocked. God is God. Ultimately, there is one cosmos. One manifestation of an array of all that is and will be possible.
The different dressings people try to put on God to model God are only about their perspectives, desires, and hang-ups. Most religious people do not claim to "really" know the mind of God. But they do seek guidance from God by being receptive in meditation and prayer concerning God. They pursue non-trivial truth, while appreciating that their mortal limitations will never completely avail it. Much as they pursue happiness. Or, in your case, distemper.
Does light "really" consist of waves or of particles? Neither, by itself. Whatever light (or any other measurable standard for measuring) "really" consists of is as beyond our complete explanation as the conundrum of any particular "thing in itself." Still, we find value and purpose in tinkering with various approaches to trying to understand and use light. To say there is no value to trying to understand or use light by modeling it in different ways would be the practice of a fool. A nobody.
Able scientists have provided us with useful ways to model light. Insightful theologians have provided us with useful and/or inspiring ways to conceptualize and appreciate God. Look through your blockages and you may come more to appreciate some of them.

*********************
So, you are admitting that "something" can exist (only) in one's mind? What is this something that can exist only in one's mind?
Light functions as both a wave and a particle. As to what light "is" or will become, I doubt any mortal knows. I function and model as a citizen. But "I" am much more than a citizen.
I do not believe my model for God is God. Rather, I believe my model is a model. The Source of Mind is what people often call God. IT is not "in" any mortal's brain or mind. IT is the Source of Mind.
I doubt you learned much in high school at all.

**************************

We use math to measure aspects that are measurable with math. We do not measure any thing-in-itself. We do not measure anything that is independent (for its definition and changing nature and function) from the encompassing and fluxing context within which it is found. Assuming some particular things-in-themselves may "really" exist, none can be measured by any means that would alter their character and/or place, because the measurement itself would have changed an aspect of the thing being measured. We base our measurements on assumptions that all aspects of things necessary to the measurement remain otherwise constant. However, beyond approaches to limits, we are otherwise unable to confirm that assumption. Scientists are beginning to realize that not even the speed of light necessarily remains constant for galactic periods of time.



Given such conundrums, some physicists/mathematicians think it may make sense for some purposes to model empirically measurable substances as if they were derivatives not of anything really physical, but purely of math. (And maybe "something" immeasurable --- unless math can measure all math.) In that case, electromagnetic radiation would not really consist of waves and/or particles, but of purely math-based values (as in the case of a matrix). Again, this is modeling for empirical purposes.



Modeling about Spiritual Mind (God) is for moral purposes. Do you respect any kind of moral code? If so, do you regard it as dealing somewhat with immeasurables, or do you really think you derive it rationally, purely from what is measurable in physics? Have you found a way to derive ought from is? Can you teach it, without its becoming a religious leap of faith?


*******************

Lol!  Of course the Immeasurable cannot be evidenced by measurables!  Only a fool (or a nobody) would confuse himself by believing that measurables have or could have disproven immeasurables.  (What is the source of science, or the measurable cosmos?  Math applied to nothingness that was really somethngness?)
The evidence for the Immeasurable is not in empiricism.  It is in innate spiritual intuition and empathy.  It is "in" Mind.  By appealing to science to disprove what is beyond science, you have now confirmed that you are not just very confused.  You are very, very confused.
I notice you make no attempt to use science to justify a moral code or to answer my inquiry concerning how you derive ought from is.  Are you afraid?  Answer the question:  How do you derive your moral code without taking a leap of faith?  Do you find it in science?  Preach!  Tell us what science says concerning the moral code we "should" respect.  Break it down and show us your work.  Show us how your moral system is entirely based in "science."
I am going on a nice bike ride.  Use the time to put your thinkster to work.

Of course God exists outside physics, in the imagination of consciousness. God said, let there be light. And there was light.
Of course the supernatural exists, beyond measurement, in the spiritual imagination of consciousness. I agree. So what are you arguing about? You still seem very confused.

So, you are admitting that "something" can exist (only) in one's mind? What is this something that can exist only in one's mind?
Light functions as both a wave and a particle. As to what light "is" or will become, I doubt any mortal knows. I function and model as a citizen. But "I" am much more than a citizen.
I do not believe my model for God is God. Rather, I believe my model is a model. The Source of Mind is what people often call God. IT is not "in" any mortal's brain or mind. IT is the Source of Mind.
I doubt you learned much in high school at all.
*****************
EDIT:
We use math to measure aspects that are measurable with math. We do not measure any thing-in-itself. We do not measure anything that is independent (for its definition and changing nature and function) from the encompassing and fluxing context within which it is found. Assuming some particular things-in-themselves may "really" exist, none can be really measured by any means that would alter their character and/or place, because the measurement itself would have changed an aspect of the thing being measured.
We base our measurements on assumptions that all aspects of things necessary to the measurement remain otherwise constant. However, beyond approaches to limits, we are otherwise unable to confirm that assumption. Scientists are beginning to realize that not even the speed of light necessarily remains constant for galactic periods of time. Some suppose it may change in phases.
Given such conundrums, some physicists/mathematicians think it may make sense for some purposes to model empirically measurable substances as if they were derivatives not of anything really physical, but purely of math. (And maybe "something" immeasurable --- unless math can measure all math.) In that case, electromagnetic radiation would not really consist of waves and/or particles, but of purely math-based values (as in the case of a matrix). Again, this is modeling for empirically measuring purposes.
Modeling about Spiritual Mind (God) is for moral purposes. Do you respect any kind of moral code? If so, do you regard it as dealing somewhat with immeasurables, or do you really think you derive it rationally, purely from what is measurable in physics?
Have you found a way to derive ought from is? Can you teach it, without its becoming a religious leap of faith? Might you have some sub-conscious belief/idea of God/higher-mindedness, yet, because you have not named it or called it God, you suppose you are just a pretending or unaware atheist? Or a seeker of moral purposefulness, just like everyone else, but one who does not like the verbalized sound of G O D? If so, that's ok. I doubt G O D is troubled it you want to refer to a name or not. so long as respect is intimated in higher mindedness.


Science deals with models of reality, not directly with reality. Science is what intelligent observers use to model explanations about reality. Science is a process that relates to reality. Science itself is not physical reality. And often scientific models are wrong, incomplete, transitory, or reliable only to a bubble in space-time. There is no measure for how much reality a model holds.
There is, however, practical experience for how reliable a model seems to be. While and where we happen to share a same bubble of limits and potentialities, we can tinker and model to achieve amazingly reliable and practical technologies.
But those technologies and reliabilites pertain only to the cosmic bubble that we happen to share in space-time. That bubble changes. Does that bubble have reality for any being of a different bubble? When our bubble out of otherwise seeming nothingness phases to express something else, does our model of its "past reality" still exist? Are either the past or our models of it real? Or only derivative of a "superior and immeasurable reality-in-itself?"


***************

The eye has evolved to allow us to see, tune, and take approximate measures of relational size, form, and distance.  Other of our senses allow us to take approximate measures of heat, pressure, taste, sound, balance. Together, I think they allow a sense of consciousness of self.  a qualitative sense of being.  I think various receptors allow sensations of pleasure.  Together, I think that allow a qualitative sense of purposefulness. 

I think a qualitative sense of morality is an upshot of the mix of senses of being and of purpose.  However, apart from good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule) that seem to flow inherently from the general senses of being and of purpose, I don't think the cosmic Godhead sponsors any other permanent rules of morality.  Rather, evolution unfolds generally in coordination with a generalized sense of being and of purpose.  Societies of laws and governance evolve in coordination with their capacity to endure and to facilitate various aspects of good faith and good will.  I doubt any person or society that was entirely devoid of good faith and good will could long survive or replicate. 

However, the relative power and freedom to give expression to such moral purposefulness (good faith and good will) fluxes between societies and their individual members.  Some societies tend towards collectivism, others towards individualism, others towards empire or globalization, others towards nihilism and anarchy.  These varieties of social expression compete.  Whatever the upshot, historians of the time will be paid to rationalize it as moral (or perhaps even the best of all possible worlds).  Some may even call the desired upshot the everlasting will of the Godhead.  (I don't dwell much on that.)

I don't think there are many specific rules of cosmic morality.  Rather, most rules of morality are subordinate to a purpose.  If we are of a society that values freedom of expression and enterprise for individuals, then we will promote a different set of rules than would those who aspire to a society that more values longevity, security, equality, servitude, and diktat.  If one considers the power of the human brain, it seems a wrong and a waste to confine it to servitude.

For a decent, civilizing society that respects and facilitates the freedom of expression and enterprise of individual citizens, I think a model for a religious faith is invaluable and essential.  That model may evolve, but it would need to inspire respect for a caring, empathetic, inviting, tough-loving, Reconciler.  It would need to accord forums for congregants of good faith and good will to coordinate their rules of social engagement.   Preferably, more in terms of general morality than in terms of stifling elitist regulations down to the toenails.  However, when the citizenry is unassimilated, divided, and ruled by oligarchic collectivists, then individual freedom of conscience will tend to be replaced by stifling, arbitrary, ignorant, sub-humanizaing, dlitist diktat.

If the Reconciler smiles on the efforts of American Idealists, we will preserve the Ten Commandments, the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, and the idea of Christian Charity (not Gov taxation).  However, if the ACLU has its way, oligarchic collectivists will run most Christians out of the public square.  Presently, the ACLU and its fellow travelers have made long strides towards a general course of sub-humanization.

******************

Law Droolism is how faithless pervs seek to rule and farm the corruptible masses.



Well, I do prefer the KJV. Regardless, politically, I am concerned with preserving the representative republic, with equal dignity for all who are faithful to a decent republic that respects the freedom and dignity of individuals. So I try not to mix religion any more than is essential.
That said, I think faith in a caring, inviting, reconciling, Sponsor of Higher Mindedness of some sort is essential. I do not consider Islam to be a spiritual faith, because it is based not in faith but in oppression and force.
The doctrine of original sin, etc., is complex and, when considered in depth, is not nearly as simplistic as some like to believe. Imo. That said, I do believe mortals are inferior to the Reconciling Source (Trinitarian Godhead) and in need of guidance and correction. Beyond that, I do not much engage.
I have no quarrel with religious study in Church. Nor with Christian or other values of decency being represented in the public square. I do not think all societies, cultures, or countries are suited to representative republicanism as a form of governance. And I think they, and oligarchs, seek generally to undermine the American Republic. And that, politically, is my main concern.
I suspect the Godhead is interested in, and needs, outlets for experiencing particular points of view within limiting and defining contexts, and vice versa. I think the relationship between the Trinitarian Godhead and individual Beings, unavoidably, is one of constant, continuous, and appreciative feedback and reconciliation. So I think our imperfection (being limited as part-iculars) is one of necessary, innate design. Original sin and ongoing sin may somehow be bound up with that, but that idea does not seem as essential to the furtherance of a representative republic as the idea of shared and humble receptivity before a guiding Reconciler. Imo. :)



Instead of talking about Jews versus Jews, I would rather talk about Zionists versus Secular Atheists. It's the Secular Atheists that want to replace the assimilation of moral values with oligarchic diktat and ACLU law drooling that give me the creeps. Especially when they want to claim special license to affirmatively free them from handicaps they want to impose on other Whites. A complicating problem seems to be that Zionists are dependent on funding and political support from American Jews.


I don't believe Adam tainted humanity or that Jews tainted only themselves. I think humanity is naturally in need of guidance, correction, reconciliation. Jesus would have had to die, regardless of whether He had been assigned a birth among people of any religion or culture. Regardless, I think the YOLO idea is silly.

Only recently have I noticed so much whining about so-called anti-Semitism. It's as if the whining were coordinated, like the so-called War on Women. Is anti-Semitism really on the increase, or is there some undercurrent agenda at work?
Are those who want to preserve legalistic regulations down to the toenails getting anxious that Americans may actually want to restore some freedom and dignity for individuals, free from globalistic law-drooling regulators?







Monday, March 6, 2017

Teaching Strategies -- T for Tat



Mathematically, the best strategy tends to be this: Start out nice, then exchange t for tat -- subject to forgiveness. Or a smiley face. :)

https://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-mysteries-survival-nicest

Not so good is to give out participation trophies or to pass out rewards for nothing. Watch The Miracle Worker sometime, about Helen Keller.

This is basic. But it seems to have escaped most teachers and profs. Have they been educated into stupidity? Given the damage they have done to the society at large, I don't see the point in trying to put it more politely. They have earned far, far worse.