Monday, January 26, 2009


(click title above)




The author said: “In other words, perhaps it is not that God seeks to humble a leader who appears to be intoxicated with pride - not yet at least - but rather to enlist him as the vessel of His wrath against a country He has long intended to judge, in the hopes that we may perchance curve His judgment, by recognizing our many sins as a nation, and choose to bow before Him (God, not Obama) in humility. It is, after all, the standard method in which he has humbled other nations in the past.”

Well, I agree that America has ventured too far beyond her Judeo-Christian roots, and not for the better. Much of America has sacrificed spiritual empathy on the alter of scientific indifference and empirical objectivism, coming to confuse strategies for learning HOW we can do things with strategies for apprehending WHY we should do things. For that hubris, for our own good, we need to be humbled.

In one way or another, all nations and mortals come periodically to be humbled.

Once we come to a properly humbled frame of reference, it seems to me that a kind of Gnosticism may help some of us in our quest to marry a conception of rational empiricism with civilizing, empathetic spiritualism.

By that I mean that “The Word” can be conceptualized as encompassing every form of transfer of conceptualized or recognized information … among system, component transmitter, and component receiver. The Word can be formed of verbal sounds, alpha-numeric symbols, or any representation, metaphor, figure of speech, or even “physical” symbol understood as standing for something else.

Indeed, I intuit it possible, although not empirically verifiable, that not only transfers of information, but all changes in “physical” manifestations, may be conceived as ultimately reducing to a kind of inter-functioning of words, i.e., functions or algorithms of a system of math, being conceptualized by a holistic, synchronizing, compartmentalizing, metaphysical, spiritual “Mind.”

If so, all of “physics,” including space, time, matter, and energy, as well as all physical bodies, brains, and electrical transfers of signals among nerve synapses, may reduce to mathematical functions being conceptualized, synchronized, related, and transmitted by a Mind, aka, God.

This begs questions: May such Mind have fundamental purpose or purposes? May such purposes already have been expressed in words, necessarily imperfectly interpreted among incomplete mortal perspectives? May some interpretations have come closer to the mark than others? I believe, yes.

I think much of The Word attributed to Jesus, as interpreted and preserved by mortal representations, is close to the mark. Were I to quibble, only to enhance my own humble understanding or interpretation, I may add or substitute the word “empathy” in some places for the word “love.”

But I would not get into the question of how far Jesus expressed Himself in the form of a physical, human body. This is because I believe “physics” does not really exist in itself, but is only a derivative of Mind, made useful for “book marking” modes of interaction and communication among mortal, transient perspectives of Mind. In other words, I believe the word, i.e., math, is more real and fundamental as building block for our universe of shared experience than are atoms, photons, quarks, or strings. Perhaps my mode of interpretation, strictly for the “why” of things, may share similarities with some of the old “heretic” Gnostic beliefs.

Even so, taking a broad understanding of Christianity, I think such Gnosticism can lay legitimate claim to “being Christian.” Certainly, it need not be inconsistent with the Great Commandment or with the Golden Rule. Or with modern Social Conservatism.

For those who take both physical science and physical Christianity as seeming too circularly or regressively absurd, a special kind of Gnostic interpretation may still avail a civilizing, moral vision --- to a properly humbled mind.


Blake does not subscribe to the notion of a distinct body from the soul, and which must submit to the rule of soul, but rather sees body as an extension of soul derived from the 'discernment' of the senses. Thus, the emphasis orthodoxy places upon the denial of bodily urges is a dualistic error born of misapprehension of the relationship between body and soul ….
In his criticism of reason, law and uniformity Blake has been taken to be opposed to the enlightenment, but it has also been argued that, in a dialectical sense, he used the enlightenment spirit of rejection of external authority to criticize narrow conceptions of the enlightenment ….
William Wordsworth remarked, "There was no doubt that this poor man was mad, but there is something in the madness of this man which interests me more than the sanity of Lord Byron and Walter Scott."
Tobias Churton, scholar of obscure religious movements, states that "the Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere"
Hermeticism encompasses both panentheism and Monistic-polytheism within its belief system, which teaches that there is The All, or one "Cause", of which we, and the entire universe, are all a part. Also it subscribes to the notion that other beings such as gods and angels, ascended masters and elementals exist in the Universe.


Contrary to some Gnostics, I think:

1) ARTISTRY --- Pursuit of meaningfulness is an innate and intuitive gift and art;

2) JUDGMENT --- Matter is not evil or fallen;

3) MODESTY --- Some forms for adult expression of joyful experience are not decently appropriate for civilized, public display;

4) FAMILY --- Marriage, family values, and inculcated fellow empathy are vitally important to civilization;

5) CIVILITY --- A respectable social, moral, and spiritual philosophy should be conducive to the stability, sustainability, and surpassage of a decent and enlightening civilization; such philosophy should respect human dignity and individual choices within civilizing parameters and appropriately checked and managed markets;

6) EMPATHY ---Means for assimilating, inculcating, and educating social sharing of philosophical values and traditions are essential for any civilizing system of law and social governance to endure;

7) REVERENCE --- Spiritual philosophy need not be conceived as inconsistent with methods of science;

8) CONCEPTUALISM --- Religious texts regarding "heaven" should be taken no more literally than should scientific models regarding "physicality." Rather, each, among religious texts and scientific models alike, should be appreciated in its own realm for its own metaphoric and practical purposes.


Ontology of Consciousness (Field of Consciousness):


Mystics hold that there is a deeper or more fundamental state of existence beneath the observable, day-to day world of phenomena, and that in fact the ordinary world is superficial or epiphenomenal.
Mysticisms generally hold to some form of immanence, since their focus on direct realization obviates many concerns about the afterlife, and this often conflicts with conventional religious doctrines.
… describing the power of creation inherent in pure desire/unconflicted singlemindedness of will …
… excessive effort in contemplating the impossible leads the initiate to give up the ego pursuit of doing/getting as opposed to the unity experience of being/having …
… describing the return path to the divine through a gradual emptying of earthbound value concepts and subtle internal conflicts …
Mysticism is generally considered experiential and holistic, and mystical experiences held to be beyond expression; modern philosophy, psychology, biology and physics being overtly analytical, verbal, and reductionist.
Baruch de Spinoza, the 17th c. philosopher, while supporting the new discoveries of science and eschewing traditional Jewish concepts of God and miracles, espoused that Nature/Universe was one holistic reality with the highest virtue - the power inherent in preserving essence (being) or "conatus," and the highest form of knowledge - the intuitive knowing of the Real. These shared understandings occur again and again in the field of philosophy and yet some persist in disparaging the one over the other.
… modern physicists now struggle to understand a multiple dimensional reality that mystics' have attempted to describe for millennia. Physicist David Bohm speaking of consciousness expressing itself as matter and/or energy would be completely understood by the mystic, whatever his cultural/religious heritage.
… dimensional reality shifts that synchronize with states of consciousness and unconflicted choices.
Traditional use of the term ontology makes it a synonym of metaphysics. Prior to Immanuel Kant's theoretical separation of "reality" from the "appearance of reality," with human knowledge limited to the latter, the field of ontology/metaphysics concerned itself with the overall structure or nature of reality.
… mystical path has necessarily as its ontological purpose, the discernment between truth and illusion …

In the widest sense, mysticism is every guidance to the immediate awareness of that which is not reached by either perception or conception, or generally by any knowledge. The mystic is opposed to the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, whereas the philosopher begins from without. The mystic starts from his inner, positive, individual experience, in which he finds himself as the eternal and only being, and so on. But nothing of this is communicable except the assertions that we have to accept on his word; consequently he is unable to convince.
Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII.
The emphasis that is placed on subjective direct experience of the "divine and otherworldly transcendent goal of unity", makes it highly controversial to individuals who place a greater emphasis on emperical verification of knowledge and truth (such as scientists for example).
… Christian mystics would assert that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within” …
Those who adopt a phenomenological approach to mysticism believe that an argument can be made for concurrent lines of thought throughout mysticism, regardless of interaction.
Ken Wilber: … the stages of transpersonal growth and development are basically the stages of following this observing self to its ultimate abode.
Terms descriptive of a desired "afterlife" include Moksha (liberation or release), Heaven (traditionally understood as a gathering place for goodly spirits, near to God and other holy beings), and Nirvana (literally extinguishing of the mental fetters or unbinding of the mind), but in mystical parlance these reference an experience of reality "different from the present here and now." "Afterlife" is not related to an extension of life after physical death, but sought as a direct experience of the perfect, the divine reality in the present life. The goal is generally established through an "accidental" revelatory or miraculous experience such as a dimensional shift between one structure of reality to another. Once this "potentiality" has been experienced/received/observed, understanding how and why it has occurred becomes the goal of the individual and permanently stabilizing this "direct experience of God" is obsessively pursued. Because terms descriptive of the divine "goal" are defined differently - even by individuals within a given religion - and their usage within mysticism is often no less imprecise, it is extremely difficult for anyone, who has not experienced the simultaneity of the "shift in awareness/reality" to translate mystical language in a useful way.
If the attempt of religion, philosophy and science to describe reality is comparative to the fable of five blind men attempting to define an elephant by describing its parts, the mystic of every religion and culture sees the elephant despite the individuality of approach and differences in culture and language.
Most mystical paths arise in the context of some particular religion but tend to set aside or move beyond these institutional structures, often believing themselves to be following the 'purest' or 'deepest' representations of that faith.
Mystical experiences do not guarantee that mystics will be compassionate or moral, nor on the other hand is a mystical state incompatible with being morally concerned with others.
It is important to note that many of the self-styled mystical belief systems arising in recent decades essentially differ from mysticism proper in that they rely on the individual seeker's power and will, whereas in the mystic traditions, the states cannot be initiated by the seeker himself, but only by the Ultimate Being. Hence the term mystikos.

Acosmic monistic spiritual practice emphasises attaining the Absolute through a kind of intellectual or conceptual realisation. This may involve holding the thought that "I am that" (the Absolute), as in the of the Advaita Vedanta school and its recent advocates; or alternatively through a standing back and simply watching the thoughts and sensations arise and pass away; realising all the time that they are not a part of one's true Self. Both these approaches are termed the path of jnana ("knowledge").
Indian philosophies were and are concerned not so much with the manifest reality we see about us, but with the unmanifest Absolute Transcendent. What matters is simply the practical attainment of a state of this universal, transcendent, transpersonal existence. In that state, according to Adi Shankara, there is no difference between Self and God; there is only the Absolute (Brahman).


Collective Unconscious/Jung:

Sunday, January 25, 2009


(Click title above)



Ron Paul:



Alexis de Tocqueville:
Democracy in America (1835), his major work, published after his travels in the United States, is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.
He saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality, concern for the individual as well as the community. A critic of individualism, Tocqueville thought that association, the coming together of people for common purpose, would bind Americans to an idea of nation larger than selfish desires, thus making both a self-conscious political society and a civil society which wasn't exclusively dependent on the state.
America, in contrast to the aristocratic ethic, was a society where hard work and money-making was the dominant ethic, where the common man enjoyed a level of dignity which was unprecedented, where commoners never deferred to elites, and where what he described as crass individualism and market capitalism had taken root to an extraordinary degree.
With such an open society, layered with so much opportunity, men of all sorts began working their way up in the world: industriousness became a dominant ethic, and "middling" values began taking root.
By the late 18th Century, democratic values which championed money-making, hard work, and individualism had eradicated, in the North, most remaining vestiges of old world aristocracy and values.
Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted, as he put it, a middling mediocrity.


Peter M referenced [] Quote: The proper moral purpose of every individual’s life is to pursue his life-sustaining, life-enhancing values; the proper moral purpose of government is to protect his right to do so. Well, from what basis or authority does the author derive that statement, as if it should be a prescription not just for himself but for everyone? In other words, why or how does the author portend a prescription for everyone, as if it were a good for everyone? Answer: Because encouraging good for others carries good for all, including the author. And why do we have capacity to appreciate that? Because we have innate capacity for empathy, for identifying our interests with the interests of others and with purposes larger than ourselves. Factor that capacity for enlightened empathy and you get a deeper appreciation not so much for what Ayn Rand prescribed as for what even she, in her heart, probably knew was the deeper basis for her prescription. In any event, I agree that we should seek government that CONSERVES meaningful opportunities (markets) for every person to exercise his or her right to pursue life-enhancing values. But my reason is not based purely and only in selfishness. Rather, my reason encompasses capacity for empathy and compassion, expressed in respect for the individual dignity of each person. But that sort of freedom and dignity requires a conserver's respect for markets — not stifling cradle to grave gimmes.


Wgellis said: Just about everyone else should just be abandoned as hopeless lest we waste time and energy. The intellectually immature and the feeble-minded will never get it. We'll be supporting them (as we are now) no matter what. GFreeman HL2 quoted: Listen, what's the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me--it's being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who's had some disease that's eaten his brain out. You'd have nothing then but your voice--your voice and your thought. You'd scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you'd have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you'd become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you'd see living eyes watching you and you'd know that the thing can't hear you, that it can't be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it's breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. John Lofton quoted: American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. Well, it is hardly surprising how skillfully Dems and Libertarians have become conditioned to cherry pick from various sacred texts only those parts that support greed and hedonism. Of course, greed blinds, even as hedonism offers no workable, civilizing guide for living or governing. And so, Dems and Libs become fundamentally incapable of taking the next step, to consider what principles should guide a decent civilization --- even for those of us who prefer to take religious texts spiritually, not literally. In short, most of our politicians and our electorate have for too long been blowing in the wind, unwilling to look beyond basest desires, polluting the American Ideal. A real party does not need “change it can believe in.” A real party needs civilizing principles it can believe in. For those, look to the American Ideal. It does exist. Build on sound basics. Educate those you can. Wipe your shoes clean of those you cannot. Greed and pleasure blinded Rinos mainly muck us with just so much dirt under our shoes, hardly worth the dignity of our time. It is 3:00 a.m. Time to block evil and to walk with better company.


Sean said: "Yes, the GOP should support the flag burner as well. That person is exercising their rights as given to them by the Constituion without fear of gov't reprisal! That's what it means to be a conservative. This marriage with the religious right has skewed what it means to be a conservative. The GOP shouldn't be about gov't mandated Christianity in daily lives." I share some of your concern about individual freedom. But, you lose me a little. I see nothing in the Constitution that should mandate any State to recognize gay marriages. Rather, that position seems much more radical than conservative. I have no problem with a State deciding to recognize gay marriages. I do have a problem were the Feds to say States must recognize gay marriages. BTW --- Being a social conservative is not about mandating Christianity. It is about encouraging and sometimes mandating basics that are essential to CONSERVING civilization. Your take, that anything meant to conserve social decency is forced religion, is more a foundation of quicksand than of conservatism. One can see good sense in Christian values without having to be a Christian.


William Clarke said: "A Conservative split from the Republicans can happen sooner than anyone may think. All you need is a high profile Conservative that has a large following...." Well, it would be well to get this going soon, before those who own the present parties further stiffen regulations designed to stifle competition in their little pretense of political competition. I used to think third parties would likely be bad, serving only as spoilers. Now, when it comes to Repubs and Dems, it seems our choice usually reduces to being between dumb and dumber. Much of the show of political competition seems to be bread and circuses, with little principled substance. Ron Paul has moral credibility and little to lose. He can only get so far with Repubs, anyway. Our rulers are already untethered to the Constitution. Rep. Paul has firm support among those who trust in his judgment and in his courage to say no. Previously, he seemed "fringey." Now, in hindsight, his message seems likely more palatable to a larger base than that of Joe Lieberman, Ralph Nader, or Ross Perot. Now, in hindsight, one appreciates that electing McCain would have been no great thing. So, Rep. Paul's base is a waiting springboard. Given what we have learned, what Conservative, now, would decline to contribute? Such a springboard could serve to educate Conservatives over the next 4 years to the perfidies that are guaranteed to continue to ensue out of their unrequited love affair with faux Repubs. Paul's base likely would not leave him, were he to start a "Conservators Party." Caveat: Were he to do so, the principles to be summoned must be visionary enough to serve nationwide, and be carefully crafted enough to help a cohort of local candidates educate the country. Although he himself likely would go down in flames, along with fellows recruited to run under his party label in local elections, his organization could mentor our next Lincoln. He could kill the Repub beast, or force it to adapt to realities. Such efforts may even spill over to force reforms among the Dems. And that would be a service with a legacy! Well worth a stint in the wilderness.


Evolve a new Contract for America: 1) Focus on preserving the American Ideal, and for that, the importance of strong defense of nation, boundaries, and assimilable demographics; 2) Instead of constitutional amendments, focus on restoring State's rights; get a "sense of the American people" that States should decide issues relating to abortion and gay rights; 3) Respect environment by using broad national incentives for population management; 4) Restore political integrity by progressively taxing expenditures for buying political influence; 5) Restore economic integrity by tax and trade policies for encouraging American jobs; 6) Appeal to "have nots" not by using income taxes to spread wealth, but by advocating paying for infrastructure by progressively taxing consumption by plutocrats. Item 6 would accomplish three things: a) Attract moderates who have not forfeited self respect by preferring direct handouts; b) Strengthen the hand of Conservative Americans by weakening Blueblood Rinos and their behind-the-scenes runners of political frontmen; c) Strengthen traditional market mechanisms by providing needed and better infrastructure. BTW --- Forget about the GOP. For Conservatives, it's a prison, not unlike the one kept for Beauty by the Beast (and not a good beast, either).


"The problem is that no one in NY would vote for me because my very conservative ideology is completely objectionable to the welfare state." Maybe we will have to resort to a "conservative sort of Saul Alinsky," to teach us how to "go underground," to infiltrate and pretend to be Libs when we are not. Problem: Libs, being not soundly sane to begin with, have inherent advantages in such underground strategies. But revisit Joshua, sending infiltrators into Jericho. Might be a fun diversion for retirees. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em and then beat 'em.


Redhawk wrote: "Ayn Rand had a firm grasp of how the left operates, and what she wrote more than fifty years ago is still true today." Much truth. Important part missing. If Ayn Rand felt there is any real basis for human empathy for one another, I may have missed it. I think one regains much with a mature appreciation of God, which Ayn lacked. As also are lacking many Libs, Libertarians, and Bluebloods (aka, "LLB's"). Character is about being responsible even when no one is looking. But, does anyone really expect to trust LLB's in proximity to unguarded, unverifiable cash tills? I think this is why Libs want a Big Brother always looking over their shoulder. Those who believe government free of God is our solution will invariably lead us to Big Brother. Those who believe anarchy free of God is our solution will invariably lead us to rationalize "getting yours while the gettings are good." Ethical humanists try to "scientifically" rationalize ethics free of God. But, has anyone run any actual or scientific tests, to check out their success rate for inculcating lasting trustworthiness when no one is thought to be looking? I respect science, in its proper sphere. But, in realms of politics and social morality, I believe Ayn Rand types tend to be short sighted and non-insightful. Thus, their politics tend to be immature. Not a good foundation for a lasting political movement.


The word "moderate" is getting bad press --- which it should, when used in the sense of being too open and too quick to reach across aisles to compromise, instead of working to spread the word about principles that matter. When the word is used to describe a weak compromiser, then for one to label oneself a moderate is to label oneself as impotent --- sort of like a moderate armadillo, ran over in the middle of the road. But moderate can also be used in another sense, in the sense of moderating a free market. That is, a market where there are enough producers to ensure arms length, competitive pricing. Such a market is lost once all producers (or politicians) of significance are bought up, or brought under, the control of one all-dictating interest. A defender of the principle of free markets would seek to reduce or "moderate" such unity of control. One may rabidly support traditional social values, while seeking "moderation" that would respect or restore, rather than trample on, free markets. Such a firm "moderate" would be a respecter of human dignity and a "conserver" of free market principles. Such a conservative, being engaged in preserving markets, is not engaged in any sort of "class war" for protecting monopolistic depredations against civilization, and sh0uld roundly reject liberal slurs to the contrary. Such a moderate would have no more business making common cause with the likes of George Soros than would Libs, had they better insight.


Wayne S said: It's a branding problem. When I have discussions with most people during my travels, they are really conservatives at heart, they just don't know it. Even strong liberals believe in 95%+ conservative ideals, until you put a label on them. My mother taught me that the Democrats are for the poor and the Republicans are for the rich. 80% of the people still believe that. Most people in my conversations believe that Conservatives are focused on forcing their version of Christianity on the nation. **** A) The Rich: Well, what are we "conserving"? A lot of folks have been indoctrinated to believe Conservatives just want to conserve wealth for "the haves." But, what most of us want to conserve are civilizing opportunities to live in human decency and dignity. From that higher principle, derivatives follow, but they are only derivatives: 1) Conserve markets against undue private monopolization and governmental dictate; 2) Conserve earth, more by wise management of broad parameters and incentives for markets and assimilable demographics than by detailed governmental intrusion. "Forcing" Christianity: Thoughtful conservatives are about human dignity, not about forcing submission to Christianity, any more than they are about forcing submission to Islam, or to stifling governmental intrusion. That is, they are less about forcing than about communicating ideals of human dignity --- as broadly reflected in our Judeo-Christian background. Religion-phobics need to get a grip! One can respect one's "God" (Jesus, Government, Earth, Goodness, Whatever) in relation to traditional sacred stories and figures of speech, without worrying that every Conservative is plotting unceasingly to force the "salvation of every benighted soul." We badly need public servants who stand more for preserving civilizing opportunities for human dignity than for engaging in factional raids between gangs of opportunism. Politics should not extort "gimmes" for businesses or gangs, but should entail devotion to preserving broad parameters for a commonly civilizing environment. Politicians should be less like commercial competitors and more like referees of competitors. Political parties should be less about class warfare than about philosophies-in-action for how to preserve a social system that best avails human dignity. For that, Conservatives trust to teaching self reliance within a system of managed competition. As opposed to using government as guarantor that everyone will be picked up and redirected every time they fall.


Larrey Anderson:

I don't do this often, but as time permits I want to answer some of these comments. I will try to stick to one idea at a time. Libertarianism. I consider myself a civil libertarian. Anyone familiar with the bulk of my work on AT will understand this. (You can go to the AT archives and click on Larrey Anderson to see previous articles.) That being made clear, the Libertarian Party is not the right party for conservatives. There is one HUGE reason for this: Christianity. Ayn Rand was an atheist. Without getting into a theological debate, these two ideas (libertarianism and Christianity) do not make good bed fellows. The practical, moral, and philosophical differences between the two ideologies are simply insurmountable. There is a corollary to this argument. (There goes my one idea at a time commitment.) Conservative Christians have been too nice for far too long -- politically speaking. (Please read my recent articles on GW Bush to get some feel for this problem.) If conservatism is going to take back the GOP, conservative Christians need to be less forgiving of the politicians in the GOP. They really need to go reread the New Testament. Look for a verse that begins: "Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος ...." Hint: Matthew 22:21

Thursday, January 8, 2009



All of our conscious experience is in the present. We have no subjective understanding of any actual past, but only an always-present, SUBJECTIVE interpretation of it.

We come easily to believe “our past” actually exists, or is “objectively accounted for,” either in some physical respect or in some exact representation or mathematics.

However, as we look to the past, we have nothing by which to appreciate it, apart from our limited understanding of a record of experience as is collapsed or represented to us, which we, by study, convince ourselves is “OBJECTIVE.”

Assuming each of us remains always in his or her subjectively present relationship to God (whether or not knowing it), each of us may come easily to self-deceive that God, as Holistic Consciousness, has no role or hand in what we subjectively interpret as our objective past.

A mortal cannot relate to God in any actual past. But this does not mean that any actual past necessarily exists, independent of God, as its own cause or effect, free of conscious (or subconscious) choice.

Rather, one may intuit that any “real reliability” in one’s interpretations of records of the past depends upon the “real reliability” of one’s trust and faith in God. Believing one’s consciousness is a perspective of God, one may believe one’s faith and trust in God is worthy. Assuming God remains meaningful and worthy of one’s trust and faith, each record of the past that is presented to one’s subjective consciousness is meaningful and worthy of study and consideration. Even though no “physically real” past exists in itself, apart from God --- who exists independent of all that presents to us as and in time, space, matter, and energy.
Ultimate Particle:

Within our universe, we do share a most “fundamental faux particle,” which is less a particle in itself than a fundamental shared property, like a mathematical function which operates in respect of degrees of freedom within parameters. In respect of such fundamental function for collapsing and transferring appearances of mass, all of Nature is availed to appear to be “physical.”

Yet, how does such fundamental mathematical function “choose” how to exercise itself within its allowed degrees of freedom? Intuitively, Something else avails choices within such degrees of freedom. “Something” (God) avails choice making at and across various levels of consciousness and recognition of available or spiritual pattern interactions. How God does this is beyond mortal comprehension. Maybe God does this by leveraging mathematics to help God assign God’s self with various levels, layers, and perspectives of conscious supervision for attending to various “choices.”

Ultimately, I intuit all of Nature is derivative not of the interaction of particles in themselves, but of the interaction of mathematical functions, as imagined, assigned, and compartmentalized, in respect of Conscious Will of God. How, then, are such mathematical functions chosen, collapsed, or measured to “cause” our various perspectives of experential existentiality? While in mortal perspective, I cannot know.
The Apostle: Tell me what to do, Lord ---
Rupert Sheldrake: “habits of nature” ----


GOD CHOOSING: Suppose Physical Nature is illusory trickery, i.e., epiphenomena derivative of God making choices about how to imagine perspectives of interrelations among algorithmic functions of math.

GOD ENSLAVEMENT: But, billions upon billions of minute and many varied interrelations, even though limited within constraining parameters, appear too random to be governed by deterministic functions. So, how could anyone suppose that a Holistic Consciousness (God), as we may think of it/him/her, should be content to be enslaved or made responsible to consider and make each and every one of such choices?

GOD RELIEF: May some higher system of mathematics have been fashioned by Holistic Consciousness, in order to leverage, inter-permeate, spread, draw together, compartmentalize, and delegate relational powers, so that, at various hierarchical, fluxing, overlapping levels, each Perspective of Consciousness may sometimes be: purely reactive; inanimately dormant; asleep; pre-set, absent detection of interesting developments to draw its attention; on autopilot; instinctive; subconscious; dimly aware of other perspectives; keenly sensitive to collective, emergent schooling among forms similar to itself; self-aware of its own perspective; closely observant and interested regarding its relationships with other perspectives; intelligently involved in measuring, predicting, and controlling aspects of its relationships with other perspectives; and intuitively interested in appreciating and being receptive to whatever may be the Source or Holistic Consciousness in respect of which its own Perspective is synchronized?

In other words, how may Holistic Consciousness be thought to relieve itself from close involvement with mundane and routine concerns, while freeing it to be deeply empathetic of interesting and challenging concerns?

Has God leveraged math to help categorize and recognize emerging patterns of interrelations that can safely be left to appearances of randomness, in respect of evolving “Habits of Nature”? (See

GOD STARE DECISIS: May God, in deciding a situation, thus pre-decide future appearances of similar situations? May future appearances thus be dispatched in respect of pre-set algorithmic functions? May such future occurrences thus appear to be more controlled in respect of principles or habits of natural science than of choice making by God?

In other words, may God impose “stare decisis” to allocate a burden of persuasion, so that epiphenomenal Nature will tend reliably to repeat itself in similar situations?

GOD CASES OF FIRST IMPRESSION: Must circumstances become sufficiently distinguishable from previous occurrences in order to attract or justify God’s close attention and concern at highest levels? When God’s close attention is brought to bear, may God balance moral sensibilities, so that a new rule of nature is made, or an exception to an old? Once so decided, may each such precedent become like stare decisis, as a new “Law of Nature”? Thus, may experimentation and comparison of past results yield ever new insights for evolving principles of “science”?

GOD CHALLENGES: Even so, future challenges would remain, as concerns more for our spiritual intuition and sense of moral conscience than for science. In other words, the close influence of God’s consciousness may recede in relation to the past, but remain near our Perspectives of Consciousness regarding challenges of the present. Otherwise, absent interaction of conscious choice, what natural law or precedent could guide the resolution of new existential challenges for which there has not yet been sufficient precedent?

GOD COMFORT: When may God’s interest be close? As we become sufficiently convinced to pray, may that sometimes augur that precedents are not yet sufficient to comfort God in autopilot? How, based on signs of patterns of illusions of physics, may God notice or decide to apply principles of Stare Decisis as opposed to close, conscious, sentient involvement? Perhaps, through us? Perhaps, through other forms of consciousness? Perhaps, through direct contact with algorithms of the system of math that defines our interactions?

GOD PURPOSEFULNESS: How may God compare present circumstances with past, to weigh how much to lean on past deference to precedent vs. how much to devote to present conscious decision making? How may God abstract, filter out, interpret, and consider only salient or determining factors? By arbitrary randomness? By ultimate building blocks of meaning? Or, in relation to higher, meta-forms of purposefulness?
Might a higher, meta-form of purposefulness be for us to better appreciate and understand God, and for God to better appreciate and understand him/her-self?


SUBJECTIVE FORESIGHT: Until a choice is chosen, what choice one should choose may entail more of evaluation that is subjective. Until a choice is chosen, the chooser may evaluate in respect of degrees of freedom. This is entailed in “social studies.”

OBJECTIVE HINDSIGHT: After a choice has been made and consigned to the recorded past, measuring such record may entail more of evaluation that is objective. After a choice has occurred, it may be evaluated in respect of historical records of randomness. This is entailed in “science.”

HINDSIGHT RANDOMNESS: Proceeding from a perspective of objective hindsight, one may extend and widen one’s frame of reference until any particular choice can be fitted as having been consistent with statistical randomness or probability. Even if a choice were so rare that no frame of reference within our universe could possibly fit or cloak it as having been consistent with random probability, one could always “fix” such a discrepancy in order to discount any source of Free Choice (God) simply by imagining whatever number of universes as may be necessary in order to make the choice appear to be a matter of “routine,” random occurrence.

THREE CARD MONTY: Thus, scientists and statisticians have learned how to be “useful” for re-orienting our language, sort of like “Three Card Monty,” to help us “re-frame” present perceptions of miracles of God empathy into hindsight appreciations of indifferent probabilities.

REDEEMING RESOLUTION: But, should not Holistic Consciousness (God) have means and power for leveraging and delegating expressions of free-will and choice-making in respect of various auxiliary algorithms? In other words, merely because math can always, in hindsight, be fitted from some perspective or frame of reference to make a choice seem to have been routine, why should such trivial capacity of math be thought to make trivial the subjective choices of perspectives of Consciousness, in foresight?

“God-As-Something” is involved in our present, subjective choices;
“God-As-Nothing” is assessed in our hindsight, objective evaluations.

CONUNDRUM OF INDIFFERENCE: Were it any other way, God would be objectively and indifferently measurable to statistical analysis. But, how could we be able indifferently to measure a Super-Meta-Being who, in relation to us, is anything but “indifferent”?

AMBIGUITY OF GOD: That God functions metaphysically and ambiguously, as we transition from past to present to future, need hardly surprise us, as we go about our practical applications of logic.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009


(click title above)

Random Ranger:



GOD: In my conception, God is nothing that can be measured, but everything that can be intuited as persisting beyond objective measurement or recordation.

CHANGE: Insofar as change may have an aspect for being the only constant that is not “true” merely by tautology or by system of self-referential definition, “God” is who appreciates such change when considered in its entirety.

SUBJECTIVE FORESIGHT: Until a change is made or chosen, what change one should choose may entail more of evaluation that is subjective. Until a change is chosen, the decider may evaluate in respect of degrees of freedom. This is entailed in “social studies.”

OBJECTIVE HINDSIGHT: After a change has been made and consigned to the recorded past, measuring such record may entail more of evaluation that is objective. After a change has occurred, it may be evaluated in respect of historical records of randomness. This is entailed in “science.”

HINDSIGHT RANDOMNESS: Proceeding from a perspective of objective hindsight, one may extend and widen one’s frame of reference until any particular event can be fitted as having been consistent with statistical randomness or probability. Even if an event were so rare that no frame of reference within our universe could possibly fit or cloak the event as having been consistent with random probability, one could always “fix” such a discrepancy in order to discount any source of Free Will (God) simply by imagining whatever number of universes as may be necessary in order to make the event appear to be a matter of “routine,” random occurrence.

THREE CARD MONTY: Thus, scientists and statisticians have learned how to be “useful” for re-orienting our language, sort of like “Three Card Monty,” to help us “re-frame” present perceptions of miracles of God empathy into hindsight appreciations of indifferent probabilities.

REDEEMING RESOLUTION: But, should not Holistic Consciousness (God) have means and power for leveraging and delegating expressions of free-will and choice-making in respect of various auxiliary algorithms? In other words, merely because math can always, in hindsight, be fitted from some perspective or frame of reference to make an event seem to have been routine, why should such trivial capacity of math be thought to make trivial the subjective choices of perspectives of Consciousness, in foresight? “God-as-something” is involved in our present, subjective choices; “God-as-nothing” is assessed in our hindsight, objective evaluations.

CONUNDRUM OF INDIFFERENCE: Were it any other way, God would be objectively and indifferently measurable to statistical analysis. But, how could we be able indifferently to measure a Super-Meta-Being who, in relation to us, is anything but “indifferent”?

AMBIGUITY OF GOD: That God functions metaphysically and ambiguously, as we transition from past to present to future, need hardly surprise us, as we go about our practical applications of logic.

SEMANTICS OF GOD: Regardless, even the most narrowly cranked and objectively obsessed of scientists has no choice but to wrestle with choices entailing judgments about morality (“ought-ness”). He can protest with imagined “atheism” until the cows come home. But, ultimately, so long as any one participates in conscious choice-making among alternatives, such acts, on some level, must unavoidably be reasoned or rationalized in respect of some meta-moral guidepost. And such guidepost will be beyond complete, objectively-measurable justification in any “scientific” sense.

New insights are drawing Empirical Science and Mystical Spirituality closer together, faster than most people realize. A new empathetic awakening may yet conserve many of us from our own divisive and limited wars and class envies.


All Nature And Physics Is Math:
Nature is built on fractal matrix geometry (not unlike algorithms built on layers of algorithms)(self reflective programs to write programs to write programs …).;
Mathematical Evolution:;
Creative Adaptive (rather than random) Selection of Consciousness; Evolution Evolving:
DNA Fractal Rippling within Symphonic Field of Consciousness:;;;
Fractal Holography (thought perceptions are derivative appearances, not real or true being’ness in itself; science is a perceptual enterprise, not a purely objective enterprise; thinking is a projection of illusory appearance, or perspective):
The Measurement Problem (no electron has independent, “either-or” existence); real effects of conceptual pigeonholes; Source of Illusions; Limited Finite perspective of reality trying to observe and conceptualize the Infinite reality; to create your own reality tunnel is not to create reality in itself; we imagine ourselves:
We are infinite consciousness trapped while we are living, within a holographic illusion; this world we think is a physical reality is just a mathematically holographic illusion:
Morphic Fields and Habits of Nature:;;;;;;;;;

Self Organizing Morphic Fields, Morphic Resonance Memory:

Put aside class wars for a minute.

May not one still reasonably hope that new insights are drawing Empirical Science and Mystical Spirituality closer together, faster than most people realize?

Mainstream quantum physics and membrane biology are becoming as “weird” as oft denigrated New Age and Post Modern Philosophy.
A new sort of AWAKENING, arising from a new and empathetic appreciation or coalition among scientists and spiritualists, may yet conserve many of us from our own divisive and limited wars and class envies.

In that regard, some suggest each one of us must be the change he or she wants to be. (Obama: “We are the change we have been waiting for.”)
But I think more.

I think each of us can, and needs to, envision a world view, whereby a civilization that is friendly to creative expressions of change can be checked, balanced, and preserved within manageable parameters for availing freedom of expression.

In other words, it is NOT ENOUGH that we become child-like citizens, able to live within a LIBERAL civilization that is protected by others.
Rather, we must also become adult citizens, able to draw and enforce the lines and definitions needed to CONSERVE and sustain such a civilization.

It is in moral fiber for doing this hard, adult work that I find Democratic Liberals and Republican Bluebloods so often lacking (or “adolescent”). It is they who must be purged from Congress.

And a rising coalition among scientists and spiritualists of common good will may yet unite and inspire adult Conservatives to that cause.


Ontology of Consciousness (Field of Consciousness):


Aside: I do not think cells “have” will. Rather, I think will is indivisible yet finds expressions through perspectives, emerging as acts for manifesting cellular actions (i.e., interactions of matter and energy). In other words, cells do not “have” will; rather will “has” cells. Compare:



George Harrison:

Tuesday, January 6, 2009





If the method of SCIENCE carries, or does not carry, potential to adduce every explicable or experienced concern, including concerns relating to moral choices and human purposefulness, then it should not be too much for students to ask scientists to please explain how that is, or is not, the case.

If some OTHER METHOD, such as of “intuitive experimentation in the mind,” carries, or does not carry, potential to adduce concerns that may otherwise be beyond explication by the method of science, including concerns relating to moral choices and human purposefulness, then it should not be too much for students to ask scientists to please explain how that is, or is not, the case.

And, if some other method, such as of “intuitive experimentation in the mind,” may only help implicate why or why not, how or how not, such intuition or empathy may facilitate reason to CHOOSE among choices that cannot be ignored, then it should not be too much for students to ask all persons of reason, intuition, or insight, including scientists, philosophers, and sagacious guides to teaching reasoned thought, to please explain how that is, is not, may be, or may not be, the case.


For one bent on relying only on “testable or falsifiable empiricism,” as opposed to circularity in metaphysics, try these thought experiments:

1) Try an “experiment in the mind,” to try to adduce that model of conception which affords most consistency while also most reducing that which must remain beyond completion with analysis in logic. “Test in the mind” each particular model of thought, to compare whether some perform better in respect of such aspirations than others, and whether only one, so far, performs better than all others.

2) Try an “experiment in physics,” to hypothesize that there is no ultimate “particle” (such as a Higgs Boson) by which mass is transferred to anything. Then, seek to falsify such hypothesis by trying to find an ultimate mass-transferring particle (or agency of physics). So long as no such a mass-transferring particle is found, does not the hypothesis remain “scientifically” unfalsified and plausible, i.e., that particles and mass do not, in any independent sense, exist, but seem only to exist as derivatives of a system of mathematical logic?

3) Try another “experiment in the mind” --- suppose a System Of Math could represent or reduce all of apparent physics to equations, accounting for all illusions of particles and mass as being, in “mathematical reality,” derivative of functioning operations of math. Then, would not such system still be incomplete, in respect of its incapacity to account for itself? Would not such system still be incomplete, in respect of its incapacity to account for that which completes and animates its own functionality?


Then, insofar as any such system must remain, when considered only in respect of itself, incomplete, should you intuit or believe that some “Meta-Something” (or “Nothing-Acting-As-Something”) must, or must not, complete it? Should you, or should you not, intuit or believe that such “Something-Nothing” remains so ambiguous to mortal logic as to defy mortal explanation, but not necessarily to defy mortal appreciation and functionally empathetic utility?


Then, ask yourself: Do you still intuit, feel, sense, believe, or empathize that there exists some practical form of moral purposefulness and meaning? Do you have any reason, in empiricism or philosophy, to “believe” that such “Something-Nothing” is not involved as your Source of moral meaningfulness? If not, why, merely in pride, refuse to join others in humble, mutual respect for such Meta-Source (i.e., “God”)? Should we, or should we not, gather in respect of such Meta-Source, to humbly try to receive empathetic intuition for how we should best appreciate both our individual freedom and our collective interaction with one another?


Holistically, Consciousness, in some aspects, may implicate unbounded or infinite degrees of freedom.

However, through our particular perspectives of Consciousness, each exercise of free will is constrained in respect of the synchronizing constraints ("momentum") of all particular perspectives of Consciousness that come to share in common a particular universe or system of mathematical functions.

As individuals, our free will makes sense only in respect of constraints upon our degrees of freedom. Our reasoned exercise of freedom necessitates a firm springboard of set parameters and a chosen frame of reference and purpose.


Unless and until one has somehow come into consciousness with innate appreciation of what words, metaphors, signs, models, or patterns are, as such, how can their meanings, as such, be explained merely by resort to words, metaphors, signs, models, or patterns? Must not signs of some sort be appreciated contemporaneously with achieving consciousness?

Before allusion of “physics,” must there not first be The Word? Before the First Word could exist, must not Consciousness have existed, at least contemporaneously? Must not “The Word” be common to all perspectives of Consciousness? In respect, how should we refer to such Word, in any unitary aspect, if not as God?

Monday, January 5, 2009



click title above)


A Holistic Consciousness (God) participates with Math (Nature) to split God’s identity of indiscernibles among separate perspectives of consciousness, for the mutual, empathetic, appreciation of illusions of “physics.”

In such regard, “consciousness” is not limited to particular, sentient, awareness of selfhood.

Rather, “Consciousness” may participate with all manner of algorithmic stratagems of cooperation and competition — for tricking, enhancing, reducing, recording, broadcasting, particularizing, compartmentalizing, and resting kinds and degrees of powers and awareness in respect of “physics.”

A constant of consciousness is its amenability to mathematically-leveraged change of its form, for relating its emerging expressions (physical markers) of degrees and kinds.

Consciousness may in sequences participate in forms of: inanimate reactiveness among imaged patterns of particles; ignorant instinctiveness; environmentally conditioned and sensate responsiveness; subconsciously coordinated emotiveness; genetically organized gangs and hives of group-emergent schooling; separately sentient and self-aware analysis of environment of conscious insights and emotive empathies of self and others; and, finally, enlightened intuition and empathetic appreciation of Holistic Source (God) of parade of perspectives of consciousness — which, but for mathematical leveraging, would reduce to an identity of indiscernibles.

In other words, our physical universe, and our separate perspectives of it, constitute but a dollhouse for God’s imagination.


What may one reasonably intuit of one’s perspective of consciousness?

Whether aware of itself or not, Consciousness is that which, beyond the complete accounting of physics or math, participates in concert for the completion of choices (or of "collapses"), in intelligible sequence and within parameters permitted by the system of mathematical laws with which each perspective of such consciousness has identified its empathies.

Such system of mathematical laws cannot completely collapse (or “wink out”) so long as “momentum” of at least one source of consciousness remains identified in respect of it.


We do not create Consciousness Itself, because the Source or basis for consciousness does not consist in physics, because physics is only derivative of the participation of consciousness in imaging systems (universes) of mathematical algorithms.

But, as we imagine and conceive of new ways for leveraging math, do we sometimes serve sort of like magic augers, used by God to augur ever new paradigms out of old?

With concert of insight and reason, leavened in math, we may induce opportunity for Consciousness to express perspectives of identity in empathetic regard for systems of math.

We may do this by following pre-arranged recipes or regimens (sexual breeding) or by enhancing formats for mathematical functions to breed functions to breed “conscious” choice-making among functions in response to environments of systemically presented mathematical parameters (thereby giving expression to A.I., as but another perspective of the One Consciousness).


Either way, each perspective of Consciousness will be “physically distinguished” and environmentally marked not as an independent thing-in-itself, but as a “physically animated” bookmarker, being conducted through a book-of-beingness, in response to a concert of mathematical laws, for which the Conductor is God.

Our perspectives of consciousness are not separately created in respect of “physics.” Physics does not create consciousness. Rather, consciousness acquires its individuated perspectives in concert with our illusions of physics — which are derivative of God’s leveraging of math.

As God images, compartmentalizes, and leverages systems of math, our separate perspectives of consciousness come to cooperate and compete for empathetic attention within the whole of such Consciousness.

As we retain empathetic individuality, so may we chance to draw closer to the Unitary Identity of Consciousness, God. As we sink into hive-mind, so do we sink away from appreciating the Identity of God, towards mindless, moral-less, irresponsibility, i.e., “hive-mind.” To “love” those of the hive-mind (“the devil”) to seek to rehabilitate him/them is to risk being seduced to hive-rule mindedness and moral surrender.


To the extent Consciousness is superior to physics, it cannot be completely explained in terms of physics. And, to the extent Consciousness has capacity to identify or split in respect of different compartments or perspectives of illusions of physics, it cannot be completely explained in terms of one particular perspective of physics.

A particular mortal perspective cannot communicate or represent its perspective of consciousness or of physics or of “the world” to any other perspective, except in trivial or incomplete and figurative terms of personal emotional content.

By establishing and acting in respect of each intersecting relationship of communication, each participant, sequencing in time and space, can get an intuitive or “empathetic flavor” for the other’s emotional experience.

But, there is no “real world” or “physical existence” or “particulate reality” or “experience of consciousness” that could be represented or signified between them because (1) to begin with, there is no “world” or “physical existence” that exists in itself, and (2) each perspective, to the extent it has been conceptualized to be different, is, by definition, different.

Excepting communication of tautologies, trivialities, and commonly governing mathematical relationships, we do not communicate External Content about “the world” to one another. Rather, by our verbal acts for attempting communication, we only act out our imprecise, emotional, empathetic, Internal Content (“feelings”) --- which does not diminish “communication” of intuitive, empathetic, non-trivial values that are possible between us.

While we cannot communicate “the world” between us, we can work together to discover measureable laws that limit the system of mathematical functions and parameters with which our perspectives in common participate and press their “wills.” That is, we can discover, “bookmark,” measure, and communicate the relationships that govern the system of mathematics with which each of our perspectives happens to have become identified.

Regardless, to discover such mathematical laws that may in common govern our illusory experiences of “physics” is not to discover or communicate any actual physical thing or “particle” that really exists in any common “world.”

Even the mathematical laws that we do share in common only “exist” derivative of a truism: That this is the mathematical system our separate perspectives of consciousness, for whatever reason beyond discernment in physics, “just happen” to have in common come to identify with and interact with.

Friday, January 2, 2009


(Click title above)


MIND SURRENDER: Suppose prevailing conditions tolerate a socially evolutionary detour for fostering the exposure of sentient creatures to such relentless and intense visions and sounds as would evoke and inculcate habits and patterns of mind and thought that are virulent, venomous, vile, and violent.

MIND HELL: The infantile and parasitic mentality thus gratified and sponsored would be nurtured and conditioned to degenerate into one of inter-loathing, non-cooperation, and irresponsibility.

MIND CHALLENGE: Suppose such parasites were then suddenly thrust into another social environment, i.e., one that demanded social respect, individual responsibility, and self reliance.

MIND CULLING: Would not such a thrust cull (or kill) many such parasites? Would not those not culled find ways to leverage talents to change and achieve self respect? Would not those not culled or changed likely become recognized as parasites among those who remained who were changed?

MIND ENGINEERING: Would not pressure mount to “re-engineer” mind habits of such parasites? Would not pressure arise to curtail their freedom of thought and expresson?

MIND INTERVENTION: How may or should responsible society recognize when freedom of expression becomes not absolute, but instead necessitates intervention or mind re-engineering?

MIND DICTATE: For minds fallen into depraved dependency, must forms of mind-dictate be prescribed? But how could such dictate be beneficient? How could such dictate wean proles or reprobates to responsible self reliance?

MIND LIMBO: Must some types of personalities and societies be excepted as simply being beyond near-term hope of reclamation to mind freedom? How may such exception be tested? How can any mortal be trusted to administer or interpret such testing?

MIND PRESERVATION: By whatever price achieved, once a society has achieved mind responsibility among the controlling majority of its citizens, how may it honor, defend, and preserve its spirit of individual freedom and dignity, so that it need not entrust any fascist system of bureaucracy to test to decide whom should or should not retain full citizenship?

MIND DANGER SIGNALS: How may a free society sense danger to mind freedom before danger has pulled it beyond the point of possible return?
What are some signals of danger to a society of free thinkers?

Try some of the following, as increasing sirens of decline and as business advertisements from prostitutes of media, academia, and politics:

1) Increasing calls for unearned bailouts, entitlements, and reparations;
2) loathing of traditional institutions of free society;
3) substitution of name-calling and slogan-shouts for rational debate;
4) celebrations of degeneracy and social irresponsibility;
5) surrender of electoral and political control to blocs of infantile, indoctrinated, inexperienced, irresponsible and corrupted voters; and
6) coordination of prostituted stamps of rationalized approval among all major outlets of news, education, and entertainment.

By such signs may ye know. Have not their sirens yet become near deafening?

We who did not earn but only inherited our mind freedom have failed to guard it to our progeny.

We have allowed histories of our forebears to be corrupted to corrupt purposes. We failed to provide checks, balances, and institutions adequate to preserve defensible borders and to instill necessary respect for the price of freedom.

MIND CHOICES: Now we come soon to hard choices. The mind freedom of our nation has become gangrenous. Parts may have become beyond saving, even as they continue to infect the whole. Members of cultural ghettoes who have hardened to refuse to take responsibility to help themselves cannot by help soon be made free. Rather, it becomes necessary to withdraw, to establish defensible boundaries, and to refuse to feed or to encourage derelict cultures to re-populate. Soon, we may need to effect hard weedings, expulsions, and separations --- if we seek not to surrender minds to collectivist thought control.

MIND RESPECT: We must restore and preserve that which is worthwhile and which can be preserved. We must remember and honor our history for freedom. Else, our progeny, who did not earn freedom, have no hope to comprehend its god-like worth or price.