Monday, March 29, 2010


EXISTENTS: In itself, a thing may exist or it may not. Most of the particulars that we call “things” do not exist of themselves. If they have an “essential” source or basis, we cannot find or describe it. Yet, it is commonplace that we find applications for “relative things.”

THEORIES: Theories based on mathematical formulas do not exist in themselves, but in how they may be applied by consciousness. Theories express ideas with which we tinker as we grope for ways to manipulate information, as we communicate about grounds by which to pursue meaning and fulfillment. We have no guarantee that our theories will remain useful or that the very ground beneath our ideas (and our feet) will not shift or be obliterated in respect of a more powerful or intrusive synchronizer.

TWO CO-DEPENDENT EXISTENTS: To the intuition of my consciousness, there are two main existents. All other “things” seem to inferior, in that they derive from them, but neither of the two main existents seems to exist without the other. Such two existents are:

(1) Perspectives of Consciousness; and (2) A feedback Web (Field of Empathy or Meta-World-Wide-Web?) within which each and every such perspective is confined to synchronizing, limiting, mathematical parameters.

STORED MATHEMATICAL INFORMATION: Could fundamental packets of energy (or of stored energy) consist of nothing but bundles (bits?) of mathematical relations (Information), availed to interact within a web? If so, of what would such a web consist, and what sort of feedback mechanism would fire or drive the packets to interact? Must each packet interact in synchronous feedback with all others, both in particle form and in wave form, in respect of a holistic, common, outward-driving (entropic?) force field?

THINGS: But how could any “thing” be imagined or modeled to exist in nothing but packets of pure, mathematically-formulated information? How could any such a thing recognize, sense, react with, or change any other such a thing, in order to interact with it? And what would fire or drive it to do so?

META-POTENTIALS: Suppose various and similar perspectives of consciousness exist. To relate to one another, synchronously, must they somehow have parameter capacities to unlock, add to, subtract from, or reconfigure the variously stored potentials of information that we call “matter” or “particle-packets?”

INTERPRETING INFORMATION: We do not discover or change any material existent “in itself.” Rather, we discover and change stored parameters and potentials of mathematically based information, which we interpret and model as “matter.”

FIELD RE-NORMALIZATION: Somehow, the quality of observation, choice making, and feedback enjoyed by each perspective of conscious will is factored within a synchronizing web that requires re-normalizing obedience to mathematically determined limits. This process for renormalizing of feedback may be likened to respect for a web of empathy.

FIELD OF EMPATHY: Conscious Free Will is availed, subject to parameters allowed in respect of the renormalizing function of the web of empathy. A meta-field of empathy may be named or conceptualized for denoting a mystery, i.e., an unknown means by which a Source (God?) assigns parameters of free will or potential to each perspective of consciousness.

SYNCHRONIZING AND GUIDING DECISIONS: In synchronizing among all such choices made, the Field of Empathy “decides” which particular expressions or results are “most fit” for enjoying further survival and/or replication. The Field of Empathy decides which sequences should be availed, in order to pursue its unfolding quest to appreciate, communicate, and carry forward meaning, beauty, and fulfillment.

UNPREDICTABILITY OF SELF: I cannot sense, measure, or predict the math of my own perspective or exercise of Will. However, what I take to be my expression of Will may be highly predictable to units of consciousness operating from other perspectives and with greater access to information that is beyond me. And I may be able to predict the behaviors of perspectives of consciousness that are inferior to my own.

MATTER AS INTERPRETIVE BYPRODUCT: The byproduct or consequence of that predictability, at a step removed, may be what avails us to pretend to act AS IF “matter” were an existent, independent of relations among perspectives of consciousness.

LEVEL OF FACILITATION OF CONSCOUSNESS: What facilitates my sensation, interpretation, or translation of “matter” may be a Field of Empathy (Holy Ghost?), which avails my apprehensions of predictability respecting higher and lower levels of consciousness of others.

LEVELS OF RECOGNITION: Depending upon the meta level of each perspective of consciousness, and the bundles of mathematical parameters that avail feed back to its apprehension within the Field of Empathy, each perspective may to some extent recognize and communicate with others.

FELT MATTER (“INFORMATION STORED FOR SHARED ACCESS”) IS BYPRODUCT OF SHARED ILLUSION: Every perspective of consciousness entails a meta aspect, which seeks to feel, recognize, or communicate with other perspectives. All perspectives share a meta desire: that there be such laws of math for translating feelings and desires so as to facilitate recognition and communication among perspectives. There is a byproduct effect: particular perspectives operating within a web of perspectives indirectly sense the web which encompasses them by sensing appearances that feed back within it. Those “things” which we feel, perceive, and measure are symbols and storehouses for sequential communication of shared mathematical information. They are byproducts of a meta desire that is shared by each and every perspective of a Field of Conscious Empathy that has meta potential and capacity for feeling feedback.

EVOLUTION ENTAILS A STANCE, NOT A THEORY: I don't quite get how evolution is a "theory." Does it measure or predict anything, specifically? I get that it says: that which is "most fit" to survive and replicate tends over time to dominate in surviving and replicating. What I don't get is how that is much more than a tautology. After all, no matter what happens to survive and replicate, anyone who believes causation is closed to conscious will and ruled entirely by material cause and effect will simply say, "Well, that's what was most fit."

A materialist looks at material creation and says the existence of material interconnections in and of itself "proves" there is no further involvement by any creator. A believer that the universe is not closed to the influence of conscious will looks to creation in a different way. But I don't see how material loving scientists can "reasonably expect to prove" that of which they only rationalize backwards, towards what they have become prone to assume.

If conscious will exists not purely derivative of material cause and effect, then no matter how it may influence whatever patterns come to be expressed in material interactions, one can often rationalize an interpretation that suits one's purposes. One who believes Free Will is real, even if subservient to a synchronizing consciousness, can simply rationalize that whatever choices any conscious expression of will makes must work within a math that applies to all.  Alternatively, one who believes free will is purely derivative of math-ruled interactions of Matter can simply rationalize that whatever appears to constitute an expression of will is purely an illusory byproduct of material cause and effect.

If choice between such beliefs were a matter appropriate to a "scientific theory," then one or the other of such stances would be falsifiable. If neither choice of belief is falsifiable, then we are not dealing in a realm of theory, but in a realm of world view about morality. Simply put, proponents of one outlook intuit and believe there is moral responsibility for exercises of conscious will, and proponents of the other do not. As to which view one "should" have, does it not appear that materialists face a fundamental problem of cognitive dissonance?

Sunday, March 28, 2010



Christianity spread among Romans, particularly after Constantine. As Romans suffered barbarians to fill military needs, Christianity spread further. Point is, Christianity worked with what it had -- flawed, violent, terrorized people. Distinguish between God and the doctrine through which mortals seek to appreciate God. The territory is more than the map. Christianity is an evolving model. What once were called demons may now be called infections. Christianity grew while people were looking for a better spiritual philosophy for how to communicate meaningfully with one another.

The issue seems to be: are we better off today, under societies more influenced by traditions under Christianity than under Gaia-like paganism, Islam, or statism? Is this a no-brainer? Weigh a society founded on respect for thoughts and feelings of individuals versus a society founded on a notion that individuals are of no value except for serving the planet, Islam, or the State. Even were violence equal, the difference availed in respect for individual dignity would still make the comparison a no brainer.

Some believe nations that predominately availed free practice of Christianity have historically been no better for reducing violence than have nations that predominately availed practice of Islam or Marxism. History won't support that case. I understand that Christianity went through forced practice, inquisition, and hysteria about witches, etc. Yeah. Zeal for saving souls, often masquerading for zeal for asserting power and control.

During times of constant violence, terror, and wars, such zeal is more understandable. However, as violence and terror have diminished in Western societies, zeal for forcing Christianity has also moderated. Which (if either?) was cause and which was result: violence or Christianity? Has there been comparable moderation in zeal among societies founded on collectivism or Islam? I suspect main "prophets" for collectivism (Alinsky?) and Islam (OBL?) have had quite little regard for individuals or their lives. Do you see anything comparable in words directly attributed to Jesus?




Re: “ … many people continue to believe that healthy solutions to our social problems can come only from a benevolent Washington.”

Je pense que ce vin a déjà ete bu. I think this wine has been drunk before.



Our problem is more structural than just needing to throw out bum Progs. Recall the Gang of Fourteen! And there has not been much pendulum swinging since Reagan. Rather, there has been a pretty consistent push towards collectivism. Bi-political Rino and Dino financiers of Plantation Collectivism keep getting proportionately richer. Soros, Gates, Google Guys, etc. Yes, we need to dump Obamanots asap. But will that stop our drift? Hell no!

First, "Gangs of 14" will continue to be financed by those who want to rule the collective, even if most of their money suddenly sloshes towards Rinos. Second, the Left will be even more rabid and mouth foaming than they were during Bush's presidency.

So our problem is less with Big Gov than with Big Butts who own Big Gov. Electing Conservatives will not by itself change the rules of "pay to play." Just as we will not defeat the enemy that is Islamofascism until we name it, neither shall we defeat the enemy that is oligarchic ownership of the financial levers of government until we name it. The Oligarchs don't much care which party is in power, so long as they continue to be allowed to run it.

I would prefer that we most tax those who most fund politicians, on all sides of the aisle. If you want to get corrupt money out of politics, then tax the hell out of it. After all, the corruption is bi-political, and its funders don’t much dread either party. Why? Because they can always make up time with bi-political “Gangs of 14.” Corrupt financiers will bend American politics to their ends, regardless of the party that is nominally in power.

Why do the efforts of conservative Republicans always seem eventually to get trumped by “Gangs of 14”? Who really wants: universal health care run by the government, open borders, general amnesty, cap and trade, and rampant demoralization of traditional Americans and of our military? Why are we seeing a corrupt push to make anything other than p.c. out to be hate speech, racist, or misogynistic? Who is setting priorities for this corrupt agenda? Why do powers that be want to mark (indoctrinate) us, brand us (with national I.D. or implants), and saw off our horns (neuter our Second Amendment)? Why do they want to stir up and antagonize race against race, gender against gender, creed against creed, and tribe against tribe? Well, take a look sometime to learn how cattle feed lots are run.

Are Lindsey Graham and his fellow gangsters (“usual suspects”) really looking out for principles, or are things happening behind the curtain? Why have Western governments, worldwide, been turning inexorably to socialism? Is it because socialism avails more worthwhile living for the masses, or is it because a fluxing cohort of sociopaths feels richer, more secure, and more powerful under such a system?

Ever since Thatcher and Reagan, what Western State has not come under the influence of a hissing ball of bi-political, socialistic snakes, gradually co-opting parliamentary procedures while designing to divide and distract the masses with rituals as feeding time approaches?

We now have snakes that own both Rinos and Dinos, coiled around our necks, with little we can do about it. That is, unless we can find their tails in time to unwind them. These snakes are wrapped so tight around the heart of our economic system that they control how credit is pumped and created. So how can we disentangle ourselves?


BIOMETRICS: In theory, an active electronic ID card (or implant) could facilitate intriguing possibilities: Substitute biometrics for credit cards and food stamps; speed boarding times for airplanes; ensure all voters are legally qualified and only vote once; facilitate voting and shopping from your couch; protect against ID theft; track potential terrorists and sex offenders; signal location for emergency rescue; monitor whereabouts of parolees; monitor moving tendencies of persons in sensitive positions; ease census taking; keep job interviews honest; etc.

In moral theory, one must remember that (1) many Nazis were magnificent scientists and technicians; and (2) the drift to Collectivism entails a drift to aristocratic Oligarchs and reduction of masses to robo-serfs.

As knowledge and computing power increases, some such techniques may become inevitable. Before they do, I hope the human psyche will somehow become more decently civilized. Problem is, I just don't see how that's going to happen.


NATIONAL ID: I suspect we must resist being “ear tagged” with national I.D. cards. Instead, we must put “ear tags” (strict accounting metrics) on Congress critters and those who most fund them. After all, it’s government and those who most influence it that should be most transparent. No organization, union, corporation, charity, or P.A.C should be permitted to disburse political contributions except to specific candidates, and then only with specific permission from every individual contributor whose funds are so applied. A record of the identity and address of every such contributor to any aggregating organization should be required to be preserved and made subject to complete audit, long before any election.

Regarding individual contributors, beyond “x” dollars of contribution, those who pay the most to play in politics should have their personal paying ways closely monitored – perhaps with implanted bio metrics. There should be no limits on individuals’ contributions, but there should be limits on their rights to make secret political contributions.

Beyond “x” dollars spent in any way by any individual for aggrandizing political influence, such expenditures should be subject to a progressively increasing tax on consumption. Political contributions should NOT be tax free! After all, what other way is there to force the uncoiling of the ball of snakes that now finances and runs all of our relevant political parties, turning our notion of a representative republic into a farce?



1) As laws become more intrusive, it becomes easier to select and prosecute violators. A national ID card would exacerbate that problem.

2) At highest levels, it is less “the government” that controls us than those who own gov and its pols. When Dems are in power, we are governed by those who own Dems; when Repubs are in power, we are governed by those who own Repubs. To be governed under a republic, we need to reduce capacity for anyone to “own the gov.” In this age of international multi-billionaires, that is hard. Perhaps a way would be to structure taxes that impose diminishing returns for anyone who seeks to leverage political influence by expending (more like loaning) disproportionate funds. The income tax is too economically stifling and encouraging of intrusive Big Gov. What kind of tax could better reset political influence, pay down debt, and fund infrastructure without leading to so much governmental intrusiveness?

In theory, replacing income tax on individuals and corporations with a progressive consumption tax levied only on individuals may accomplish such purposes.

In practice, implementing such tax would require means for collecting accurate annual information for each taxable episode of consumption. It would require something like bio-metric implants. We readily see evil in that.

Problem is, we also readily see evil in failing to reduce ability of oligarchs to buy government – regardless of whether the reigning party claims to be Dem or Repub.

Is there an alternative, better than choosing lesser of evils?

On one hand, a progressive consumption tax seems impractical. On the other hand, it has become a charade to think we retain influence over pols so long as there is so much money sloshed around by billionaires. (When gov does what its owners want, notwithstanding the will of a large and clear majority, something is amiss.) Impractical versus Charade: which to choose?

Problem: Implanting bio devices may facilitate rule of billionaires, rather than facilitate their being more progressively taxed.

Result: Concern is defined, but solution is not apparent.



Perpetual struggle proceeds, between forces for individualism (small or inadequate government) versus forces for collectivism (big or intrusive government). As compromise proceeds under sponsorship of government, the trend is to increase size and intrusiveness of government. As individual freedom declines, it becomes natural that the elite and sleek should seek to rule the meek and weak.

Thus society becomes hierarchical, making it seem some should be servants. As technology enhances means for exerting control, needs for middle managers lessen. The hierarchy flattens, so that a chasm separates rulers from the ruled. As government twists to defend that chasm, rulers become an entrenched, inbred, and aristocratic oligarchy -- which applies tax incentives to all institutions that can be shaped to defend it, including institutions of media, academia, legislation, and courts.

Then such institutions deprive counter corporations, unions, and organizations from sources of energy. Thus forms a social Frankenstein, i.e., an inbred system for defending glandular tickles for a select few. Eventually, this system falls of its own depravity, but not until it has imposed horrendous suffering and insult to the freedom and dignity of individuals.

A republic that would preserve liberty must fashion and respect ways for stopping intrusions, not for compromising with them. Collectivists must be defeated, for many simply cannot be won over with reason. To defeat (or even reverse) invidious drifts to collectivist fascism, Conservers must not allow themselves or their culture to be overrun with divisive, corroding, or inassimilable cultures. Rather, Conservers must take care to defend and teach, as handed down from higher Source, an assimilating philosophy based on empathetic, good-faith respect for freedom and dignity.

In short, diversity merely for sake of diversity is devil’s handmaiden for undermining liberty wherever it may be found. Nor is diversity for its own sake what ruling oligarchs want. What they really want is a divided, easily misled, easily lied to plantation of serfs. Sadly, diverse distinctions between serfs are distinctions that do not make much difference. Non-collectivists of America: Wake up!



The Senate never confirmed Bolton as U.N. Ambassador. Obviously, Bolton simply had too much common sense to suit the Senate's taste. Rest assured that when Conservatives reassert supervision in 2012, the problem of adolescents wanting to burn down the house will not have subsided. Rather, those who stir up these people will have to be soundly defeated, for there is no reasoning with them.

This is not just a problem of mal-education. We have been overtaken by grossly disproportionate political influencers, sloshing about financially, behind the scenes. We are going to have to cause disproportionate purchases of political influence to be progressively taxed to a point of diminishing returns. As things stand, billions (if not trillions) in profits beckon those with means and nerve for undermining our political system in order to canibalize and sell out our infrastructure. Those on the other side of the chasm of wealth are bi-political opportunists, with no loyalty to America, her traditions, or her founding principles. While money freaks, America sinks.

Useful idiots tend to think the sheer brilliance of the Progressive philosophy is enough to sell it to all but the most benighted. Eventually, they realize that most people are "too simple" to appreciate the brilliance. So they come to justify forcing their brilliance upon the rest of us, for our own good, don'cha know. Sort of like Mohammad's insight: use the sword where necessary to force conversion and acts of obeisance, then hearts and minds will follow. So Alinsky, Obama, Whackjob, and Mohammad share a trait: they all have our best interests at heart. You see, they have to kill our minds in order to save them.

Finally comes the day when even useful idiots realize that, hey, this is kind of oppressive. Problem is, at that point, most people will be too terrified to be first to say what most sane people know. Problem also is, once you have a collectivist, repressive society run by "those who know best," there will never occur an "aha moment" when all the people realize all at once that, hey, this is a steaming pile of crap. Once collectivism takes over, you can never be sure that there isn't a loose nutjob in the room. Currently, Progs "key" cars; commies harvest organs, and jihadis saw off heads. As alliances and terrors reshape, it may come to pass that jihadis will key cars, Progs will harvest organs, and Commies will saw off heads. Ah, the humanity when a loving God is ignored. Yup, we have it in us to save ourselves. Sure we do. (sarc)


FROM A.T. -- JenM said, "The huge elephant in the room is … the financial powers that be … calling the shots …Why is there NO reform?”

“You can't address problems with government without addressing the fact that government is joined at the hip to the financial powers that be. It is this oligarchy who is collectively driving our economy off the cliff.”

“How can people not see this happening?”

Yup. Rotten money is on both sides of the political equation – Rino and Dino. Half an attempt was made to address that concern, with McCain-Feingold. That made matters worse. Restricting Americans in how they fund campaigns comes too close to restricting freedom of speech.

Howevuh ! -- Campaign funding is liquidated; everyone knows most people expect to get something from contributions; and such contributions are a kind of consumption (purchase of an expectancy). Such "consumption" needs to be taxed, progressively heavier. Such "consumption" should not be allowed at all by non-American interests, foreign entities, or international corporations. We are going to have to preserve recognizable and enforceable boundaries for how money buys influence in our politics.

Problem -- those holding disproportionate power for twisting politics will not surrender it easily. Hirelings will argue that it should not be attempted to reduce the power of moneyed elites. But failing will make a borderless NWO impossible to avoid. That NWO will consist of territories not of land but of organizations, corporations, and unions. That NWO will preserve fiefdoms of elite, moneyed interests and establish a chasm too wide for most middle class people to hope to cross.

International Unionist Dinos and Corporatist Rinos are heads of a single two-headed Medusa. Rinos and Dinos both seek to establish, whether wittingly or not, a NWO that will sell out middle-class freedom and dignity in exchange for soul-deadening conformity, security, and regulated orderliness. The monster (JenM’s elephant) that is always ignored is the one that says that disproportionate political influence of wealthy and connected elites cannot possibly be reasonably taxed or reduced. The truth is, it must be reduced, else the notion of a Republic for preserving individual freedom and dignity will be sunk.



Each generation has found its artists for pushing new art that pushes new boundaries. But what art is there to rap, other than pushing boundaries for the sake of pushing boundaries? Once all written lines are obscured and all boundaries are ignored, how can any new definitions be pushed? How can there be meaningful communication beyond numbness? What is unbounded numbness, if not a contagion for nihilism?

Miscellany - Conservative Values

CONSERVATISM: The Conservative position is consistent with appreciation that there is no heaven in materialism or on earth, but only a right and opportunity to pursue meaningful fulfillment and communication by exchanging signs in the empirical language of materialism. Collectivists are impatient with such a position, and believe there is no heaven hereafter, but that a worthwhile substitute could be fashioned of material on earth if only Conservatives did not stand in the way and were more accepting of elitist interpretations of “science.” Collectivists believe that what we communicate in signs of matter is far less important than that material goods be distributed “equally.”

All Collectivists’ sciences of political, social, and economic character are balanced on a single improvable axiom, which they take on faith as true: that all that is meaningful and worthwhile is and should be reducible to purely materialist interpretation. Most Conservatives of practical experience know: that axiom has oft led to bitter depravities against human beings on massive scales.

Even when Collectivists disavow Christianity, their views tend to be based on Christian tenets as seen through only a materialist lens. The difference is this: Conservative Christians do not view Jesus’ words through only a materialist lens.

So Conservatives tend to be adults who have considerable but imperfect experience being responsible, while Collectivists tend to be their overly protected and poorly raised children -- always and forever knowing so much that simply is not so. Of course, anyone who knows so much based on so little experience tends to become only a habituated and incorrigible whelp – even into old age.

Unfortunately, we have lovingly raised whelps to irresponsible heights. Now they have coalesced, to a height for breaking all dams of caution and responsibility. Unless Conservatives reassert adult supervision, the deluge cometh … soon.

In short, Conservatives wish NOT to impose “Dominionism” or theocracy (or faux-elitist science-ocracy). We wish not to impose anything, except only to inspire, check, and defend this: that better aspects of our character should teach and motivate us to protect our society from unwise, meddlesome, governmental intrusions – whether in good faith or not. We do not wish unwarranted dominion over others, but only warranted dominion over ourselves.


SOCIALIST CONSPIRACY: From A.T. -- Re: "In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk."

Astonishing! How easy it is to be a tyrant and yet dream oneself as "good." It's the difference between being satisfied to serve God versus wanting to be God; it's the difference between day and night. It's the allying between deceivers and the easily deceived in order to reduce decent, ordinary people to the whims of despots. No wonder this information never sees the light of day in most of the propaganda put out by modern institutions of "education."


SOCIALIST WAR: At a level above most participants’ heads, there is a three-sided, meta WAR. Within its three sides, troops consist of: SIDE ONE: Americans (in their hearts) -- people dedicated to preserving individual freedom of conscience, expression, and enterprise; SIDE TWO: Anti-Americans -- people dedicated to statist oversight and collectivist solutions in all things; and SIDE THREE: Faith Enforcers -- people dedicated to subjugating us in all things to the control of a hierarchy of earthly stand-ins for God. Obviously, Sides Two and Three align for reducing individual dignity and initiative, and they appeal to persons who do not value or want individual freedom or the responsibility that goes with it. That is, their base of appeal is to voters who consist of: hyphenated minorities; mal-educated youth; border jumpers; character-challenged law breakers; easily-bribed entitlement mongers; and those who sense opportunity in molding such a base of disloyal, otherwise unassimilated derelicts.

So how does one become inclined or molded to any one of these three sides? I suspect people above the norm -- in talent, empathy, intuition, insight, inventiveness, creativity, initiative, or energy -- incline to Side One, at least for themselves. However, they may falsely profess admiration for Sides Two or Three, if they calculate that will leverage their own positions. In other words, gliding within the three-sided mix are creatures of little loyalty to any belief system or set of moral principles, apart from their own aggrandizement, who take on whatever ideological shape (shape shifters, such as Stupak) they perceive to be most advantageous under any given circumstances.

Perhaps the only way a society can protect against such amoral opportunists is to try to inculcate them with a spiritual or religious sense of empathy for fellows of their country, tribe, creed, or cult. One can try to do that by appealing to reason or by deploying brute behavioral conditioning. Unfortunately, trying to apply material-based reasoning to spiritual-based morality is a dicey proposition. Simply put, our philosophers, scientists, artists, and theologians are not yet that enlightened. So the default strategy, throughout history, has been to deploy force of conditioning – to bend us to say “Uncle” to despots. This is done with carrots and sticks, wielded by powers that be. Such carrots and sticks are applied to all things: economic favoritism, physical policing, and mind melding, aka, “education.”

I suspect there IS a higher way to apply reason to morality. But finding that way is tough slogging. Especially in the face of “education” that is driven to serve Sides Two and Three. But if we fail to find that way, or AT LEAST to preserve respect for the possibility, then I do not think Side One has much chance to be long for this world.


Every carrot and stick Obamanots deploy is calculated to push us towards Collectivism. And a lot of the carrots are in the vein of: don't cross me and I'll loosen my choke cutting off blood to your veins (or water to your California fields). These people will, when they see the opportunity, move to put the choke on lifelines. Leave it to Chicago thugs to remind us why control is so valuable. Worldwide, we are seeing territories syndicated out to local ruling thugs: Russia; Iran; now the U.S. ...

These people will do neither good nor evil, except that they will readily do either or both in order to enhance the control and survival of their international crime syndicated corporations.

Regarding (1) private Capitalism with charity versus (2) governmental Collectivism with enforced wealth spreading: Were we more united in good faith and good will, could either work as well as the other?

No! If force were used, it would be because force was required. By definition, force is not required for charity. By historical experience with the human element, both organized collectivism and organized crime spread poverty and misery, not wealth and health. Ordinary people of good will have wrongly projected, believing sociopaths who have flourished in depravities of Chicago, San Francisco, and Las Vegas are also people of good will. Big mistake.

Were we a nation not filled with zombies, I would not fear a health bill so much. With this regime of zombies (Olbermann!), however, I fear anything they do. Everything they do is to serve unseen masters. It has to be, because they don't give a Twinkie about what the ordinary Americans who have fought to defend freedom think.


NATIONAL DEBT: The Legislative tsunami of debt that we are seeing is not intended to improve the lives of ordinary people, but to reduce the influence of the middle and professional class to nil. Obama is happy because misery loves company, and his constituency of derelicts love to be miserable. The Oligarchs are using classic pincer tactics: appeal to the ignorant with cheap entitlement promises, and appeal to conservatives with false notions of free trade for bleeding American infrastructure and industrial capability. Classic propaganda against the ignorant and the wannabes.


OBAMACARE: Three things: Make health insurance (1) portable and (2) competitive across state lines and (3) protect it from trumped up malpractice claims. Then simply continue to require E.R.'s to provide emergency kinds of care. End of any legitimate Fed interest. Why was this not done? Because power mongers and their front men want to "change" America. That is, they want to cannibalize America and sell it off for change. Ca-ching. They're allowing petty looters to run wild so they can engage in big time looting behind the curtain. They see your pain the same way malpractice attorneys do: as opportunity for big bucks. In their minds, America is evil. So why not make some big bucks while pushing her face in the mud?


Congress: The Hollow Men --

More like a Declaration of Volunteering for Slavery. There is neither “free enterprise” nor “social justice” when an economic and social system allows an international wolfpack of alpha billionaires to come to employ faux-men to finagle the laws of each State in order to fashion harnesses (for those who are to be lured to vote for their own enslavement to perpetual shearing) by overtaking all available institutions for propagating false premises and cynical promises.

Rather, there is treasonous and tyrannical reduction of the dignity of the mass of humanity. So, now we are left to fuss over our places in the shearing line. O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! So Sorosed the Nance and the Obey.


FAUX SCIENCE OF SOCIALISTS: In communicating and assimilating about that which we "should" be doing, I don't think we get very far by restricting ourselves to only that which can be empirically or logically demonstrated. Do not our fundamental notions about economic, law-abiding, and moral behavior turn largely on notions of "free will?" How much of economics and law are based on what “should” be expected of an (imagined) ordinary consumer or reasonable man, as guided by an Invisible Hand, Categorical Imperative, or higher Author of moral sentiments? Does not free will turn largely on intuition, insight, empathy, and acculturated taste? After all, how many significant, day to day decisions does anyone really make based to any considerable extent on "the scientific method?" Don't we instead tinker, to see what tends to get rewarded, and then rationalize backwards, after the fact? So, what guides our tinkering?

We often deem it advisable to reduce our receptivity to guidance about moral choices availed within Beingness through various lenses -- sometimes rather narrow lenses or “schools,” such as schools for Marxism, empiricism, or such formulas as may generally be exposited by elites. It often becomes practical for one to favor one school over others. But for government to force a single school on an entire populace is despotic.

The West may not yet have become despotic, but free interchange of ideas among various schools of thought has been largely eroded and monopolized. The upshot is that minds of coming generations are not filled with force-fed ideas that are wrong-headed, but with monopoly-fed ideas that are wrong-headed. The very Marxists who hate private manufacturing monopolies have fashioned for us a Marxist, government-run monopoly on the interchange of information, moral opinions, and ideologies in nearly all our educational institutions – all the way from pre-school through post doc. If this is not despotic, it is a virtual twin.



FROM A.T. --- Well, Hoven's predictions follow a recipe -- Recipe For Reducing World To Mushroom Smurfs:

1) Join with those who forsake all ethics, to trade for power to intimidate and control all others.

2) Recruit, and establish a network of, criminal minded abettors.

3) Among elite abettors who otherwise may be uncomfortable with the morality of your efforts, promote faux-philosophies of ethics, science, and economics that make it easier to rationalize the imposition of worldwide serfdom.

4) Falsely promise the poor with redistribution of wealth from the rich, while intending all along simply to reduce the middle class.

5) Misdirect the middle class to believe they are being prepped for fairness, not serfdom.

6) Stir up internal discontent, division, and dis-assimilation among all except one’s morally compromised cohort.

7) Propagate distrust of traditional authorities and values, and back such distrust up with “progressive science.”

8) Become a better actor than actors: adopt a cynical, sincere, flattering, deceitful, ambiguous demeanor, which can be all things to all people and never pinned down until after each step necessary to establish control has been achieved.

9) Aggrandize control over fellow actors, media, and academia, and use such control to establish a formidable political base, by hoodwinking the youthful, needy, gullible, cheaply corrupted, and ignorant.

10) Consolidate power by acquiring means to control and distribute fiat money, to use to bribe serfs with treasury promises, which are to be paid for by mortgaging serfs’ futures. IOW, help the little people by giving them shovels to dig their own graves.

11) Use such mortgages to dole out bonuses to criminal-minded abettors.

12) Join internationalist corporatists bent on undermining the boundaries of every nation that promotes individual liberty.

13) Continue thereafter to nurture populations like mushrooms: in the dark, and fed with b.s.

14) Serve with a cold, no drama heart.


LIKELIHOOD OF REELECTING OBAMA: I would like to think that Obama's foreign adventures will bring him down. But I doubt they will. There is a perverse, wilful ignorance that controls many liberals' brains, to such a point that they believe it ony fair that other nations should be entitled to have nukes. Since, after all, America has nukes. So Obama's base will necessarily be quick to forsake Israel. They won't admit to a lack of principle or courage. They will instead rationalize that it is Israel's fault. Indeed, if Whackjob demanded, they would find reason to surrender their mothers. So they won't care that Iran acquires or spreads nukes. And Iran will be smart enough to wait until Obama is reelected before Whackjob engages in gross adventurism. The cold factions that control the Dem base do not have the moral fiber to stop America's decline, even if they had the desire (which they do not). So we are not going to get free of Obamanism by his base suddenly finding its senses. We are going to have to depose the Obamaknots notwithstanding their base. To get the will to do that, we are going to have to see more clearly what is at stake. And I don't think enough of us yet see. Regardless, we need to stay cool, alert, rational, committed ... and ready.

THE OBAMA ZONE: Speaking of The Obama Zone, we sure do love that Obama!


Obama appeals to the worst in people, i.e., the willingness to steal from others. Once this base is assimilated into a monolith, what will appeal to it will be corruption, not reason or virtue. Some think it an exaggeration to believe Obama will not take whatever steps he perceives to be necessary or feasible to enlarge his base. They are about as wrong as they could be!

Obama's base consists of: hyphenated people who do not want to be considered simply as Americans, not until America is turned upside down; felons; border jumpers; misled youth; and sell outs. Now, consider the kind of person or party that makes it a point to appeal to that kind of base: Would such people hesitate to use any means to achieve their ends, if they calculated they could get away with it? Not on your life! To any clear headed thinker, the stakes we face are just about as high as they can get.



FROM A.T.-- Re: "What is needed is not a return to Christianity but a return to capitalism."

Well, how will we convince the DCPD, i.e., Derelict Coalition of Parasitic Dems (entitlement mongers, border jumpers, and law-obedience challenged), that they "should" do any such a thing? If you're happy surrendering responsibility to the collective, and you have not undertaken to support any dependents of your own, then why "should" you change -- even if those adults who nourish you do become poorer? Until working adults are as poor as you and have no more wool to be shorn, then you can always just agitate for more. After all, what parasite leaves its host until it is dead?

So how is a mere appeal to capitalism going to prevent or cure those grown accustomed to the parasitic life? I don't think a return to fundamentalism is especially needed. But more respect for those who strive to be decent agents of the "body of God" would help. I doubt we will be able to preserve or defend decent society if we persist much longer in disrespecting those who advocate that there is a Source that encourages us to be decent. In disrespecting the good will of good faith believers, we are burying ourselves. No doubt, Marxists are happy to help bury every decent faith. Why do you suppose that it?



FROM A.T. -- Gleend1 noted, " This does not mean a 'return' to Christianity is the answer. One of the prime reasons that the cause of liberty has been able to be defeated by these charlatans is because of conservative's positioning Judeo-Christianity as core to being free, which simply isn't true. Classical liberalism arose in opposition to the authoritarian political structures of religion and the aristocracy. It's principles are independent of Christianity. If those who defend liberty would set aside their imposition of religious values into this debate, and simply rely on Natural Rights and liberty, the argument would be much more compelling. Whether conservatives like it or not, many Americans aren't in agreement about the evangelical/fundamentalist view of Christianity (a 20% minority of the population). This risks the cause of liberty, which has much broader political support."


Well, how much of the struggle against Christianity is really necessary to protect against "Christian abuses?" Why presume, if Christianity as it is taught seems antithetical to reason or science, that Christianity cannot grow in its moral interpretations, just as science has grown in its empirical interpretations? If you do not want Christians going to churches to reinforce non-government imposed community good-will, where "should" they go? To the Church of Scientific Morality?

For every biblical overstep in the empirical sciences, I suspect there has been a militant, human-secularist overstep in philosophy and the humanities. How often do scientists purport to know better than everyone else, and then end up being shown to have known things that just weren't so? Did not the French revolution center on the cause of liberty independent of Christianity? I'm not sure that worked out so well.

At a time when American values are dis-assimilating and multi culti is running rampant, it seems to me that atheists' fixations on reducing and cornering Christianity are a bit misdirecting and counterproductive.


LIVING WORD: From A.T. – Thunderthudd noted, "And Jesus answered, "Seek not the law in your scriptures, for the law is life, whereas the scripture is dead. I tell you truly, Moses received not his laws from God in writing, but through the living Word. The law is living Word of living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life is the law written. You find it in the grass, in the tree, in the river, in the mountain, in the birds of heaven, in the fishes of the sea; but seek it chiefly in yourselves."

Re: the living Word (or living information) -- My working hypothesis or notion is that matter, ultimately, is "nothing but" stored Information, i.e., byproduct of shared feedback and intercommunications among our perspectives of consciousness, between ourselves and a holistic Reconciler. Seems to make as much sense about Reality as the "nothing buttery" notion of materialists (that everything is reducible to nothing but stored Energy).


EDUCATIONAL DISADVANTAGES OF HISPANIC MINORITIES: Has anyone considered whether the problem is related to cultural disinclination to excel above family or to assimilate as un-hyphenated Americans?


ISLAMOFASCISM: Although there have been ruthless Christian inquisitors in bygone eras, I don't see many of the modern world being abused because of Christian chauvinism. (I don't view proclivities of priests for finding cover for abuses of pedophilia to be part of Christian doctrine; those people would be abusive regardless of chosen trade.) But I do see a frightful amount of abuse that is actively and explicitly encouraged under Islamic doctrine and practice: beheadings, terror, women treated as second class citizens, primitive sex disfigurings, utter contempt for freedom of thought. On the other hand, I do see a lot of people being helped because of Christian charity and assistance. Certainly, a lot more than are helped by Marxist run charities or by governments run aground under socialism or "scientific management by elites." Lol.


CHRISTIAN VALUES: FROM A.T. -- Re: "I'll start believing that Judeo-Christian values are better than my own once the Church lets my Mom receive communion for divorcing, when priests stop feeling the need to sodomize and destroy children, when the church stops trying to get me to pay 'tithings' (taxes) based on her income, and those that choose to believe act like people like me 'owe them a debt' simply because they go to church, as this article seems to imply."

Well, it is likely that most of your better values ARE little different from Judeo-Christian values. Insofar as your values are largely the same, it's no good to think yours are better. You are confusing or neglecting two aspects. First, an organization is not a particular person, and values speak to persons. Second, without instruction in values, why expect people would be better? Religion is not a substitute for values. But when approached in good faith and good will, it can enhance values.

Obviously, when religion is approached in bad faith and twisted to facilitate corrupt pleasures, organized religion, like any other niche, can attract predators. Predators come to where the prey are. But so long as the goal is pursuit of empathetic fulfillment, in that pursuit, God is not defective; rather, it is we who often fall short, both individually and in the shallow purposes for which we organize.

Organized religion may be like a parent. Some are usually good; some are often bad. For children, this is cause for angst. As children grow and somehow remain receptive to a higher good, they have a better chance to find ways to avoid or defeat predators ... and to try not to become corrupt predators themselves.



FROM A.T. -- antihumanist said, "Over the past 50 or so years, simple secularism has transformed into a full-fledged humanistic rejection of all things religious."


Yes! Militant atheists seem to have taken over the atheistic agenda, much as welfare statists have taken over the Democrat party. (I was listening to M. Medved on the way home tonight. In gist, he thought it moronic to consider those who are trying to change America into a welfare state like Canada as being evil. That has a superficial appeal. What he failed to note is that Dems, contrary to a large opposing majority and their own constituencies, are FORCING such a welfare state upon us. That, IMHO, is evil, and I see no likely end to that evil forcing anytime soon. IMO, militant atheists may as well be working hand in glove with Dem radicals.)



FROM A.T. -- Sg noted, "Have you heard CS Lewis' trilemma? And if the truth has an intrinsic value, we should ask are Christians following a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. This should come before we accept its benefits on society."

Well, there may be good arguments for Christianity, and C.S. Lewis was brilliant, but I have never apprehended how the trilemma is much help for a reasoning soul. I suggest this without needing to commit to whether Jesus was an historical personage or an amalgamation of ideas. Even were the historical explanation an amalgamation of ideas, the ideas were inspired. So go directly to the trilemma in itself and ask: Is it better considered a quad-(di)lemma? Isn't there a fourth possibility?

Set aside for a moment the issue of whether the person or group of persons who propagated the Christian message were fair minded or competent enough to know the full power of their words, and ask: Don't we every day see a person tell a white lie? If you sensed there is a higher power, and you were dissatisfied with depravities being acted out all around you, and you intuited that many among those depraved persons could be inspired to lead a more decently civilized life by propagating a figurative truth as if it were literal, then would you assist in the propagation? If leader(s) from a time past had already done so, then would you continue the propagation, regardless of whether or not you could know the literal truth?

If the trilemma were a sufficient guide for reasoning, one could use the same technique to ask: Was Mohammed a liar, a lunatic, or a messenger for the Lord. (Well, we each have our notions about that.)

I don't know the answer. But I am safe that “In the beginning was the Word [meaningful symbolism], and the Word was with God [Consciousness], and the Word was God.” John 1:1.

I also think so-called atheists tend to deceive themselves about just how atheistic they really are. Even if they suppose the material physics of our universe is closed to any higher influence from the conscious exercise of free will, they have no way to pierce either the logic of Godel or the material beginning of our universe. Succinctly, if something beyond our notion of matter could account for our beginning, then we have no power to know that such Something is no longer with us. Insofar as IT seeks to guide us, and even atheists try to be guided in their morality by Something, I think they strain too much at a gnat, a gnat they believe supports scientific posturing for hoping to answer all issues with material empiricism, and thereby they pass a camel.


JCS noted,

"The great flaw in your argument, as well as the flaw in the goals of the elites, is that once they have eliminated Christianity both as a faith and a tradition, they will be left with a society unable to sustain itself. Secularism, as well as atheism are self defeating. The wealth of the world is based on the success of the United States. It is fundamental to understand that Christianity is a Faith, not a social structure. That social structure is merely a by-product of Faith. Look to Europe to see this same transition further down the path."

I agree that the way of promoting the Self or the State over the Source of Consciousness is the way to madness and un-sustainability. IMHO.

BTW, when I offered "white lie" as a fourth choice to the trilemma, I should probably have clarified the reason for the "white lie," to explain why it may qualify as a fourth choice. The reason is because such a white lie is less a lie than an aspect of our situation -- that we have no choice but to make judgments about choices and tastes, even in the many areas in which we cannot have knowledge.

That is, it can be hard to "lie" about that which you cannot know. But you can believe, and you can illuminate your belief system with figurative language.

As to being a liar, lunatic, or Son of God, the fourth alternative would be that Jesus (and perhaps many others who have died on a cross or something like a cross for their beliefs or for the purpose of trying to help improve the lot of the rest of us) in fact believed Himself to be a powerful instrument of God (more fully so than others). It is this kind of good faith belief that I would consider a fourth choice, which I would not put under the category of either liar or lunatic.

Bottom line: Regardless, I find it not unreasonable to believe in a God who has illuminated or presented His guidance through vehicles and personages such as Jesus.



Speaking of lumps: Many believers disdain fundamentalist certainty, especially the sawing off heads kind. We don't see God as wanting to micromanage every peccadillo. We prefer the idea of "come, let us reason together;" we appreciate the wonder in that each of us is different, and should be free to be so; we think Something does guide each of us, but that each of us should be encouraged, in good faith, to interpret that Guide for him or her self.

The problem of faith is to avoid being blinded by the light. I think that is better done without asserting that there is no Source of moral light. I don't see the solution as trying to lead people away from faith in a Source of morality. Well, actually, I don't see any "solution." What I see is a decent strategy for coping.

All the best.


“TIRESOME”: No American should any more be expected or required to decline to assert moral rights and responsibilities (against partial birth abortion, for goodness sakes!) under God than should any American renounce rights and responsibilities under our Declaration of Independence.

However much that may be “tiresome,” such claims should not be renounced under boot of persuasion of any despot – whether the source of despotism be the boot of a priest asserting divine authority over the laity or the boot of a “scientific” elite asserting superior moral knowledge over the general polity.



FROM A.T. -- Joeblough said: “I don't wish to take the "human" out of it. My interest is in the consciousness of people ….”

Fair enough. My thought was that consciousness evolves in how and with what forms it communicates. I don’t try to find “soul” restricted to the human form. As I recall, there is an article online (called “the ghost in the machine”?) that fairly dispenses with any argument that tries to attribute some universal constancy to the human form. What it does not dispense with is the problem of consciousness.

“We've barely got a working definition of what conscious is, much less how it works or comes to be.”

“The Atheist and the God Particle” could facilitate movement towards common terminology by which to discuss aspects of consciousness, awareness, and free will.

“For you to say God in this context is, as I indicate above, the natural next thing for a believer to say.”

Indeed. If Consciousness may exist as a cohering field, and is shown potent to function in ways not entirely explicable or reducible to material cause and effect, then why suppose there is potentially a better name that “morally should” be recommended for such a “conscious functionality” than “God?” Why tiptoe?


Joeblough said: “I won't argue, past pointing out that one can say that with equal justice about anything that happens outside the realm of human choice.”

Well, I agree this much:

For one’s initial (and thus improvable, as well as statistically incalculable) axioms, one may model Reality and Meta Reality in various ways, with no necessary changes or effects on what is measureable, determinable, or replicable under such axioms. For examples: One person may model as if all of apparent Reality is derivative of nothing but relations among physically inanimate potentials for energy; a second person may model as if all of apparent Reality is derivative of artifices for storing information for communication among compatible perspectives operating within a field of pure consciousness.

The initial model need make no difference in the derivative consistency of one’s mathematical measurements of all apparent relations. But there would be one major difference: The first model does not avail an inspiring or consistent notion of free will and moral empathy, but the second model does. If human decency and morality are considered important and real (not mere zombie-fied epiphenomena), then the first model does not facilitate respect for that, but the second does.

In the second model, different varieties of presentations of Matter may (?) even be considered as nothing more than forms of Information that are stored for the potential unlocking by, and accessibility to, those perspectives of consciousness that happen to resonate to share a frequency for being receptive to such information. In this model, the main feedback for consciousness could be considered to exist between each particular perspective of consciousness and the whole field of consciousness, so that each particular perspective is always synchronized with the general field. “Nature” becomes pure mathematics, with only one added ingredient: Consciousness.


Joeblough indicated:
… I can't tell whether you mean "why" in:

Well, take the “human” out of it. What I mean to ask is: Why is the need for morality implicit in the nature of consciousness? You may say (“just so”): “Well, that is just the way consciousness works.” To which I would ask: How do you get a situation where “that is just the way consciousness works” from dumb particles? Well, as to “self evidence” about that, you’ll get no quarrel from me.

I would add: The aspect of consciousness that allows it to function in that way is what I would term, or believe, to be a (self evident) function of “God.” That function is, as at least so far, not explicable from any cause-effect analysis based on inanimate matter.

Now, you may believe or take it on faith that further study of cause-effect relations will eventually “reduce” the issue. I don’t happen to share that belief, nor do I find any logical reason to share that belief. Further, I think that belief is more corrosive to civilizing values than mine. That I cannot prove. It’s simply my take on history.

Of course, you may say, “Well, history shows great, unreasonable and horrific suffering has been imposed on account of organized religions.” To which I would say: Show me a better civilizing alternative. IOW, but for going through stages of evolving, organized religion, where would we be now, in respect of decent, civilizing values?

Aside from that, there’s a personal, contextual, feedback situation. In a way, our wider context “speaks” to us. Of course, it does not use a voicebox or human language. But your conscious empathy to it leads you to enjoy, suffer through, appreciate, and make moral choices all along the path of your beingness. You won’t get a machine that will be able to enjoy that feedback relationship with beingness. But if you act as if you expect to, and as if there is nothing special or wonderful about consciousness, then it more easily becomes “scientific” to be willing to conduct vast experiments on human beings, does it not? Of course, that is MHO.


Re: The ubiquity of moral codes such as the Ten Commandments. Well, of course! Insofar as God is implicit in the consciousness of which each of us is but a perspective, why should anyone expect a contrary result? Now, that may discredit any one religion’s claim to the sole path to a relationship with God. But it has no logical way to discredit God him-her-self.

Re: Tired of “God stuff.” Well, some folks happen to think it is a good, decent, civilizing thing to have forums in which to communicate feedback about attitudes of mutual appreciation for our shared beingness within a realm of Consciousness. They don’t find that to be unreasonable or unenlightening. And maybe they resent just a wee bit some of the rampant, chauvinistic, know-it-all-ness of “scientists” now intruding into, reducing, or “walling off” issues of morality, as if “scientific expertise” should make them the better or exclusive stewards of that. Sure, I don’t relish priests being overly intrusive into private affairs. For all the more reason, I don’t relish priests being replaced in that function by elites.

Re: “It just doesn’t help you to build on your knowledge much.” See, that’s the thing. Are you implying science is going to “build on our knowledge” to reduce out to us rubes what is morally best for us?

Re: “Lumping us together”: Amen. Let’s make that motion mutual.


Joeblough said: “Re: "reducing" things - we may find testable physics/chemistry explanations, we may not.”

Well, I am quite sure we will. I just don’t think what we find will close physics to exclude free will.

“Re: “Lumping us together” – I think you’re agreeing with me. At least I hope so.”

Yes, I agree that give and take between good faith thinkers should be respected, not ad hom lumped together.

COMMENT: Your default position appears to be one of scientific skepticism. That is a vital and admirable trait -- in its proper place. The problem is to appreciate limits of skepticism. In most moral choices, we have no choice but to make choices. There is not time, data, or skill to know to make the “correct” moral choice. There is, however, the matter of acquired taste (or, in your analogy, appreciation of music). Wittgenstein said,

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Wrong. Whereof one cannot speak, one may endeavor either to make music or noise. Then the question is not who is right, but who shall seek meaning. Wherein lies your muse, there is your meaning. I just happen to spell muse with a capital “M.”


CHOICE OF AXIOMS: If Consciousness may exist as a cohering field, and is shown potent to function in ways not entirely explicable or reducible to material cause and effect, then why suppose there is potentially a better name that “morally should” be recommended for such a “conscious functionality” (or “functionality of consciousness,” or “feedback author of otherwise undetermined choices”) than “God?”

For one’s initial (and thus improvable, as well as statistically incalculable) axioms, one may model Reality and Meta Reality in various ways, with no necessary changes or effects on what is measureable, determinable, or replicable under such axioms. For examples: One person may model as if all of apparent Reality is derivative of nothing but relations among physically inanimate potentials for energy; a second person may model as if all of apparent Reality is derivative of artifices for storing information for communication among compatible perspectives operating within a field of pure consciousness.

The initial model need make no difference in the derivative consistency of one’s mathematical measurements of all apparent relations. But there would be one major difference: The first model does not avail an inspiring or consistent notion of free will and moral empathy, but the second model does. If human decency and morality are considered important and real (not mere zombie-fied epiphenomena), then the first model does not facilitate respect for that, but the second does.

In the second model, different varieties of presentations of Matter could be considered as nothing more than forms of Information that are stored for the potential unlocking by, and accessibility to, those perspectives of consciousness that happen to resonate to share a frequency for being receptive to such information. In this model, the main feedback for consciousness could be considered to exist between each particular perspective of consciousness and the whole field of consciousness, so that each particular perspective is always synchronized with the general field.

Consider some possible concerns of a skeptic, concerning the potential power of a cluster or number of particular perspectives within an entire field of consciousness: Must not some kinds of laws of Nature limit its power? (Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift, etc.) Well, suppose a particular perspective were conferred a power of mind suggestion, or telepathy. Would even documented instances of telepathy ever convince a practiced skeptic of any higher power of synchronizing consciousness? No! For at least two reasons:

Firstly, if any such instances of telepathy became observably recurrent on a replicable, statistically predictable basis, it would be attributed not to access to miraculous or higher power, but to a newly evolved sensory faculty. Secondly, a skeptic can always adjust the frame of contextual reference, either by widening or focusing the space-time under consideration, in order to cherry pick to show that, “really,” there is nothing going on but indifferently determined and relatively random coincidence – even if it becomes necessary to imagine many other unseen worlds or un-seeable big bangs.

Thus, no particular perspective could ever, or always, exhibit a superior skill or potential that a skeptic could not interpret, by cherry picking, as if it were either determined or random. Indeed, a skeptic so practiced, habituated, and “enlightened” as to think science can reduce all questions to measurable answers can hardly be expected to do otherwise.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010


Meta-Absolutes: I take it that there is a God. God has blessed America with a founding on Judeo-Christian values. The Ten Commandments, Great Commandment, Golden Rule -- those work. And I think they work for a meta-reason. I am with Mr. Duke that we can ill afford to turn our backs on that founding. I see it as part of my task to help convince others. I do not see it as my right to enlist government to force others to profess belief in such values. To my subjective intuition, I see such values as "meta-absolutes," insofar as we seem to have been guided by a good and strong Providence to them. But I am uneasy at mixing Conscious Will with Indifferent Matter to try to come up with some kind of purely objective absolute. For those who want to follow God as most of us "understand" God, you will want to follow those commandments. If you do not want to follow God as such, I cannot materially, objectively, prove or KNOW that you are violating an absolute -- even if I BELIEVE that you are. Insofar as Mr. Duke is encouraging strengthening of belief in such commandments, I agree that such effort is vital. Because the alternative is a deep fall ... for citizens and country alike. One may ask oneself: Is it worth the fall, to push America to criminalize the public inculcation of Judeo-Christian values just in order to spread around a few more pleasures?