Saturday, June 25, 2016

Einstein v. Bohr -- THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL AND OBJECTIVE REALITY


THE NATURE OF PHYSICAL AND OBJECTIVE REALITY:

The way light performs is an indication of the way we relate to a math-field that defines and supports us.  I suspect that the reason light exists for both wave and particle calculations is because light is an expression of the relation of each perspective of consciousness to a math-field (or a series of "reality cones") that happens to define and support it.


The Equational Nature of our math-field is such that, for every particle, there seems to be an anti-particle at some level of entanglement.  For every manifestation by a particle, there seems to be a coordinate manifestation by a polarity-entangled co-particle.  If you stop a particle enough to coordinate a measure of it, you induce a coordinate and contemporaneous expression of its equation-balancing twin.

Suppose you stop a pair of co-particles and do not yet take a measure of either.  If you try to contrive so that a measure of one will entail a measure of the other as an opposite, then a "trickster effect" may block you.  If you try to contrive so that a measure of one will entail a measure of the other as a duplicate, then, again, a "trickster effect" may block you.  So, is the "spooky trickster effect" on the twin particle pre-determined, or is it contemporaneously established with the effect that is imposed on the original particle?  Einstein and Bohr debated whether randomness concerning quanta entanglements was real or only apparent.

MY SUSPICION:

Neither.  Ultimately, the ideas of randomness and predetermination are inadequate to the task.  Because the "particle itself," as Substance, considered apart from Consciousness and Information, does not objectively exist.  Rather, its manifest existence for interfunctioning with me is dependent on its interfunctioning with the "Reality Cone" (light cone) that happens to be shared by myself and all other beings with whom I happen to be in potential communication.

Bohr was correct, in that no Reality Cone is pre-determined.  But he was correct in that, only because both he an Einstein were incorrect in presuming that a Reality Cone exists independently, objectively, by itself.

Einstein:  "I like to think the Moon is there (continues to exist) even if (when) I am not looking at it."  Myself:  Yes, the Moon continues to exist even when I'm not looking at it.  But only because other perspectives with which I share my Reality Cone, with whose experiences those of my own are reconciled, happen to continue to be "looking" at it (feeling its effects) -- even when I am not.  If no perspective of Consciousness were feeling (or potentially measuring the effects of) the Moon, then the Moon could not intelligently or rationally be said then and there to be existentially manifest.

So, each Reality Cone unfolds as it is reconciled with the interfunctionings of such perspectives of Consciousness and Information as happen to share in it.  And the way it will unfold cannot be perfectly pre-known or pre-set by any mortal perspective.  Rather, a meta-process beyond our ken coordinates and reconciles all manifest interfunctionings within our Reality Cone.  We part-icipate with it, and our apprehensions and appreciations (prayers and observations) factor with it, but we do not have means for controlling, confining, or measuring it -- except indirectly, intuitively, empathetically.  The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.

IOW, we, and no-thing with which we manifestly relate, is entirely causal to our unfoldings, as opposed to being merely correlative and appreciative.  So, events as manifested are not knowable by us to be pre-caused, nor are they ultimately knowable by us to be contemporaneously or intertwinedly caused.  For a mortal to anguish whether events are "really" first caused, pre caused, chaotically random, or participatorily chosen tends to be idle.  Rather, each way of modeling tends to enjoy its season and purpose.

Ultimately ("really"), it must be enough to appreciate that what supports us is a godhead, whose aspects present to us in Consciousness, Substance, and Information.  We part-icipate with the godhead, via our prayers (apprehensions), praising observations (appreciations), and good faith (good will, spiritual insight, innate empathy, generally intuitive sense of beingness, and moral higher-mindedness).

Substance (the Moon) does not exist objectively apart from Consciousness (observation) and Information (accumulation of maths).  But neither do Consciousness and Information exist apart from Substance.

TRINITARIAN GODHEAD:
Character of Mind or Consciousness:  Whatever self-identifies to take a stand (adopt a perspective) thereby takes a manifested measurement.
Nature of Substance:  Substance is the thing or body that is measured, apart from its math value (math field), and apart from the conscious perspective that apprehends it as Substance.
Math of Information:  Whatever remains fuzzy and itself unreduced to manifest measure and appreciation remains part of the math-field.

The character of an Unchanging-Changer (Consciousness) reconciles all that measurably unfolds out of potentiality to experientially manifested observation and participatory appreciation (Substance) -- out of no-thing more than a field of math (Information).  The eternal abiding of the Trinity is unchanging.  Yet, the Trinity changes in regard to the perceptions we experience in respect of how it presents to us -- in aspects that flux among Consciousness, Substance, and Information (CSI).  The Kaleidescope remains the same.  But the way we interfunction with it changes.


FAITH:  What presently fluxes how the math field is experienced to unfold amounts to meta-level reconciliations of then-and-there feedback concerning the collective store of all the observations, apprehensions, and appreciations of all perspectives of Consciousness that happen to share a Reality Cone.  Each perspective must and does rationalize as if it alone determines (causes) its reactions to how the Reality Cone is presented to it.  The math must always balance, but potential fluxes enjoy general parameters of freedom -- so long as they remain tethered to factors for keeping the math field balanced.

ORIGINAL CREATION AND BIG BANG: Was there really a singular originating event or big bang? Or is it only that every that every perspective that happens to share any overlapping cone or point of view necessarily rationalizes as if there were a beginning point in measurable time and space that renormalizes to the first appearance of the Reality Cone in which it happens to share?

FREEDOM, DIGNITY, AND SPIRITUALITY:  Our future will entail more respect for spirituality, or it will entail destruction on a scale beyond reckoning.

IMAGINATION AND CONCEPTUALIZATION:  "Dark" energy and matter may be conceptualized as that which comprises all the generally measurable aspects of the math-field that are not precisely measurable or provable between individual perspectives of Consciousness.  Dark energy and matter is that which cannot be entirely renormalized to the beginning point of a particular perspective's Reality Cone.

REAL FORMS AND PHYSICAL REALITY:  For pragmatic purposes, we can tinker out ways to refer to a "same line." Even though such line does not, as a thing in itself, exist. And even though no precise or exact renormalization of such line is possible for us.  However, the "same" line may be differently long, straight, or curved, depending on each perspective's point of view, relative motion, and interpretive experience. There may not "really exist" any re-normalizeable "same line" to measure. There may simply abide fluxing, nodal overlaps among perspectives of Mind. The only "real" synthesis for the straight line may abide with some thing or quality of reconciling Holism -- whose essence is beyond our ken.

THE CLOUD -- SPIRITUAL DIGNITY AND FREEDOM:  How can a civilization on a "physical world" remain based in freedom and dignity, once too many individuals acquire knowledge and skills for the absolute destruction of the shared "physical world"?  As knowledge increases for mind manipulation, and as skill increases for the destruction of civilizations, ecosystems, biology systems, and physical worlds, must not survival require increases in monitoring, regulating, and strait-jacketing?  Can virtual worlds, cyborgism, and transhumanism provide ways to phase beyond skill of destruction, towards advancement and preservation of spiritual freedom and dignity?  Maybe.

CONSCIOUS FEEDBACK: At some level of conceptualization, cells and fractals that comprise every pattern that through feedback persevere through space-time against changes in their exterior environment have been adopted to some level of feeding-back conscious identity.  At some level of feedback beyond mortal analysis, there is hovered, rooted, bonded or entailed to every pattern that manifests and exhibits sensate consciousness some level of identity that apprehends fluxes among Substance, Information, and Consciousness.  The fluxes are coordinate with consciousness that perseveres concerning each such pattern, even if such consciousness is not caused by the pattern itself.


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Proslogium Critique



Without God it is ill with us. Our labors and attempts are in vain without God.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 21-22). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.


we believe that you are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 68-69). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.


*******************
A Source essence, changeless-changer. A non-relatable relater. An infinite eternity in the passing form of tne here and now. How cana passing form hope to understand tnat which is beyond passing? A non-particular that particularizes?
*******************

it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 71-72). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.


*******************
The intuition of the non-measurable "thing" that measures.

IT exists with passing potentiality elsewhere in time and place, in the infinite-eternity of tne math-web of non-particular time and place.

Understanding of terms is needed with regard to existentiality and reality. A math that relates the potentiality of infinite eternity to the particular experientiality of the passing phasing here and now.
*******************

creates all things from nothing.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Location 106). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

*******************
Creates all things from things that in ultimate reality are no-thing other than formulas ruled and formed out of math being put to function by consciousness.
*******************

alone exists through itself, and creates all other things from nothing?

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Location 107). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

We see whence the river flows, but the spring whence it arises is not seen.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 158-159). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

*******************
Bonded with the here and now, we measurably sense the here and now, but the infinite-eternal is not measurably represented to any senses apart from the intuitive and direct sense of conscious beingness.
*******************

it is right to believe that you justly pity the wicked.

St. Anselm of Canterbury. Proslogium (Kindle Locations 177-178). Magisterium Press. Kindle Edition.

*******************
Perfect justice cannot be linearly apportioned without allowance for phase shifts. Once death is the reward, it cannot be accorded further proportionality in the absence of karma. And if karma were purely math based, there would be no need for a qualitatively appreciative mathematician.

But, without a body, in what quality or sense may we comprehend that God appreciates anything or any feedback?

We cannot, except via an intuitive leap of faith.

How does the Godhead reconcile values as appreciated between the perspectives of the holism and the particulars? It does not experience bodily satiation or pleasure as a particular. So, how doe IT appreciate such experiences, in order to value, triage, favor, and choose among them?

I don't grok it. Unless maybe as some meta upshot that is simply beyond mortal ken. Some heirarchical or circular process of delegation and vicarious bonding with chosen, passing, and phasing moments and forms. Some meta interest in choosing among degrees of freedom for directing the unfoldings of parameters. Some meta capacity for bonding with mortal experiences. Perhaps IT needs mortal and particular perspectives to feed meaningfulness to itself as an infinite-eternal holism. Otherwise, how could any aspect of existentiality choose any path beyond random cycles of chaotic evolutions of patterns? And why would there be layers upon layers and levels upon levels of repetitive fractal patterns -- as if a mathematician must rule the umfoldments of math based expression? Why should immaterial math functions repeat themselves in so many fractals? Why should every expression of a local pattern necessitate sponsorship or coordinate relationship with higher and lower levels of similar math based functions, as if math were causing math, rather than billiard ball pinging with billiard balls?

I do not accord that a Qualitative Being must occupy self with math precision in meting out material rewards for temporal and placeholder purposes. Nor do I accord that the eternal and infinite must be chained to any here and now interpretation of justice. Rather, justice must carry a participatory, feedback, systemic, appreciative aspect. What seems just for our niche may not be just for all. Simply put, we participate in innate good faith and good will, keeping in mind what is needed to sustain a consistent, coherent, decent society that avails participatory freedom and dignity among empathetically and intuitively copesetic perspectives. It is more spiritually good and just to think about faith and works than aboit perfect justice. The godhead metes out reconciliatory guidance within parameters. Not chokehold justice. Still, the godhead does reconcile parameters for connecting paths.

See The Bridge over San Luis Rey.
*******************





Tuesday, June 21, 2016

YOLO and The Talisman



The following occurred to me as I was listening to an Audible book called The Talisman, by Stephen King.  Its protagonist is often known as "Traveling Jack."

Interpretations of forms separate from and external to the Mind serve as means for interpreting the Mind itself.  The Mind envisions a straight line to be the shortest distance between two external points.  However, the existence of two separate points, as well as the line between them, is the derivative of mental imagination, conceptualization, observation, interpretation.  They do not otherwise exist in themselves.

The same may be said of separate minds.  They are relating assumptions, not things in themselves.  The Mind has capacity to assume any number of separate perspectives.  So long as a perspective is confined, and confines itself, to a particular pattern or set of assumptions, it experiences a potentiality of an infinity of possible assumptions.  All that is necessary to sustain each bubble of assumptions and patterns is that it be imaged to be integrally coherent, consistent, and "complete" -- within parameters needed to keep it from fuzzing out of focus.

Something about the web of math with which the Mind co-exists necessitates that the Mind image separate perspectives and externalities.  Something about our beingness as a holism (the Godhead) requires that it unfold and present in innate trinitarian aspect, fluxing as Consciousness, Substance, and Information.  Holistic consciousness (Godly empathy and intuition) may not manifest without the co-manifestation of perspectivistic potentiality.  And potentiality exists at all times -- past, present, future -- not just in the future.  YOLO is not just a conceit.  It is an absurdity.

It is not true in itself to say that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.  Rather, the truth of such a statement is dependent on the potentiality of imagination that is availed to express itself via a meta field that encompasses Consciousness.  But for innate Consciousness, an idea of a straight line (or of any external perspective or form) would "be" an absurdity.  It is helpful, but not complete, to say a straight line "is" the shortest distance beween two points.  However, to make the statement "more complete," it is necessary to say:  Each particular straight line, as The Mind conceives it, is the shortest distance beween two points.

Going further, recognize that each Perspective of Mind, "itself," abides as a fluxing aspect of a meta-trinitaritan field of Consciousness-Substance-Information.  Thus, no particular line extends in manifestation beyond the power of Mind to sustain it, even though the power of Mind to sustain it is in some ways limited and in some ways unlimited.

Our qualitative potentialities are infinite, even though our means of quantitative transition and phasing are mathematically-to-be-prescribed, even if not by any particular perspective knowable.

Some traversements between widely separated points in the experiential distance will entail phased crossings through changing, no-way-back parameters, lnadscapes, and adoptations of perspectives and identities.  Experiencing the points will entail their change, and often no Manifest way back except through a Potentially infinite length and/or series of transmutations that cannot all be anticipated by any part-icular perspective.

BOTTOM POINTS:  We are not  predetermined in our experiences.  We are part-icipants with a trinitarian godhead that invites (and requires) us to function in respect of feedback loops of fractally patterning maths.  We participate in how the defining of our moralities, purposes, apprehensions, and potentialities are to unfold.  If and while we want to pursue decent civilization that avails the expression of  human freedom and dignity, we can so pursue.

PROBLEM:  Short-sighted people are prefering to transition to the cow-cloud, to be sedated on locoweed while being farmed by short-term hedonists and amoral libertines.  And decent people tend to have lost foresight and energy adequate to preclude the transition.  So, the American Ideal is dying and being replaced by forms that are antithetical to decent human freedom and dignity.  The ideal of individually part-icipatory freedom and dignity is being traded for a free-lunch lie of equality and algorithmically prescribed fairness.  Our leaders have become as stupid and corrupt as cows and demons.  Our "mother," America, is being killed by Sloats.  We don't need magic juice or a talisman to re-flip this.  We need to summon our power of re-image-i-nation.  We need to see the race-baiters and poverty-pimps for the garish "twinners" that they are.  Failing that, our manifest prospects are grim.

***********

Conservatism?

The Rino-Dino Uniparty is the antithesis of Conservatism. Its purpose is the replacement of the U.S. by a NWO-OWG. Criminal crony syndicalism controlled by whatever means necessary. No well funded institution any longer supports the preservation of the Constitutional Republic. Nearly all DC leaders are spiritually hollow, corrupt to the bone, and absolute liars in thrall to the devil. Whatever "conservatism" is, it is NOT support for either Rinos or Dinos.

What now rules DC, most of the world, and most of humanity is faithless dishonesty. Indeed, smartalecs would teach us that there is no such thing as innate spiritual empathy. That no one can ever project himself to serve any purpose higher than the perimeter of his skin and the boundary of his skull-encased hormones.

Such cognitive dissonance is nurtured everywhere, ramping up hate, distrust, and division. So called free-marketeers make themselves clueless that Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments preceded his Wealth of Nations. Perhaps that man has a qualitative "sense of beingness" that tempers his main quantitative senses of measurables. A spiritually innate capacity to feel our concerns in the concerns of others.

Smith: "[The rich] are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species."

Nowadays, given the disparagement of spirituality, not so much! Rather, our disparagement of spirituality helps lead us to demonic self-justification of hell on earth. Our "scientists" of objective and pityless parceling of all things have led us to disparage all moral sentiments -- except those of the most base, constricted, grasping, and selfish. We allow the most selfish cronies to float to the top rungs of our gov, and then entrust through them to redistribute "charity." Thus have faith, family, and fidelity been profaned.

Hillary and all her horses and men do NOT serve poor people except as faithless liars. Neither Dinos nor Rinos want open borders as a means for redistributing equality or fairness. For goodness sake, they DO NOT BELIEVE in any source of fairness. They believe in selfish grasping! And lying to that end.

To leverage their lying, they hunt the weakest prey. Who is the weakest prey? Well, that would be the Christian, competent, good faith, good will, Americans who are focused on producing for themselves and their families and nation, as opposed to looting from others. IOW, "Whities." And these Whities will remain the slow prey that entices and unites Dinos and Rinos until they collectively wake up, identify, and shrug off the parasites and predators.

The Faithless Liars (Dinos and Rinos) are absolutely false. False in charity, false in sympathy, false in equality, false in fairness, false in higher mindedness, false in free trade, false in fidelity to fellow human beings, false in fidelity to founding principles, and false in rationality, They excel in lying in order to hide the iron fist in a velvet glove. Once they have flipped the electorate and disarmed and neutered the general citizenry, they will rule amuck.

What has brought Western Civ to this sorry point? Loss of spiritual appreciation. And lack of formal means for stopping or checking an inexorable trend by which the most faithless and evil float to the top to rule every social institution.

This applies to every institution. In education, the worst float to the top because education-as-an-international-business promotes the harnessing of a perpetual class of those who are so stupid that they pay tuition in amounts way beyond value and vote to promote profs who perpetuate this abysmal feedback loop. In politics, the worst float to the top because we allow foreign interests to launder kickbacks and bribes to the worst of dregs. In business, the worst float to the top because we have allowed them to to chain us to banks and other institutions designed to allow them by fiat to abuse our common trust. So new wealth and power have become mainly rentier, not entrepreneurial.

The upshot is this: Christian middle class producers are the new slaves, made to be dhimmied and ripped by flesh-tearing gangs of allies among predators and parasites. That is the new and worldwide business model for the Rino-Dino, Crony-Commie-Jihadi Uniparty. That model gives lip service to our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights -- ONLY until it puts finishing touches on its cental consolidation of power and control.

What decency badly needs is a rational restoration of spiritual faith, combined with formal and effective checks and taxes against the power-floating of the most evil, anti-American, anti-liberty, crony corporatists, criminal commies, and crazed culties. "Whities" need to wake up and identify the evil enemy. Otherwise, Conservatism will mean nothing.

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

All I know is that questions needed to be asked about the shot down TWA flight.

D Day entailed mass deception on a giant scale. Harry Hopkins got away with massive treason while operating directly from the White House. The Press routinely ran mass disinformation on behalf of commies against Whitaker Chambers. It is routine, not unusual, for the worst of dregs to find ways to float to the top. Floaters develop some kind of emotional signaling and radar by which to recognize one another. In politics, campaign managers and message manipulators tend to have few scruples whatsoever.

Given advancements in mind manipulation and advertising, it is hard for me to spot the limits on elitist chicanery and hubris. When you look at the fashions and mores that are routinely sold to the masses, it becomes easy to suppose that those who control the institutions of persuasion, threats, and force frequently run amuck. I am thinking of the Mafia, the Clintons, and how Hillary probably silenced "bimbo eruptions." And how the regime evidently got to Justice Roberts. So I just don't know.

Up to the ranks of O6, I tend to agree that the Navy could not have been culpable. Beyond that, I suspect ambition tends to trump fidelity.

It seems possible that Russian or Chinese sabotage of a Navy test may have been entailed. Maybe to send a message to AF1: "Hey, "we" can touch you, take you out anytime we want, and no one will be able to pin it on us."

For another example, take JFK. A current theory is that the fatal shot was an accidental discharge by a Secret Service agent, and agents were subsequently disposed to provide cover.

To see what mind twisting and bullying can do, one only need look to the Stockholm Syndrome, suicide vestors, and bafflegab evangelists. Look to Patty Hearst. And the entire world of Islam, where hardly anyone on the inside dares say peep about the lunacy, brutality, and gross injustice of the Islamic meme.

Given how much control has been consolidated by the Central Apparatus, truth is almost certainly a frequent casualty. A lot of people don't want truth. They just want a strong man (or butch) to snuggle up to. For awhile, the U.S., because of how it was founded, was an exception. Here, we had more independent human beings than weak and incompetent subhumans. However, the world is filled with subhuman sado-masochists and doper-libertines. And anti-American crony-commies are importing them as fast as possible in order to flip America beyond salvage beyond a milleneum.

EDIT: When the U.S. falls, it won't be because the subhumans were on the right side of history. It will be because Americans lost good faith and good will and turned instead to mind blowing gratifications. That is how we will probably volunteer to yoke and subjugate ourselves to pure evil. Then there will be pieces. Humanity -- meet the Voldemort of Radical Evil whose name must not be spoken: The Rainbow Abominable Triad (RATs) of internationally-laundered crony corporatism (Bush Rinos), criminal communism (Clinton Dinos), and sex-crazed cultism (Gay Sheet-Dressed Wahhabi Muslims).







Tuesday, May 17, 2016

NWF - New World Federation



When the US went off the gold standard, our Allies, in exchange for coordinated military protection, began to prop up our dollar. As the US backs away from being the world's police leader, the dollar will lose its support.

Nations can be centrally ruled states or they can be federations with shared and overlapping controls between centralists and locals. Rome had many growing pains as it morphed from a republic to an empire. US citizens do not want to lose their republic. But other nations that help prop up our dollar want to have significant treaty-influence in our international politics.

I don't see how the US can back away from responsibilities to lead police actions. Isolationism is not an option in the interconnected world of economics and military defense. So how may the US keep its republic and not default on the role by which its currency is supported?

Must we move towards some loose world federation among friendly nations? If so, may we exclude or quarantine unfriendly, Commie, and Muslim nations? Maybe we should, but the crony insiders who receive bribes from Commie and Muslim nations will never allow that to happen voluntarily. Not without an Economic Patton. Did someone call for The Donald?

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

I do not necessarily advocate a return to a gold standard. That's just part of the background. Our main problem is crony advantage taking, that seems to lead inexorably to systemic failure. No matter how smart the formal solutions one may dream up, they will always be end run so long as there is no adequate moral check. Why do we lack any adequate moral check? For several reasons, among them:

1. We have lost any hope of assimilating values. Instead, we swallowed the lie that diversity in and of itself is a good thing. So we tend to be helpless to name evil, much less confront it.

2. Crony-commies have so infested every formal institution that most people are now easy prey for predators and parasites. Way too many Profs shill for and teach nonsense. Way too many Priests shill for and preach "values" that corrupt faith, family, and fidelity. Way too many economists and scientists are dupes or shills for hedge dealing billionaires. Hedgers have figured out how to make money no matter what the crisis, so long as the crisis can be pumped for hedging.

3. Do-gooders wrongly assumed the root cause of evil is the poverty and lack of sharing of material wealth in the world. So they decided tax redistributions should take over the charity function. This was completely contrary to all historical experience. Communist redistribution produces poverty and resentment, not wealth or gratitude. Welfare produces hoods and fatherless babies, not well nurtured families. Dithering with Muslims produces fevered jihadis. Celebration of paganists produces confusion, cynicism, and sadism.

4. Because of faux religion (pagan sectarian and commie secular), all religion is now ridiculed to the point that most people, especially young adults, now revile it. Even though an intelligent case for forums that inspire spiritual empathy can now probably be better made than ever before.

5. Too many hubristic scientists and economists think "pure reason" and unfiltered greed can guide our moral development, without reaching out to the Source of Spiritual empathy. They think altruism is a non-existent and that spiritual empathy is not innate to the cosmos. So they think elites should be put in charge politically, to force equality, fairness, and toleration. Thus, too many idiot judges and justices buy into politically forced "equality," "fairness," and "toleration" as trumps uber alles.

THE UPSHOT: Our economists, bankers, corporatists, politicians, judges, educators, actors, entertainers, rappers, ministers, and charitable foundations have us riding a bullet to destruction. The evil cronies among us will grease the way for that bullet, no matter what form any re-form may take. We are in a mess of trouble!

IOW, "Our leaders are stupid." -- DJT.
And corrupt. -- Me.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

Social Mind Yoga



When one says, "The universe does not care," one is excluding consciousness from the universe! Why would any sane person do that?

The obvious truth is, conscious observers are an innate part of the universe as we experience it. So it is baffling why anyone would want to exclude immeasurable aspects of consciousness from the universe just to pretend that the universe is factored with no immeasurable or consciousness that cares.

I agree that the measurable aspect of the universe does not care. That is hardly a grand insight. Where I disagree is with your failure to apprehend that the immeasurable aspect of consciousness is part of the universe.

You yourself premise that "truth and reality" are "based on the human mind's ability to observe it in accordance with what is known." I put aside the problem with defining what can be "known." But even apart from that, your scheme begins by subordinating truth and reality with an ability to OBSERVE it. Think about that.

I do not quarrel that facts exist. Nor that A is A. Nor that a truism is a truism. Nor that the Godhead is the Godhead. Nor that a thing in itself is a thing in itself. What I say is that you cannot go simply from there, without taking some kind of leap of faith. You cannot derive a syllogism from a tautology without importing something more than a tautology.

You cannot relate to a thing in itself without making of it something more than a thing in itself. At some level, you have to recognize, whether consciously, subconsciously, or inferentially, that a "relational-essence" abides. A "changeless-changer." A Source-Definer: That defines us, but that we do not define.

So, how do we relate to it? Not directly, for if we could approach it directly it would not be a thing in itself. So, indirectly, in aspects. How? Well, in measurables, we relate by tinkering and discovering practical applications that seem reliably to work within parameters -- before they fuzz, static, or phase out. In moral purposes, we relate by innate and nurtured empathies and intuitions.

While no mortal is availed of direct experience of the Source as Source, one may be availed of direct experience of one's own perspective of consciousness. So, a conscious mortal may notice that: (1) he is conscious of hiimself; (2) his experience of Consciousness seems to be bonded with a measurable body/brain/context (Substance); and (3) he experiences movement across space-time (cumulation of experience and Information).

He notices that everything he can communicate about takes on aspects of Consciousness, Substance, and/or Information. He notices that CSI is CSI. That is THE FACT about which (and with which) he can tinker, communicate, build technologies, and pursue moral purposes. Much more so than a mainly useless dead end that "A is A." Conscious beingness is much more than simply an emergent from a dead tautology.

What could emerge if the only fact were A is A? Maybe a dead zombie universe, that would be no more meaningful or relevant than no-thing at all. If such could even be imagined. Which, lol, it cannot! The very imagining of it would be to import consciousness concerning it, making of it little more than a dream within a dream.

Perhaps you just want to be the "scientist" who slays the idea of a Godhead, in order to reign in elitist rule under our betters? "For our own good?" Others should know that your cute belittlement is filled with shallow hubris. Your "rebuttal" is non. It offers little more than the hubris of a "greedy materialist."

Were our shared material universe to flicker out, what would meaningfully remain of your "material facts?" Would not such material facts necessarily be elsewhere-elsewise phased and factored? What "laws" of physics are eternal "facts," independent of participation with Observers?

EDIT:

THOUGHT CONTROLS: Before long, cars and planes will be paired and calibrated to run consistent with directions as thought by their drivers. I know what you would say: Electrodes will be connected, with wires or wirelessly, between the brain and the device to allow the brain, by concentrating thought synapses, to run and direct the device.

However, this begs regressive questions: What runs the brain? Well, a reconciliation of the context in which the brain functions. But that also begs questions: How is it that the brain seems to make decisions and choices a split instant before the person becomes consciously aware the choice has been made? Evidently, some reconciling aspect of the context of the brain, its environment, and its connections effects a decision before feedback is given to the organism to allow it internally to process self awareness of the decision. Intuitively, this process of connectedness and reconciliation is necessarily something more than otherwise independent billiard balls randomly careening off one another.

PSIONICS: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psionics

Scientific empiricism, by definition, deals with replicable controls. To use the scientific method to test for the existentiality of psionics is, by definition, to require rationalizations that psionic phenomena do not exist.

Similarly, if every measurable thing the Godhead expresses is subject to a web of math, then no measurable can become manifest unless it is, at least to some extent, however incomplete, explicable or rationalizable in math. Thus, to try to use the scientific method "to prove" or test for the existentiality of a Godhead that reconciles all measurables within math limits is an exercise in futility and simple minded stupidity.

In the end, one takes leaps of faith. For material tinkering, one leaps in faith of finding reliable controls. For moral inspiration, one leaps in faith of finding moral purposefulness.

How may Psi exist? May any human beings have some superior statistical capacity to sit in a room with a random number generator and predict, before the generator is started, characteristics of the random numbers the machine will generate?

Two thoughts: First, tests may suggest something uncanny going on. Second, regardless, our need for predictive and explanatory models will lead most of us to rationalize such phenomena as somehow being within statistical norms for some context or universe. Numerous "explanations" are possible: That the random number generation is not really random. That the tests are not perfectly "clean." Etc.

As to the "ultimate reality" of Psi (or effectualness of prayers), who can say? Does randomness exist, or is everything pre-determined, right down to the tiniest possible nit and bit? I suspect the "answer" depends on one's point of view, context, and purpose.

Does even God always know what He will do next? For myself, the Conscious aspect of the Trinitarian Godhead may not always know, because of unexpected input from interfunctionings of Substance and Information. IAE, I doubt we can "know" whether "ultimate reality" is controlled by (1) reconciliations among somewhat random expressions of consciousness or by (2) some higher and predetermining math that is beyond our mortal level of complete comprehension.

Regardless, if I know anything, it is that forums for inspiring moral purposefulness are important to assimilations of civilizing societies -- knowitall wannabe elitist rulers to the contrary notwithstanding.

Bottom line: You do not "prove" that Consciousness emerges only as a ride-along epiphenomenal byproduct with no causal influence merely by assuming it. Nor do you prove such merely by assuming its causal influence would be measurable if it existed. This is because the causal feedback-influence of consciousness is thought to abide in how choices are effected from allowable possibilities. And the cosmic math is such that, no matter the choice, it will reconcile to the math. The consequence is that consciousness is easily conceptualized as causal, but its causal effect is intuitive or empathetic -- not measurable or provable. Precisely what one may expect from the character of consciousness for being fundamentally intuitive and empathetic. Who but a "greedy materialist" would suppose that consciousness should be measurable, like a massy particle?

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

FUZZ DOORS AND FRAME DRAGGING: If facts and truths can be "drug" by reconciliations among perspectives of consciousness, perhaps similar with how frames can be drug by gravity, then old interpretations could be subjected to new interpretations under new contexts and lights. Old Information would be subject to new interpretation, which would tend to fuzz and phase shift the old cumulations of Information and thus alter how they would interfunction with newly unfolding Substance.

If a CSI context could thus be frame shifted, it would seem that Information, while it may not be lost, may be "forgotten" within a common frame by being reformed under new interpretations and phase shifts. Can the Godhead "forget" in various temporal contexts? Perhaps, Yes. May parts of a universe phase shift to become unlke and separate from former parts? May separate parts (branes?) separate and later re-collide -- provided each part phase shifts to make such possible? Maybe, Yes.

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

Measurable facts are out there for us to share only because we happen to share a universe with which our bodies happen in common to be defined. Facts are NOT out there as independent things in themselves. Even so, we don't get to make up facts apart from others because we all share in how external facts come to be reconciled to measurable manifestation.

Nor do I think we are mere byproduct ride-alongs derivatively emerging from any such facts. Rather, we, in our conscious aspects, are participants with the unfolding, developing, and "dragging" of facts. In some respects, we participate in becoming what we choose to apprehend and appreciate. We don't determine facts, but we do participate in their unfolding creation.


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

There is the Manifest Reality of the measurable here and now, and there is the Potential Reality of the immeasurable infinite. Who can say what are the "facts" about the nature and character of reality, both manifest and potential?

No mortal can test out an answer to such a question. For a concept by which to communicate concerning such a question, one needs to abstract up, to conduct experiments in the mind. Thereby, one endeavors to subsume sub-concepts under a model that is as consistent, coherent, and complete as one can construct, by a process of feedback in induction and deduction. To the extent the model is empirically testable, one tries to falsify it. To the extent the model is beyond empirics, one tries to make it morally useful without being internally inconsistent.

I don't think a mere empirical model can suffice for needed moral guidance. So how does one arrive at "facts" for how to guide a moral model? I think that's the creative calling of feedback-consciousness. Moreover, I suspect the creative aspect of consciousness is inextricably entwined with the unfolding of Reality. I think the Godhead drags Reality along. And our participatory conscious Wills are involved. What I don't grok is whether our participation in the dragging of Reality is chosen by us or chosen through us. Regardless, I think a feedback effect is involved. An observer effect (apprehension-appreciation loop) is inextricably bound up with the problem of how to measure out Reality.

See http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2012/09/the-measurement-problem-observer-effect.html:

"The peculiar discovery known as “The Quantum Measurement Problem” ultimately shows the inseparability of the observer from the observed. All quantum experiments have confirmed that there is no measurable, solid reality “out there” independent of the measurer."

“It’s important to remember that the equations of quantum physics don’t describe the actual existence of particles. In other words, the laws can’t tell us where the particles are and how they act once they get there. They describe only the potential for the particles’ existence – that is, where they may be, how they might behave, and what their properties could be like. And all of these characteristics evolve and change over time. These things are significant because we’re made of the same particles that the rules are describing. If we can gain insight into the way they function, then maybe we can become aware of greater possibilities for how we work. Herein lies the key to understanding what quantum physics is really saying to us about our power in the universe. Our world, our lives, and our bodies exist as they do because they were chosen (imagined) from the world of quantum possibilities … Which of the many possibilities becomes real appears to be determined by consciousness and the act of observation. In other words, the object of our attention becomes the reality of our world.” -Gregg Braden, “The Divine Matrix” (70-71)"

"... it would seem that consciousness is much more fundamental and primary than classical physics espouses. If consciousness is what changes waves of possibility into particles of experience, then how could consciousness be some [mere] emergent property of the material universe? The “material universe” doesn’t even exist yet without immaterial consciousness existing to have that experience!"

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

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To see that this tree
Still continues to be
When there's no-one about in the quad".

Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad;
And that's why the tree
Still continues to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.

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

What our empirical tinkering discovers is effects that are manageable within statistically reliable parameters, at the edges of which is flux and fuzz and beyond which are often phase shifts. Within a shared zone that happens to be comfortable to our observations, we discover "laws" that happen to define our communications and avail our pursuits.

Apart from direct experience of conscious self, we don't discover ultimate, final, or eternal empirical truths. Each truth among those laws that we discover is like a two-way defining truism:  Each such truth happens to be true for defining us because we happen to abide for observing it, whether directly or indirectly.

To what extent are such and we "true" only because of a defining feedback-Source?. To what extent may our technological truths evolve as we move in space-time to pursue and participate in unfolding the "empirical truths" of our shared comfort zone? To what extent may we, by dragging our shared comfort zone, participate in truth-drag? I doubt what we call "laws" exist by themselves, beyond feedback-definition in respect of shared and unfolding happenstances of forms of observing perspectives of Consciousness.

There abides a trinitarian flux of (1) immeasurable feedback-Consciousness, (2) incompletely measurable Substance, and (3) refreshing and cumulating Information. CSI.

I doubt any one aspect among such trinity would or could abide free of a flux of interfunctioning with the other two. I suspect all our empirical tinkering and laws are inferior to, or derivative with, that flux. I doubt Substance and Information can, in combination, abide in any "natural-law-abiding" relationship as the superior reality upon which Consciousness rides as only a byproduct.

I suspect a participatory-creative Observer-Effect (at levels and layers everywhere no matter how faint or subconscious) is inextricably interwoven as an essential aspect of the trinity that permeates all possible existentiality. But for such participatory effect, I doubt much worthwhile sense could be made or expressed that would delineate the present Manifest from the existential Potentiality.

The "point" of empirical based scientism cannot be entirely free from an innate need to entertain the unfolding participation of Consciousness. I much doubt that we can discover or prove a "theory of everything" that can suffice to put Consciousness aside as a non-participatory byproduct.





Science can help guide us as we tinker with unfolding measurables. It cannot, by itself, in "pure reason," tell us what sciences and technologies we should pursue. The technological breakthroughs that await us will in considerable extent depend on the preceding pursuits to which we chose to devote ourselves. It is only with the unfolding participation of perspectives of Consciousness that potentialities fuzz in or out of our ranges of manifest possibilities. Those potentialities do not exist by themselves as immutable scientific laws.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind." -- Einstein

I think: Without respect for spiritual feedback, science is lame. Without empirical science, spirituality is blind.

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

See http://news.softpedia.com/news/Science-Without-Religion-is-Lame-Religion-Without-Science-is-Blind-85550.shtml:

"Like other great scientists he [Einstein] does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.

Einstein was often associated with atheism because of his views on conventional religion, but he never liked being called an atheist.

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

The reason tenets of spirituality preexist organized religion is because God preexists every new religion. Fundamental tenets of spirituality have always existed, waiting only to be "found" via mediums of parables, metaphors, and figures of speech. Organized religion, properly done, can help with that process and with the participatory process of helping to guide the development of subordinate values.

That does not diminish religion. Neither is it reason for banishing fundamental tenets from the public square merely because followers consider them to be based not just in higher mindedness, but in respect of a feedback dance with the spiritual Reconciler. Should 2+2=4 be banished from the public square merely because some mathematicians consider the Godhead to be the founding mathematician? Should that diminish math?

However, there can be pluses and minuses with organized religion, just as there can be wih government. Ideally, organized religion provides forums for people to meet, voluntarily assimilate, and inspire values that will promote their flourishing meaningfulness.

Among those arriving to adulthood, the key is voluntary. Jesus invited followers; He did not rope them. The more a people can assimilate through voluntary forums that avail the development and expression of their higher felt values, the less need they will feel for the intrusive force of diktat from central gov knowitall fascists. In that way, religion can promote higher sensations of worthiness with less enserfment to crony fascists.

However, cronies and priests can be cunning. They can be as agile in twisting religion to enserf people as they are in twisting gov. They can promote themselves as special mouthpieces for God and connive to turn parables and figures of speech into literalisms for warping inferior congregants to the spread of servitude. They can blend religion so it becomes established as gov (cultism), and they can blend gov so it becomes established as religion (communism). Either way, the result tends to abomination against the unfolding of human freedom and dignity.

Members of a spiritually healthy society would tend to:  recognize religious parables as being figures of speech for promoting higher values; inculcate respect for the individual freedom and dignity of each person; hamstring temptations among oligarchs and cultists to advance intrusive central diktat; promote traditional families over gov regulators; expunge incorrigible persons and cults that seek to convert free thinkers into mind slaves; ridicule "social and moral scientists and economists" that theorize for the entire displacement of qualitative values with quantitative calculations of pure reason; otherwise decline to expel advocacy for spiritual good faith and good will from the public square.

If you want to see high water marks for fascist inhumanity, just let a central gov banish all opposing religions, or let an established religion banish all opposing gov. Otoh, if you want to avail respect for human freedom and dignity, then do not let cronies, oligarchs, despots, and fascists deploy their shills, "consensus scientists," "studies profs" and toady pols in order to destroy the faith-based character of American society. And do not let faithless Obamanites keep open the gates at our borders to flood us with their depraved handmaidens.

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

Progs believe in the value of using their time to convince us that all numbers are equal and that all boys are girls and all girls are boys.

Similarly, atheists believe in the value of using their time to convince others to believe there is no God. Atheists prefer to believe there is "No God." They believe in this situational basis for worthwhile expression and argumentation that is "Not God."

But why should this "immeasurable thing" they want to call "Not God" that abides as the situational basis for their moral philosophizing care whether it is called "God" or "Not God"? So long as a mortal engages in higher minded pursuit of values consciously thought or deemed worthwhile, why should this "immeasurable thing" care about the label by which they wish to argue in reference to it?

Now, if they want to pretend it is a measurable, like a giant spaghetti monster," then they're just little girls playing dress up in the girls' restroom.

It's an immeasurable existent that abides in relation to one's direct intuition and empathy. It abides to our qualitative appeciation. It does not dance purely to our quantitative controls. We do not confine consciousness to the perimeter of a test tube, skin sack, or brain skull. Rather, consciousness finds expression only with a wider context of Substance and Information. Atheists need to stop being little girls about it!

The concern is, does it have an identity for itself? Well, apart from "I am that I am," maybe not. Does it care about us? Well, can it not care about us? How could any mortal exist if it had not availed its evolution and binding within space-time to a contextual identity and perspective? How could Substance or Information exist anywhere, without the participatory influence of "observer effects" experienced by perspectives of Consciousness?

What is the power or potential of Consciousness? Well, by what we see in our own participation with creativity, it appears to be well nigh infinite in capacity and potential for birthing astonishing layers and levels of "artificial" intelligence. IAE, Consciousness Is. It is that it is.

From our limited and mortal perspectives, we experience it as a feedback dance of reconciliation over intervals of present apprehensions and appreciations. It does not cease to exist merely because a particular mortal perspective phases out. All that ceases is a particular perspective and context for a particular wrinkle in space-time -- the Information about which remains subject to potential future use or recall. Does the past cease to exist in every potentiality of manifestation merely because of the direction of time? Did the past not exist merely because an atheist prefers so to believe?

Bottom line: Nearly everything progs, atheists, pagans, and libertines argue is for toddler reasons: Because toddler do not want interference with their wannas. Instead, they want to diktat to everyone else. That is their own "special leap of faith." They are like Obama and Hillary in that way. And a long line of narcissists, sociopaths, and pervs throughout history.

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

Atheists believe in the value of using their time to convince others to believe there is no God.  They prefer to believe there is "No God."  They believe in this "situational basis for worthwhile expression and argumentation that is Not God."  But why should this "immeasurable thing" they want to call "Not God" that abides as the situational basis for their moral philosophizing care whether it is called "God" or "Not God"?  So long as a mortal engages in higher minded pursuit of values consciously thought or deemed worthwhile, why should this "immeasurable thing" care about the label by which they wish to argue in reference to it?

Now, if they want to pretend it is a measurable, like a giant spaghetti monster," then they're just little girls playing dress up.  It's an immeasurable existent that abides in relation to one's direct intuition and empathy.  It abides to our qualitative appeciation.  It does not dance purely to our quantitative controls.  We do not confine consciousness to the perimeter of a test tube, skin sack, or brain skull.  Rather, consciousness finds expression only with a wider context of Substance and Information.  Stop being a little girl about it!

The concern is, does it have an identity for itself?  Well, apart from "I am that I am," maybe not.  Does it care about us?  Well, can it not care about us?  How could any mortal exist if it had not availed its evolution and binding within space-time to a contextual identity and perspective?  How could Substance or Information exist anywhere, without the participatory influence of "observer effects" experienced by perspectives of Consciousness?

What is the power or potential of Consciousness?  Well, by what we see in our own participation with creativity, it appears to be well nigh infinite in capacity and potential for birthing astonishing layers and levels of "artificial" intelligence.  IAE, Consciousness Is.  It is that it is.  From our limited and mortal perspectives, we experience it as a feedback dance of reconciliation over intervals of present apprehensions and appreciations.  It does not cease to exist merely because a particular mortal perspective phases out.  All that ceases is a particular perspective and context for a particular wrinkle in space-time -- the Information about which remains subject to potential future use or recall.  Does the past cease to exist in every potentiality of manifestation merely because of the direction of time?

**********

Both in manifestation via present and direct expression and in potentiality via reasoned inference, Consciousness exists and persists, of a common and shared character that is empathetic, intuitive, purposeful, competitive, and cooperative. It is what avails the ingredients for what we often term to be morals, mores, values, and meaningfulness. Without Consciousness, those terms would be without meaning.

Consciousness is what avails links for connecting empathies among the various of its separate and reconciling perspectives. Depending on context and point of view, some level or layer of Consciousness abides as an interpenetrating potentiality with all of Substance and Information. Consciousness is what avails character to the trinitarian godhead of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. No aspect of such trinity would be expressed but for the interfunctioning flux of the other two.

The existence of Consciousness is not empirically measurable, yet the qualitative experience of it is not reasonably deniable. For a philosophy of morality based on concepts of Consciousness, one cannot confirm or inspire it by looking solely to quantitative based empiricism. One must look also to qualitative based reason that is grounded less in empiricism than in internal appreciation of concepts that are in logic based on consistency, coherence, and completeness. We DO reason about morality, but we don't ultimately or empirically prove or measure it. Yet, most of us intuitively and empathetically experience it.

Indeed, even the confused "atheist" who expends his time and resources to try to inspire a "better" basis or forum for moral communication than one that is backed by an idea of God is, in the necessary and symbolic effect of such guided effort, thereby avowing the existentiality of a ground (Source) of morality. Certainly, the atheist cannot empirically prove an origin for our cosmos, nor prove by mere quantitatives what members of any society "ought" to be doing. With mere empiricism, he can no more prove that they should seek to survive or improve their lives than he can prove that they ought not to seek their own immediate suicide or even the forced deaths of others. In short, he is impotent to inspire any society to forego immediate gratifications or to suffer to produce any future goods for himself or his progeny. He cannot well inspire, birth, or support any decent civilization.

Rather, the militant atheist's animosity to all faith-based expressions and metaphors for spirituality often leads him to seek to destroy all organized avenues for the inculcation, appreciation, and spread of Christian based mores. Because he is without means for inspiring people to forego immediate gratifications when needed to preserve longer term values, he tends not to be a reliable defender of his society or nation. In short, his twisted philosophy tends to render him unable to establish or sustain decent faith, family, or fidelity. Rather, his way weakens his society and softens it for the exploitation of organized gangs of predators, parasites, barbarians, savages, pleasure mongers, entitlement mongers, and pagans. His "philosophy" does not support Eden, and certainly cannot support or sustain America. Indeed, his kind are in great part the cause of the decline and fall of the American Republic.

Obama is a prime example of the "mores" of a wannabe knowitall atheist. Obama takes it on himself to pervert the Constitution and central authority to impose destruction and replacement of all the modesty-based values that have been inspired, inculcated, and handed down by years of Christian based influence. Obama would replace that overnight by force of Gov. He would use central Gov and its aresenals of money, media, monitoring, and military to erase all borders and boundaries that define our nation, identities, persons, sexuality, individuality, freedom, and dignity. He would reduce us to being the regimented toys of elitist knowitalls, bent on regulating every aspect of our lives. Obama would expel God to create and rule his "New Eden." In his New Eden, we would all be androgenous drones, harnessed together to obey NWO diktat. Such are among the proclivities of Obamanites that "atheists" tend to support -- whether knowingly or not.

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

Social mind yoga: Reflective feedback concerning spiritual, higher mindedness is how the mind teaches itself to self organize primitive brain impulses, so desires for immediate gratifications can be modulated under a controlling, central processing unit. That's how higher spiritual and cultural values are nurtured and imprinted on synapses, nerves, and muscles.

Good spirituality is what tends to imprint and assimilate values among members of a society, so they can express appropriate and mutual respect for one another's freedom and dignity as individuals. This calls for the question: What values are needed to sustain a decent representative republic? Faith, family, fidelity.

Spirituality is what prompts us to ask such questions. It is an innate, still, quiet voice. And it exists. But its denial is prelude to promotion of the basest gratifications of evil. PC is what gives cover to the denial of higher spirituality. It is what lets slip the dogs of primitivism. Wiccanism and Wahhabism are nothing if not throwbacks to the primitive. Tattoos, tongue rings, pagan nose jewelry, mutilations, veils, sheets, blankets. Perversion, ritual sacrifice, child abuse, and goat sex -- run amuck.

Multiculturalism has been used to divide and water down all assimilative values. This has misled many to deny spirituality altogether. to replace it with consensus pleasure science. This has floated base, immediate, and unmodulated gratifications to the top. Everywhere, in every institution, extra power points have been affirmatively awarded to the basest values and persons. This becomes unmistakably clear as one looks at recent personages we have elected to the presidency, and who we have presently promoted as main contenders for the presidency. We elect what we are, just as we become what we consume and what we free from the guidance of the Reconciler.

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

I am referring to the Changeless-Changer.  I don't think our relationship with it can be avoided, but neither can it be measured. It is simply there, either to be enhanced or polluted.

That said, if someone wants instead to to refer to "higher order thinking," I tend to be ok with that.   (Where stops the infinite regress? Maybe even the Changeless-Changer does not consciously know. )

Regardless, to mock the idea of a Source for guiding higher order thinking is, I believe, detrimental to decent civilization. To those who ascribe to foundational civilizing values or mores, I would ask: Are those mores "real"?

Well, I think they are "real" in this sense: They are derivative of an interpenetrating, feedback relationship with a reconciling and trinitarian Source. Or Godhead.

I began calling it The Source after reading the book by that name by James Michener, years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Source_%28novel%29 In his book, the Source was a "fictional tell in northern Israel called "Makor" (Hebrew: "source"‎).  Prosaically, the name comes from a freshwater well just north of Makor, but symbolically it stands for much more, historically and spiritually."

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

EDIT:  There are values beyond measure and logic, beyond Occam's Razor.  One may "justify" them in happenstance, randomness, habit, primitive urge, whatever.  But there is no political value system that can be proven best as a matter of pure reason. 

On can begin with an axiom, but one has no foundation, apart from faith, for the axiom.  My chosen faith or axiom tends to relate to this:  What is needed to sustain a decent civilization?  I believe the answer entails more than bal s out tolerance for every wanna.  The answer entails fundaments needed to sustain a decent, representative republic.  But that answer depends on faith in an unprovable axiom:  That human freedom and dignity should be valued.  And the "reason" they should be valued?  Because "I am."

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

You yourself premise that "truth and reality" are "based on the human mind's ability to observe it in accordance with what is known." I put aside the problem with defining what can be "known." But even apart from that, your scheme begins by subordinating truth and reality with an ability to OBSERVE it. Think about that.

I do not quarrel that facts exist. Nor that A is A. Nor that a truism is a truism. Nor that the Godhead is the Godhead. Nor that a thing in itself is a thing in itself. What I say is that you cannot go simply from there, without taking some kind of leap of faith. You cannot derive a syllogism from a tautology without importing something more than a tautology.

You cannot relate to a thing in itself without making of it something more than a thing in itself. At some level, you have to recognize, whether consciously, subconsciously, or inferentially, that a "relational-essence" abides. A "changeless-changer." A Source-Definer: That defines us, but that we do not define.

So, how do we relate to it? Not directly, for if we could approach it directly it would not be a thing in itself. So, indirectly, in aspects. How? Well, in measurables, we relate by tinkering and discovering practical applications that seem reliably to work within parameters -- before they fuzz, static, or phase out. In moral purposes, we relate by innate and nurtured empathies and intuitions.

Whille no mortal is availed of direct experience of the Source as Source, one may be availed of direct experience of one's own perspective of consciousness. So, a conscious mortal may notice that: (1) he is conscious of hiimself; (2) his experience of Consciousness seems to be bonded with a measurable body/brain/context (Substance); and (3) he experiences movement across space-time (cumulation of experience and Information).

He notices that everything he can communicate about takes on aspects of Consciousness, Substance, and/or Information. He notices that CSI is CSI. That is THE FACT about which (and with which) he can tinker, communicate, build technologies, and pursue moral purposes. Much more so than a mainly useless dead end that "A is A." Conscious beingness is much more than simply an emergent from a dead tautology.

What could emerge if the only fact were A is A? Maybe a dead zombie universe, that would be no more meaningless or relevant than no-thing at all. If such could even be imagined. Which, lol, it cannot! The very imagining of it would be to import consciousness concerning it, making of it little more than a dream within a dream.

Perhaps you just want to be the "scientist" who slays the idea of a Godhead, in order to reign in elitist rule under our betters? "For our own good?" Others should know that your cute belittlement is filled with shallow hubris. Your "rebuttal" is non.


Were our shared material universe to flicker out, what would meaningfully remain of your "material facts?" Would not such material facts necessarily be elsewhere-elsewise phased and factored?  What "laws" of physics are eternal "facts," independent of participation with Observers?

Sunday, May 8, 2016

God Tinkers

Our world is crammed with faithless losers who want never to have to learn any lessons. They don't want to be judged. They want to be pure pleasure widgets, entitled to do their voodoo, with no consequences. Space to loot! Lebenstraum for blood suckers! Nothing to be learned or affirmed, except their initial assumption of special entitlement to "gimmedat."

These losers are not just among our criminals. They are infested throughout every institution, including those of our so called good, learned, wise, and ruling. This includes our priests, profs, philosophers, and potentates.

This sickness may be traced back to a fundamental and romantic incoherence, to which much of modernity seems to be perpetually enthralled: That "God don't make no junk." That we are all fine, just the way we are. That we don't need no Pilgrim's Progress.

That is, that God doesn't tinker. That God gets everything right the first time. That, to entertain God, there is no need for any process of feedback and reconciliation of apprehensions and appreciations. That the interests of the whole and the parts are irrelevant to one another.

Such a fundamentally false assumption provides a root for irrationality. It leads to incoherent rationalizations for things that never can and never will work. Romantic things, like Gaia God, utopia, the withering away of the State, the substitution of pure reason for spiritual appreciation, the economic reduction of man to widget, the rule of man by hierarchies of despots to whom rules don't apply. NWO. OWG. Smooth, rotating, global "free" trade. Saving the planet. Kabuki representation. Certificates of education to certify to trained insanity. And so on.

Of course God tinkers! How else could any process of existential involvement or feedback make any worthwhile or entertaining sense? Of course relationships, interests, personalities, and perspectives of Consciousness change! Of course human beings need means for reconciling guilt and remorse! That is how people grow out of being perpetual adolescents and jerks!

Relationship evolve and phase shift. Through it all persists unfolding and ongoing reconciliations among perspectives of the one changeless changer: Consciousness itself, as a face of the Godhead. That Godhead abides as enigmatic Consciousness, partially measurable Substance, and cumulating Information.

In any local context, what interests God is necessarily interconnected with what interests mortals. But for our unfolding and overlapping interests, there would be little reason to
engage in reconciliation. If we are led to desire civilized society that avails human freedom and dignity, then that will tend to be what God reconciles. If instead we prefer an incoherence, such as unbound personal pleasure, then we will get the disorderly house of continuous strife, angst, despair, and stupor.

Ask and it shall be given. However, when we ask carelessly, as for fruits, it should hardly surprise that we will often get lemons. Like voting felons electing Shrillaries.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Trump Triumphal

If Cruz had been able to throw as much "pay to play" money at Boehner, McConnell, etc., I suppose he may have had more "friends" in Congress? You want a friend in DC? Carry a stash or get a dog.

Somehow, the design for our system of electing representatives has been gerrymandered and jerryrigged to cause the worst of the worst to float to the top. Pelosi, Boehner, Ryan, Reid, McConnell, Bush, Clinton, Obama -- really? Those were our "best"? The hopeful thing about Trump is that he may (?) be self funding.

Trump undesrtands the floater system. I doubt he will destroy the game he is so good at playing.

There is this: Trump is surely better than Hillary. He does not actively seek the destruction of the republic. He is not in the grip of the establishment, because he knows how to play the establishment so he does not have to grovel to it. He sees and articulates the issues that concern decent Americans. He is anti-PC. He breaks false shibboleths.

Cruz may not have been able to attract enough decent Americans to win. Trump will shake things up. Before you can build a better system, it's sometimes necessary to take mighty hammer blows against the present one. That may present an opportunity for a real Conserver of Liberty in 4 years.

It's just too bad we don't seem to keep many in training. We may have short sightedly squelched those who were. Thus we get half a loaf. And so it goes.

Now, after all the Trump triumphalism, it will be interesting to see if those who are most rabid among Trump supporters can help attract a majority of Americans who actually want to restore the American Ideal. As opposed merely to igniting faction opportunities for cannibalizing the country.

"Moochers and Looters" encapsulates the crony-commie axis that now rules every institution and seems poised to prevent its expulsion by every means known to ticks, snakes, skunks, and squid.  Americans and anti-Americans now live in common in a house divided.  We cannot fix most of the stupidity and faithless corruption of the knowitall crony-commie axis.  We will have to root it out, root and branch.  A tick would rather be burned than have to earn its own meal.  Natural law means nothing to any anti-American who believes in no natural Deity.