Thursday, December 30, 2010

Regarding The God Particle

From A.T. --
@RickK, Re: "Dlanor, So you're saying only conscious beings can add complexity to a system?"

That's interesting, even though I had not quite said or contemplated that. I suppose random complexity may be added when you have a system of limiting parameters wherein components are subjected to a continuous directional force or energy. (Aside: what or who would be the author of such a continuous directional force?)

Note that since matter is stored energy, and energy can be conceptualized as a kind of substance, the broader concern should probably more properly be labeled one of substantialism rather than of materialism. Regardless, the terms are often used loosely and interchangeably. I think you are saying that energy is independent of consciousness and that in such independent capacity energy can add complexity. I have not much considered that, perhaps because I am not confident that energy in fact is independent of consciousness. This gets down to trying to understand what is the character of consciousness at its ultimate or finest point.

Key may be in considering what could be the other side of the concept of energy, as in: what is pure energy? If the ultimate building block is qualitative consciousness rather than quantitative mass, another key may be in considering: what is the ultimate character of consciousness?

If consciousness is more qualitative than quantitative, then it may be better approached with intuitive adducements than with pure reliance on empiricism. This is sort of like the query of how everything material could arise out of nothing that is material, except that I carry it further: If everything material could arise out of nothing that is material, then why could not everything that is material be considered to continue in interactive respect of nothing that is material? That is not to say that it is nothing, but only to say that it is qualitative rather than quantitative, sort of like free will and moral choosing.

Edwin Klingman, who, I assure you, is adept with logic, math, computing, and physics, has detailed some interesting ways of considering this. He has summarized much in a short book, The God Particle. Although short, I would be hard pressed to summarize it here. However, an important taste may consist in this: There may be "particles" or perspectives of consciousness, as condensate from a field of consciousness. Although they have some fine, innate level of will (like a selfish gene?), their capacity for expressing intelligence evolves with their capacity to self organize ("conscious design"). The eternal field from which such organizations of conscious condensate are derived may be conceptualized as an aspect of "God."

I would defer to Klingman's book. However, it seems straightforward to apprehend the idea that consciousness is perhaps the only non-trivial aspect of being of which we can have direct knowledge. Why is this important? Because it avails a basis for conceptualizing free will as a part of reality, and a basis for intuiting a source for connecting and reconciling such perspectives. That is, if you and I are perspectives of but one field, then there is hope we can learn better to draw on that in order to reason our way towards reconciling empathies and interests. The stance of materialistic reduction, on the other hand, seems not especially suited to assimilating a willingness to reason together in respect of a real and higher field of reconciliation.

I don't mean to suggest there aren't empirical aspects to Klingman's hypothesis. Insofar as notions about slices of the field, many aspects of his ideas are as empirical, testable, and reliable as the Standard Model, but with a virtue the Standard Model lacks: a basis for considering moral expressions of free will to be part of reality, rather than mere convenience of pretense.

Re: "As for consciousness - if you're so unable to state what it is, how can you be so confident about how it can and can't arise?"

I don't think consciousness itself arises. I just think it is. I think perspectives of it condense, couple, and organize.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Wall of Separation

Can a particle erect a wall of separation between the expression of itself and the field from which it is derived?  If consciousness as it is communicated among perspectives is derivative of a reconciling Field of consciousness, i.e., "God," then it becomes impossibly ridiculous to think in terms of trying to erect a wall of separation between God and our political expressiveness -- which may be why our founders deployed no such language in our constitution.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Psychohistory of America

Will America still be competitive against China, India, Germany, Japan, or Dar al Islam at the end of the century?  Well, any attempt at psychohistory ought to consider the more than 50 percent of America's electorate that is utterly incapable of growing out of political adolescence.  Libertarian Conservatives think our salvation is free trade with China and simply have little comprehension regarding the importance of assimilating national values.  Corporatists, who give not a fig about the American middle class, will pull our adolescent sheeple around by their noses.  Yes, there is a newly invigorated tea party, but our middle class in main has too aptly demonstrated its impotent idiocy and vulnerability to big corporatist investment in buying government.  I suspect much of the so-called conservative movement actually sees the salvation of conservatism in international corporatist capitalism, national borders be hanged.  The NWO juggernaut has slowed only to allow its supply lines to catch up with its forward advance.  Much will depend on people like John Bolton.  Could he, or folks like him, govern in respect of what is actually best for America and its middle class?  If not, the Big Boy will not be America, but those who own and toy with America.

Head Cloud

If humanity does not soon undo itself, the "capitalism of stuff" may be on its way out.  The new competition may consist less in things than in fractal clusters of clouds, ideas, inspiration, and organized information.  Indeed, the concept of a particular self, limited to the perimeter of a physical body, may be on its way out, once means are discovered for leveraging the capacity of the human brain, at will.  Then, the competition will be to entice different perspectives of consciousness to share (mind meld?) or invest in various possibilities for the unfolding experience of information.  The actual construction of what we take to be "physical things" may come to be delegated to a system of various levels of macro and micro computing machines (merger of Matrix and Tron?).  When that happens, what would become of the role of capitalism?  Instead of managing money, will not some system be needed for managing and trading psychic credits?  Ought God, when inspired to particular apprehension, then be conceptualized as the head cloud of psychic investment chips, each chip being encoded with each organized perspective of consciousness as some kind of charge-potential or bio-psychic metric?  Once human beings evolve to no longer do the physical work to manufacture stuff, but only participate mentally in the directing of stuff, then under what competitive process will manufacturing and consuming be organized, and how will the psychic herd be thinned?

Friday, December 24, 2010

Instantiating Beliefs

Morality is closely tied to a concept of free or conscious will. If there is no quality of free will, then every event is either predetermined or random or driven entirely by some process for bringing order out of chaos, such as natural selection, wherein the pattern that then and there happens to survive to provide the context for the next succeeding pattern is deemed, trivially, the fittest, or the cause. When it comes to causation and correction, most moralists sense there is something trivial or incomplete about the concept of physical causation under terms of determinism, randomness, or natural selection.

Firstly, what is the nature of these patterns that are being fluxed, repeated, and changed? Are they fully modeled in respect of a potential for expressing themselves to observers in dualistic, alternating capacities as fields and particles? What is the role of perspectives of consciousness in effecting the manner of representation of these field-particles? Should consciousness itself best be modeled as having capacity to express and communicate itself in some alternating form of field-particle feedback? May that capacity sponsor the signification of non-conscious organizations of patterns of appearance?

Secondly, why is it that humanist moralists, who do not believe conscious free will is other than derivative artifact of physicalism, nevertheless deem it necessary or proper for a civilization to act as if (i.e., pretend) free will were a real existent? If all of decent society is merely a matter of proper (B.F. Skinner) conditioning based on that which is, rather than that which ought to be, then why bow to a notion of morality at all?

Well, the fly in such ointment is in the word "proper." It is necessary to choose (or believe, based on conscious free will?) that conditioning which is proper. It is necessary to choose who should decide and the principles under which they should decide. So, most humanist moralists eventually bow to the expediency of at least pretending to believe in free will.

This begs a quesion: Having bowed to the need to pretend to believe in free will, why then do humanist moralists stiffen their necks not to bow to a common or interconnecting Source for such free will? If morality consists in empathetic good will towards other perspectives of consciousness, why, absent some connection with such other perspectives, should I be empathetic? If morality is taught among "Brights" to be only a front for survival of the fittest, why should I not be devious and enslaving? If morality consists only in a genetic predisposition brought upon us by evolution of selfish or altrusitic genes (btw -- are these consciously selfish and altruistic genes?), and if evolution is morally blind, then, for my own most selfish and fittest advancement, why should I not seek to establish a superior order of sociopathic beings whose genes are mutated so that they have no qualms about reducing all other Americans (and the entire middle class) to mere serfs, to do as they are instructed or bribed? Why should I not seek to participate in directing my own superior evolution? Indeed, why should any reasonably intelligent humanist trust any other humanist?

If a moralist can believe in conscious free will, and the quality of consciousness is empirically inexplicable, then why should not a moralist believe in spiritual free will, or free will based on an interconnection of field-particle aspects that are of a quality that, at some superior level, simply defy individual empirical analysis?

The measurement problem:  Within the reality tunnel, did every physical thing come from no physical thing, based on acts of measurement somehow made and communicated among various perspectives of a single reconciling Consciousness? Is there no such thing as a single particle?

Is consciousness the only experience we know to be true?

Are reality and information built out of participatory belief?

Do neurons instantiate meaning? If so, how?

Are you me? Is this just a ride?

I suspect Pagans tend to relate more to a panopoly of empirically measurable energy fields, while Theists tend to relate more to an immeasurable and single field of consciousness. For a Pagan to take the step to become an empathetic Theist may be little more than taking the step to intuit the ultimate quality or character of conscious energy.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Great Awakening May Be Too Late

Signs that the Great Awakening may be too late: Signs of The Borg -- how many of these have come to pass?

1) Divide and rule, bread and circuses, eartags and monitoring, networks tightening into spider traps, entire societies following paths to cultural suicide;

2) International corporatist control of government programs for regulating all major social institutions: banking, currency, religion, medicine, family, academia, media, regulators, politicians, courts, internet, mass spectator sports, interpreters of history, and science consortiums;

3) Discrediting of traditions for promoting decent regard for privacy and modesty;

4) Weakening of traditional expressions of respect for independent identities;

5) Promoting of political correctness to the extent of banning of ideas and words that threaten competition among international corporatist hegemonists;

6) Accelerating of organizations of minority axis in order to weaken, level, or replace every tradition and institution that has heretofore rewarded individual independence;

7) Promoting of doped out hedonism, common lack of shame, and collapse of mind into communal heap;

8) Increasing of means for psychological monitoring, profiling, and collapsing of individual will;

9) Pushing of freedom of expression and enterprise into ever more regulated corners;

10) Manipulating of cultural purposes, interests, and fads;

11) Manipulating of math and science to convince weak minds of masses that what has been decreed by now prevailing powers is for the moral best, even necessary to save the planet;

12) Inducing distrust of privacy of individuals whose interests are not well known or controlled;

13) Corporate inducing of members of lower class into debt slavery, then enticing them to try to escape by spreading wealth, the cost of which is to be sloughed onto the middle class, to reduce the influence of all its independent minded persons;

14) Severing of lines for moral representation, connection, foresight, and intuitive empathy among the great middle class;

15) Weakening of capacity for vision regarding relationships of feedback with the higher field of consciousness;

16) Infestation of sects that promote total submission and subjugation of all minds of the middle class;

17) Dividing the military in the ranks, while selecting for its upper echelon among those who are most sychophantic to international corporatism;

18) Replacing of conscious will of individuals with natural selection among heart-of-darkness corporate zombies;

19) Replacing the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule with humanist fidelity inculcated for the planet and the superior wisdom of its corporate managers.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Creation Myth

Creation Myth

For a modern twist on the parable of the blind men and the elephant, suppose: all ultimate particles were paradoxical points, otherwise without size or shape. Upon collapse of the field that gives them expression, would the field itself become without size and shape, and also without motion or direction? Or would it retain potential, capacity, and charge enough to flux with feedback in itself?

What would be the potential of such a collapsed, holistic field to store and remember information, to express or convey information, and to apprehend or learn of new contingencies? Is there a Character that wills a contingent capacity for giving expression to such a charged field? So long as the field remains charged, can it ever be collapsed into a single point of no shape or size? What manner of point could this be, and does it have capacity to count or to represent, model, and remember information? Upon collapse, may such a field in fact become a mere point, so that it can reasonably be conceptualized as illusion or contingent representation or translation of information, like binary bits activated by some meta computer?

Well, that is one possible popularization, intuitively mixing the quantitatively measurable with the qualitatively immeasurable in order to construct a creation myth. Note that the creation myth may image a Creator character just as reasonably as a random bubble in the void. Actually, insofar as a Creator myth avails intuitions of connections in moral empathy, it may be more suitable for inspiring and sustaining civilization. Obviously, myths have a self fulfilling aspect, almost as if reality can be directed or even created by bootstrapping from invented contingencies. Maybe God is the greatest story teller. Alternatively, a Sisyphus may opt to try to confine God to a “scientific” approach, to make a math fetish out of often absurd modeling (see global warming), contrived from confluences of necessarily incomplete perspectives (as if mortal creatures could stand outside their context to measure or confine God or creation).

Monday, December 13, 2010

Cracked Symmetry, Analytic Philosophy, and Xmode

Cracked Symmetry, Analytic Philosophy, and Xmode:

Analytic Philosophy stumbles when it tries to prove that non-trivial, absolute Truth can be empirically ascertained. There are at least three reasons. First, Analytic Philosophy begins with a premise that truth is derivative from dumb nature, rather than from conscious will (a conscious will which is not truth, per se, but simply existent). However, there is no basis or need to assume that nature is even on a par with consciousness, much less superior. Second, given limitations of a-priori math, Analytic Philosophy has been unable to demonstrate non-trivial, internal coherence except, if at all, within less than complete systems. Third, at least one alternative philosophy has all the empirical power of Analytic Philosophy, but without need to pretend to be a closed system. This alternative philosophy is consistent with practical empiricism, without ignoring spiritual and moral appetites in the expression of conscious free will among members of a civilizing society. In other words, Analytic Philosophy promises more than it can deliver, and it fails to deliver where civilization most needs it to deliver.

The possibility that is alternative to Analytic Philosophy is what I call Xmode. Xmode does not disdain analysis per se, but simply recognizes practical limitations for analysis when it comes to ultimate concerns and moral issues. Xmode apprehends that what is considered good versus evil fluxes with contexts, civilizations, and winds of change. Essentially, Xmode considers that Consciousness wishes to appreciate and pursue communion among a variety of decently civilizing, intuitive, and empathetic perspectives – even while recognizing that such communion is not perfectly or necessarily availed simply by manipulating forms and rules of man and nature. The key is not in the precision of forms, but in the quality of feedback.

Xmode differs from model-based-realism in that Xmode does not seek ultimate answers in eternally fixed formulas. In respect of the empirical, Xmode simply seeks those formulas that are most practical, even while acknowledging that some may remain practical for the duration of our universe. Xmode suggests there is no exact way to differentiate all aspects of all existents which are contingently empirical from all which are not. Explanation: All that is empirical is coordinate with expressions of mass, and mass entails appearance and communication of shape, size, density, charge, and direction. Yet, all of mass (nature) is subsidiary (subjective) of Consciousness.

Yes, mass seems real, as does life and death. And mass does have undeniable reality – albeit, contingent to a shared frame of reference, so that which is mass to our universe may not be mass to another, yet it may be something in respect of consciousness. To the extent organizations of consciousness do not share a frame of reference, masses known to one frame may remain unknown, perhaps unknowable, to the other. That is, the so called “objective” nature and reality that we share is derivative of an encompassing subjectivity (or shared field of consciousness), within which we have been defined and share expressions for our identities and empirical communications.

There is constant, discrete, continuous feedback (give and take, yin and yang, I Ching, Digital Philosophy, synchronous conservation, communication of measurable and intuitive information) between the field of consciousness which we share and among its field-connected particles or perspectives.

Given parameters for empirical conservation, all such aspects of Information as are measurable may well be subject to a contingently conserving principle. However, as to aspects of Information which are qualitative rather than quantitative, empathetic rather than measurable, moral rather than technical – it may not be knowable to consciousness (or necessary or helpful to decide or believe) whether such aspects are subject to conservation (perhaps as archtypes?).

Apart from Consciousness, there is no Information or truth, either to store or to communicate. (Could information be collapsed, represented, and stored, absent some means for modeling and representing it?  Could any means for modeling information abide, apart from some level of consciousness, however faint or remote?)  Yet, without truth, how could there be Information? This conundrum is irresolvable, unless consciousness itself, in some mode, is the author of information. Ask: By what mode could consciousness relate communication of truths among perspectives? Answer: By cracking the holistic symmetry of consciousness, in order to avail a field that can experience feedback – back and forth – with such particles as are connected in respect of it.

As our (subsidiary?) universe of the holistic field of consciousness cracked, it therewith availed a numerosity of particular perspectives – of discretely and continuously changing and overlapping interests. Simultaneously, it availed the real math and the contingent mass needed to allow each perspective of interest to signalize, store, and convey information, via apparently empirical and measurable masses of shapes, sizes, densities, charges, and directions.

Why is there conservation of matter and energy? Because, the holistic consciousness, of which field we are derivative and contingent, governs our parameters. However, the free will with which we participate and convey our experiences is not confined in our apparent masses of bodies and brains. Rather, our free will is availed expression by superior Mind, as experienced from apparently varying perspectives in respect of Field of mind. Insofar as our universe presents to us as being contingently and practicably measurable, we call it Nature. Insofar as our universe presents to us as being beyond measure, amenable of availing us with meaning and purposefulness, we may as well call it Field of Consciousness, aka, God. Xmode considers Nature to be contingent, and God to be the most superior consciousness of which Nature is derivative and contingent.

Thus, it is Consciousness that is moderator of truth, justice, goodness, meaning — as well as of horror. However, without apprehension of need for normalizing and civilizing restraint, one’s consciousness falls easily into Conrad’ian, horrific, heart of darkness. Presently, our worldly and false experts are tending to deem hardly any behavior to lie beyond our acceptable norm. Except for overturning prevailing civilizations, this does not bode well.

Die hard devotees of pure scientism are now positing, as a middling alternative to Analytic Philosophy, a concept of model dependent realism. This notion constitutes an attempt to evade the spiritual by conflating idealism, realism, and instrumentalism, all the while denying that there is a God or anything worth acknowledging, intuiting, or being empathetic of, that is beyond the power of new priests of science to completely replace. However, this is merely a poor substitute for a stumbling, Analytic Philosophy, with a dose of the desperate thrown in. In effect, model dependent realism asks us to surrender concepts of good will and good faith to the moral judgment of empiricists, who think they know best – even though they remain so squirrelly as not even to pay due accord that “ought” is not derivable from “is” in pure logic, without an immeasurable quality of intuitive empathy.

All that stands between analytic philosophers and an acknowledgment of God is to factor conscious will into the notion of model dependent realism. That would cost them nothing in respect of that which is do-able in empiricism, but would allow them at least to come out from behind squirrel masks.

Reading some extracts from Richard Rorty, I begin to suspect some notions of my own, to wit: That the only non-contingent truth is consciousness, and, ironically, we can only experience, intuit, and empathize regarding consciousness.  This means we cannot empirically or rigorously define or represent consciousness. I take it as contingently true that there is no non-trivial truth beyond consciousness.  If so, the source and contingency of meaning, truth, morality, and goodness all have to do with consciousness. In other words: How the field of consciousness changes, and how we – in feedback -- relate to, participate with, and appreciate the changing of the field of consciousness --affects the unfoldment of the habits of consciousness in regard to meaning and morality.

All of this has to do with how perspectives of consciousness share fundamental contingencies that sponsor the unfoldment of derivatively shared contingencies, which flux and overlap in how they are categorized to our subjective prioritization.

In other words, all of mortal experience is subsidiary and subjective to the field of consciousness, but mortal experience appends “objective” aspects, to the extent various mortal perspectives of the field happen to share the same subjective context that happens to be availed them by the field.

How does the field present such shared perspectives? Ah, that question is beyond our mortal kin. Rather, as mortals, we only appreciate and represent relatively fleeting and contingent shadows. Our prayers and applause may affect the show, but as to its holism, we do not empirically affect IT. That is not to say that IT may not avail us with powerful and expanding technologies, because it evidently does. What IT does not do, however, is to avail us with means to control, comprehend, or empirically match the holism itself.

Still, I do not share Rorty’s atheism. Rather, I consider the field of consciousness to be God; I consider that the field is responsive to, and cares about, our feedback; and I consider that we can appreciate IT spiritually (religiously), but not empirically. Ironically, some of Rorty’s more significant ideas can easily translate to an appreciation of the religious, merely upon apprehending that the broadest and most fundamental of fields, from which all others are derivative, is the Field of consciousness.  IOW, Rorty should have based his foundationalism on consciousness instead of on absolute empiricism.

See quotes from article at

"Nothing is sacred to Rorty the ironist. Asked at the end of his life about the 'holy', the strict atheist answered with words reminiscent of the young Hegel: 'My sense of the holy is bound up with the hope that some day my remote descendants will live in a global civilization in which love is pretty much the only law."
"Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own—unaided by the describing activities of humans—cannot.”
According to Rorty, analytic philosophy may not have lived up to its pretensions and may not have solved the puzzles it thought it had. Yet such philosophy, in the process of finding reasons for putting those pretensions and puzzles aside, helped earn itself an important place in the history of ideas. By giving up on the quest for apodicticity and finality that Husserl shared with Carnap and Russell, and by finding new reasons for thinking that such quest will never succeed, analytic philosophy cleared a path that leads past scientism, just as the German idealists cleared a path that led around empiricism.
In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Rorty argues that the central problems of modern epistemology depend upon a picture of the mind as trying to faithfully represent (or "mirror") a mind-independent, external reality. If we give up this metaphor, then the entire enterprise of foundationalist epistemology is misguided. A foundationalist believes that in order to avoid the regress inherent in claiming that all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, some beliefs must be self-justifying and form the foundations to all knowledge.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Living Within Parameters

Living Within Parameters:

From A.T.--
Re: "A progressive, income-based tax system makes sense only in a state-controlled society."

No. I stand in praise of "extreme moderation," in defense only of that government that avails decent freedom of expression and enterprise to its citizenry. Such a government is not availed either by excessive control by statists or by excessive control by international corporatists. You may as well have said, "A flat tax system makes sense only in an international corporatist controlled society." Yes, you would then have free speech, meaning, if you wish to advance, free speech to sing the praises of the international corporatist elite. Both systems are for Progs. Both want to reduce the middle class. Both think they know best. And both seek to annihilate America's borders. One does it with open invasion. The other under a Trojan Horse of free trade. Both are showered with funding from those who seek to fit the middle class with concrete shoes.

You are fighting the future with the past. It was in the past that we had a semblance of free competition. Now, the competition is not to produce goods, but to control politicians, governments, and middle classes. Does A.T. mean to promote insight or simply to defend the undermining of the American middle class, only under the alternative flag of international corporatism?

I grant you, I don't want large taxes simply to fund intrusive government. However, I do want a republican system of government, not an international corporatist system of government. I don't want redistribution for the sake of false fairness. However, I do want some limitation on the capacity of people of distinctly anti-American mindsets, such as a certain Mr. Soros, who fancy themselves the saviors of humanity if only humanity will surrender its freedom. I don't see the point for facilitating fop progeny of Soros-like aristo-rats in imagining they know, and mean to enforce, what is best for the rest of us.

We can only live within parameters. Republicanism is not excluded from that hard rule. So we absolutely do need some means to redistribute, not for fairness, but to allow Republicanism to survive. For that, I would suggest: end the income tax; end corporate taxes; replace with flat sales/value added taxes; but also add a progressive consumption tax based on annual individual consumption. And include taxes on speech that is not free, i.e., speech charged for via advertising and subscriptions, as well as monies spent to acquire face time to influence politicians. Do not allow corporations to contribute to politicians. But do allow individuals, in unlimited amounts. However, tax such political investments via a progressive consumption tax. Dedicate proceeds to preserving the republic.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010


MORALITY:  Morality consists in resolving always to be receptive to improve the state of affairs with which one is led to identify, insofar as one has means to apprehend and progress it.  Morality has to do with subjective apprehensions of improvement and progress in respect of one’s relations with the Field of consciousness.  It does not pertain to purely empirical progress, but to a kind of subjective, Pilgrim’s Progress.  Morality does not consist trivially in considering all that one may choose as being moral.  Rather, it entails reasoned receptivity to guidance, and progress in relation thereto.

CONTINGENT MORALITY: In respect of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, morality may become like ballast, to toss over once the fight is seen to be one of survival. Among a generation that will be left holding the bag after economic depredations of its predecessor, there may at first be less time and energy for concerns about social niceties and moral traditions. However, when flourishing begins to require assimilations among like minded individuals, values may again harden among separate groups. Once the melting pot and salad bowl no longer work, confederacies of loyalists may again arise. Politics in such groups will become far less tolerant of diversity just for the sake of diversity. There will arise more concern for facilitating systems that avail practical results and decent jobs than for systems that promise a kind of cradle to grave entitlement-arianism that they have no power to bestow. Benefits for louts and incompetents will fade fast.

INVISIBLE HAND OF MARKET BASED MORALITY: When one’s notion of morality consists in believing that everyone should do that which benefits him only, I don’t quite grasp how such an ethos can very well sustain a group or a country, much less a civilization or a world. I fail to apprehend how some people write of morality while denying the existence of any connection or basis for empathy or mutual concern among respective perspectives of consciousness.

CONFLATING EMPIRICAL CONCEITS: When atheists claim they are ‘as objectively moral as” anyone else, I don’t quite grasp how they “objectively” measure any such a thing. Are they also able objectively to measure the subjectivity of being “as happy as” anyone else? Insofar as intersections among reality, science, morality, and religion often meet in ways that are appreciable yet beyond measure, it hardly satisfies my subjective or intuitive apprehension of truth merely to assert that atheists are as moral or happy as anyone else. Rather, my intuition tells me they tend not to be as moral as, nor as happy as, many people who do have decent faiths concerning a higher basis for morality. Simply put, I do not see that pure objectivity, or any purely objective testing, has much to do with morality.

RATIONAL RELIGION: I apprehend doubters’ disgust with what they perceive to be ridiculous or even evil practices of religion. What I do not apprehend is their expectation that religion can or should be done away with. Consider the concepts they would replace religion with, i.e., some kind of environmental or earth science, sprinkled perhaps with notions about genetics and psychology. Insofar as such concepts led to social and political urges about which many people could easily doubt, how then do proponents mean to justify enforcing or cajoling obedience or respect for their “science backed” rulings, except by claiming somehow that they have a closer relation to higher truth, justice, morality, or goodness – especially with regard to concerns that simply defy empirically precise quantification or measure? Yet, choices must be made, both by individuals and by bodies politic. To what, then, is the appeal ultimately made, when an advocate says such and such is best, if not to metaphysical truths (i.e., religion)?

COUPLING OF MASS AND WILL: Information is created, stored, and communicated in respect of the interaction of copasetic organizations of mass with organizations of particles of conscious will. Mass plus perspectives of consciousness avails the experience of a crude sense of touch, which eventually translates to the most basic of tactile sensation, then to translations of impingements that lead to experiences of balance, direction, taste, smell, hearing, and, eventually, sight. One remains faithfully cognizant of one’s connection to morality as one remains cognizant of one’s continuing connection to the field of consciousness (which is NOT entirely accounted for in the merely seen). In respect of the Field of consciousness, it may be that every perspective is morally responsible for its own empathy, is audited accordingly in respect of feedback with the field, and continues to preserve, weigh, and re-mix perspectives of consciousness in the hereafter in respect of such feedback. That is, our perspectives may be subsidiary to archetypes, the forms of which are forever expressible by the Field. In that way, our morality is grounded in archetypes of consciousness that are connected in meta-empathy within a Field.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Overreach of Science

In the NOVEMBER 29 , 2010 issue of National Review, Edward Feser reviews The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Feser discusses Hawking’s notion relating to contingent reality and model dependent realism, to explain how it is old where it is defensible and muddled where it is original. That is, Hawking engages a fallacy of equivocation by conflating realism, instrumentalism, and idealism. Feser’s critique highlights the proneness of Hawking types to overstep their expertise in dealing with a conundrum: any contingent reality, like the universe, must depend upon a necessary being acknowledged as a necessary, i.e., the principle that nothing contingent can be the cause of itself.

Compare entries in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, from “relations” through “relativism.” Consider the problem of trying to comprehend the difference between that which is relative and that which is essential, intrinsic, or holistic. Consider whether that which is essential may consist with a field that mediates that which we experience, model, and communicate about, as if such were measurable mass (having form, size, density, and motion), even while the way or substance by which the mediation effects our experience may be of an essence that defies scientific measure or empirical comprehension. That possibility must drive many scientists who wish to have faith only in science, rather than in a dance with God, into incoherence, if not madness.

Eventually, by a process of feedback and measurement, one may come to apprehend that one’s sensations entail interactions of fields and particles, i.e., relations charting expressions of particles operating within ranges and domains -- relating and changing among overlapping ranges and domains, and so on. The universe of ranges and domains most relevant to one’s experience will necessarily be the same universe of information-being-communicated that one shares with other perspectives that experience much the same information.

Abstracting further back, one may apprehend that consciousness of sensations of one’s mind is part of the entailment. Abstracting even further back, one may apprehend or intuit that one’s mind, itself, is part of a higher model or system, which is beyond the measure or empirical control of one’s mind. One may intuit that there is purpose, meaning, and goodness, yet apprehend that one is not completely the pilot of one’s mind. That is, a mortal mind is not so independently powerful as to be able to predict a future path for which it cannot change to cross different bridges as it comes to them. Nor is a mortal mind so powerful as to be able to measure or control that which does completely account for and pilot it.

What we can do is model various overlapping fields of ranges and domains. We can get a sense of our general direction and even make general, statistical measures of it. However, we cannot make a perfect model of that which allows us to make models. Rather, we can, in empathy, be guided by IT, to factor ever new information, to discover and empower ever new and powerful keys to combinations for ways of experiencing and communicating information. We cannot control IT, but we can be guided by it.

To observe oneself is to change oneself. That which determines or decides each change is always at least one step ahead. One may be copasetic with one’s Pilot, or not. If not, one’s Pilot may abandon cooperative interest, or take pointed action to demand harmonious regard.

When our scientists, pleasure seekers, and eaters of entrails come hubristically to presume they have no need of metaphysical empathy or guidance, that is when the lesser minds and diverse addicts that follow them come to believe we need not be guided by anything higher, but that we can continue to soar without IT. That is when the quality of empathy we need to sustain meaningful civilization begins rapidly to fall. That is when the Field of Consciousness begins afresh, to seek a relationship with more faithful and promising partners. And that is when civilizations fall and there is much gnashing of teeth.

Suppose we were to accept as mortal limitation our incapacity to measurably explicate what conscious will consists of, beyond a logical construct that infers its existence, both as a field and as a particulate expression, perhaps with some generally measurable signs in the cumulative. How then might a model look that mixed such a variable with more quantifiable relations and variables? Could such a model be as precisely viable in many respects as any other current model? Compare Klingman’s The God Particle.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Platonic Virtues of States and Ctizens

Platonic Virtues of States and Ctizens:

If even God were uncertain of ultimate teleology or purpose, would not God, so far as we can reasonably relate, share some of our platonic, day to day purposes, i.e., to pursue happiness, as by inculcating opportunities to learn courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice?

Think categorically and consider: What if every thing, every event, every person, and every State were courageous, wise, temperate, and just? Then, unless perfect and without propensity to forget or backslide, how would anyone experience reminders, absent occasional testing and sharpening against the cowardly, foolish, intemperate, and evil? So long as pursuits of art, science, and novelty remain unobtained, how shall such pursuits otherwise be sharpened?

That it is good for one citizen to work full time as a potter does not make it good that all persons should be potters;
That it is good that one person of skill is richly rewarded does not make it good that all persons should be richly rewarded;
That it is good that a skilled person should be richly rewarded does not make it good that he should, by means of his riches, rule most others as serfs;
That a person is skilled at investing in stocks does not make it good that he should be allowed to manipulate stocks so as to acquire influence to rule others as serfs;
That trade across national borders can enrich all does not make it good that trade should be so incorporated as to empower those who rule the corporation then to corrupt, replace, and rule the cultures of all states;
That a person believes neither God nor the State are as qualified as he or his notions to avail the ground of being and of citizenship does not make it good that other persons should tolerate, humor, or facilitate his belief.

Rather, I suspect that which qualifies any person to deny authority to any other to feign intercessionary authority as spokesperson or avatar for God is such person's direct intuition and empathy as a perspective of conscious free will.
To believe otherwise is to open wide the way for those who would canibalize entire communities, cultures, and states.

Why do economic "scientists" seem always to offer up cargo cult math, while refusing to devote even a footnote's worth of consideration to the most important of values, i.e., the values that are beyond quantitative measure, like those of freedom and dignity, protected under a nation that is founded to preserve for its citizens such values above all others?

Why does the free trade mantra so often seem fitted to freezing minds to the "justice" of rule of nations under corporate oligarchs, as if the mores and traditions of all cultures pale in value when compared to the justness of being ruled by our oligarchic betters, as if all that cannot be folded into a dollar calculaton were mere humbug, for which millions have died, for no purpose of worth?

How long before the mask slips from the most vociferous of free traders, to reveal the hirelings of just one more cohort of Progs? Does the mask slip only after the nation is ka-put?

As one considers the models and math of Krugman, Obama, and Soros, as if the same were intended to facilitate jobs and prosperity for a free and independent America, at some point, seeing the models and math make no sense, should one reassess one's premises? What if the goal has little to do with jobs and prosperity for a free and independent America? What if the goal of Krugman and Obama is to reduce America in order to facilitate some kind of worldwide, economic kum ba yah? What if the goal of Soros is to front the cohort that is to feed from the economic open society? What if Krugman and Obama are deluded about the capacity for mankind to live in worldwide harmony, while Soros is deluded about his capacity to lead Americans and mankind into worldwide villeinage?

Tuesday, November 23, 2010


Re: Allah-Borg-Corp

To force a human being, physically or by whip of necessity, to act, profess, and believe other than consistent with his authentic self is very nearly to rob him of the potential of his soul. It is to force him to surrender and submit to an Allah-Borg-Corp.

Islam and Marxism are only derivatives, not the essence of soul succubi. They are secondary to their men behind the curtain, i.e., their funders. In modern times, these funders tend to be international-corporate-banking-securities-hedge-artists and government-favor-trading-influence-peddlers. Such artistry is now mainly performed under cover of international corporatism, because corporations respect no boundaries in territory, culture, or mores. To put those international corporatists, whose confluent effluent undermines America, under America’s supervision would be to shrivel the lifeblood that funnels to Islam and Marxism. So, how can that kind of adult supervision be invigorated?

For that, there is no perfect constitution, empirical solution, or model. If there is truth in the idealism of George Berkeley, it is because those aspects of physics which we take to be amenable of modeling in terms of pure, empirical massiveness are artifactually and ultimately dependent upon forms and organizations of rules for forming in-form-ation. Those are availed by a holistic source of consciousness; they are availed as our ground of being and basis for communication. The physical signposts we talk about and model are not means for the explicating of their own ends. They are only means for appreciating and communicating such pursuits as we perspectives of consciousness happen to find ourselves pursuing within any slice of space-time. The only true north star for moral interaction abides not in absolutist rationalism or empiricism, but in a spiritual basis, i.e., an ineffable capacity for empathy in communication among perspectives of the One same fundamental consciousness.

The faster an intellectually honest person tries to model and push a narrow slice of empirical experience into duty for focusing and clearly explicating and communicating all of "reality," the sooner his empirical delusions reach the absurd. The more complex the "physical" system, the more often and more quickly the absurd is reached and ignored. Thus, imagination begets information, begets “mass,” begets surprising potentials, uncertainties, and conundrums. All abides in God's good time. IOW, adult supervision necessitates spiritual adults. Indeed, the idea of America can hardly survive without idealists. So, we have no choice but to muddle about, seeking balance while we apprehend only our pursuits of fulfillment, not our actual fulfillment, tinkering with those forms which avail tinkering.

To my taste, we desperately need forms for putting international corporatists on probation. The issue is: Should corporations properly be considered as citizens of the world and also as simultaneous citizens of various States to which they owe no particular loyalty? When should corporations and their main shareholders be considered akin to illegal aliens or traitorous citizens? For that, consider some temporal measures for "comprehensive tinkering" and, if necessary, constitutional amendments, to wit:

ADULT GROUNDING OF PAID TO BE CORRUPT FEDS (to stop the treasonous, corporate-sponsored sell out of America to global collectivism):

1) Stoutly identify that which is the enemy of human freedom and dignity, i.e., the enemy of the idea of America (which includes Islamism, Marxism, and Globalism);

2) Follow the money (cui bono) and learn to spot the language of collectivizing deceivers, communalist and corporatist, alike;

3) Require detailed accounting by corporations of all domestic business that is in any respect done in corporate form within America;

4) Prohibit any corporation that fails to organize a financially solvent domestic subsidiary from transacting any business or transferring any goods, funds, credits, or stocks in America or across America’s borders;

5) Put a sur tax of 10 percent on every extra territorial transfer or investment of domestic corporate goods, funds, credits, wire transfers, or stocks that cross national borders;

6) Prohibit any foreign national, or non-domestic corporation, from owning more than 10 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;

7) Prohibit foreign nationals and non-domestic corporations from aggregating to own more than 20 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;

8) Allow domestic corporations to obtain finder’s fees and to sue for unfair competition in instances where other corporations are found to have failed to pay the 10 percent sur tax on extra national transactions;

9) Give domestic shareholders authority to bring class actions to forfeit (or acquire) stocks of all foreign nationals found individually, in organized groups, or in joint stock companies to hold more than 10 percent of the stock of a domestic corporation;

10) Rescind the limited liability of every stockholder (whether person or organized group) who owns more than 10 percent of a corporation that is found liable for penalties or damages in contract, tort, or civil liability;

11) Establish parameters and procedures to identify abusers and to cashier or forfeit their rights to buy, inherit, or own property in the form of corporate stocks;

12) Put a 25 percent “political consumption tax” per annum on every political contribution that accumulates, per individual or per organized bundle, that amounts to more than $10,000, and then apply the tax revenues exclusively to retiring public debt;

13) Include for calculating such tax all salaries and payments for all activities designed to increase political influence or to influence political action, including: indirect payments to otherwise unpaid czars, community organizers, political propagandists, op-ed writers, political pundits, political satirists, political fund raisers, and political parties;

14) Prohibit all contributions and measurable enhancements to American politicians from non-domestic, extra-national corporations or foreign nationals, and establish forfeitures and jail terms violators and their agents;

15) Require every lobbyist and corporation that contacts or contracts with the federal government to keep open books to identify in detail its history of: campaign contributions; contacts with federal officials above a certain grade; all federal laws and regulations promulgated with regard to clients or products;

16) Require that no lobbyist, governmental employee, official, or “unpaid czar” be allowed to hold stock – in any company that sells products to the federal government – that is valued at more than $200,000 or that person’s gross annual income, whichever is less;

17) Require that a person who runs or works for a regulatory agency, who writes or enforces federal regulations, must not have worked for, been salaried by, be married to, or a partner with a person who has worked for, any corporation that remains subject to specific and detailed regulation under such agency ... unless such person is vouched for, on the record, by the committee in Congress that happens specifically to be charged with oversight of such affairs;

18) Require that every person whose income or salary exceeds $100,000 per annum — who runs, works for, or is given detailed access to (i.e., “czars”), a federal regulatory agency – must provide a complete and verifiable resume of his or her birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations; and verifiable list of his or her political donations made to any person or cause in an accumulated amount of more than $500;

19) Entitle each candidate for federal office to require all other such candidates to provide complete and verifiable resumes of birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations, and verifiable list of political donors (individuals and organizations) who have donated or bundled more than $500;

20) End federal interference with States in the enforcement of their international borders;

21) Prohibit the immigration and naturalization of members of all groups, clubs, and creeds that are inimical to, or on any kind of jihad against, the culture of freedom and dignity of Americans, to include communists and Islamists;

22) Require that the federal government not budget expenditures in any fiscal year that would allow any State to receive per capita federal funding for total internal construction, expenditures, and salaries that would accumulate to more than 200 percent of the per capita funding of any other State – absent 2/3 approval of both the House and the Senate;

23) End the income tax and replace it with sales/consumption/transaction taxes, to include a tax on retail sales and a progressive tax only against individuals, based on annual accumulated consumption. Use it to "spread wealth" indirectly and to a level closer to the people, by returning much of it directly to the States on a per capita basis.

24) Empower governors of the States at any time to remove a sitting President, upon a 3/5 vote of no confidence by 30 or more governors, provided they represent at least 2/3 of the general population.

Admittedly, these are filled with loopholes that would eventually be exploited. That is unavoidable. After all, we can only pursue the destruction of evil; we cannot actually accomplish it.

... Or, we can watch idly as Corp Sponsored Noble Progs "fundamentally change" (i.e., globally collectivize) America into a third world, lowest common denominator of serfs. Can aristocratic stock ownership in serf companies be far behind?

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Cartesian relation between mass and information

Of Godel and Descartes -- Cartesian relation between mass and information:

No measurable thing or event can be completely described either in purely local or purely universal terms. Rather, any complete inventory of descriptions, even if possible, would require sets of descriptions from the conscious perspectives of particulars and the perspective of the holism. However, this is inherently productive of ambiguity, uncertainty, and non-linear, often circular or spherical transformations or transmogrifications.

It’s not just that there are measurables that consist in having simultaneous aspects for being wholes and parts (field waves and particles). It’s that all abstractions and representations of descriptions and events that appear to unfold in respect of relations among such wholes and parts have their own aspects for consisting of wholes and parts. That is, every event can be abstracted for being modeling and considered as if it had a local, “mass-like cause,” and every such event can also be considered, simultaneously, to have a contextual like, “field cause.”

Necessarily, the feedback that fluxes between such local perspectives and the holism is synchronous and coordinate with what we experience as “causally” related sequences. This flux between the encompassing field and the local perspectives of consciousness may have more to do with the manifestations of information that lead to appearances of mass-like cause then may otherwise, at superficial consideration, appear to be the case.

If consciousness is the source and cause of all appearances, relations, and measurables, then no logical set of appearances can entirely encompass or cause consciousness. That is, information dressed up as mass (forms, sizes, motions, and densities) is caused to appear to consciousness; consciousness is not caused to appear to information or mass. IOW, mass is derivative of information, which is derivative of exchanges of communications among variously organized and/or overlapping layers and levels of particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness.

If mass is “in-form-ation-made-physical,” and our perspectives of consciousness couple with mass in order to avail us expressiveness as conscious beings, then must at least One conscious being couple directly with information in order to create our various perspectives as conscious beings? Yes, but our perspectives will communicate information in Cartesian-coordinate respect of mass-agents of cause, such masses being expressed in respect of numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities. IOW, the capacity of information and mass to give expression to one another is necessarily in respect of a dualistic, Cartesian relationship. At least, for mortals who are subject to the rules that bind the measurables of our universe.

May any inferior perspective of consciousness ever directly sense or communicate the essence of an informational exchange, except upon coupling in respect of causal relations among numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities (i.e., masses)? IOW, can fluxing layers and levels of immaterial agents, souls, angels, or ghosts possibly be self aware, to see and talk with one another? Or, across mediums, to us? May an encompassing, holistic consciousness avail a character or ground of being for such communications? I seem to have no empirical way to justify such a belief. Is there a mathematical way? An intuitive or empathetic way?

With ordinary algorithms, our knowledge allows us to manipulate local relations with predictable results. However, to know the algorithm that synchronizes all parameters with the holism, we would need to have holistic means to test and effect predictions with it. This we could not do, without being able to step outside the universe with which our very definition and beingness depends. That is, I believe there is such a meta algorithm, but I cannot see how we could “know” it, apart from justified belief. Regardless, assuming it abides, its functioning would seem easily translatable as akin, for us, to a synchronizer of expressions of free will.

John Birch Society

Regarding the John Birch Society: Who are Welch’s successors, and have they evolved? If they notice that our borders are not being enforced, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice our energy production is being shut down while Soros makes out on Brazilian adventures, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice our inner cities are being emasculated and our minorities are being taught they are owed, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice more and more families are being cast aside as the primary unit for raising the next generation, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice pre-adolescents are being trained early to be sheep for TSA pat downs, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice our politicians are essentially ignoring the will of some 60 percent of the electorate, I presume that is more than mere opinion.

When I add these kinds of insults up, I don’t need a statistical analysis based on data selected to a purpose to calculate whether this is all more than just coincidence. I don’t need a disinterested bystander from outside the system of the universe to acquire a firm belief that something important is out of balance.

Anyone who takes on the international corporatist leviathan that is undermining America is going to get relentlessly tagged as, guess what? A lunatic. So it’s important not to be silenced by mere name calling. Regarding the N.W.O.: No one nowadays even bothers to hide high level talk about it. Why should they? Any pipsqueak who repeats it is labeled a lunatic. Even though the words and the events are all around. It’s like we’re walking about as zombies while the billionaire owned media relentlessly tells us, “None of this is real.”

This is something new. It’s not hypnosis, not Stockholm Syndrome, not mass hysteria, and not Eloi and Morloch. It’s something like mass, organization-man, self emasculation. Is the effect heightened by something in the water, the dope, or the subliminal?

So, I’m concerned when billionaire-run media hound us to give up, impressing us that resistance is futile and our opinions are lunatic. I’m concerned when conservatives are encouraged to line up in a circle and open fire on one another. If one shows signs of being impervious to name calling, is one to be put on a watch list? To have one’s opinions erased? Are we getting down to the last remaining Americans on earth?

I’ll look at references. I want to confirm where the modern JBS is factually wrong, intellectually dishonest, or sensationally bonkers. Until then, I’ll not call them nutjobs. That would be little better than the nut media calling Tea Partiers baggers. I’ll review the references. Admittedly, I begin with a suspicion, that no media of significance is willing to make a frontal assault against the N.W.O., or to suggest ways to attack it. After all, that’s not where the easy money is. But if we don’t open eyes, we’re toast.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Do Maxwell Demons crap?

Re: “an equation which shows that the "amount" of non-locality is determined by the uncertainty principle” / “Why doesn't nature allow even stronger non-locality?” See

Re: Energy also has mass. See

Hmm. Well, might mass just be a store of energy, and stored energy just be a store of information? Is mass like a signpost, derivative of the interfunctioning of perspectives of conscious apprehension of information?

A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.

This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?

Does a Nature algorithm limit choices for individually experienced relationships among our perspectives of the here and now, and does another algorithm (“God” algorithm?) avail means by which choices are universally synchronized throughout our domain?

To suppose there abides a meta-synchronizing algorithm would seem hardly distinguishable from supposing our holistic situation is expressive of “free will.”

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Yin and Yang, or Problem of Evil?

Problem of Evil:

George Soros probably fears that if he does not seize and wield the ring of power, an even more evil, or less worthy, person will.  Thus his little soul leads him into evil.  That evil challenges We The People to reset the balance.  At present there is a gross imbalance in the Force.  And yet, another imbalance looms – the one where thousands upon thousands shall each acquire a death star of his or her own, to bring oblivion or suffering to all.  Save means to ensure the good will of all, how shall that time of sorrows be deflected?

Elite leaders rise from muck and contrive to produce a sign or a change in the direction of a pattern. The pattern becomes a fad or machination, until too many among the masses apprehend the trick. At that time, by factoring the trick, they reduce its potency. Whereupon elites “move on,” like little cat feet. Until then, the ideal for elites is often to keep the lowest levels in enough darkness so they will not know or feel the pain of being bent or consumed to purposes of higher elites. There will always be leader elites. The issue is: How best should they be given their head?

It seems different levels of perspectives of consciousness feed off and subjugate the wills of others. Hinduism recognizes a caste system, as did Huxley, in Brave New World. A representative republic avails that process to be maximally spread out. Yet, the role of the lowest class will always be to do as it is manipulated to do – coercively, voluntarily, or even for its own perception of interests (even if misled). Which among subgroups of masses should elites bring along to their heights? How? Why? What of when each elite acquires access to power enough in frustration to annihilate all?

Will humanity necessarily at some point acquire tech skills beyond capacity to communicate or relate for purposes that are consistent with stable peacefulness? Should elites see Islam as a way to temporize, by chaining most among the dangerous masses to keep their heads tightly screwed to the cave? Must technological power always be balanced against mass repression? Is the good of human civilization necessarily purchased by domesticating lower animals, to be kept in the dark?

Is this really a problem of evil?  Or is it more a problem of yin and yang, a dance between the Field of consciousness and its assorted particles of perspective ... for the experience, appreciation, recordation, absorption, and pursuit of fulfillment by the holistic field of consciousness?  Good thoughts, good words, good deeds.  What is the yang of, "If I don't do it, someone else will?"

Never Ending Fix

Having in youth experienced harsh, nationalistic collectivization, Soros, like a new *Xerxes, imagines imposing upon us a kinder, gentler form of collectivization. He thinks power would be less abused were it safely tucked into the hands of elite, international corporatists of no national loyalties. Thus continueth the banality of evil. Soros would regulate away our freedom to save us our security. However, to so take a people’s dignity is to ensure neither their freedom nor their security.

There is an imbalance in the force separators of power. Something is amiss. However, we are not consulted so long as we remain un-aroused. Many remain so desirous to milk the present imbalance in order to become rich that they fail to notice how the ladders to wealth are being pulled up. The ladders grow longer and longer, but have lost connection to common decency. We deal in currency and laws, the value and meaning of which are manipulated at will by those who have acquired hegemony over us. The way up has connected with sinisterism against respect for ordinary people. So long as we decline to come to grips with this, why should we expect other from God?

Whiny kids often blame their whininess on their parents, some of whom then blame God, as if the problem of whininess (and evil) were the doing of ancestors or God. But God, as the field for synchronizing static feedback, “consults” with us as a whole, regarding the future to unfold for our progeny. There is little of good government for a society that respects no assimilating, meta beliefs. Those who “know,” based on justified belief, have been with us since the dawn of recorded history, when they noted: **Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. To open receptivity to channels of intuition and empathy, we need better to appreciate a veil of ignorance. To hope to improve a society’s balance of human freedom and dignity, consider what plan would presently be best, were the assignment of one’s consciousness within such society to be made at random.

I doubt we are pre-fabrications of a God who has left us. ***And I doubt we are the ad hoc results of natural selection within an otherwise entirely dumb force-field of nature. Rather, I suspect we are unfoldments of consciousness. We are engaged in a dance of feedback among perspectives of consciousness with their holism. We remain accountable to respect our particular roles. We partake of free will, but we do not entirely dictate to it. All that proceeds … dances along a many faceted way.

Our system of governance and economics will not be “fixed” merely by elite mechanics of the likes of Soros. Rather, it will be consolidated against us. If we unite, we the people can break the means availed to sinisterists for manipulating the system for wealth creation and political dictate. Victory will not reside entirely in any rule or system. To not be a hollow prelude to blowback, victory must be joined with at least some kind of awakening to higher mindedness.


*"I am Xerxes, great king, king of kings, the king of all countries which speak all kinds of languages, the king of the entire big far-reaching earth."
-- King Xerxes I, on foundation tablet at Persopolis, the capital city of the Persian empire.


***”Pantheists also believe in the absence of a divine personal being who created the universe. Instead, they attest to a divine essence, an impersonal force, a cosmic energy that flows throughout all things in the universe. This energy is called "the One," "the divine," "Chi," or "Brahma." In Star Wars, it is called the Force.”

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Math of Nature, Free Will, and God

The Math of Nature, Free Will, and God:

There seems to abide a perpetual relationship of feedback that fluxes between two domains that either define or correlate with our ground of being. Each domain obeys an algorithm, one that is perhaps discoverable and derivable to mortals, the other, if knowable, is knowable only to God.

The first algorithm (Nature) controls limits or parameters for choices that may be implemented for individual relationships among our variously measurable perspectives of the here and now. On one side, this algorithm seems to bespeak an unperceived essence; on the other side, it bespeaks appearances.

The second algorithm (God) is of a domain that avails means by which choices are universally synchronized throughout our domain. It is beyond our control or derivation, but receptive in our intuitive appreciation. The immeasurable quality of that which we appreciate is the feedback in consideration of which it effects each successive universal choice. On one side, it operates as a holistically synchronizing algorithm; on the other side, operations in respect of it are to us indistinguishable from a operations in respect of a notion of free will, as implemented and synchronized by God, as variously appreciated through our separate perspectives.

Thus, notions of nature, free will, and God cohere consistently.
Is mass just a store of energy, and is stored energy just stored information?
Is mass a signpost, derivative of the interfunctioning of perspectives of information?

Monday, November 15, 2010

South Park political philosophy – sailing left by sailing right

South Park political philosophy – sailing left by sailing right:

Conceptualize a population of gambling investors in a virtual nation run by moral philosophers with scruples like the South Park kids. The first 1000 gamers to show an interest are allowed to acquire virtual citizenship by having traded $1000 in actual dollars with a casino caretaker (The Coon) for $1000 worth of investment chips (Uncle Game dollars) in a virtual national bank/securities dealer (South Fed), which owns 1000 shares of virtual stock (Uncle Game bonds) in each of 1000 paper corporations, each share being initially and arbitrarily valued at $1.00.

Each time a gamer manages to buy or trade for a majority interest in a stock, he receives a premium dividend credit. Every citizen-gamer begins under the same system of thorough surveillance. No gamer is allowed to see surveillance film, but is availed with robot-supplied, matrix interpretations of the surveillance. Every citizen is availed an identical, robotic, investment adviser (I-bot), whereby everyone receives the same perfect advice at the same time. Excepting intervals for placing of puts and bets, all I-bots have the complete history for every gamer’s virtual balances and stock investments.

SYMMETRICALLY EQUAL AND INTERCONNECTED OPPORTUNITY: Each put for each offer to trade or buy Uncle Game dollars or virtual stock is required to be made in increments that are blind to all other citizens and robots. Once offers are placed, all see all at once, and trading among participants commences for that round on the order of first come, first served. (Like a stock exchange with incremental huddles.) Unknown to the robots and players is the psychological profile of any of the gamers.

Initially, every I-bot may avail its human master the same perfect analysis. In consequence, the initial recommendation availed to each master will entail a dilemma not altogether unlike that confronted by Buridan’s ass. That is, unless forced by some randomizing program, no I-bot will be able, by deploying bivalent logic, to avail a recommendation. Only after symmetry is forcibly broken, and after the first round of trades (bets, losses, and wins), would a non-forced I-bot avail a “voluntary” recommendation based purely in bivalent logic (at expense of ignoring data not fitted to its model). Even then, each I-bot would have recursive access to every other I-bot’s information and logic. That is, it would “know” that any recommendation it makes for taking advantage of any change in conditions will be the same as the recommendation availed by every other I-bot. Insofar as no I-bot has reason to presume its master will fail to follow recommendations, none will fashion a recommendation that attempts other than a strategy for staying even with the game.

To help avoid recursiveness, all network connected I-bots may avail an array of mathematically based recommendations, in descending order of priority. As their masters begin to show signs of personality predilections (or tells), each I-bot will have been programmed to make adjustments accordingly, to try to help its master at least to stay even. Every other I-bot connected to the network will know the recommendations each is making, but will not know whether any recommendation was accepted until all bets for a round are placed.

ADVENTURE TO INDEPENDENCE: At some point, the game should be taken to a SECOND level. Each I-bot should be partially disconnected from the network, so it will not know all that the other I-bots know. In compensation, commensurate with each recommendation, each I-bot will be allowed to “advise and learn” from its master the total amount its master wants to bet on each round. Surveillance among I-bots will remain in place, except to the point of surveilling the amounts of all masters’ offers or puts until after they are placed.

Now the game will have become much more like poker: Information regarding tells, facial tics, personality predilections, false tells, false-false tells, and so on, will be collected. However, such information will be collected by the I-bots, not directly by their human masters (who will remain separated behind opaque walls). This kind of collection of information is not perfectly amenable to bivalent modeling or communication. Even if the I-bots are somehow programmed with capacity to “learn,” they will be limited by necessary incompleteness in their initial models and frames of logical analysis. Their masters’ experiences and skills for many-sided logic and intuitive (gut) analysis will loom larger as factors, even though the masters will only have access to non-camera data that is imperfectly translated and presented by their I-bots.

ADVANTAGE TO GANGSTERS: Eventually, the game is taken to a THIRD level, such that all surveillance is shared among I-bots and masters, except during intervals of actual putting of bets. Some masters (The Coon?) will have force of personality that will be more suitably advantageous for the game. For them, recommendations of robots will be relegated to a more minor role. Feedback will tend eventually to reward the most skilled at projecting a many sided kind of logic. Eventually, those are the masters who will become the oligarchs. Eventually, they will learn to gang up with other oligarchs, by deploying a meta language of signals, which may even be hidden in the character of their bets. This is when the game goes to the dark side, when brutish propensity to gangsterism trumps merit.

Depending on fluxs in the oligarchic balance of power, signals will eventually lead to deliberately false signals, even to false-false signals. This will lead to devious forms of clique-language consultations among masters and I-bots, leading to program adjustments and meta programming, to assist in evaluating the quality and trustworthiness of signals. Eventually, losing non-oligarchs will be reduced to placeholding peons, useful to convey messages (indirect, positive, negative, exploratory) to other powers still of significance in the game.

If all peons die out, challenge and meaning for the dominant players will fade. This will lead to oligarchs lending encouragement to peons, to game on. At some point, peons (Mysterium?) will sense this state of affairs. What will or should they do? Short of blowing up the game, is there any avenue for peons to restore dignity within the game?

Well, any serious efforts among the peons to organize will soon be co-opted. Oligarchs will pose as concerned do-gooders, even to volunteer to fund unionizing organizers. They will advise peons to watch for rallying signals. They will negotiate to change fundamentals for the game. They will facilitate communications among peons, so communications will proceed along paths that can be controlled by oligarchs. They will compromise those peons who are corrupt, ignorant, and needy, and teach them how to fool their own consciences. They will call for a convention, to establish a new order of rules, to bring all masters' representatives together in a face to face forum of faux transparence. However, the communication will be monopolized to avail transparency mainly along the line of an unholy axis among competing oligarchs (Progs). That is, communication will be facilitated along a line that erases most boundaries for peons, but not for oligarchs. Thus, competing oligarchs will remain united in axis for preserving control over peons. Within the faux-transparent forum, there will be established various front groups, such as Newsweak, Npr-nyuk, Media Nutters, Apollo Axis,, A-CLUe, Acrum, Hollybrain, Ivy-school, and Fedup.

FALL TO SOCIOPATHY: Now take the game to a FOURTH level. Keeping the game going depends on a population pyramid for passing bad debts onto the next generation of citizens. This expanding of the citizenry stimulates new “production.” It depends on rewriting rules for recruiting new immigrants, which depends on a convention and board of governors, who want to be paid, and who are easiest paid by oligarchs, on whom the board is most dependent.

So how is the board to be paid? Well, with real money, taxed against real investments, as trusted by the bank outside the game (Meta Bank) for the gaming under the virtual national bank (South Fed). How are real distributions to be apportioned, based on virtual winnings in the game? Well, by allowing gamers to invest in Uncle Game bonds and decreeing the bonds to be worth one proportionate unit against South Fed dollars and another proportionate unit against Meta Bank dollars. Thus, who controls the board controls the proportionate valuation of the real money. What began as a game entailing mutual trust and rules morphed into a game of rule making agents of a spider matrix.

To encourage peons to continue to do bidding, oligarchs (neo conquistadores) have sailed left by sailing right. How, now, do the mass of players restore the game to one of rules? Once power becomes too disproportionate, how does a system remain one of rules as opposed to one of privileged rule makers?

REDEMPTION: The wild card is this: The peons are not that stupid. They are on to the game. Using many-sided logic, they have intuited the meta-goals and programming of the Dark Garchs. Now, all the peons have to do is to idealize and implement a transforming, proportionate, revitalization of the allocation of wealth and influence among the general population of participants in the game. That is, a revitalization that will invigorate those (Kyle and Stan?) who wish to strive towards middle class dignity and independence, not to reward indolence. That is, a conservative reset to restore middle earth values of responsibility, opportunity, merit, work, initiative, freedom, and dignity.

Otherwise, the peons (lower and middle) should simply move to a new virtual table and begin their own game, anew. Problems for the middle class: How to get the lower class to look beyond entreaties of its corrupt, ignorant, and indolent; how to inspire the better angels of all; how to transform idealization into mass. Decent respecters of middle class values, unite!

DAMNATION: Alternatively, one I-bot will be fitted with a superior program that will turn it into a cyborg, fitted with a Soros mask, whereupon, except as kabuki theater, it will terminate the stock market by rendering all competitors impotent and devoid of merit in the face of its analysis. Having no reason to distinguish them in merit, all others (save its prophet, The Coon) will be reduced to peons to serve the New Entity, which will jump the virtual casino, inhale Soros’ soul, and rule the N.W.O.

To know vs. to justifiably believe

To know (number) vs. to justifiably believe (appreciate):

From A.T. -- Re: “Kant's transcendental idealism needed to make room for noumena (things we can't see) and, at the same time, attempt to explain phenomena (the things we can see).”

To know that which a thing or event is … is to be its complete author and sustainer. For anything that is not trivially true, as completely derivative of a system of definition or prescription (however incomplete that underlying system itself may be), we do not know it in the sense of “either-or.” Rather, as avatars for a conscious free will, we “know” in a sense of justified belief and chosen, purposeful commitment. That is, we know in a sense of intuition, empathy, and inspiration, as factored or justified under many sided logic, not bivalent logic.

The bivalent math that is availed to mortals is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions that are measurable to mortals. The meta algorithm is beyond mortal capacity to complete or fathom. In whatever way it functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will (i.e., God) to function.

It needs willful stubbornness to feign non-apprehension of that aspect of our basis for being which remains beyond measure, when it is necessarily implicated by that aspect which is not beyond measure. It is intuitively obvious that there are means of appreciation that are not entirely subsumed in measure, just as there are means of logic and reasoned decision making that are not subsumed in bivalence. There is many sided logic, and we necessarily relate it to every choice we make that is non-trivial (i.e., not derivable solely from a foundational system of axioms). Consider the innumerable choices and stances of taste, value, characterization, and belief that one deploys every day, which are reasonable to one’s personality and which cannot be accounted for in terms purely of bivalent logic.

What reasonable person does not make non-trivial choices that are factored and inspired in conjunction with many-sided logic? To try to constrain oneself to a life of pure, bivalent logic would be to try to surrender one’s conscious free will to an unconscious, calculating robot; it would be to willfully flagellate one’s expressiveness of free will.

Insofar as mass is information made physical, as byproduct of perspectives of consciousness interrelating within a ground of being that is availed with a field of consciousness, that which one may know, physically, depends upon the quality of its shared apprehension and committment within the ground of being.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Of consciousness and unconsciousness; the animate and the inanimate

Of consciousness and unconsciousness, the living and the dead, the animate and the inanimate, the chosen and the reactive, the context and the particular:

Presumably, no mere particle or perspective of consciousness is a causal agent-in-itself to implement any change. Rather, every change in the physics that is presented in common to all is synchronized in respect of information and feedback that are contexted and accumulated from and among the empathies of every perspective of consciousness and the common Field of consciousness.

A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.

This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?

Indeed, are all of physical masses and their causative relations mere derivatives, i.e., after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics”? Is mass merely a representative of information, produced to our sensation as byproduct of inter-apprehensions among a single Field of consciousness and its particulate expressions? Are our separate identities, experiences, and decisions secondary phenomena, derivative of the capacity of a common Field of consciousness to receive and synchronize responses to empathetic feedback from many connected, coordinate, particular perspectives?

In whatever way consciousness may express itself, by what means may it exercise free will? By what means may a perspective of free will “cause” a change in the information that is appreciated within the Field of consciousness that gives constitution to our common physics? Does each episode of empathetic appreciation constitute the “choice” that each perspective of consciousness experiences? Does the way a particle or perspective of conscious free will comes to appreciate that with which it empathizes constitute its “choice” for what is fed back to the Field, which filters and synchronizes like signals from every pertinent perspective and organization of perspectives, in order to translate each sequential change in the ground of being that is presented to the appreciation of all?

Based on many-sided logic, I believe we are not here because of dumb Natural Selection among vacuous voids nor because of Intelligent Design of a remote God.  Rather, we are here in respect of Conscious Design that is unfolding in interaction with an involved Field of consciousness.  I believe no particle of consciousness is a free willing or causal agent-in-itself.  Yet, I believe conscious free will does exist, and that “I” am not IT, even though I experience free will by being bound up in appreciation of it.  I believe that is reason, properly understood, to respect a universal receptivity to empathy.  Be ye empathetic.


GOD:  Our math is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions which we mortals are able to measure, quantify, predict, or reliably or statistically replicate or manage. That meta algorithm is beyond our mortal capacities to complete or fathom. In whatever way that meta algorithm functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will to function.

What’s your faith?

What’s your faith?

Much of economic theory has devolved in respect of an imaginary world in which there was arms length competition among individual buyers and sellers. That world, if ever it existed, is become subservient to a different meme, in which oligarchs trade in the buying and selling of influence over masses, masses who have been neutered under a system that has reduced drones’ economic and political influences to pittances and delusions. Drones are becoming made to compete against the lowest common denominator of third world labor. Their currency is being manipulated that they might pay for their own neutering. Their cultural boundaries are being diversified to the point of diminishing relevance. Their mores are being made subservient to a greater good of the community, as imagined by elitists in the service of oligarchs.

In this faux “open society,” economists are bent to be apologists for masters of competing interests. Pscyho-historical analyses are made under pretense that the old economic model is still relevant. However, the world has phase-shifted, and reigning oligarchs have little interest in explaining to the common man how his trust is purposely being deluded and manipulated. No doubt, many see this, yet despair whether it would be good or possible to change it. Their dilemma becomes how to make themselves relevant or useful to the reigning paradigm.

The highest currency of the new order deals less in gold backed money than in acquiring means for the absolute manipulation of trust. Those means are to avail power: to control banking and fiat money; to entertain and manipulate psychological fashions, fads, and wants; to manipulate media dissemination of information; to “educate” the next generation; to diversify, divide, and rule the various populations and cultures; to glorify (and manipulate) social “science”; to discredit, anger, and divide traditional churches; to regulate small business people and the middle class into political and economic impotency; and to regulate the detailed behavior of every peon -- right down to his last ration for carbon credits.

What should we do? What does God want us to do? Does God desire that we should be instrumental to establish civilizations to record remembrances of decency, sustainability, purposefulness, challenge, pathos, and glory? Does God wish the sting of competition and battle, to wring out appreciation of the unexpected? Does God volunteer, through us, for lab rat duty?

I suspect evolution is considerably affected by an interpenetrating field of consciousness. I also suspect the goals of such field, while encompassing, may flux in respect of some hierarchy, sort of like Maslow’s. During the short span of recorded history, the default position of humanity seems to have been in subservience to ruling elites. Is America an aberration or a harbinger?

Is it possible to sustain a humane, challenging civilization that avails equal opportunity for freedom of expression and enterprise? Must every such society, to the extent it leads to power to utterly destroy (i.e., too much power in disparate hands of too wide a multitude), be efficiently pushed back down to a default position of mass servitude? Is the best that can be done for the masses that they be comforted in their delusions, like Temple Grandin’s cows? What’s your faith?

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Decision and Causal Agents

Decision and Causal Agents:

Mortals communicate in respect of discoverable, reliable laws for a system of physics, which regulates mathematically measureable fields and particles with regard to identity, indiscernibility, organization, form, symmetry, exclusivity, density, mass, energy, charge, potential, wave, velocity, and discrete transmutation of quanta. Trivially, the parameters for the math and the physics for that system “are what they are,” subject only to discovery and empirical confirmation. Bivalent logic can help us adduce accurate, non-contradictory measures of such aspects as are measurable. As to rigor, it has been said that “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” (Ernest Rutherford.) There is also rigor in technological, engineering, and computing applications.

However, respecting social studies, apart from lies, damn lies, and statistics, what does rigorous science, math, or logic have to do with anything very much? For non-trivial social studies (such as political science and sociology), how often are survey questions skilled to “educate” the masses to pre-contrived results? How valid is it for such non-trivial scientists to rely on bivalent logic, as opposed to many-sided logic and common sense intuition and empathy? Why suppose it essential to make a good political or military leader that he be a skilled bivalent logician? Why suppose there is only one (“either-or”) proper way to skin a cat? How much confusion is generated in trying to fit inappropriate subjects, in inappropriate ways, to bivalent logic? Simply put, bivalent logic is inappropriate to empathetic decision making: when there is to be factored a role for free will; when there is to be factored not merely a state of being, but a state of becoming; when there is to be factored the uncertain skill or power to produce a particular state (“make it so”); when there is to be factored vagueness in the description of the state of being; and when there is to be factored an uncertain range of interests, utilities, and empathies within the context of a wider community.

Consider the singular Source that underlies our state of affairs. Why suppose it must be a monad? Why suppose it must be Either unchanging Or continuously or constantly changing? Insofar as IT it beyond our comprehension, why choose to infer that it is other than a one of a kind “changeless changeling?” Why choose to suppose God to be other than dualistic, like a two sided coin, one side (Spirit) having an immeasurable capacity to appreciate and express free will, the other side (Nature) having measurably limited capacity to record sequential feedback, neither side being able to abide apart from being connected with the other? Why confuse the two or suppose that the nature of God should know in advance the choices that are to be made by the spirit of God? As God functions as a measurer, God can know what can be known; as God functions as an appreciator, God can appreciate (value, choose, reward, reinforce, diminish, punish) what can be appreciated.

In conjunctive feedback, God can learn, even though not even God need necessarily know in advance of feedback to be appreciated what choices or synchronicities in design that God will implement. That is, as Spirit, God has capacity to avail us our separate perspectives for the empathetic appreciation of feedback from choices; yet, as Nature, God has capacity to avail us our physical ground of being, which is derivative of a meta-fluxing Field or aspect of God’s nature, in respect of which Information is presented and synchronized to parameters for our interactive communication. Physics is simply Information made inanimate within a meta ground of being. Thus, there abides conscious free will, but not apart from a conscious Field that provides our ground of being.

So, by what means may a perspective of free will “cause” a change in the information that is appreciated within the field that gives constitution to our common physics? Each episode of empathetic appreciation constitutes the choice that each perspective of consciousness experiences. The way a particle or perspective of conscious free will comes to appreciate that which it so chooses to empathize with is fed back to the Field, which filters and synchronizes like signals from every pertinent perspective, in order to translate for each sequential change in the ground of being that is presented to the appreciation of all. That is, no perspective of consciousness is a causal agent-in-itself to implement any change. Rather, every change in the physics that is presented in common to all is synchronized in respect of information and feedback that are accumulated from and among the empathies of every perspective of consciousness and the common Field of consciousness.

Our brains receive synchronized instructions a split sequence before they record the manifestation (conversion to physical information) of each decision that has already been made. That is, physics and physical causation are derivatives; they are after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics.” The separateness of our identities, experiences, and decisions are secondary phenomena, being derivative of the capacity of the common Field of consciousness to receive empathetic feedback from many coordinate perspectives.