Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Beyond Chance And Necessity

Beyond Chance And Necessity:

I am early into reading the 2006 paperback edition of Nobel Laureate Lederman’s “The God Particle.” I think “Gene Man” (of A.T.) may have put me onto it. Coming to page 59, I need to set out some thoughts before passing further. Lederman quotes the Greek, Democritus: “Nothing exists except atoms and space; everything else is opinion” and “Everything existing in the universe is the fruit of chance and ncecesity.” It seems to me that such quotes of Democritus lie at the heart of the materialistic philosophy that is so common among Ainos (Americans in name only).


But I suspect there does exist Something beyond chance and necessity. Namely, choice. In fact, I suspect chance and necessity may be secondary to choice. That is, I suspect there subsists a competition among choices of perspective, and that choices of perspective may somehow convert back and forth between perspectives of wholes and of parts.

For the Universe as we share it, I suspect an Algorithm controls parameters for such conversions, sort of like formulas for chemical conversions. Any “equality” sign for such chemcal-like formulas is far from arithmetically trivial, in that there is an inherent difference in aspect or quality on the side of the formula for the perspective of the whole as opposed to the side of the formula for the perspectives of comprising parts.

While Democritus was a bona fide genius, I think it hubristic of scientists to follow him in presuming that nothing exists except particulate “a-toms” and space. Rather, when Democritus says everything else is “opinion,” I suspect he neglected a more encompassing role for an Author (or Consciousness) of opinions.

It seems popular to consider existents as being derivative of expressions of fields and their quantifiable or representational counterparts, i.e., particles. As in a Higgs field and a Higgs boson. Or perhaps a field of space-time with counterpart particles of matter-energy. Or perhaps all of Potential with counterpart particular “units of potential.” Or Holistic Consciousness with counterpart units or perspectives of consciousness. Perhaps, within a field of existential consciousness of possibilities, our very universe serves a role as a mere particle.

In any event, it seems to me that “physical particles” may be mere “placeholding signs for carrying information forward” in an experiential chronology of such perspectives of consciousness as are in empathetic inter-communication. That is, “physics,” as any-thing-in-its-particular-self, is illusion that is artifactual, yet helpful to feedback, for communication among perspectives of consciousness.

Perhaps “consciousness” pertains to that which comprehends and facilitates uncertain yet quantifiable conversions and feedback of Information between perspectives of wholes and of parts. In other words, perhaps Consciousness, with its perspectives, is superior and prior to even the mathematics of chance and necessity.

Perhaps one’s consciouness at any particularly apparent locus in space-time is merely derivative of how one’s perspective has somehow come to identify with a System Of Math, with which others with whom one communicates have also somehow come to identify. In other words, the world of physics is derivative of nothing more than a shared Algorithm, which itself is derivative of Consciousness, aka, God.

In any event, to disprove God, choice, and superiority of consciousness, one would need to prove that everything, including morality (“shoulds”) can be objectively accounted for within a math that is rigorously restricted to chance and necessity. That, I suspect, cannot be done.

Unlike those who believe there is naught but physical science, I think we live under implication of an inherent and spiritual moral injunction: “Be receptive to the dignity of each perspective of consciousness, in its representation as physical avatar for That Who empathetically facilitates communicaton and evaluation of choices; all else is vanity and illusion.”

In any event, such an injunction seems consistent with the American notion of a self-evident right to pursue happiness. And I doubt that any serviceable, inspiring, moral injunction can long sustain a decent civilization under a dead philosophy that “nothing exists except atoms and space.”

While I believe an Author is facilitating our pursuit (not acquisition) of meaning and happiness, each is called upon to do his or her part.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Human Bondage

Human Bondage:

So far as we can apprehend, what best seems to be the relationship between Higher Principles (“God”) and mortals?
There seems to be willing, intelligent collaboration for ever-changing, expanding, diversionary, creative, artistic, emotional bemusement in respect of music, poetry, literature, and drama.
We seem destined for creating and discovering new ways to leverage music … as well as to leverage our responsiveness to music.
By “music,” I mean to include all gland-related appetites and pleasures.
So, we seek creative emergence and leveraging of new glands for informational organization and empathetic experience.
Thus, there seems to be an ever-expanding need for the nurturing and surpassing of habitats for top-controllers or predators who can participate in the designing and evolving of systems, glands, animals, and serfs … to add to expanding information about how to be pleased and entertained … and about how to be pleasing and entertaining.
For that, we seem to be occupied with enslaving and teaching enslavers … as well as with liberating and teaching liberators.
So, for siren-calling to enslavement, we learn tactics for inducing: debt enslavement, entitlement-minded debilitation, and video-violence addiction.
And for liberating, we learn, practice, and aspire to be good companions, even as changes ever challenge us.
And so, together, we grope forward in an expansion of space and time.
Humanity, as a strategy, has availed itself with the system of civilization, i.e., institutions for facilitating empathetic decency regarding self-evident needs and “rights” in one another to the “pursuit of happiness.”
For America’s governance in civilization, Congress would have less need to forfeit free speech had it less inclination for forfeiting trust.

O Bams e doats and
Dohs e doats and
Liddle shams e divy.
A quid eledivytoo
What about you?

Saturday, September 19, 2009




"Conservatives believe that when government makes promises about providing stability and security through government programs you get, if you are lucky, something like public education in which the nation's children get less and less education each year for more and more cost and poor children get totally shafted. If you aren't lucky you get something rather like the Fannie/Freddie system of affordable housing."


I think once basic wants are satisfied, a society, to cohere, needs to have inculcated a central ideal around which its citizens can assimilate and identify. For real Americans, what is that ideal, if not freedom of expression and enterprise? And how can there be much freedom once government has been twisted to become handservant to the whims of those who are enchanted to believe themselves to be most entitled to other people's money?

Once ground is prepared for competition among pied piping "geniuses" who appeal for control through varying rainbow coalitions, by enchanting those who are most easily corrupted, that which is consumed in the resulting friction will far outweigh that which is produced. And so it is in America, where we now find we have been assiduously eating our seed corn for quite some time.

If there is still time, Conservatives must rudely yank the Country back to reality and back to founding ideals. We must have zero tolerance for race baiting ruses for justifying the entitlement-arianism of the plague of Leftist Locusts.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Interesting Times

Interesting Times:

Are Garry Trudeau, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert the comic versions of David Brooks?

Are the following the curious beliefs of incurious “Trudeau Reasonists” (aka, “anti-conspiratists” or “anti-patternists”)?

1) There is no good reason to suspect that there is anything fishy about:
a) Obama’s seeming admiration for third world socialist movements (Hugo Chavez?);
b) The election of Pelosi as Speaker;
c) America’s (i.e., of the powers that run America’s politicians) lack of development of abundant, domestic energy resources;
d) America’s unwillingness to defend its borders or to restrict its immigrants to legal channels;
e) America’s undermining of requirements to prove eligibility to vote;
f) The devolution of content of college courses from entailing the analysis of fact-based trends to the inspiration of hatreds for America, Capitalism, and Social Conservatism --- based mainly on unexamined opinions;
g) The efforts to erect ever more speech codes, station blacklists, and federal controls to require “localism” --- all designed to insulate the general population (of “Trudeau’ian Reasonists”?) from attempts by Social Conservatives to explain their positions; and
h) The amplifying of voices of victim-mongers clamoring for reparations *against middle class social conservatives.

[*Note: Predatory billionaires, when non-domestic and "too big to fail," do not pay. Rather, the "payments" are made in blood, sweat, and tears worked out in "let's you and him fight" rivalries that are enticed between minorities and conservatives by side-betting billionaires who are covered and hedged with insurance (and, if that fails, by your tax payments, since they are "too big to fail"). For strife side-betters, our fights are their money-making opportunities. At least, so long as we remain unable to avert our attentions from shadows on a wall.]

2) There is no need even to consider tort reform to help resolve problems with scarcity and cost of health care, such as by reducing the influence of advocates for giving voice to dissension between middle-class conservatives and victim mongers of “entitlementarianism.”

3) There is no good reason to expect MSM to account for why it has been so reluctant to cover Van Jones’ background, or Obama’s obvious propensity for surrounding himself with whacked out radicals.

4) There is no good reason to suspect that international billionaires would be corrupt or smart enough to take advantage of, or to exacerbate, trends that could opportunize their elimination of any middle class with power to question or to counter them.

5) There is no “invisible elephant in the room,” consisting of an emerging syndicate of opportunity-following international billionaires (too big to fail?), forming alliances to carve up and reduce the rest of the world to its control by taking every possible measure to wipe out the power of any middle class of social conservatives of decent civilization.

6) There is no good reason to suspect that many international billionaires, national despots, or religious totalitarians are psychopaths, lacking any higher conscience or notion of moral accountability.

7) There is no good reason to expect Obama to come clean with information about his background, childhood, and education.

INDEED, to think there may be good reason to expect such information to be forthcoming is to be an anti-reasoning conspiratist. So there! Would sayeth a “reasonist” Garry Trudeau.