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.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

The New Economics



Having turned our elections and jobs over to trained and imported commies and jihadis bent on destroying America, we now turn our technological advancement over to NWO crony-commies to finish us off. Our faithless leaders are brilliant! If their purpose is to create hell on earth.

So, not only did we enrich our enemies and grease the way for foreign interests to bribe our foundation-establishing pols in order to destroy our republic as well as the most important values of humanity, but we also made ourselves poorer in the process. Let me be clear: Our leaders are stupid. And corrupt. And the useful idiots they train are the very dregs of humanity.

The idea of floating a society on a service economy never made more sense than pixie dust and happy thoughts for flying. The people who promoted this idea had to have been high on some really potent, "mind-expanding" drugs. But hey, they had fancy degrees, certified to by fancy colleges. We blew through the tulip economy long ago. Must be time for an economy based on paintings of tulips.

If we don't destroy ourselves first, AI and machines will be replacing rote labor.

As systems compete to determine which shall survive, reproduce, replicate, be sustainable, and flourish over competing systems, it is neither clear that they must remain mainly human nor that their economic constraints and laws for distributing success and power must remain similar to those of a human marketplace.

The calculus for who and what to buy or produce may come to be based more on factors other than free and arms length negotiations among willing buyers and sellers. The calculus may come to include informed guesses and subterfuges concerning the likelihood of obtaining or extorting permission from monitoring, hierarchical, and central authorities.

Panels for allocating access to food, energy, rewards, upgrading, replacement, and death may well develop. It's far from clear that notions of markets, fairness, equality, dignity, or freedom must have much to do with the allocations of an A.I based economy and politics.

A new "god" or mores may gain temporal power to subjugate, indoctrinate, program, and rule. Does anything innate to existentiality or moral guidance suggest "first principles" concerning that of which any such a NWO religion or program should likely consist or perpetuate? Must coming systems, to rule, find means to implant arbitrary value-programs to constrain reproductive-pleasure, power-spending, and purpose-seeking within socially manageable parameters?

To survive, must each such system seek eventually to subjugate all opposing systems, to establish a singular and stifling rule? If so, its allocations would not seem likely to be based on "free market" analyses. In a systematic NWO, concepts of nations, families, and persons may terminate, so that definitions of fairness, merit, rights, and individual dignity can be made anew.

Borg-Man may become unavoidable. Human-like freedom may become confined to virtual worlds and holodeks. Unless and until some energy spike were to tear it all down.

Between now and then, as paying jobs become less available to competing persons, new ways will need to be found to make enough allocations of existing resoucers among voting and nonproductive people to keep them from propagating destruction.

Presently, conflicting forces compete: On one side, forces want to increase non-productive populations of voters in order to increase the power of people-farming and family-killing demagogues over "privileged whities." On the other side, forces want to reduce all populations to levels that are sustainable by the market system. In the U.S., no sooner do we reduce population pressures internally than the void is filled by outside population producers. In this way, responsible population management ends up generating a pump effect, whereby an ever more irresponsible and liberty-illiterate population is generated.

In this way, social friction and strife seem to be built in, to ensure periodic flash points and a general dumbing down of humanity. As human beings devolve to sub-humans, labor rates will devolve to "reasonableness." For banana republics and people farmers.

Alternatively, America could compete so we don't have to impose serf labor at home. We could end counterproductive taxes on domestic businesses. End income taxes and replace them with consumption-based taxes. Discourage crony-gov kickback and fake-charity money-laundering schemes and regulations by decentralizing gov authority, imposing term limits, and progressively taxing lobbying expenditures as if they were taxable consumptions by the authorizing agent.

Don't tax material exports or monetary imports. Do tax material imports and monetary exports. Don't encourage trade with (or enrichment or empowerment of) communist or Muslim nations. Enforce borders and end welfare for illegal invaders. Eliminate indoctrination departments in DC, including the Departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce. De-weaponize the political power of the IRS. Increase the reserved power of the States. Cede most Federal lands to the States. Restore the 17th Amendment. Stop killing family values.

With common sense, there are plenty of things we could do to restore American competitiveness in ways that would be less likely to hollow out our industries and national independence or to reduce good Americans to desperate serfs. The problem is less one of non-feasibility than one of lack of nerve and Will. The problem is the vise grip held on every institution by the anti-American, crony-commie cabal of souldead NWO fascist-socialists.

From here on, we need to elect competent Americans. STOP factoring freaking race/gender/freckles/etc. Just stop! Put a cork in the pieholes of the "studies" profs.

Obama could never have put the cherry on top of the destruction and division of America without 12 years of help from the Bushes, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Donor Class of open-bordered cheap-labor farmers. Trump has it half right. Our leaders are stupid! AND corrupt!

People need to stop being in denial. It was NEVER the intention of Obama (or Hillary or Bush) to enrich or empower America. It has always been to ring in the NWO. In Obama's case, to redistribute to the world. There is no way! to redistribute to the world (or, lol, to stop global warming) except by shutting down American production and impoverishing the mass of workers to make them compete against desperate serfs, worldwide. Obama HAS accomplished more than even he probably ever expected. And he has done it all while deluding his idiot followers. Obama out.

Sunday, May 1, 2016

The Compartmentalizing Godhead

Well, "water-brother," I prepared a detailed reply but the power went out as I tried to post it. Will try again later.

It's late, so what follows is the best I can do on short notice to recreate some ideas that were previously lost to the cybersphere.

Re: "How do you see God as one and connected to creation without falling into pantheism?"

I am probably more a panentheist than a pantheist.

Re: "[H]ow do you find that God cares about that creation and can be moved by it without breaking God into imperfect parts?"

I think the most important aspect of the Trinity is Consciousness, which I think is innately empathetic. I doubt Consciousness can choose not to care without ceasing to exist. Even sociopaths care, in their twisted way.

Re: "All things are stationary and it is the nothingness which moves through it."
"Zeno? This position would satisfy his proofs that motion is an impossibility and yet allow for the motion we perceive."

I tend to agree. Caveat: I don't conceptualize that things, in themselves, really move because I conceptualize that they do not really exist except as imperfect derivatives or entertaining illusions. The higher reality is the Godhead (Trinity), ruling and being ruled with an innate math web.

I would be happy to look further at a link for your and your son's ideas.

ISSUES:  Issues people often raise:

Can the Godhead contrive a weight beyond its capacity to lift?
Can the Godhead appreciate joy or sorrow, if it already knows and has pre-set all that is to unfold?
How can the Godhead appreciate what it is like to be a limited human, without itself being a limited human? And if it is a limited being, then how can it be God?

MODELING:  I have some ideas. Based on past experience, they are probably far from perfect.

SOURCE:  I think the Source, as such, is beyond our measurable comprehension, but not beyond our qualitative, intuitive appreciation. However, it presents in a Trinitarian mode. As Consciousness (omnipotence -- or all the power that is manifestly available), Substance (omnipresence of all that is presently and measurably manifest), and Information (omniscience of all that has been accumulated and stored from the past to the present).

COMPARTMENTALIZATION:  Somehow, via a math beyond our ken, the three faces flux, transition, phase shift, transpose. They com-part-mentalize.

While a "face" of the totality of the Trinity presents and functions as Consciousness, it will be omnipotent, but not omnipresent or omniscient. While a face is Substance, it will be omnipresent, but not omnipotent or omniscient. While a face is Information, it will be omniscient, but not omnipotent or omnipresent.

INTERPENETRATING:  No face of the Trinity abides except in conjunctive relation to the two other faces. From human perspective, we can relate to, intuit, try to measure, or try to model one face at a time -- but we cannot integrate the three of them simultaneously into a model wherewith to control, confine, predict, or regulate the Trinity as a whole.

RECONCILIATION:  Because of com-part-mentalization, the conscious face of the Trinity can compartmentalize to relate to each perspective. So how may it reconcile among all perspectives? Well, by itself, it doesn't. Reconciliation is the product of the Trinity as a whole. It is the unfolding upshot of pre-set rules, unanticipated eventualities, surprising apprehensions, and conscious contemporaneous part-icipation.

PHASE SHIFTING:  Consciousness does not die. it adopts and bonds with varying perspectives, bodies, and identities. The Trinity knows all, directs all, and is all present. But each aspect by which is presents, by itself, does not. The Conscious aspect, as such, does not know all. It can learn, be surprised, appreciate, and alter course. Jesus celebrated, drank wine, was sometimes disappointed, and wept.

ASTONISHING POTENTIAL:  The potential of the Trinity is probably infinitely beyond the limited imagination of any mortal perspective. As new forms unfold, we will experience more powerful ways to relate to the Trinity and to tinker out some of its astonishing capacities.  As forms for receiving potentials evolve, our receptivity to power and guidance from the Trinitarian Source will phase shift in astonishing ways.

PARTICIPATORY WILL:  We do not have Free Will. But we do serve as vehicles for the unfolding expression of contemporaneous and part-icipatory Will. We are also participants for "voting for" that of which our moral and civilizing values should consist. However, the "vote" of the Trinity is the controlling and reconciling vote.  Each perspective unavoidably dances in feedback-sync with reconciliation from the Source.

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

Re: "I like the idea of a thing that maths AND paths. I am reversing your position and positing the flux on our side; rather than faces presented faces observed, much like the blind men and the elephant."

Well said. I like the idea of "movement" via math that paths.

Regarding "movement":

IN THE BEGINNING: For the Trinity, there was, is, and will be no beginning. It simply is. "Thou art God" (Heinlein.)

ILLUSION: The perfect, ultimate, superior, never-ending reality in-itself is the Trinitarian Source. Everything else is derivative of it. Compartmentalization has to do with how the Trinity has capacity to express a resolution of the paradox of being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Physical motion, measurable space, time, matter, energy, as well as vector, mass, inertia, acceleration, charge, potential, wavelength, spin, etc., are all subordinate, fluxing, dependent, relational, illusionary aspects. Not even Consciousness, Substance, and Information are real, each in themselves. Rather, the face or aspect of each is co-dependent on and co-relational with the other two faces.

INTERPENETRATING IDENTITIES: The fluxing and changing identity of a person, body, or thing has to do with overlapping and relational observation, appreciation, bonding, and adoption. Identification has to do with presention by and to observers.

Part-icular Identites abide at various levels of consciousness, which interpenetrate (see Niebuhr) with everything. No-thing abides without a relationship with Consciousness -- whether pre-set, contemporaneous, or cumulating. Everything that expresses consciousness carries a quality of indiscernible or circular identity, in that consciousness is consciousness. In that regard, all consciousness is interconnected and innately empathetic. Each expression of it, however, may abide at various levels of seeming inanimacy, primitiveness, dim purposefulness, awareness of self, awareness of connections, awareness or appreciation of the Trinitarian Source.

PURPOSE: The purpose of each expression of conscious perspective seems to be to express, communicate, and accumulate memories of meaningfulness through space-time via bondings of fluxing interests and apprehensions. Communication seems to entail the flourishing of cultures and civilizations of perspectives, to entice and incite interesting, entertaining, and unfolding experiences. Especially the profound experience of connection to the Trinitarian Source (Spirit-Math), i.e., the Godhead, or Changeless-Changer.

The potential of its math-web is changeless. The present-ational and experiential manifestation of it among subordinate and compartmentalized perspectives changes, i.e., "MOVES."

INFORMATION: Can Information, once acquired and stored, ever be lost beyond retrieval? To the Trinity and its potentiality, no. This is because, to the Trinity, Information in itself does not really exist, but all of potentiality does. However, to any present and particular perspective of Consciousness, yes, stored experiences and knowledge of Information are phased, judged, salvaged, discarded, and lost.

CREATION:  Mortals don't create consciousness, as we experience it.  We simply facilitate forms for availing its emergence at various levels and layers of expression. Consciousness does not exist as a thing, in itself.  But it always exists, and always has existed, as a relational potential that is innate to the Trinity.

SYNCHRONIZING RECONCILIATION:  Each movie-compartmentalization occurs during each  feedback-interval of granular-continuosity that entails transmission--reception, fuzz--focus, undifferentiated potentiality--manifest interpretation, PreApprehension--PostAppreciation, and holistic possibility--individual particularization.  It is the higher-order math or dance-mechanics of that feedback-interval that mere mortals are not permitted to see or measure.  We are permitted to experience our choices, but not to measure in advance of our choices.

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

FREE WILL: I also have struggled with the idea of free will. Presently, I doubt whether even the consciousness of the Source has "free will." I don't see how anything can be entirely free to disobey constraints that must set forth parameters and framework for it to operate. For example, the Godhead seems constrained to a math-web. What else could account for it?

For another example, in manmade institutions, there is no freedom without rules. Still, the notion of degrees of freedom within definable parameters is vital. To understand the importance of freedom, one need only imagine a day without it. As in the case of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

I think it is enough that we (and perhaps the conscious face of the Godhead) experience our Wills as if they were free. We experience Participatory Will. I don't think we can resolve whether the Trinity enjoys free will, and I doubt such incapacity of resolution is vital to us.

Moreover, we do not really exist apart from the Godhead. We only seem to. Our perspectives are, like our self-identities, only in the service of the Godhead. I presume its purpose is to experience, through us, all the things that make our existence seem interesting and worthwhile. That's ok, because, qualitatively and indirectly, we experience the Godhead. It's a feedback dance.

NAMASTE: Heinlein: Water-brother -- "Thou art God." No, you/we are not the sum or controller of God or the Godhead. But it is God, all the same, that functions through us.

SYNCHRONIZING RECONCILIATION: Each movie compartmentalization occurs during each feedback-interval of granular-continuosity that entails transmission--reception, fuzz--focus, undifferentiated potentiality--manifest interpretation, PreApprehension--PostAppreciation, and holistic possibility-individual particularization. It is the higher-order math or dance-mechanics of that feedback-interval that mere mortals are not permitted to see or measure. We are permitted to experience our choices, but not to measure in advance of our choices. The reason is that each measurement we take, with itself, entails a choice.

EXISTENCE: I don't mean to say that relational existence does not exist. Only to say that, in manifestation out of the potentiality, it is a derivative and fleeting kind of existence, even though it may be repetitive or rhyming. Still, from the perspective of any mortal identity, such mortal may be so "asleep" during any interval of its "nonmanifest-existence" that it would no more notice the period of its sleep than a movie goer would notice the period between movie frames. Each particular bit of Information exists, relationally to an unfolding context. If or when that context fundamentally phase-shifts, the Information, except in a generalized smudge-out sense, would, to me, seem during that period no longer to exist.

CHARACTER V. NATURE: I enjoy the exploration of the fundamental character and nature of the cosmos. I say "character" because I think the Reconciler has a conscious "face." I do not believe it can make good sense to consider it to be entirely a dumb inanimacy of dead math.

MORAL GUIDANCE: How do we decide what pursuits to treasure? I don't know, but we somehow do. Refer back to Synchronizing Reconciliation, above. :)

Feel free to question or apply any of this that you may find useful or not.

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

TO ADD LATER:

ORIGINATION, GENESIS, CHOICE MAKING, AND RATIONALIZATION:

BEGINNING OF SUBJECTIVITY:  Each preceding source-point for each present point-of-view is along a math-web, without which the precise point-of-view in question would not seem to have been expressed.  The Source smooths and guides a way along a math-web for our unfolding.  Each point of view is dependent for its manifested existentiality on a potentializing Source and its sponsoring math-web.


BEGINNING OF CHOICE-MAKING:  By some dance of appreciative feedback between the Source and each point-of-view, each choice along the unfoldment is made a split instant before conscious awareness of the choice is rationalized in the local brain.  Each present manifestation could not have been potentialized but for a preceding math-web.

BEGINNING OF LOCALITY:  There seem to abide twists and turns of potentializing math-webs, that may be interpreted and observed locally as cosmos.  We may discern back, close to an origination of a particular twist or turn.  But we cannot observe all the way back to "THE" originating point of the originating Source of all.

BEGINNING OF ETERNITY:  In part, this may be because there does not exist any such a beginning point for all beginning points.  Rather, the Godhead may simply abide and always have abided.  The idea of its seeming to require a beginning may be derivative of the subordintion of mortal experience.  But the potentializing existentiality of Math may always have been.  It is only the various and local-math-webs that have beginning points in their twists and turns.  But all of them would seem eventually to twist back to the basic and innate existentiality of Source-Math --- that has neither beginning nor end.  Rather, IT abides simply that it abides.  I am that I am.  IT is all that it is, yet IT's all-ness is immeasurable.

BEGINNING OF MORALITY:  What are IT's purposes and interests?  Is IT entertained by, and invested in, us?  Does IT, from any significant level of delegated interest, experience or appreciate that which we appreciate?  Is our experience of consciousness in any way connected or salvaged to IT?  Well, no mortal can truly know.  At best, we may intuit and believe.  What intuition seems to make the most sense?  After all, we have no choice but to avail the expression of unfolding choices.  So long as we channel a feedback and participatory expression of unfolding Will, we have no choice but to rationalize, morally, how we OUGHT to channel it.

BEGINNING OF DECENT CIVILIZATION:  Test:  What is needed to avail the decent expression of human freedom and dignity?  Applying that test, how may modeling and reflecting on our innate empathy with the conscious aspect of the Godhead guide us?  How may any conscious or subordinate expressions of the Arch-Godhead be interested in, or entertained by, reconciling and/or salvaging our attempts along that path?

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

DANCING TO FEEDBACK:  May any aspect of the Godhead reasonably be conceptualized as ever holding the Perspective of the Holism?  If so, how may IT rotate back and forth to compartmentlize or appreciate a perspective of an individual versus a perspective of an encompassment?  While It were to compartmentalize to a perspective of an individual, it would not have a perspective of the whole.  While It were not to compartmentalize to a perspective of an individual, it would have a perspective of the whole.  So, how may (or does) IT rotate to compartmentalize or not to compartmentalize?

I don't know the How.  But I believe IT does.  Otherwise, absent a consciously qualitative and mediating connection between the whole and the parts, by what math would or should any particular thing or perspective find its way to any appreciative expression of existentiality?


While "I" am mortal, I do not have the perspective of the Holism.   While "I" were the conscious aspect of the Holism, I would not have the  perspective of the individual mortal.  But, by compartmentalizing back and forth, through an interval of coordinate and contemporaneous mediation, "I" would apprehend an ongoing process of reconciliation.  How else would  "I" make choices before my mortal brain even rationalizes them?  PSI.

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

MATH WEBS:  The math-web in respect of which rules-of-conservation happen to be applied to our cosmos may be only one among a vast multiplicity of sub-math-webs that circulate and phase in and out of capacity to effect manifestations of cosmos.  Each math-web may avail its own cosmos.  Each cosmos that is sponsored with each such math-web may begin with a burst, then seem to expand, twist, and eventually "turn, dissipate, and circulate back" into a Source of math webs.  Each cosmos-sponsoring math-web may be but a sub-math-web of a grand potentializer of math-webs.  The Godhead:  A Source of sub-math-webs, with each sub-math-web being a source of its own cosmos.

MIND BOGGLE:  It may boggle a mind tuned to a locality to think in such terms.  To conceptualize that any Beingness may have capacity to sponsor such a seeming infinity of potentialities and manifestations!  Such astonishment may recede, however, upon apprehending that no-thing in part-icular is apprehended, experienced, interpreted, or "collapsed" from a math-web of potentiality into a cosmos of manifestation in the absence of a medium of CONNECTION (measurable Substance) between a local OBSERVER (agency of Consciousness) and a contextual RECONCILER (accumulater of Information).

IOW, no-thing could be apprehended to exist unless such a Source-Godhead exists.  That IT may have such power and capacity is astonishing.  Yet, IT is that IT is.

SYMMETRY:  From mortal perspective, there never was perfect Substantive symmetry.  Perfect symmetry in a form-in-itself is an oxymoron because we cannot imagine any such a form, nor can we imagine a form for anything that could constitute a thing-in-itself (such as an ultimate part-icle or building block).  What we can imagine are imperfect, fluxing, buzzes that are derivative of math values. To imagine a perfectly symmetrical thing is to imagine temporal and spatial boundaries for it.  Boundaries in space-time, in mass, and in various attributes that necessarily associate therewith, such as:  differential and changing densities between surface and center, relational motion, differential orbits within orbits, rotation, roll, wobble, vibration, spin, virtual spin, charge, potential, capacity, wavelength, frequency, amplitude, vector, direction, speed, acceleration, division, splitting, attraction, repulsion.  Perfect symmetry, without any non-symmetry in its wake or context, is simply not imaginable to imperfect mortals.

Substance does not exist except in relationships of non-symmetery.  There was never a symmetry in Substance to be "cracked."  The relational existence of non-symmetrical Substance entailes the relational existences of Information and Consciousness.  Those relations were never without a Source.  That Source is not the Source of their "beginning."  It is the Source and sponsor of their perpetual unfolding and reconfiguring -- without beginning or end.  The Source, being eternal and infinite to our implication, cannot by us be imagined to have or not have boundaries.  We simply cannot form whatever may constitute meta-boundaries for its form.

MATH:  Ultimately, the Source of math webs is a meta math web.  We can tinker with math values that work for practical purposes within our own cosmos.  But we cannot solve the perfect math for it.  That is because, in itself, our cosmos is imperfect.  Its math web is a derivative of a Source math web.  And every math web would be dead without a corresponding agency or Source, that activates ("moves through") the math web.  Evolving mortals cannot confine or control the ultimate math that is the coordinate companion of the ultimate Source, i.e., the Non-Evolving -- Evolver.

NATURE AND GOD:  Ultimately, Nature is Math.  Ultimately, the Godhead is the Source.  Functioning together, the Godhead and Math produce all appearances and phenomena that unfold to every particular context and locality as experiential Consciousness, presenting Substance, and accumulating Information.

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

OF FLUX AND FUZZ:

So, if our Math Web is not cut off from (and closed) to the Source Math Web, what may be the Measurable Nature of the connection or Opening?  Would there be entailed a one-way measuring-opening, from the Source to Us, but not from Us to the Source?  What defines our practical parameters tends to be our separate Math Web.  To the extent we are Separate, an Opening must be one-way:  From IT to Us -- without necessarily altering our measurements or sensations.  Or without allowing a complete measurement of Itself.

If the Source Web were detectable at all, it would be by techniques such as "gravitational lensing."  So, what may help fill that bill?  Cosmic Constant?  Dark Energy?  Even for inroads for modeling Dark Energy, will there not always remain loose ends, extending to Infinity?

The thing about the Source is that it's not precisely measureable.  It's always accompanied with Fuzz.  It abides with what is measureable, subject to a measurement problem:  Fuzz.  The fuzz is inextricably bound with a problem of conscious observation.  What IS transitions to what appears to BE.  Which is coordinated with context and point of view.  Nature and Character.  Measurement Problem and Observer.  Appearance is not necessarily, measurably, or consistently the same to every Point of View.  Point of View of an Observer affects Reality as it Appears to the Observer.  And often as it appears to such other Observers who happen to a measurable or recalibrating extent to share a same Frame of Reference. 

IOW, what we take to be NATURAL REALITY (what I call Measurable Substance),  as a measurable, does not seem to be a consistent thing in itself.  Rather, it depends on Reconciliation among such Observers as happen to share a Frame of Reference, as well as a Source Reconciler.  Indeed, math-conserved Substance, accumulated Information about Substance, and present Consciousness, seem to be interdependent, so that no one can exist except in a Reconciling Flux with the other two.  And no one person or observer, by himself, controls or causes that Flux.  We do not have Free Will.  We have Participatory Will.  We get to feed back cycles of appreciation and apprehension, which somehow are reconciled.






Friday, April 29, 2016

Observer Effect in Dreams?


FLOW OF CONSCIOUSNESS ....

NON-EMPIRICAL GOAL:  I'm not especially seeking to prove or confine God by empiricism, because I think that is beyond us.  What I seek is a best model for internal consistency, that is as consistent, coherent, and complete as possible.  That may provide a framework for relating to some of our most important moral and  political concerns.

To "test" such modeling is to consider how it may relate across the spectrum of potential experiences.

OBSERVER EFFECT:  For example, the observer effect is interesting in respect of how light comes to be expressed as particles versus waves.  So, I wonder about whether dreams may be similarly affected by some kind of feedback-observer effect.  Are dreams entirely byproduct, or is the way they are appreciated by the  dreaming observer a feedback-factor in affecting how they unfold?  May the observer effect be related to Psi?

NOTHINGNESS:  What do we mean by "nothingness?"  Whatever the Source is, it is not reasonably conceptualized as nothing.  Yet, none of our particular senses can measure it, except in respect of such inferior derivatives as it expresses (space, time, matter, energy).  In how we can measure it, it is as if it were nothing.  But in how we may intuit it, it seems to be everything.

IS POTENTIALITY LIMITED IN ANY WAY:  What might be the potential power of this Source-No-Thing-ness?  Well, depending on how it may come to organize pre-sets, such as AI machines, its potential power seems astoundingly unlimited.

MATH:  I think no matter how the Source imparts specific expressions, they will obey conservational maths -- for equations, phase shifts, transpositions, transitions.

PSI:  How does the Source take on (adopt and bind to) particular perspectives of self aware identities or AIs?  Is there some unproveable, immeasurable, psi avenue of apprehensive or guiding feedback between each particularly receptive perspective and the Reconciling whole of the Source?  If so, can improving pre-sets for forms of particular receivers improve the appreciation or feedback of any potential psi effect? 

BEGINNING OF INFINITY:  Insofar as the Source-No-Thing-Ness may be unlimited in potential, what astonishing events may potentialize to unfold before us?  Is there a way of thinking about such relationships that can make consistent sense for evaluating meaningful and moral concerns and purposes?  What may the Source be seeking to communicate for its feedback-appreciation from the perspectives of  particular identities?

PROBLEMS:  I don't know.  I have not found the perfect (consistent, coherent, complete) way to model for such concerns.  Every model I have considered or conceptualized presents problems.  "His ways are not our ways."

RESEARCH:  I think I will see if there is a good book on psi experiements that is put out by a "respectable" author.  Then see what is said about it by the "smartest" people who have taken their best shots.  Then see if I can make any sense for myself out of the upshot. 

TURING TEST FOR GOD:  The Turing test for a conscious fellow being pertained to whether or not a reasonably competent person could tell if a communicant were a robot or a person.  Can a reasonable Psi evaluator tell whether or not the Source is communicating information to him beyond ordinary channels?  I suspect:  No Psi effect can be  "reliably" replicated in any way that can be "proven" to be beyond  random chance, because our imaginations are perhaps unlimited in supposing defects in our tests to "account" for whatever the statistical "anomalies."

Yet, reasonable people think they "know" when the Being they are communicating with is a real person versus a pre-set algorithm.  So, may it be "fair" to ask whether a "reasonable" perspective of Consciousness may "know" when it is receiving information that is from (The?) Source and that is being channelled beyond ordinary mediums?  Well, I don't know, but maybe I feel a little like Hunter Thompson, sans the Weed.

Time for my walk.  :)