Sunday, July 19, 2009




Peggy Noonan is as false in her pretense for having elite wisdom as is Bill Ayers. Like Ayers, she endorsed Obama.

Prophets often warned against false prophets. They should also have warned against False Elites.

Environmentalists appreciate the need for natural forest fires, to clean out deadwood and underbrush. Capacity for a successful society to shade moral ignorance and failure may not be altogether unlike capacity for a forest to shade deadwood. Perhaps a periodic prairie fire is as necessary to burn off moral deadwood of false elites (of those-who-just-don’t-get a civilizing-morality-for-preserving-human-liberty) as it is to burn off forest deadwood.

In any event, such a prairie fire would hardly establish the kind of utopian socialism Bill Ayers imagines.

Ayers can write audaciously and well for inspiring figurative prairie fires. Compare; “...the rhetorical flavor of Weatherman on the attack—combative, uncompromising, confident, and outrageously arrogant.” (Sounds like Obama, yes?)

However, ability to write well is hardly evidence that one is elite in the wisdom of experience. See: Peggy Noonan, viz
See also July 8, 2009, What Is Wisdom? Sarah Palin and Her Critics, by Victor Davis Hanson, Pajamas Media.

Must our moral development require that we endure a cleansing moral fire? Or may those of wise vision show us an alternative way?

Meantime, does not the very air of “elite” Ivy’s remain steeped in Ayers’ philosophy?

“Ayers was not simply protesting "against" the Vietnam War. Firstly, he wasn't against war in principle, he was agitating for the victory of the communist forces in Vietnam. In other words: He wasn't against the war, he was against our side in the war.” (Sounds like Obama, yes?)

“…dedicated the book to Robert F. Kennedy's killer Sirhan Sirhan.”


Pause to enjoy some grins, at:
The Wood Spider:;
The Good, the bad, and the Ugly:

Saturday, July 11, 2009


(click title above)


How do dreams evolve? Do they evolve:
1) From RANDOM electrical flickers across synapses?
2) From NATURAL SELECTION among those patterns of synapse firings that just happen to be most fit to their sustaining niche for surviving to replicate?
3) From loops of feedback to the dreaming CONSCIOUSNESS --- of meaning, interpretation, observation, and choice of perspective?
4) From all of the above?
5) And: From intuitive interaction with a higher, synchronizing, system-wide, choice-effecting, mathematically leveraged, immeasurable Source of Consciousness, aka, the “Potential” (or “God”) of our universe?

For any student of logic who believes a rational explanation applies to our governance, who has ruled out many competing suitors, so that only one explanatory model seems to remain, which does not yet appear to deserve being ruled out, it would seem reasonable to believe that the remaining “theory” (even if testable or “evidenced” only in math, and not in empiricism) is increasingly likely to be valid.

Parameters for our choices seem to be ruled by an ascending array of changing, interacting, mathematical functions, each being obedient to a grand function, somehow put in place to govern our universe, i.e., “The Algorithm.”


Excepting the grand Algorithm, all other mathematical functions may be within our power, as perspectives of consciousness, to manipulate and change. If so, science does not avail us with power to “close the gaps” in order to “choke out the god of the gaps” --- because there is no such a god. Rather, so long as we live and wish to retain our powers of particular perspectives, the grand Algorithm remains beyond our power to change. Scientific empiricism avails us with means for leveraging our adducements of the power of perspectives of consciousness, but not with power to leverage Consciousness as the Source of holism.

It seems that rational beings may leverage math to construct into “physical” manifestation particular results that seem infinitely improbable or miraculous, even though every step along the course to change or achieve each such result would have obeyed and been consistent with the rules of The Algorithm, which governs our shared set (or Universe).

Such “power to alter gaps” seems to consist in a finite-yet-unbounded potential power (and responsibility) of the consciousness that permeates and defines each of us. In other words, we do not “choke out god by closing gaps,” because we ourselves are imbued with power to alter and redirect all said gaps --- save one: The ultimate Algorithm. Such may be the finite yet unbounded explanatory limit that governs each of us, as an incomplete, particular, mere perspective of a higher, holistic Consciousness.

God seeks to leverage appreciation of experiences, through mathematically relating perspectives (us), which likewise leverage their inter-appreciation towards mathematical capacities for intuiting receptivity to guidance from God. We “progress” in appreciating God’s involvement by applying math to pierce all of our experience, coming eventually to appreciate the steady drumbeat of evidence of the fundamental interrelation of math with our own potentials of consciousness.

Given the infinite potential of our consciousness to leverage math, it seems a sin for any perspective of consciousness to endeavor, by leveraging government, to impose stifling and invasive dictates in the name of pursuing “equality” among perspectives.