If consciousness were only byproduct of interacting charge exchanges between synapses within a receiver brain or cell organism, then such byproduct would already be determined BEFORE the time of each such charge exchange. In that case, each subsequent exchange of charge would be determined by the receiver state of the system or organism, from each next preceding state. The quality of consciousness (and any unfolding meaning or consistency thereof) would be mere acausal byproduct (so the notion goes). If true, it would seem that each brain (or complex stimulus-response system) should be experiencing "choices" before its mind is even aware of it. Actually, that may well be the case.
However, if that is probably the case, what would be the deeper indication begged by that? Is not the deeper indication this: that whatever it is that accounts for consciousness does not abide solely in disparate individuals? Must not consciousness as we experience it abide as a result of an interacting feedback communication between a holistic field and the particulars and perspectives that condense from it in order to occupy folds within space-time? Must not consciousness be a fundament of reality?
In that case, an holistic quality of consciousness would NOT be mere acausal byproduct. Rather, it would simply precede a local perspective's apprehension of it. And once the local perspective did apprehend, that would be fed back to the holistic perspective. And so on. Always in the "Now."
As to any consistent quality of meaning that unfolds in respect of such constant and continuous feedback between the whole of consciousness and its parts, why should that be the case ... unless the field itself somehow meaningfully invests a "care" to communicate, however immeasurably, among the various perspectives of it?
If the choice for what to make manifest among possible parameters (of the fuzz that precedes choices) is made before particles even organize to manifest the choice, then the physical manifestation of each choice would seem to be mere byproduct for storing measurable information about sequences of choices that had already been made. Whatever actually "causes" each choice would seem to be of a different and immeasureable character (conscious will) than of mere measureable matter.
Insofar as physical matter that is measurable, such would seem merely to provide means for feeding back information regarding decisions already made at a meta level, i.e., at a level of immeasurable consciousness. That level is still physical in that it entails a physical field of consciousness with scattered condensate of perspectives. However, it is a physical field of consciousness, which cannot measure its own emotive consciousness, except indirectly insofar as it makes manifest (in the kind of matter that is measurable) a means for storing empirical and sequential Information.
But, how is it that perspectives of consciousness that are beyond measurable matter can become aware of, make choices about, and exert influence to cause charge differentials between synapses within a receiver brain or cell to interact? Must the mechanism have something to do with a capacity of a field of conscious will and empathy to "lens" with a field of gravity (space-time geometry)? Must that lensing interaction have some immeasureable influence on effecting choices within parameters of feedback along the path for our universe's unfolding of informational storage mechanisms, which only consciousness interprets as physical quanta, matter, energy, electricity, and magnetism?
Well, I cannot measure or quantify the "meta how." But I can adduce that it abides.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Obysmalism Must Go
From AT:
Re: "As we look around the world at the countries that practice Islam as a state religion, it is almost incomprehensible that the left should defend Islam so fervently."
Well, the Left's Prime Directive is to put the collective under the rule of collectivizers. Sharia Law is nothing if not collectivist. So what's not to understand?
To help give Leftist Obysmalism the bum's rush, the following may help:
1) Preserve America's territorial and corporate borders.
2) Resist enabling or allowing government to be invested in or bought as a commodity. Instead, help and rely on charity to spread wealth.
3) Educate those who desire opportunity to express individual initiative and creativity (middle class), so their insights can help reinforce and educate the lowest common denominator among those who are blinkered, dumb, addicts, pushers, and pimps.
4) Educate how the wealthy often seek to hoodwink the lower class in order to eliminate the middle class so that the masses can never again have a say.
5) Educate how wealthy elitists often masquerade as Robin Hood, as if to redistribute to the poor, while they really use the poor as props, to stand on while claiming to know best.
6) Spread the truth about Islam, Marxism, Diversity Divisionism, Unprincipled Multi-Principalism, and Obysmalism: They are fronts for Collectivizers.
7) Understand that a higher field of consciousness does exist, and that it contends against spiritual pathologies (evil), which also exist.
8) Understand that you cannot be a moral agent to the extent you leave your salvation up to government or believe and behave as if government should be your mediator to Higher Consciousness. Obysmalism must go!
Re: "As we look around the world at the countries that practice Islam as a state religion, it is almost incomprehensible that the left should defend Islam so fervently."
Well, the Left's Prime Directive is to put the collective under the rule of collectivizers. Sharia Law is nothing if not collectivist. So what's not to understand?
To help give Leftist Obysmalism the bum's rush, the following may help:
1) Preserve America's territorial and corporate borders.
2) Resist enabling or allowing government to be invested in or bought as a commodity. Instead, help and rely on charity to spread wealth.
3) Educate those who desire opportunity to express individual initiative and creativity (middle class), so their insights can help reinforce and educate the lowest common denominator among those who are blinkered, dumb, addicts, pushers, and pimps.
4) Educate how the wealthy often seek to hoodwink the lower class in order to eliminate the middle class so that the masses can never again have a say.
5) Educate how wealthy elitists often masquerade as Robin Hood, as if to redistribute to the poor, while they really use the poor as props, to stand on while claiming to know best.
6) Spread the truth about Islam, Marxism, Diversity Divisionism, Unprincipled Multi-Principalism, and Obysmalism: They are fronts for Collectivizers.
7) Understand that a higher field of consciousness does exist, and that it contends against spiritual pathologies (evil), which also exist.
8) Understand that you cannot be a moral agent to the extent you leave your salvation up to government or believe and behave as if government should be your mediator to Higher Consciousness. Obysmalism must go!
Varieties of Collectivism: Elitism, Marxism, Islamism
Varieties of Collectivism: Elitism, Marxism, Islamism --
We must restore honor to speak both intelligently and from the heart. Not with mindless rancor, but with principled and heartfelt comprehension. We must not allow P.C. to banish speaking from the heart, to allow speech only from the machine, or few will believe us. If we do not even say we care, who will believe we care about higher consciousness, i.e., higher empathy? Among Leftists who believe only in the model of the machine, the winding down clock of the universe, or the indifferent and despotic notion of Islam, why should they not simply retire to feed their glands within their machine, while ridiculing respect for any notion of anything higher?
Among machine-minded, Leftist Islamlovers who believe only in an indifferent Nature or a despotic God, why should they allow anyone to communicate any idea or invention that demonstrates individual insight, initiative, creativity, freedom, or dignity? If the Koran prescribes and circumscribes the perfect, complete, and final word, why should any expression -- in word or deed -- be allowed unless it is first pronounced and pre-blessed under the Koran? If the collective is the prime directive, then, once the collective is completely confined and regulated to the nines, why should any consciousness on earth be allowed further to persist? Why be conscious?
Governmental Collectivism -- whether sponsored as Elitism, Marxism, or Islamism -- is inherently a cult for those who aspire to rule or be ruled, under stupor or suicide. If you value life, freedom, creativity, receptivity to higher consciousness, then you must resist Leftist Collectivists at all costs.
We must restore honor to speak both intelligently and from the heart. Not with mindless rancor, but with principled and heartfelt comprehension. We must not allow P.C. to banish speaking from the heart, to allow speech only from the machine, or few will believe us. If we do not even say we care, who will believe we care about higher consciousness, i.e., higher empathy? Among Leftists who believe only in the model of the machine, the winding down clock of the universe, or the indifferent and despotic notion of Islam, why should they not simply retire to feed their glands within their machine, while ridiculing respect for any notion of anything higher?
Among machine-minded, Leftist Islamlovers who believe only in an indifferent Nature or a despotic God, why should they allow anyone to communicate any idea or invention that demonstrates individual insight, initiative, creativity, freedom, or dignity? If the Koran prescribes and circumscribes the perfect, complete, and final word, why should any expression -- in word or deed -- be allowed unless it is first pronounced and pre-blessed under the Koran? If the collective is the prime directive, then, once the collective is completely confined and regulated to the nines, why should any consciousness on earth be allowed further to persist? Why be conscious?
Governmental Collectivism -- whether sponsored as Elitism, Marxism, or Islamism -- is inherently a cult for those who aspire to rule or be ruled, under stupor or suicide. If you value life, freedom, creativity, receptivity to higher consciousness, then you must resist Leftist Collectivists at all costs.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Trivalent Modeling
THREE MODELS OF EMPIRICAL AND MORAL REALITY:
1) Model 1 – CLASSICAL CAUSAL DETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been determined by a particular instrumentality, to that extent, is to rule out randomness.
2) Model 2 – QUANTUM CAUSAL INDETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been random, to that extent, is to conceptualize that any particular instrumentality is indeterminate beyond general statistical analysis.
3) Model 3 (Free Will) – UNIFICATION OF DETERMINACY AND RANDOMNESS: For an event to be conceptualized as having been byproduct of wilful choices among a group of actors is for such event both: to be determined in association with interplay of wills among such group; and (2) to be indeterminate as to which, if any, actor’s wilfulness was dominant or sufficient in itself.
THOUGHTS ABOUT UNIFICATION:
BIVALENT LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (where consciousness is presumed to be merely artifactual): Models 1 and 2, in themselves, cannot unify the continuity of gravity within the space-time field with discrete leaps within the quantum state of particulars. Notwithstanding fairy notions of “gravitons,” the mathematical, logical law of non-contradiction excludes complete, simultaneous unification of a general theory of certain determinacy with a general theory of uncertain indeterminacy. There may be a feedback flux idea, for a empathetic kind of alternating or vibrating between perspectives of holistic continuosity and perspectives of discrete particulars. However, by definition, that would not yield simultaneous unification from either kind of perspective, in itself.
FOLLY: So, absent respect for conscious free will, is it not folly to try to unify causal determinacy with causal randomness? Is that not akin to occupying one’s mind with whether God is so omnipotent as to be able to fashion a rock which He would be unable to move? (And to think atheistic scientists often make fun of biblical fundies!)
ADD MEANING WITH NO LOSS IN SCIENCE: So, if the goal is complete unifying certainty and predictive value for all fields and states, then neither an approach under Model 1 nor Model 2 can suffice. For that concern, neither can Model 3 suffice. However, Model 3, by definition, does not undertake any such goal. Rather, Model 3's “unification” is at cost of giving up quests for ultimate empirical certainty in exchange for enhancing regard for conscious choice and empathy. Model 3, while recognizing the absurdity of trying to unify Models 1 and 2 in themselves (i.e. without incorporating conscious will as a reconciling aspect under a kind of logical trivalence), does not surrender any degree of empirical certainty that is achievable either from a perspective of Model 1 or 2.
STATE OF BECOMING: Model 3 is not limited to bivalence between “state of is” and “state of is not.” It incorporates regard for a trivalent state, i.e.: “fuzzy state of is or is not becoming” (depending on flux of competition and cooperation among disparate perspectives of conscious free will). That is, Model 3 substitutes a concept of one universe of one field of conscious will interacting with one field of gravity for a concept of a preposterous number of splits of universes and worlds. That is, Model 3 accepts a notion of spiritual free will (you can sense your conscious will, after all!) as being superior to a notion of dumb, disparate, and unseen universes.
DEATH CULTS: In throwing cold water on the goal of explicating a completely predictive and objective model of the unfolding of our universe, Model 3 begs a question: Why should any conscious will desire that its will should be reduced to being merely artifactual of an entirely predictable unfolding? Why should anyone not envious of zombiehood wish to constrain his future to scientifically availed, preset planning and complete predictability? To invest one’s essence in such a goal would seem akin to wishing to surrender one’s will, perhaps even to snuff out one’s body or to sacrifice oneself as a suicide bomber in order to precipitate mass submission to Borgdom. How could one undertake such a sacrifice of will, unless one were already near spiritual death?
FREE WILL IMPLICATES MEANING, I.E., INVESTMENT OF EMOTION AND COMMUNICATION OF EMPATHY: Model 3 addresses roles at levels both of holistic groups and particular individuals, as well as aspects of both determinacy and randomness. Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness facilitates condensation of particular Perspectives of Will, which entail investments of emotion and communication of empathy. The field of gravity (folds sensed and lensed in space-time geometry) may be conceptualized as facilitating means for collapsing, storing, inflating, and communicating measurable counterparts to investments of empathy for the information and logos of physics.
In other words, Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness (free will) lenses to interact with a gravitational field (physics, which is constrained by space-time geometry to obey mathematical parameters). The byproduct interpreted from such interaction is condensate of a universe of (1) particular perspectives of consciousness and (2) contemporaneous, collapsing particle-aspects within space-time ... for such perspectives to sense and manipulate to communicate and build upon interests and feedback among themselves.
1) Model 1 – CLASSICAL CAUSAL DETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been determined by a particular instrumentality, to that extent, is to rule out randomness.
2) Model 2 – QUANTUM CAUSAL INDETERMINACY: For an event to be conceptualized as having been random, to that extent, is to conceptualize that any particular instrumentality is indeterminate beyond general statistical analysis.
3) Model 3 (Free Will) – UNIFICATION OF DETERMINACY AND RANDOMNESS: For an event to be conceptualized as having been byproduct of wilful choices among a group of actors is for such event both: to be determined in association with interplay of wills among such group; and (2) to be indeterminate as to which, if any, actor’s wilfulness was dominant or sufficient in itself.
THOUGHTS ABOUT UNIFICATION:
BIVALENT LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (where consciousness is presumed to be merely artifactual): Models 1 and 2, in themselves, cannot unify the continuity of gravity within the space-time field with discrete leaps within the quantum state of particulars. Notwithstanding fairy notions of “gravitons,” the mathematical, logical law of non-contradiction excludes complete, simultaneous unification of a general theory of certain determinacy with a general theory of uncertain indeterminacy. There may be a feedback flux idea, for a empathetic kind of alternating or vibrating between perspectives of holistic continuosity and perspectives of discrete particulars. However, by definition, that would not yield simultaneous unification from either kind of perspective, in itself.
FOLLY: So, absent respect for conscious free will, is it not folly to try to unify causal determinacy with causal randomness? Is that not akin to occupying one’s mind with whether God is so omnipotent as to be able to fashion a rock which He would be unable to move? (And to think atheistic scientists often make fun of biblical fundies!)
ADD MEANING WITH NO LOSS IN SCIENCE: So, if the goal is complete unifying certainty and predictive value for all fields and states, then neither an approach under Model 1 nor Model 2 can suffice. For that concern, neither can Model 3 suffice. However, Model 3, by definition, does not undertake any such goal. Rather, Model 3's “unification” is at cost of giving up quests for ultimate empirical certainty in exchange for enhancing regard for conscious choice and empathy. Model 3, while recognizing the absurdity of trying to unify Models 1 and 2 in themselves (i.e. without incorporating conscious will as a reconciling aspect under a kind of logical trivalence), does not surrender any degree of empirical certainty that is achievable either from a perspective of Model 1 or 2.
STATE OF BECOMING: Model 3 is not limited to bivalence between “state of is” and “state of is not.” It incorporates regard for a trivalent state, i.e.: “fuzzy state of is or is not becoming” (depending on flux of competition and cooperation among disparate perspectives of conscious free will). That is, Model 3 substitutes a concept of one universe of one field of conscious will interacting with one field of gravity for a concept of a preposterous number of splits of universes and worlds. That is, Model 3 accepts a notion of spiritual free will (you can sense your conscious will, after all!) as being superior to a notion of dumb, disparate, and unseen universes.
DEATH CULTS: In throwing cold water on the goal of explicating a completely predictive and objective model of the unfolding of our universe, Model 3 begs a question: Why should any conscious will desire that its will should be reduced to being merely artifactual of an entirely predictable unfolding? Why should anyone not envious of zombiehood wish to constrain his future to scientifically availed, preset planning and complete predictability? To invest one’s essence in such a goal would seem akin to wishing to surrender one’s will, perhaps even to snuff out one’s body or to sacrifice oneself as a suicide bomber in order to precipitate mass submission to Borgdom. How could one undertake such a sacrifice of will, unless one were already near spiritual death?
FREE WILL IMPLICATES MEANING, I.E., INVESTMENT OF EMOTION AND COMMUNICATION OF EMPATHY: Model 3 addresses roles at levels both of holistic groups and particular individuals, as well as aspects of both determinacy and randomness. Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness facilitates condensation of particular Perspectives of Will, which entail investments of emotion and communication of empathy. The field of gravity (folds sensed and lensed in space-time geometry) may be conceptualized as facilitating means for collapsing, storing, inflating, and communicating measurable counterparts to investments of empathy for the information and logos of physics.
In other words, Model 3 conceptualizes that a holistic field of consciousness (free will) lenses to interact with a gravitational field (physics, which is constrained by space-time geometry to obey mathematical parameters). The byproduct interpreted from such interaction is condensate of a universe of (1) particular perspectives of consciousness and (2) contemporaneous, collapsing particle-aspects within space-time ... for such perspectives to sense and manipulate to communicate and build upon interests and feedback among themselves.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Theory of Gravity
I just got Ed Klingman's book, Gene Man's World. As I read it, I will be pondering aspects of his hypothesis regarding gravity and considering whether the following could be postulated, less for empirical testing than for making consistent and coherent sense.
What leaps out (!) is his insight that will is first and foremost the will to defy gravity. The question begged is: Unless conscious will is somehow "physical" (even if only at an immeasurable level), how can it interact to redirect any thing that is physical?
I am trying to bridge this gap by building on the concept of lensing -- defying or redirecting without affecting measurable limits. In that, I begin with baggage and postulate:
Gravity:
To make manifest a universe, gravity, wherever it is expressed, must there be lensed through local perspectives of consciousness. Local expressions of consciousness express Will (or capacity to lens, focus, resist, or redirect gravity), with no measurable change in the general potency of the cumulation of gravity before or after each such lensing. Each level of accumulation of gravity, regardless of how arbitrarily selected for measure, simultaneously implicates a coordinate level of lensing by local expressions of consciousness.
Consciousness cannot manifest universe without simultaneously undertaking to effect choices about the lensing of gravity. While universe abides, there is no choice but to make choices. To feign to fail to make a choice is itself a choice, i.e., a choice to invest in experiencing such results as will unfold in respect of surrender to other perspectives that happen to share the frame of reference. To feign not to choose is to choose to experience results of one's not choosing.
The universe cannot run on autopilot. Various perspectives of Conscious Will -- in sequences of feedback -- may surrender dominance, but all will necessarily, to some extent, remain intimately invested. So long as we abide, we lack capacity to blot out all caring for the cares of others -- regardless of whether such caring is expressed in positive or negative empathy (i.e., spiritual reinforcement or interference, sometimes called love, admiration, practiced indifference, envy, jealousy, and hate).
Gravity is that aspect which mediates feedback and communication among our perspectives of consciousness. Our consciousness lenses gravity and can measure lensed effects of gravity, as if they were apart from consciousness, without altering net energy of gravity. It is in how we cumulate in giving expression to our wills that signs of our interactions with gravity are objectified in how we communicate about that which we take to be our physics.
The physical existence of quarks (and all that can be built with them) is contemporaneously derivative of (or associated with) local perspectives of consciousness in their cumulative lensing of gravity.
All lensing that carries any capacity for being communicated depends upon a shared investment in a common system of mathematical parameters for defining and limiting that which Will can lens with gravity.
Quarks are apparent and mathematically measurable (at least statistically) byproducts (or byassociations) of cumulations of local lensings of gravity. They avail means of reference for local perspectives of consciousness to communicate regarding their vestments in local reality, both motively (intuitively and empathetically) and measurably (empirically).
Something like the notion of a Higgs Boson would seem to consist in a mathematical constant (as opposed to a physical particle) that limits our universe in respect of that which is cumulatively (massively?) measured and lensed, directly or indirectly, by such perspectives of consciousness as happen to have been invested to respect such constant.
We do not enjoy separate consciousness, free will, and separate bodies, except as separate perspectives of one conscious will. It is a meta trick of the feedback and lensing of imagination that God experiences our perspectives as if they were separate.
What leaps out (!) is his insight that will is first and foremost the will to defy gravity. The question begged is: Unless conscious will is somehow "physical" (even if only at an immeasurable level), how can it interact to redirect any thing that is physical?
I am trying to bridge this gap by building on the concept of lensing -- defying or redirecting without affecting measurable limits. In that, I begin with baggage and postulate:
Gravity:
To make manifest a universe, gravity, wherever it is expressed, must there be lensed through local perspectives of consciousness. Local expressions of consciousness express Will (or capacity to lens, focus, resist, or redirect gravity), with no measurable change in the general potency of the cumulation of gravity before or after each such lensing. Each level of accumulation of gravity, regardless of how arbitrarily selected for measure, simultaneously implicates a coordinate level of lensing by local expressions of consciousness.
Consciousness cannot manifest universe without simultaneously undertaking to effect choices about the lensing of gravity. While universe abides, there is no choice but to make choices. To feign to fail to make a choice is itself a choice, i.e., a choice to invest in experiencing such results as will unfold in respect of surrender to other perspectives that happen to share the frame of reference. To feign not to choose is to choose to experience results of one's not choosing.
The universe cannot run on autopilot. Various perspectives of Conscious Will -- in sequences of feedback -- may surrender dominance, but all will necessarily, to some extent, remain intimately invested. So long as we abide, we lack capacity to blot out all caring for the cares of others -- regardless of whether such caring is expressed in positive or negative empathy (i.e., spiritual reinforcement or interference, sometimes called love, admiration, practiced indifference, envy, jealousy, and hate).
Gravity is that aspect which mediates feedback and communication among our perspectives of consciousness. Our consciousness lenses gravity and can measure lensed effects of gravity, as if they were apart from consciousness, without altering net energy of gravity. It is in how we cumulate in giving expression to our wills that signs of our interactions with gravity are objectified in how we communicate about that which we take to be our physics.
The physical existence of quarks (and all that can be built with them) is contemporaneously derivative of (or associated with) local perspectives of consciousness in their cumulative lensing of gravity.
All lensing that carries any capacity for being communicated depends upon a shared investment in a common system of mathematical parameters for defining and limiting that which Will can lens with gravity.
Quarks are apparent and mathematically measurable (at least statistically) byproducts (or byassociations) of cumulations of local lensings of gravity. They avail means of reference for local perspectives of consciousness to communicate regarding their vestments in local reality, both motively (intuitively and empathetically) and measurably (empirically).
Something like the notion of a Higgs Boson would seem to consist in a mathematical constant (as opposed to a physical particle) that limits our universe in respect of that which is cumulatively (massively?) measured and lensed, directly or indirectly, by such perspectives of consciousness as happen to have been invested to respect such constant.
We do not enjoy separate consciousness, free will, and separate bodies, except as separate perspectives of one conscious will. It is a meta trick of the feedback and lensing of imagination that God experiences our perspectives as if they were separate.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Unprincipled Left
How many journalists are independent, versus wannabees? How many are more like adolescent fans of Hollywoodites? People who like ducklines soon become adept at duckspeak: they don't know where they want to go; they just know they want to move up in the line. Principles? They don't need no stinking principles!
*****
To be consistent, the Left believes consciousness is only an artifact, that it is entirely derivative of random evolution from dumb matter, and therefore that consciousness has no real causal effect that is not entirely explicable under a proper theory of physics. IOW, your consciousness has no means by which itself to enter into any kind of causal relationship with physical phenomena, so "you" are only epi-phenomenal. Your consciousness is mere byproduct, and your mindless body would be here all the same, zombielike, regardless of whether or not you in any way felt or exhibited any consciousness, empathy, caring, or investment of identity. Of course, many among Leftist zombies will deny that. But then, meaningful consistency is not of much concern in Leftist philosophy anyway. I suppose, if ignorance is strength, then inconsistency is meaningful, and 2 plus 2 is 5. So long as you do not believe in any basis for meaningful consistency, then you cannot be inconsistent (?), so a Leftist need never worry of being a hypocrite.
Thus(?), there is no logical difficulty in a Leftist's joining with other collectivizing harvesters of mental freedom. After all, one zombie's as good (?) as another.
Compare http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cs-lewis-quotes.htm: "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity
*****
To be consistent, the Left believes consciousness is only an artifact, that it is entirely derivative of random evolution from dumb matter, and therefore that consciousness has no real causal effect that is not entirely explicable under a proper theory of physics. IOW, your consciousness has no means by which itself to enter into any kind of causal relationship with physical phenomena, so "you" are only epi-phenomenal. Your consciousness is mere byproduct, and your mindless body would be here all the same, zombielike, regardless of whether or not you in any way felt or exhibited any consciousness, empathy, caring, or investment of identity. Of course, many among Leftist zombies will deny that. But then, meaningful consistency is not of much concern in Leftist philosophy anyway. I suppose, if ignorance is strength, then inconsistency is meaningful, and 2 plus 2 is 5. So long as you do not believe in any basis for meaningful consistency, then you cannot be inconsistent (?), so a Leftist need never worry of being a hypocrite.
Thus(?), there is no logical difficulty in a Leftist's joining with other collectivizing harvesters of mental freedom. After all, one zombie's as good (?) as another.
Compare http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cs-lewis-quotes.htm: "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – Mere Christianity
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Ultimate Territory
The Ultimate Territory:
I just got the book, “Gene Man’s World.” I cheated and went directly to the back. (I like to skim first, then re-read in detail.) As I read it, I will bring some “baggage,” as follows:
To my lay apprehension, Whitehead expressed an idea that may (?) be consistent with the following: Each whole represents or expresses more, in respect of possibilities, than any particular (random or chosen) division of itself into whatever parts that may be re-sum’d. And, the “ultimate whole” may represent more than that. Set logic does not seem to lend itself to a complete and accurate adding or measuring of the potential of the “actual territory” of a whole (as opposed merely to a numerical value).
(May the whole, “within IT’s privileged self,” constitute a “set of one,” i.e., a set of IT’s own holistic perspectives of an informational series of mathematically sequenced events, which are objectified and represented as meta mathematical sequences in IT’s Memory, which influence IT’s choices in the eternal present? Does all empathy, emotiveness, and meaningfulness abide in eternal feedback among and between particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness?)
One may conceptualize that “consciousness” is the ultimate, superior territory of reality, and that consciousness may implicate holistic aspects as well as particular (“perspectivistic?”) aspects. Working from a particular perspective of “the territory” (i.e., consciousness), what may a perspective of consciousness reason about the character or quality of a postulated whole of consciousness? Alternatively stated, may there be a privileged aspect of the whole, which encompasses appreciation of my perspective, which also appreciates a holistic view which is qualitatively apart from mine? Does IT enjoy a super position that capacitates IT to appreciate a level of math that is superior to, and beyond, the logic and math that are availed to mere mortals? If so, in respect of IT’s qualitative difference, may IT facilitate feedback and communication among sub-perspectives in obedience to parameters and functions of math, which function upon ITSELF as the territory?
In other words, is there an aspect about “the territory” that is metaphysical to our perspectives, but “physical” or direct to IT’s? Are we allowed to precisely measure fluxing perspectives about the territory, but not the territory ITSELF? Note: Insofar as we share a same fluxing perspective (or universe), we may agree upon fundamentally shared and measured values of our physics – even though such values would not measure or confine the real territory (i.e., the holistic aspect of consciousness). Still, for the mortal purposes we share, our measurements would be “objective” (measurable and testable) – even though the territory from which they are ultimately derivative is not measurable in ITSELF.
CONSIDER: Even though the ultimate territory is not measurable, may we demonstrate with the math that we do have capacity to use: (1) the necessary existentiality (reality) of “the territory”; (2) its aspect for being beyond our physical measure; and (3) the reasonableness of an intuitive and empathetic approach in respect of IT?
To my intuition (or belief system?), as mortal perspectives of consciousness interact, what unfolds to their experience is expressed and objectified as their physics. But such physics would not exist but for the mathematical feedback and synchronization that is availed through the territory of a “higher holistic Consciousness.”
I just got the book, “Gene Man’s World.” I cheated and went directly to the back. (I like to skim first, then re-read in detail.) As I read it, I will bring some “baggage,” as follows:
To my lay apprehension, Whitehead expressed an idea that may (?) be consistent with the following: Each whole represents or expresses more, in respect of possibilities, than any particular (random or chosen) division of itself into whatever parts that may be re-sum’d. And, the “ultimate whole” may represent more than that. Set logic does not seem to lend itself to a complete and accurate adding or measuring of the potential of the “actual territory” of a whole (as opposed merely to a numerical value).
(May the whole, “within IT’s privileged self,” constitute a “set of one,” i.e., a set of IT’s own holistic perspectives of an informational series of mathematically sequenced events, which are objectified and represented as meta mathematical sequences in IT’s Memory, which influence IT’s choices in the eternal present? Does all empathy, emotiveness, and meaningfulness abide in eternal feedback among and between particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness?)
One may conceptualize that “consciousness” is the ultimate, superior territory of reality, and that consciousness may implicate holistic aspects as well as particular (“perspectivistic?”) aspects. Working from a particular perspective of “the territory” (i.e., consciousness), what may a perspective of consciousness reason about the character or quality of a postulated whole of consciousness? Alternatively stated, may there be a privileged aspect of the whole, which encompasses appreciation of my perspective, which also appreciates a holistic view which is qualitatively apart from mine? Does IT enjoy a super position that capacitates IT to appreciate a level of math that is superior to, and beyond, the logic and math that are availed to mere mortals? If so, in respect of IT’s qualitative difference, may IT facilitate feedback and communication among sub-perspectives in obedience to parameters and functions of math, which function upon ITSELF as the territory?
In other words, is there an aspect about “the territory” that is metaphysical to our perspectives, but “physical” or direct to IT’s? Are we allowed to precisely measure fluxing perspectives about the territory, but not the territory ITSELF? Note: Insofar as we share a same fluxing perspective (or universe), we may agree upon fundamentally shared and measured values of our physics – even though such values would not measure or confine the real territory (i.e., the holistic aspect of consciousness). Still, for the mortal purposes we share, our measurements would be “objective” (measurable and testable) – even though the territory from which they are ultimately derivative is not measurable in ITSELF.
CONSIDER: Even though the ultimate territory is not measurable, may we demonstrate with the math that we do have capacity to use: (1) the necessary existentiality (reality) of “the territory”; (2) its aspect for being beyond our physical measure; and (3) the reasonableness of an intuitive and empathetic approach in respect of IT?
To my intuition (or belief system?), as mortal perspectives of consciousness interact, what unfolds to their experience is expressed and objectified as their physics. But such physics would not exist but for the mathematical feedback and synchronization that is availed through the territory of a “higher holistic Consciousness.”
Consciousness: Science vs. Philosophy vs. Intuition
If Consciousness is essential and on a par with the most fundamental of components of our universe, then what can possibly measure, quantify, confine, or precisely predict its expression, either on any particular level or at holistic level? How can one possibly apprehend any ultimate attribute of consciousness, except upon rational intuition or emotional empathy? How can consciousness be explicated in any way that is scientific or completely based in measurable or statistically reliable empiricism as applied to any particular situation? Is Consciousness, at holistic level, the unmeasurable "thing in itself?"
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
False Science of Collectivists and Rico
False Science of Collectivists ... and Rico:
ORWELL: Was Orwell warning us, or just facing unhappy facts? What can or should be done to preserve human freedom and dignity? First, look to God, to be receptive to strength and wisdom, for there is no lasting solution in mere physics or form. Rather, in physics and form, there will always be reset and reflux. Second, consider: What is the latest “temporary fix” for which we should align our efforts? Who shall say? Who shall lead? What presently is out of balance?
ANSWER: Excess wealth and power in the hands of a few who are running rampant and commandeering all institutions, to the diminishment of the freedom and dignity of most. But blind redistribution of wealth and power will not reset the imbalance in freedom and dignity. More likely, it would lead us to quicker collapse and despair. So, what should be targeted for redistribution? Answer: the wealth and power that are in the hands of those who seek to undermine the freedom and dignity of those who are determined not to be undermined. So, what should we do?
IDENTIFY THE TROUBLE: At a minimum, to weed out hypocrites, we must articulate a common purpose, i.e., to restore individual freedom and dignity. So, how do we leave wealth and power intact for non-under-miners, while confiscating wealth and power from those international collectivizing corporatists who actively seek to undermine freedom and dignity by purchasing our own government in order to turn it against us? Well, first, identify the under-miners. They are international collectivizing fascists -- regardless of whether sectarian or secular. Once the underlying trouble is identified (Islamofascists and Marxists), triage what is needed to revive and restore the freedom and dignity of Americans.
Upon identifying the trouble and those who animate it, how do we re-educate and counter motivate their dupes, and how do we neutralize and confiscate the wealth and power of international collectivizing corporatists and their thugs?
NEUTRALIZE THE TROUBLE MAKERS: Well, at least in the short term, we ourselves are going to have to organize and empower our own champions, to lead us to neuter the wealth and power of thugs. In the short term, a Rico-like Act, set automatically to expire in 15 years (after 15 years, it would likely have been coopted and rendered ineffective or counterproductive), may be a good tactic or standby, and may entice some of the good among the wealthy to unite with us against the bad. We could use it to forfeit all wealth of people like Soros. To set America apart as a land of freedom and dignity, free from trends towards international despotism, we must re-establish meaningful control over our borders and over international corporatists. But without vision, nothing will be unified or preserved. The issue is: What vision is to be preserved?
FEELINGS AND REASON: It is apparent that we are primarily motivated by that with which we come to identify, i.e. to invest psychologically in the value of feelings. Feelings tend to be conditioned and charged by experience and reinforcement – positive and negative. An enlightened person will periodically try to re-sort and re-store a sense of philosophical consistency and cohesion with regard to that which he values and has feelings for. He will subject his feelings to the test of feedback, i.e., empirical experience. And vice versa. Except as to the most fundamental Source of feelings and main corollaries therewith (i.e., good faith, good will, freedom, and dignity), he will not blindly follow old feelings in connection with newly distinguishable situations.
THE TWAIN SHALL NOT MEET: Our main clash concerns (1) those whose feelings derive primarily from respect for a caring God versus (2) those whose feelings derive primarily from respect for a machine-like, hellish, or pagan god or cause. How one deals with others may depend upon how one relates to them in respect of the main clash. Among those who honor one another’s freedom and dignity, we must communicate honestly, humbly, in good faith and in good will. Towards those who are deeply duped in pagan or fascist collectivism, whose feelings are all subsumed thereunder, we must not hesitate to use their own “sensitivity card” against them. (Good example: Brand them with their insensitivity to the feelings of Americans, which would be trampled upon by building a mosque near Ground Zero.)
FAITH IN UNALIENABLE SOURCE: Whatever else that may be extorted by the oligarches among us, they cannot extort our relationship with the higher Source. Nor can they roll over an armed and aroused citizenry. God gave us our freedom and dignity, and God is present to guide us, insofar as we are humbly receptive. Insofar as we are weak and mortal, we will often need that guidance. For that, it helps to be attuned.
FALSE SCIENCE OF FALSE DIVINERS: Regardless, please stop calling faux social sciences “fact-based” or “science!” They tend more to be feeling-based and agenda-driven. They may or may not impart the wisdom and love of experience and tradition, but, in main, they are not “scientific.” They are better called philosophy, as in: economic philosophy, political philosophy, social philosophy, gay philosophy, historical philosophy, environmental philosophy, cosmological multiverse philosophy, and theological philosophy. Do not for a second let them disguise themselves as “scientific.”
ORWELL: Was Orwell warning us, or just facing unhappy facts? What can or should be done to preserve human freedom and dignity? First, look to God, to be receptive to strength and wisdom, for there is no lasting solution in mere physics or form. Rather, in physics and form, there will always be reset and reflux. Second, consider: What is the latest “temporary fix” for which we should align our efforts? Who shall say? Who shall lead? What presently is out of balance?
ANSWER: Excess wealth and power in the hands of a few who are running rampant and commandeering all institutions, to the diminishment of the freedom and dignity of most. But blind redistribution of wealth and power will not reset the imbalance in freedom and dignity. More likely, it would lead us to quicker collapse and despair. So, what should be targeted for redistribution? Answer: the wealth and power that are in the hands of those who seek to undermine the freedom and dignity of those who are determined not to be undermined. So, what should we do?
IDENTIFY THE TROUBLE: At a minimum, to weed out hypocrites, we must articulate a common purpose, i.e., to restore individual freedom and dignity. So, how do we leave wealth and power intact for non-under-miners, while confiscating wealth and power from those international collectivizing corporatists who actively seek to undermine freedom and dignity by purchasing our own government in order to turn it against us? Well, first, identify the under-miners. They are international collectivizing fascists -- regardless of whether sectarian or secular. Once the underlying trouble is identified (Islamofascists and Marxists), triage what is needed to revive and restore the freedom and dignity of Americans.
Upon identifying the trouble and those who animate it, how do we re-educate and counter motivate their dupes, and how do we neutralize and confiscate the wealth and power of international collectivizing corporatists and their thugs?
NEUTRALIZE THE TROUBLE MAKERS: Well, at least in the short term, we ourselves are going to have to organize and empower our own champions, to lead us to neuter the wealth and power of thugs. In the short term, a Rico-like Act, set automatically to expire in 15 years (after 15 years, it would likely have been coopted and rendered ineffective or counterproductive), may be a good tactic or standby, and may entice some of the good among the wealthy to unite with us against the bad. We could use it to forfeit all wealth of people like Soros. To set America apart as a land of freedom and dignity, free from trends towards international despotism, we must re-establish meaningful control over our borders and over international corporatists. But without vision, nothing will be unified or preserved. The issue is: What vision is to be preserved?
FEELINGS AND REASON: It is apparent that we are primarily motivated by that with which we come to identify, i.e. to invest psychologically in the value of feelings. Feelings tend to be conditioned and charged by experience and reinforcement – positive and negative. An enlightened person will periodically try to re-sort and re-store a sense of philosophical consistency and cohesion with regard to that which he values and has feelings for. He will subject his feelings to the test of feedback, i.e., empirical experience. And vice versa. Except as to the most fundamental Source of feelings and main corollaries therewith (i.e., good faith, good will, freedom, and dignity), he will not blindly follow old feelings in connection with newly distinguishable situations.
THE TWAIN SHALL NOT MEET: Our main clash concerns (1) those whose feelings derive primarily from respect for a caring God versus (2) those whose feelings derive primarily from respect for a machine-like, hellish, or pagan god or cause. How one deals with others may depend upon how one relates to them in respect of the main clash. Among those who honor one another’s freedom and dignity, we must communicate honestly, humbly, in good faith and in good will. Towards those who are deeply duped in pagan or fascist collectivism, whose feelings are all subsumed thereunder, we must not hesitate to use their own “sensitivity card” against them. (Good example: Brand them with their insensitivity to the feelings of Americans, which would be trampled upon by building a mosque near Ground Zero.)
FAITH IN UNALIENABLE SOURCE: Whatever else that may be extorted by the oligarches among us, they cannot extort our relationship with the higher Source. Nor can they roll over an armed and aroused citizenry. God gave us our freedom and dignity, and God is present to guide us, insofar as we are humbly receptive. Insofar as we are weak and mortal, we will often need that guidance. For that, it helps to be attuned.
FALSE SCIENCE OF FALSE DIVINERS: Regardless, please stop calling faux social sciences “fact-based” or “science!” They tend more to be feeling-based and agenda-driven. They may or may not impart the wisdom and love of experience and tradition, but, in main, they are not “scientific.” They are better called philosophy, as in: economic philosophy, political philosophy, social philosophy, gay philosophy, historical philosophy, environmental philosophy, cosmological multiverse philosophy, and theological philosophy. Do not for a second let them disguise themselves as “scientific.”
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Iron Rule vs. Golden Rule
I agree "ought" is related to "is." However, I would distinguish based on whether you mean "physical is" versus "consciousness is" (or non-physical is).
I don't think "ought" can be measurably derived, or derived from mere "physical is." But I do think each person not only can, but must, resolve ought from non-physical is. For that, none of us has any choice but to make choices. And we do factor our choices based on such facts as we encounter. If one were making a choice only about the order in which to put on socks, I don't apprehend a moral issue. But if a friend were in danger of frostbite, it may make a difference.
Intuition and empathy (i.e., the Golden Rule) become important, above measurable facts. But intuition and empathy depend upon the quality of one's appreciation for one's fellows. If one sees one's fellows as cripples, dullards, and soulless zombies, one may rationalize that one "knows best" and should exercise opportunity, right, and need to take power from such others in order better to organize their efforts, both for one's own mental comfort as well as, secondarily, for such others "own good."
In short, Liberals, regardless of factual basis, simply see themselves, on faith, as being ordained to decide what is for "the greater good." In their "calibrations," they ignore the need of others to experience feedback from learning to look out for, and decide for, themselves. That is, they ignore the humanity in everyone who is not of their class or who does not buy into their stunted philosophy.
Liberals do not see everyone as having their own dignity to be charged under the Golden Rule. Rather, they see themselves as being ordained, rather religiously, with secularly leveraged power to force everyone else to be charged. Theirs is not the Golden Rule but the Iron Rule of Fascism: Force others to do for the collective as you would have them do for the collective. In finding ways to exercise such force, they are "liberal."
I don't think "ought" can be measurably derived, or derived from mere "physical is." But I do think each person not only can, but must, resolve ought from non-physical is. For that, none of us has any choice but to make choices. And we do factor our choices based on such facts as we encounter. If one were making a choice only about the order in which to put on socks, I don't apprehend a moral issue. But if a friend were in danger of frostbite, it may make a difference.
Intuition and empathy (i.e., the Golden Rule) become important, above measurable facts. But intuition and empathy depend upon the quality of one's appreciation for one's fellows. If one sees one's fellows as cripples, dullards, and soulless zombies, one may rationalize that one "knows best" and should exercise opportunity, right, and need to take power from such others in order better to organize their efforts, both for one's own mental comfort as well as, secondarily, for such others "own good."
In short, Liberals, regardless of factual basis, simply see themselves, on faith, as being ordained to decide what is for "the greater good." In their "calibrations," they ignore the need of others to experience feedback from learning to look out for, and decide for, themselves. That is, they ignore the humanity in everyone who is not of their class or who does not buy into their stunted philosophy.
Liberals do not see everyone as having their own dignity to be charged under the Golden Rule. Rather, they see themselves as being ordained, rather religiously, with secularly leveraged power to force everyone else to be charged. Theirs is not the Golden Rule but the Iron Rule of Fascism: Force others to do for the collective as you would have them do for the collective. In finding ways to exercise such force, they are "liberal."
Computer Consciousness
Is it in some ways more useful to think about particles, such as chemical atoms, as if they were minute computers for relating to, crunching, storing, and expanding informational experiences, rather than as physical particles?
Insofar as such atoms are conceptualized not as particles, but as in sync computers, then, to be consistent, what must be the character of such building blocks of in sync computers within the network that is our universe? Is the ultimate character that of meta stuff, spiritual, will, awareness? In any meaningful sense, what is IT that avails such "computers" with potential and capacity for making computations, storing measureable information, and "emotionally committing" to the expression of allowed "choices," to make them manifest to represent aspects of information to be stored within the record of what we take to share as our "physical universe?"
Is the experience of each perspective merely "after the fact" epiphenomenal of the coordination of a Higher Will? Is each of us an expression of a perspective of the higher Will? Is feedback of our experiences to the appreciation of the Main Program, so that IT processes such feedback as information for guiding its next sequencing choices? In that way, is the Main Program "conscious?" Are our immeasureable, intuitive, and empathetic feelings somehow representative of what the Main Program takes into account as it synchronizes unfolding outcomes for each of us? IOW, is IT empathetic of feedback (prayer?) regarding our emotions and feelings?
If the Main Program and ITs components are like computers, the kind of computer they model is indeed strange.
Purpose: Is the purpose of the Main Program to reduce all perspectives to an organized collective Borg? Or is ITs purpose, as freely as decently possible, to experience Beingness from as wide a variety of separately manifested perspectives as IT cares to appreciate?
Insofar as such atoms are conceptualized not as particles, but as in sync computers, then, to be consistent, what must be the character of such building blocks of in sync computers within the network that is our universe? Is the ultimate character that of meta stuff, spiritual, will, awareness? In any meaningful sense, what is IT that avails such "computers" with potential and capacity for making computations, storing measureable information, and "emotionally committing" to the expression of allowed "choices," to make them manifest to represent aspects of information to be stored within the record of what we take to share as our "physical universe?"
Is the experience of each perspective merely "after the fact" epiphenomenal of the coordination of a Higher Will? Is each of us an expression of a perspective of the higher Will? Is feedback of our experiences to the appreciation of the Main Program, so that IT processes such feedback as information for guiding its next sequencing choices? In that way, is the Main Program "conscious?" Are our immeasureable, intuitive, and empathetic feelings somehow representative of what the Main Program takes into account as it synchronizes unfolding outcomes for each of us? IOW, is IT empathetic of feedback (prayer?) regarding our emotions and feelings?
If the Main Program and ITs components are like computers, the kind of computer they model is indeed strange.
Purpose: Is the purpose of the Main Program to reduce all perspectives to an organized collective Borg? Or is ITs purpose, as freely as decently possible, to experience Beingness from as wide a variety of separately manifested perspectives as IT cares to appreciate?
Friday, August 13, 2010
GOD -- BEINGNESS THAT IS DEMONSTRABLE, BUT IMMEASUREABLE
GOD -- BEINGNESS THAT IS DEMONSTRABLE, BUT IMMEASUREABLE:
It seems fairly likely that Something or some Consciousness exists, in itself (or at least superior to us), without our necessarily being able empirically to measure or predict ITs underlying nature, character, function, or purpose. It may be a meta Brane or a meta Consciousness. Either way, it’s meta to us. Except that we can measure those relations which IT avails to us, in circular and relative terms. That is, we measure what IT avails to us as we relate to perspectives of IT, in respect of such perspectives of ourselves as IT avails to us. That is, our particular perspectives of ITs holistic self are necessarily incomplete representations and interpretations.
The limits or measures of ITs potential are beyond our capacities. Even if ITs existence may be demonstrated mathematically, IT has aspect that renders IT incomplete to our comprehension, hence, metaphysical to us. Apart from experiences of intuitions and empathies that are not measureable, we have no means to relate to IT. We have no power to take IT apart to reverse engineer IT, as by summing parts together. The potential of ITs holistic function encompasses more than the sum of ITs parts.
The entirety of all of that which is measureable to us, which we interpret as our physics, consists in relational feedback (“subjective consciousness”) among incomplete representations of a meta essence of Beingmess. To the extent we share in discovering and experiencing any mathematical constants, such is solely attributable to the way in which we happen in common to have been imbued with perspectives of consciousness whose identities and capacities for communication of feedback are fine tuned, defined, and governed in respect of such functions, wavelengths, and constants.
Those constants demonstrate our “lifeline” or common connection to the Holism. Those functions only happen to exist for us, “physically,” in respect of tuning that is assigned for them to the universe that is continuously, contemporaneously, and synchronously shaped for us by “IT,” i.e., our common Source of Becoming.
It seems fairly likely that Something or some Consciousness exists, in itself (or at least superior to us), without our necessarily being able empirically to measure or predict ITs underlying nature, character, function, or purpose. It may be a meta Brane or a meta Consciousness. Either way, it’s meta to us. Except that we can measure those relations which IT avails to us, in circular and relative terms. That is, we measure what IT avails to us as we relate to perspectives of IT, in respect of such perspectives of ourselves as IT avails to us. That is, our particular perspectives of ITs holistic self are necessarily incomplete representations and interpretations.
The limits or measures of ITs potential are beyond our capacities. Even if ITs existence may be demonstrated mathematically, IT has aspect that renders IT incomplete to our comprehension, hence, metaphysical to us. Apart from experiences of intuitions and empathies that are not measureable, we have no means to relate to IT. We have no power to take IT apart to reverse engineer IT, as by summing parts together. The potential of ITs holistic function encompasses more than the sum of ITs parts.
The entirety of all of that which is measureable to us, which we interpret as our physics, consists in relational feedback (“subjective consciousness”) among incomplete representations of a meta essence of Beingmess. To the extent we share in discovering and experiencing any mathematical constants, such is solely attributable to the way in which we happen in common to have been imbued with perspectives of consciousness whose identities and capacities for communication of feedback are fine tuned, defined, and governed in respect of such functions, wavelengths, and constants.
Those constants demonstrate our “lifeline” or common connection to the Holism. Those functions only happen to exist for us, “physically,” in respect of tuning that is assigned for them to the universe that is continuously, contemporaneously, and synchronously shaped for us by “IT,” i.e., our common Source of Becoming.
BEYOND THE DOORS OF INFINITY AND ETERNITY
PERCEIVING BEYOND THE DOORS OF INFINITY AND ETERNITY:
PURSUIT OF INFINITY: Our “physical” universe is potentially infinite, because its only measure comes from feedback relationships, i.e., levels of consciousness. The physical universe does not exist in itself, but only in an availed potential. That is, it exists only insofar as its seeds are relationally experienced, as feedback. For the feedback communication that occurs among relational perspectives, the universe, beyond its signposts, does not have physical existence that is in itself measurable.
INTERACTIVE METAPHYSICS: A meta holism may be thought to avail our relational perspectives. With it, we have no measureable relations by which to mark or represent that which it does avail to relate to us, as our physical universe. While our universe, as it relates to us, is comparatively measureable, it is not availed with any physical means with which to relate any complete measure of any part of it.
RELATIONSHIPS IN MATH: While something like a notion of a Higgs Boson may apply, I doubt it will be found to be physical in itself, but only as a mathematical relationship that happens to be shared by all perspectives of consciousness within the universe that God happens to make apparent to us in common. The Moon “is there” only because God avails it so, contemporaneously and synchronously with our forms of experiential consciousness. Even so, to the extent any point of view is taken or shared within a frame of reference, mathematical constants are availed for the measurement of, and tinkering with, aspects of parts of our apparent universe.
INFINITY OF POSSIBILITIES: Aside from that which appears to us to be physical, the universe of possibilities consists of meta limits of math. Such limits become manifest as “physical” only to the extent the identity of at least one mortal consciousness comes to interpret or invest in their experiential unfolding. The notion of a Higgs Boson will be found not to represent anything that is “really” physical, but only a mathematical function that operates for “Something” that is metaphysical, i.e., not physical. That which we experience as our measureable physics depends upon, and is entirely derivative of, tricks of math that are systematically related to varying perspectives through one meta holism, i.e., God. God is the "ultimate territory," i.e., the State of our Becoming. God does not depend upon our individual perspectives of consciousness, but pours us forth.
CAUSATION, WILL, PRAYER, AND EXPERIENCE: On a spiritual level, that which “causes” events to unfold appears to consist in a “State of Becoming.” True, aspects and sequences of the unfolding of events can be compared and measured in respect of one another. But the State of Becoming out of which they unfold cannot. Our measurable physics seems less causal and more epiphenomenal to how the State of Becoming unfolds. In broad parameters, our willful actions do not control the State of Becoming. But, in specific relations, it seems the feedback of our wills to the State of Becoming does affect it. Prayers are answered, even if not in precise, measurable ways, even if not as we would have preferred, even if not as we would have willed – were we God. Simply put, God (“State of Becoming?”) is more than the sum of us.
CONSCIOUSNESS AND PURE MATH: We cannot access pure, holistic consciousness. But can we access computer functions that holistic consciousness has already written and availed? If so, have some Beings or Perspectives already accessed some such computer functions, at different levels? Can we glide through computational wormholes, to communicate among different levels? If so, to do so, what baggage must we give up?
BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS CONSIST OF COMPUTERS, CRUNCHING FEEDBACK: In chemistry, is each atom really a “physical” entity, comprised of: space-time-matter-energy, four fundamental forces of physics, and/or combinations of building blocks thereof? Or is each atom more like a place-holding, relational representation for a mathematical function, which obeys system parameters as imposed by a kind of meta-computer? If so, is the meta-computer or its Author “conscious?” Is it meta-empathetic or relational to human perspectives and feedback?
PHYSICS: Does physics “really” represent anything more than a placeholder for the relational exchange of ideas (representations) among perspectives of various levels of feedback of consciousness? If some physical “thing” is not, then: “Is” it not, or is it “not?” Well, “it” is in consciousness, even if not in physicality, even if, in consciousness, it is treated as (or thought to be) “not.” Is the logic of Beingness “trivalent,” i.e., consisting in appreciation of that which “is” (Jesus?), that which “is not” (Holy Ghost?), and that which (ambiguously) “is or is not” (in a fuzzy State of Becoming)(God)?
SOCIOPATHY: Something (or some aspect) of the animal brain seems to be easily conditioned to find it convenient to ignore feedback, to spread pain, sometimes even to worship pain. Submitting to worship a tyrannical concept of God (or of “the Planet”), one easily comes to believe oneself an authorized agent for imposing tyranny, even unspeakable horror. Pain in others becomes impersonal to sociopaths. Feedback from middling classes is not to be respected. If anything, imposing pain whets sociopaths’ appetites to impose more. Orwell expressed much truth. It seems confusion about the priority of reality -- between that which is physical and that which is spiritual -- regiments or contributes to mass sociopathy.
PURPOSE: Is it part of God’s purpose to lead us in experiencing the freedom, dignity, and self realization that comes with reconciling power by trumping it with empathy?
Is it part of God’s purpose to lead us to a civilizing system over a machine system, i.e., to a self sustaining, self surpassing system for organizing a civilization to facilitate decency and freedom of expression and enterprise among its citizenry? Well, if so, how is any nation of an educated citizenry within a constitutionally checked and balanced republic of laws that much different from a self suiting, self surpassing, centrally coordinated control of the collective? Answer: Within a decent republic, the feedback goes both ways (within a checked and balanced system of laws, vs. a despotic system of elitist control over the collective). On the other hand, within a middle class where freedom is not protected by checks and balances, there tends not to be feedback, but only the flush down of tyrannical power.
FEEDBACK: Human freedom and dignity, i.e., civilized fairness and decency, requires that everyone receive a reasonable hearing, without fear of undue torture or corrupt bribery. It requires that no one be made so powerful as to have the “right” or heedless power to impose undue humiliation on any other. There will always be feedback. The issue is: What is to be its quality? To whom will/shall it avail fulfillment?
THE ULTIMATE CHECK AND BALANCE: Without a society's assimilation of contours for a philosophy that affords decent respect for a higher Source of moral purposefulness, no mere contrivances of legalisms can long protect human freedom and dignity from base animal urges.
PURSUIT OF INFINITY: Our “physical” universe is potentially infinite, because its only measure comes from feedback relationships, i.e., levels of consciousness. The physical universe does not exist in itself, but only in an availed potential. That is, it exists only insofar as its seeds are relationally experienced, as feedback. For the feedback communication that occurs among relational perspectives, the universe, beyond its signposts, does not have physical existence that is in itself measurable.
INTERACTIVE METAPHYSICS: A meta holism may be thought to avail our relational perspectives. With it, we have no measureable relations by which to mark or represent that which it does avail to relate to us, as our physical universe. While our universe, as it relates to us, is comparatively measureable, it is not availed with any physical means with which to relate any complete measure of any part of it.
RELATIONSHIPS IN MATH: While something like a notion of a Higgs Boson may apply, I doubt it will be found to be physical in itself, but only as a mathematical relationship that happens to be shared by all perspectives of consciousness within the universe that God happens to make apparent to us in common. The Moon “is there” only because God avails it so, contemporaneously and synchronously with our forms of experiential consciousness. Even so, to the extent any point of view is taken or shared within a frame of reference, mathematical constants are availed for the measurement of, and tinkering with, aspects of parts of our apparent universe.
INFINITY OF POSSIBILITIES: Aside from that which appears to us to be physical, the universe of possibilities consists of meta limits of math. Such limits become manifest as “physical” only to the extent the identity of at least one mortal consciousness comes to interpret or invest in their experiential unfolding. The notion of a Higgs Boson will be found not to represent anything that is “really” physical, but only a mathematical function that operates for “Something” that is metaphysical, i.e., not physical. That which we experience as our measureable physics depends upon, and is entirely derivative of, tricks of math that are systematically related to varying perspectives through one meta holism, i.e., God. God is the "ultimate territory," i.e., the State of our Becoming. God does not depend upon our individual perspectives of consciousness, but pours us forth.
CAUSATION, WILL, PRAYER, AND EXPERIENCE: On a spiritual level, that which “causes” events to unfold appears to consist in a “State of Becoming.” True, aspects and sequences of the unfolding of events can be compared and measured in respect of one another. But the State of Becoming out of which they unfold cannot. Our measurable physics seems less causal and more epiphenomenal to how the State of Becoming unfolds. In broad parameters, our willful actions do not control the State of Becoming. But, in specific relations, it seems the feedback of our wills to the State of Becoming does affect it. Prayers are answered, even if not in precise, measurable ways, even if not as we would have preferred, even if not as we would have willed – were we God. Simply put, God (“State of Becoming?”) is more than the sum of us.
CONSCIOUSNESS AND PURE MATH: We cannot access pure, holistic consciousness. But can we access computer functions that holistic consciousness has already written and availed? If so, have some Beings or Perspectives already accessed some such computer functions, at different levels? Can we glide through computational wormholes, to communicate among different levels? If so, to do so, what baggage must we give up?
BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS CONSIST OF COMPUTERS, CRUNCHING FEEDBACK: In chemistry, is each atom really a “physical” entity, comprised of: space-time-matter-energy, four fundamental forces of physics, and/or combinations of building blocks thereof? Or is each atom more like a place-holding, relational representation for a mathematical function, which obeys system parameters as imposed by a kind of meta-computer? If so, is the meta-computer or its Author “conscious?” Is it meta-empathetic or relational to human perspectives and feedback?
PHYSICS: Does physics “really” represent anything more than a placeholder for the relational exchange of ideas (representations) among perspectives of various levels of feedback of consciousness? If some physical “thing” is not, then: “Is” it not, or is it “not?” Well, “it” is in consciousness, even if not in physicality, even if, in consciousness, it is treated as (or thought to be) “not.” Is the logic of Beingness “trivalent,” i.e., consisting in appreciation of that which “is” (Jesus?), that which “is not” (Holy Ghost?), and that which (ambiguously) “is or is not” (in a fuzzy State of Becoming)(God)?
SOCIOPATHY: Something (or some aspect) of the animal brain seems to be easily conditioned to find it convenient to ignore feedback, to spread pain, sometimes even to worship pain. Submitting to worship a tyrannical concept of God (or of “the Planet”), one easily comes to believe oneself an authorized agent for imposing tyranny, even unspeakable horror. Pain in others becomes impersonal to sociopaths. Feedback from middling classes is not to be respected. If anything, imposing pain whets sociopaths’ appetites to impose more. Orwell expressed much truth. It seems confusion about the priority of reality -- between that which is physical and that which is spiritual -- regiments or contributes to mass sociopathy.
PURPOSE: Is it part of God’s purpose to lead us in experiencing the freedom, dignity, and self realization that comes with reconciling power by trumping it with empathy?
Is it part of God’s purpose to lead us to a civilizing system over a machine system, i.e., to a self sustaining, self surpassing system for organizing a civilization to facilitate decency and freedom of expression and enterprise among its citizenry? Well, if so, how is any nation of an educated citizenry within a constitutionally checked and balanced republic of laws that much different from a self suiting, self surpassing, centrally coordinated control of the collective? Answer: Within a decent republic, the feedback goes both ways (within a checked and balanced system of laws, vs. a despotic system of elitist control over the collective). On the other hand, within a middle class where freedom is not protected by checks and balances, there tends not to be feedback, but only the flush down of tyrannical power.
FEEDBACK: Human freedom and dignity, i.e., civilized fairness and decency, requires that everyone receive a reasonable hearing, without fear of undue torture or corrupt bribery. It requires that no one be made so powerful as to have the “right” or heedless power to impose undue humiliation on any other. There will always be feedback. The issue is: What is to be its quality? To whom will/shall it avail fulfillment?
THE ULTIMATE CHECK AND BALANCE: Without a society's assimilation of contours for a philosophy that affords decent respect for a higher Source of moral purposefulness, no mere contrivances of legalisms can long protect human freedom and dignity from base animal urges.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Collective Spiritual Sickness
Collective Spiritual Sickness:
Between the whole and its parts, there is a relationship that defies bivalent logic. That relationship leads us, in moral choices, to trivalent logic. There seems to be something mystical about threes: There is being (Jesus?), not being (Holy Ghost?), and state of becoming (God?). It is often not enough to reason that a thing either "is" or "is not." It may be in a state of becoming, sort of in an undecided flux. How it tips may depend on feedback. Which brings me to this: Whatever God may be, I find it difficult to imagine that God's will would seek merely to tolerate us, rather than to relate to us. Feedback.
Which brings me to this: How you value your existential relationship probably affects (a) whether you think government should be run by elite betters, simply to rule everyone else, regardless of feedback, or (b) whether you think government should facilitate a churning middle class, that can stand up, sass back, and make itself heard. If (a), Allah, Elite Scientists, and Big Brother probably hold the best God-fit for you. If (b), you will probably find spiritual value elsewise. If (a), you may think it good that power is comprehensively consolidated and centralized. If (b), you likely will be horrified the more the middle class is destroyed, the flatter management becomes, and the less that power is delegated to the levels at which it is most likely to facilitate cooperative feedback.
Presently, Congress has taken all authority to itself. I don't know of many Constitutional limitations that remain, that command more than lip service. So, why expect Congress ever to relinquish any authority? Having authority is what allows representatives to attract corporate buy in. So, we get corporate financing of candidates... so when they become representatives they can enact laws... that are written by corporatists... to favor the corporatists.
Which brings me to this: It is an ill spiritual wind that is shaping the attitudes and values with which we are being inculcated and educated. Predominately, those values are now the values favored by oligarchical collectivism, commanded by heavy-handed, top-down corporatists.
Prevailing spiritual beliefs affect us far more than we recognize. If we value individual freedom and dignity, the window of opportunity for a new awakening, to restore (a), to deflate Big Brother, is closing fast. It's our spirituality, or lack thereof, that is shaping the horror that is presently unfolding.
Between the whole and its parts, there is a relationship that defies bivalent logic. That relationship leads us, in moral choices, to trivalent logic. There seems to be something mystical about threes: There is being (Jesus?), not being (Holy Ghost?), and state of becoming (God?). It is often not enough to reason that a thing either "is" or "is not." It may be in a state of becoming, sort of in an undecided flux. How it tips may depend on feedback. Which brings me to this: Whatever God may be, I find it difficult to imagine that God's will would seek merely to tolerate us, rather than to relate to us. Feedback.
Which brings me to this: How you value your existential relationship probably affects (a) whether you think government should be run by elite betters, simply to rule everyone else, regardless of feedback, or (b) whether you think government should facilitate a churning middle class, that can stand up, sass back, and make itself heard. If (a), Allah, Elite Scientists, and Big Brother probably hold the best God-fit for you. If (b), you will probably find spiritual value elsewise. If (a), you may think it good that power is comprehensively consolidated and centralized. If (b), you likely will be horrified the more the middle class is destroyed, the flatter management becomes, and the less that power is delegated to the levels at which it is most likely to facilitate cooperative feedback.
Presently, Congress has taken all authority to itself. I don't know of many Constitutional limitations that remain, that command more than lip service. So, why expect Congress ever to relinquish any authority? Having authority is what allows representatives to attract corporate buy in. So, we get corporate financing of candidates... so when they become representatives they can enact laws... that are written by corporatists... to favor the corporatists.
Which brings me to this: It is an ill spiritual wind that is shaping the attitudes and values with which we are being inculcated and educated. Predominately, those values are now the values favored by oligarchical collectivism, commanded by heavy-handed, top-down corporatists.
Prevailing spiritual beliefs affect us far more than we recognize. If we value individual freedom and dignity, the window of opportunity for a new awakening, to restore (a), to deflate Big Brother, is closing fast. It's our spirituality, or lack thereof, that is shaping the horror that is presently unfolding.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Dollar
The Dollar:
To save the dollar, the regime would need to wish for America's recovery. But what if it does not? I don't mean just the regime of Obama's elites. I mean also the regime of the mega elites who run Obama's elites. Is it ever safe to increase the power of the present regime? Your plan would help, were our leaders actually Americans -- in body and mind. But the writing has been on the wall for a long time that the American idea has been abandoned by the kind of leaders we persist in electing, progressively. Our checks and balances are about to fall. We need a movement to reverse a long term, evil trend, but I despair whether that can be done peaceably. Still, we must try. We desperately need a re-awakening.
The dollar has become just a symbol for the value we place in being governed by an elite that controls all our chokepoints, including: the printing of money, the setting of interest rates, the extent of governmental indebtedness, the budget for legislative enactments, the projection of apologists for elitist rule, the scientists who are dependent on government grants, the politicians who are dependent on corporate contributions, the corporations that are dependent on government kickbacks, the media for mesmerizing public acquiescence, and the academe for inculcating faith and trust in the regime of elitists. Elitists print the dollar, create its value, and spread its influence. Eventually, the dollar, or something very like it, may become a computer-stored measure of the fluxing value that is impersonally placed on each and every non-elite person.
So, insofar as society everywhere is becoming more and more collectivized, with elites to rule the collective, must not whatever replaces the dollar be something very much like the dollar? Will the dollar come to differ only in the nature of the international, elitist regime that sponsors something much like it? Will that regime become a dominating alliance of nations, or a dominating alliance of elitist corporatists? Or an impersonal power monger, like Big Brother? Will elitists gamble with chips for face time with an impersonal power structure, while proles trade in globe-dollars?
From A.T. -- @Ruler4you asked, " Can we survive as a nation is the question?" Bingo! Alternatively stated: Must every nation that values individual freedom and dignity perish?
From A.T. -- @Dougral said, "I hate to say it but America's last chance to be a financially viable nation may not outlast this president." Well, that is the plan of the mega elites who front the elites who rationalize all that is fit for the consumption of the proles. But not even the mega elites will retain much freedom or dignity. They themselves will be reduced to the impersonal power structure of an uncaring, pain inflicting, system of Big Brother, i.e., Progressives' proxy for God. I think the issue to be decided is this: Is impersonal power in its own sake on a par with empathy, or is empathy superior? This will not be decided by logic or science. It will be decided by faith and commitment.
To save the dollar, the regime would need to wish for America's recovery. But what if it does not? I don't mean just the regime of Obama's elites. I mean also the regime of the mega elites who run Obama's elites. Is it ever safe to increase the power of the present regime? Your plan would help, were our leaders actually Americans -- in body and mind. But the writing has been on the wall for a long time that the American idea has been abandoned by the kind of leaders we persist in electing, progressively. Our checks and balances are about to fall. We need a movement to reverse a long term, evil trend, but I despair whether that can be done peaceably. Still, we must try. We desperately need a re-awakening.
The dollar has become just a symbol for the value we place in being governed by an elite that controls all our chokepoints, including: the printing of money, the setting of interest rates, the extent of governmental indebtedness, the budget for legislative enactments, the projection of apologists for elitist rule, the scientists who are dependent on government grants, the politicians who are dependent on corporate contributions, the corporations that are dependent on government kickbacks, the media for mesmerizing public acquiescence, and the academe for inculcating faith and trust in the regime of elitists. Elitists print the dollar, create its value, and spread its influence. Eventually, the dollar, or something very like it, may become a computer-stored measure of the fluxing value that is impersonally placed on each and every non-elite person.
So, insofar as society everywhere is becoming more and more collectivized, with elites to rule the collective, must not whatever replaces the dollar be something very much like the dollar? Will the dollar come to differ only in the nature of the international, elitist regime that sponsors something much like it? Will that regime become a dominating alliance of nations, or a dominating alliance of elitist corporatists? Or an impersonal power monger, like Big Brother? Will elitists gamble with chips for face time with an impersonal power structure, while proles trade in globe-dollars?
From A.T. -- @Ruler4you asked, " Can we survive as a nation is the question?" Bingo! Alternatively stated: Must every nation that values individual freedom and dignity perish?
From A.T. -- @Dougral said, "I hate to say it but America's last chance to be a financially viable nation may not outlast this president." Well, that is the plan of the mega elites who front the elites who rationalize all that is fit for the consumption of the proles. But not even the mega elites will retain much freedom or dignity. They themselves will be reduced to the impersonal power structure of an uncaring, pain inflicting, system of Big Brother, i.e., Progressives' proxy for God. I think the issue to be decided is this: Is impersonal power in its own sake on a par with empathy, or is empathy superior? This will not be decided by logic or science. It will be decided by faith and commitment.
Derivation of "Rights"
Derivation of "Rights":
I suspect it is incoherent to suggest “rights” just naturally exist in themselves. Rights are necessarily derivative. Rights implicate a power that consistently cares enough to enforce them, as rights. They do not implicate a Nature that is entirely indifferent. "Right" does not mix well with "indifference." In my opinion, rights implicate a notion of a caring God. But even an avowed atheist, to seek coherence, will tend at least to implicate a God proxy, i.e., a government that expresses the caring will of its citizenry. In believing (or acting as if) rights are derivative of God, we can hope to intuit in commonality what those rights are. However, if rights are derivative only of human follies, then they become, arbitrarily, whatever the prevailing regime wants to say they are. Then, rights become not a subject of law, but of tyranny, subject to the fires of the memory hole.
God’s law is the basis for whatever may constitute each individual’s good faith intuition of his or her freedom of perspective and expression of good will or empathy towards each other perspective. Apart from regard for a higher, caring Source, whether real or invented by proxy, it is nonsense to speak of freedom in itself. Perhaps this relates to why freedom so scares atheistic corporatist collectivists, who, in fright, seek codependent security thusly: rulers, by ruling others; the ruled, by being ruled.
Problem is, as codependent collectivists come to see that collectivism fails to improve their security, angst, or happiness, they lash out in frustrated anger and focus their united power in order to impose great pain and suffering on others, as well as, eventually, on themselves. They fail to intuit that the road to security is only a byway to the main road. The main road is empathetic regard for the freedom and dignity of one another, as if each were a perspective of the encompassment of Consciousness.
That said, large, modern, international corporations, deeply invested in crony capitalism, tend to be just another form for giving expression to international collectivism. While conservers of liberty focus against communists and progressives, crony capitalistic collectivists are voraciously eating out the heart of human freedom and dignity, right under our noses.
I suspect it is incoherent to suggest “rights” just naturally exist in themselves. Rights are necessarily derivative. Rights implicate a power that consistently cares enough to enforce them, as rights. They do not implicate a Nature that is entirely indifferent. "Right" does not mix well with "indifference." In my opinion, rights implicate a notion of a caring God. But even an avowed atheist, to seek coherence, will tend at least to implicate a God proxy, i.e., a government that expresses the caring will of its citizenry. In believing (or acting as if) rights are derivative of God, we can hope to intuit in commonality what those rights are. However, if rights are derivative only of human follies, then they become, arbitrarily, whatever the prevailing regime wants to say they are. Then, rights become not a subject of law, but of tyranny, subject to the fires of the memory hole.
God’s law is the basis for whatever may constitute each individual’s good faith intuition of his or her freedom of perspective and expression of good will or empathy towards each other perspective. Apart from regard for a higher, caring Source, whether real or invented by proxy, it is nonsense to speak of freedom in itself. Perhaps this relates to why freedom so scares atheistic corporatist collectivists, who, in fright, seek codependent security thusly: rulers, by ruling others; the ruled, by being ruled.
Problem is, as codependent collectivists come to see that collectivism fails to improve their security, angst, or happiness, they lash out in frustrated anger and focus their united power in order to impose great pain and suffering on others, as well as, eventually, on themselves. They fail to intuit that the road to security is only a byway to the main road. The main road is empathetic regard for the freedom and dignity of one another, as if each were a perspective of the encompassment of Consciousness.
That said, large, modern, international corporations, deeply invested in crony capitalism, tend to be just another form for giving expression to international collectivism. While conservers of liberty focus against communists and progressives, crony capitalistic collectivists are voraciously eating out the heart of human freedom and dignity, right under our noses.
1984: Way station to Brave New World
Is “1984” an end station, or only a way station to “Brave New World?” Imagine a world in which a self-sustaining (self-improving?), centralized network of pervasive machines is availed to meet out every human need, save one: the need for self expression. How, then, could the need for self to find expression be satisfied, except by devising ways to promote one’s power for prioritizing one’s demands within the artificial network? Were the network to replace the biosphere, how could one express one’s freedom and dignity, except at the expense of others who have less power or influence within the system? That is, unless (unlikely?) the system consented to allow power to be expressed by tinkering with the system itself.
In effect, such tinkering (benign?) would be a kind of expression of one’s power over everyone else. Everyone’s mind would need to be reprogrammed or inculcated so as to accept, even love, such changes. Would freedom come to consist only in how one is able to participate in effecting new technological or scientific “advances?” To preserve one’s place in the power-priority structure, how much would one always be tempted to ally with, or sabotage, the positions of others, depending on advantages then perceived? Would there necessarily arise between every two persons a love-hate relationship, which is arbitrated primarily by fluxing balances of power?
Eventually, would all that animates every person be the impersonal need of each person to express power? Or, does some higher Empathy trump Power? Should, or will, faith in Empathy lead us to resist a world in which a self-sustaining, self-improving, centralized network of pervasive machines is availed to meet out every other human need? Instead, should we work to keep networks of power separate, independent, redundant, competitive, and delegated to the lowest levels at which they can tend to facilitate reasonable expression of human freedom and dignity? I think, yes.
In effect, such tinkering (benign?) would be a kind of expression of one’s power over everyone else. Everyone’s mind would need to be reprogrammed or inculcated so as to accept, even love, such changes. Would freedom come to consist only in how one is able to participate in effecting new technological or scientific “advances?” To preserve one’s place in the power-priority structure, how much would one always be tempted to ally with, or sabotage, the positions of others, depending on advantages then perceived? Would there necessarily arise between every two persons a love-hate relationship, which is arbitrated primarily by fluxing balances of power?
Eventually, would all that animates every person be the impersonal need of each person to express power? Or, does some higher Empathy trump Power? Should, or will, faith in Empathy lead us to resist a world in which a self-sustaining, self-improving, centralized network of pervasive machines is availed to meet out every other human need? Instead, should we work to keep networks of power separate, independent, redundant, competitive, and delegated to the lowest levels at which they can tend to facilitate reasonable expression of human freedom and dignity? I think, yes.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
MARGINAL UTILITY OF MORAL CHOICES
EVOLUTION OF MARGINAL UTILITY OF MORAL CHOICES:
Physics, natural science, and natural selection have not shed much useful light on the study of economic relations. Instead, we study economics based on concepts such as: the hypothetically reasonable consumer, the arms length competitor, maximization of marginal utility, price effects and diminishing returns on supply and demand, etc. But what about the study of moral or legal relations: Should exchange of mores and laws better be evaluated as a kind of exchange of “merchandise” than as the random or evolving collision of quarks? How may prescriptions and exchanges of mores and laws fulfill maximal desired effect versus diminishing returns? Insofar as the economic model is based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the reasonable consumer), should evolution of a mores model also be based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the good citizen of a sustainable civilization), as opposed to collisions among inanimate quarks composing genes)? IOW, how is the model of natural selection in any way useful for reasoning about moral choices?
Evolution of Marginal Utility of Moral Choices:
Does either beingness or nature restrict parameters for resources and opportunities, so that even moral choices must somehow respect a limiting law of supply and demand?
How does God or Natural Selection make choices within allowed parameters?
Are choices real, or merely random or predetermined?
Can any logic or empirical test provide a reliable answer?
Is reality shaped by layers and levels of conscious evaluations of marginal utility and diminishing returns? Does God weigh marginal utility and diminishing returns? If so, in what way?
Are utilities and returns weighed for each point in space-time, for spans in space-time, or for all of space-time?
For what mix and range of potentials for possibilities does meta consciousness (God?) just happen to assess diminishing returns of fulfillment?
Is there something like a “meta-second,” where time stands still between each sequenced synchronization of the Whole and each feedback from each perspective that exists among the sum of its parts?
In meta intervals between each holistic synchronization and each perspective’s feedback, are choices made based on intuitive estimates or apprehensions of marginal utility?
Can a mere mortal in any reasoned or measurable way relate to how God may weigh marginal utilities? Must not each range of choices for a mortal be circumscribed by the point of view and frame of reference that he then and there happens to be experiencing?
Must not God’s synchronization be affected by our feedback?
Does God seek to reconcile and maximize marginal utilities for fulfillment of various levels and perspectives of consciousness?
If so, how does God choose which perspectives, characters, forms, and patterns most merit perpetuation for being then and there “fittest” for maximizing marginal utility?
Does prayer factor, in ways beyond measure? How?
Well, go ask Rodin’s thinker.
Physics, natural science, and natural selection have not shed much useful light on the study of economic relations. Instead, we study economics based on concepts such as: the hypothetically reasonable consumer, the arms length competitor, maximization of marginal utility, price effects and diminishing returns on supply and demand, etc. But what about the study of moral or legal relations: Should exchange of mores and laws better be evaluated as a kind of exchange of “merchandise” than as the random or evolving collision of quarks? How may prescriptions and exchanges of mores and laws fulfill maximal desired effect versus diminishing returns? Insofar as the economic model is based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the reasonable consumer), should evolution of a mores model also be based on a fundamental unit that is conscious (i.e., the good citizen of a sustainable civilization), as opposed to collisions among inanimate quarks composing genes)? IOW, how is the model of natural selection in any way useful for reasoning about moral choices?
Evolution of Marginal Utility of Moral Choices:
Does either beingness or nature restrict parameters for resources and opportunities, so that even moral choices must somehow respect a limiting law of supply and demand?
How does God or Natural Selection make choices within allowed parameters?
Are choices real, or merely random or predetermined?
Can any logic or empirical test provide a reliable answer?
Is reality shaped by layers and levels of conscious evaluations of marginal utility and diminishing returns? Does God weigh marginal utility and diminishing returns? If so, in what way?
Are utilities and returns weighed for each point in space-time, for spans in space-time, or for all of space-time?
For what mix and range of potentials for possibilities does meta consciousness (God?) just happen to assess diminishing returns of fulfillment?
Is there something like a “meta-second,” where time stands still between each sequenced synchronization of the Whole and each feedback from each perspective that exists among the sum of its parts?
In meta intervals between each holistic synchronization and each perspective’s feedback, are choices made based on intuitive estimates or apprehensions of marginal utility?
Can a mere mortal in any reasoned or measurable way relate to how God may weigh marginal utilities? Must not each range of choices for a mortal be circumscribed by the point of view and frame of reference that he then and there happens to be experiencing?
Must not God’s synchronization be affected by our feedback?
Does God seek to reconcile and maximize marginal utilities for fulfillment of various levels and perspectives of consciousness?
If so, how does God choose which perspectives, characters, forms, and patterns most merit perpetuation for being then and there “fittest” for maximizing marginal utility?
Does prayer factor, in ways beyond measure? How?
Well, go ask Rodin’s thinker.
META FEEDBACK AND INDISTINGUISHABILITY FROM HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS
META FEEDBACK AND INDISTINGUISHABILITY FROM HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS:
Review http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/633. I'm not confident how far logic and empiricism can take us on many of these topics. Actually, I hope logic and empiricism will eventually convince most of us that it makes more sense to model our existence as if consciousness (whatever it is) were on a par with (whatever it is that accounts for) physics. IMO, whatever "truthiness" we reliably glean from physics will not much help us in pursuing moral meaningfulness. And whatever "truthiness" we glean from spiritual beliefs about the character of consciousness will not much help us in pursuing technological improvements.
A problem with many of the approaches that try to "prove" consciousness in only secondary to (or epiphenomenal of?) physics: they tend merely to assume that many thought-to-be fundamental parameters of original design are not responsive to change or expansion via internal feedback.
IOW, they do not pause to consider whether there may be a kind of self-regulating, feedback-homoeostasis that is in some respects INDISTINGUISHABLE from holistic consciousness.
IOW, they apply blinders of bivalent logic, and fail to consider trivalent logic, i.e.: possibilities and choices relating to subjective assessments or probabilities for states of becoming or not becoming, as opposed merely to states of present being or not being.
IOW, the foundational laws may be holistically morphogenetic, to the point of "being sympathetic to" preserving and rewarding those forms, expressions, and communications of allied will that are most empathetic with meaningful fulfillment (i.e., “pursuit of happiness”). IOW, evolution, like gravity, may have both universal and local applications.
Review http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/633. I'm not confident how far logic and empiricism can take us on many of these topics. Actually, I hope logic and empiricism will eventually convince most of us that it makes more sense to model our existence as if consciousness (whatever it is) were on a par with (whatever it is that accounts for) physics. IMO, whatever "truthiness" we reliably glean from physics will not much help us in pursuing moral meaningfulness. And whatever "truthiness" we glean from spiritual beliefs about the character of consciousness will not much help us in pursuing technological improvements.
A problem with many of the approaches that try to "prove" consciousness in only secondary to (or epiphenomenal of?) physics: they tend merely to assume that many thought-to-be fundamental parameters of original design are not responsive to change or expansion via internal feedback.
IOW, they do not pause to consider whether there may be a kind of self-regulating, feedback-homoeostasis that is in some respects INDISTINGUISHABLE from holistic consciousness.
IOW, they apply blinders of bivalent logic, and fail to consider trivalent logic, i.e.: possibilities and choices relating to subjective assessments or probabilities for states of becoming or not becoming, as opposed merely to states of present being or not being.
IOW, the foundational laws may be holistically morphogenetic, to the point of "being sympathetic to" preserving and rewarding those forms, expressions, and communications of allied will that are most empathetic with meaningful fulfillment (i.e., “pursuit of happiness”). IOW, evolution, like gravity, may have both universal and local applications.
ECONOMIC SCIENCE – MAKE IT SO
ECONOMIC SCIENCE – MAKE IT SO: If only we would unclinch our fists and give government the power of Big Brother, then Krugman economics would work! But then, so would 2 plus 2 is 5. The only way Progs will ever understand human psychology is if they are given absolute power. Then, collectivist psychology truly would become doubleplusgoodthink (the Progs' closest notion of "scientific").
IS INFORMATION PRESERVED -- ARE FACTS REALLY FACTS:
IS INFORMATION PRESERVED -- ARE FACTS REALLY FACTS:
EXISTING FACTS: Facts tend to be cherry picked and rationalized. What is more fundamentally important is to have a worldview. One needs to have a moral philosophy. What should one’s purposefulness be about; what facts (or science?) should one seek to bring into existence?
RELIGIOUSLY DELUDED SCIENCE: Capacity for computational self diversion is commonplace. The more interesting capacity pertains to the quality of one’s insight. Our beingness poses more of a problem of moral purposefulness than can be resolved by “scientifically” reducing our beingness to fundamental, measurable parts. The self anointed, scientifically enlightened tend to see Christianity as the major faith that challenges their authority regarding social norms and mores. So, they often believe Christianity must, at all costs, be brought down. They tend to be more tolerant of Islam because they view Islam as a counter vise for helping to screw down Christianity. They think, by demonstrating that Christianity has no more validity than Islam, that they can convince many Christians who are disgusted by Islam to leave all religious faith. The problem is, in believing they “should” so subvert spiritual belief in higher morality, these so called scientifically enlightened would thus substitute their own kind of religious faith.
FEEDBACK: I suspect there are aspects which function and relate, sequentially, regardless of feedback. And then there are functions whose actions and choices depend upon consciousness of feedback.
CAUSATION VS. EPIPHENOMENA: What is God’s range of beingness? Is consciousness entirely epiphenomenal?
EVIL: Evil is to fail to acknowledge or respect the incompleteness of your perspective, and to demand that others must entirely yield to you, rather than join you in empathetic respect and pursuit of the encompassing perspective of the whole. Evil is to be willing to use all means to ensure the other side does not get a hearing. Big Brother POWER is only an evil, incomplete aspect of a more encompassing drive: EMPATHY for all our perspectives.
POWER VS. EMPATHY: Conscious power is expressed as effective will. Will is conscious purposefulness. Purposefulness is to an end. To beg a question, what, if any, is the proper end? Is the proper end power in itself (i.e., Big Brother like perpetuation of impersonal power)? Or is the proper end to avail that various perspectives among the whole of Consciousness may empathetically communicate their arts in relative harmony? Is the end for power, or for empathy? Is the end for impersonal collectivism, or for individually communicable freedom and dignity? Is evolution driven to preserve collectivism, or to communicate individual expressionism? What is the fundamental antagonism that drives history? Is it not an attempt to reconcile Mohammed to Jesus, i.e., forced collectivism to invitational individualism?
EXISTING FACTS: Facts tend to be cherry picked and rationalized. What is more fundamentally important is to have a worldview. One needs to have a moral philosophy. What should one’s purposefulness be about; what facts (or science?) should one seek to bring into existence?
RELIGIOUSLY DELUDED SCIENCE: Capacity for computational self diversion is commonplace. The more interesting capacity pertains to the quality of one’s insight. Our beingness poses more of a problem of moral purposefulness than can be resolved by “scientifically” reducing our beingness to fundamental, measurable parts. The self anointed, scientifically enlightened tend to see Christianity as the major faith that challenges their authority regarding social norms and mores. So, they often believe Christianity must, at all costs, be brought down. They tend to be more tolerant of Islam because they view Islam as a counter vise for helping to screw down Christianity. They think, by demonstrating that Christianity has no more validity than Islam, that they can convince many Christians who are disgusted by Islam to leave all religious faith. The problem is, in believing they “should” so subvert spiritual belief in higher morality, these so called scientifically enlightened would thus substitute their own kind of religious faith.
FEEDBACK: I suspect there are aspects which function and relate, sequentially, regardless of feedback. And then there are functions whose actions and choices depend upon consciousness of feedback.
CAUSATION VS. EPIPHENOMENA: What is God’s range of beingness? Is consciousness entirely epiphenomenal?
EVIL: Evil is to fail to acknowledge or respect the incompleteness of your perspective, and to demand that others must entirely yield to you, rather than join you in empathetic respect and pursuit of the encompassing perspective of the whole. Evil is to be willing to use all means to ensure the other side does not get a hearing. Big Brother POWER is only an evil, incomplete aspect of a more encompassing drive: EMPATHY for all our perspectives.
POWER VS. EMPATHY: Conscious power is expressed as effective will. Will is conscious purposefulness. Purposefulness is to an end. To beg a question, what, if any, is the proper end? Is the proper end power in itself (i.e., Big Brother like perpetuation of impersonal power)? Or is the proper end to avail that various perspectives among the whole of Consciousness may empathetically communicate their arts in relative harmony? Is the end for power, or for empathy? Is the end for impersonal collectivism, or for individually communicable freedom and dignity? Is evolution driven to preserve collectivism, or to communicate individual expressionism? What is the fundamental antagonism that drives history? Is it not an attempt to reconcile Mohammed to Jesus, i.e., forced collectivism to invitational individualism?
DIMINISHING VALUE OF LAW AS MERCHANDISE
DIMINISHING VALUE OF LAW AS MERCHANDISE: How much of Federal regulation is done not in respect of voters’ preferences, national interests, or social justice, but in respect of quid pro quo for favored international corporatists? Problem is, kickbacks reach diminishing returns as federal government reaches beyond the peak of regulation that is profitable to its crony investors. At some point, the sell off of federal regulation becomes a fire sale, and onlookers start shaking their heads at the ridiculousness of the whole scene. Once enough States see that Fed power is crumbling, more and more may begin asserting themselves with righteous impunity. After all, what can Feds do, once they are obviously overstretched? Of course, crony capitalists will then rush to the States. But at least there will be more competition among cronies and more decentralization of power.
SOURCE OF RIGHTS
SOURCE OF RIGHTS:
I suspect most Collectivists do not consider God to have any relation to a flow of "rights" – whether from God through King to people or from God through people to public servants. That is, unless by "God" one means a state of nature and evolution that is purely secondary to the law of tooth and claw, such that the Lion King and his cohorts are always supreme -- political parties be damned. In that respect, elections among collectivists are only a temporary charade, while power is consolidated within the single party syndicate of the state-of-nature, historical-necessity, dialectic-materialists. The only role for the bourgeoisie and the proles is to try to bet on (“pro-pink”) the right tooth-and-claw contender within the single party. That is, the "right" of power contenders is to collectivize, and the "right" of the people at large is to be collectivized. Under aristocratic rule, at least there was lip service to God. Under modern collectivism, the rulers deign that they are Gods (aka "elites"), such that no lip service is requisite.
From A.T. -- @Desert Wheeze, re: “What is this hang-up on the physical vessel of our souls?”
Good point! Another way of looking at it is to consider that physics, however it unfolds or evolves, may constitute a bookmark for the logos or means for continuity in communication among those aspects of consciousness which are beyond physics. If so, of course physics is measurably consistent! Were it not, how else could we communicate?
However, those who wish to believe that evolution found in physics is the “be all end all” seem to be suggesting there are true and best answers to what we “should” do (or legislate) in matters of specific details (such as in moral instruction for school children), for which they believe agents of the State can find and provide objective answers, through logic and/or empiricism. Apparently, only those intuitions, interests, and empathies that can be rationalized to some silly materialist formulation are worthy of moral respect.
Apparently, single-minded (zombiefied?) “objectivists” would suggest that elite “reasoners” can actually find, derive, and prove those answers which are “best” for the rest of us (at least, for those of us who are able to follow). So, if we of the collective fail to follow the justness and rightness of elites’ “proofs,” they imply we are lacking in sufficient mental adeptness. Finding us lacking, they believe we should simply shut up and obey Big Brother’s elites -- or be brought into obedience, per Bill Maher, kicking and screaming, if necessary. But I say, until they inspire and convince me, in respect of the “better angels of my nature,” I decline to believe that they have the best approach to moral issues. That, I suspect, is the unbridgeable chasm between Independents and Collectivist Statists.
*****
SOURCE OF SOMETHINGNESS:
There is something supernatural or magical about the notion of “thingness” having arisen out of “nothingness”; there is Something that is beyond the ken of our empirical comprehension. Warily apart from that Something -- which is implicit in every thingness and beingness -- each of us tries to assert his perspective of Will, leveraging whatever means and principles we may. Yet, none of us has a lever by which to move the universe. Somehow, we intuit purposefulness, i.e., that we “should” be about doing things. Beyond intuition, we do not really much know the character of the Something-Source. Even so, we seek basis for communicating among others about that which we should be doing. Not comprehending the Source, we often test or seek substitute rationalizations. So, we come to hope to find answers about the Source by being receptive to other than the Source, even though such other is always incomplete and often corrupt.
We know we have moral purpose, i.e., we must make choices, even though we have no accurate, empirical means by which to measure our moral gain or loss. So, should we invent a substitute God, one that we can in some ways measure, and then rationalize moral codes around it? Should such God sponsor “the greatest good for the greatest number?” Problem is, one hardly needs a three digit IQ to apprehend how vague that is, or how corrupt it soon becomes to feign otherwise.
Fundamentally, we can choose between two political approaches to the problem of how best to seek civilized assimilation and governance: First, we can choose to trust to assimilate and come together in empathetic respect of each conscious perspective of the meta-Something. So doing, we may find that we become less in need of detailed supervision by busybody “elites.” Second, we can ridicule and abandon thoughts about the meta-Something and instead invest our faith in elite practitioners (Nomenklatura?) of “objective” dialectic materialism and science, to teach us (the collective) “proper” mores and politics.
At bottom, history is about an unfolding confrontation between (1) Individualists who respect a meta Guide versus (2) Groupies who respect collectivizers and being collectivized. At bottom, adherents of both approaches are “religious.” Those scientists who imagine humanity can do “better” without a notion of God tend to be among apologists for Nomenklatura. After all, what’s their alternative? Would collectivizing despots by any other name smell as sweet?
Re: "... purpose and value in an ultimately meaningful universe."
An interesting debate among biologists relates to whether and how evolution may proceed through individuals versus collectives. F. A. Hayek made some perhaps analogous observations about how moral notions unfold or evolve, depending on whether a society is oriented more towards respect for individuals versus collectives. Effects of evolution may be magnified when they occur at points among individuals or collectives that are laden with power to redirect the history that follows.
Is evolution really only random, or is it necessarily laden with factors of choice? When may that determination depend more on one's purpose and worldview than on universal fact? The "truthiness" of our standard model in physics would necessarily come up incomplete were it to try to incorporate a theory of morality and the four fundamental forces into one unifying theory. The "truthiness" of our religious models comes up incomplete when they try to force metaphysical ideas into literal, scientific service in that part of our world that we measurably relate to as physics.
We need means to appreciate what delineates the consciousness of morality apart from the domain of physics. I doubt those delineations can be reconciled by mortals in one domain, either in metaphysics or in science. I believe it is fraud secondary to God-envy for any scientist, evolutionist, or elitist to presume himself best equipped to intrude upon the rest of we collectives to try to forcibly specify the "truly best" and most detailed minutiae of legalisms posing as moral principles derivative of "science."
Re: Evolution of Information and Purposefulness:
Does Information evolve? To what extent may Information from our histories, cultures, designs, and choices evolve and be carried forward, to be represented in our currently availed materials, forms, genes, and consciousness? To a free thinker, is it not valid to discredit scientists and elites when they presume knowledge or authority to ordain the moral philosophy which is “most correct or best” in respect of how Information, culture, and civilization “should” be carried forward? For example, do not appeals to Darwinism seem inappropriate for recommending a civilizing system of law? Yet, merely discrediting big-brother elitism is hardly enough. This is because one does not defeat something with nothing. One needs to investigate and espouse alternative philosophy.
If moral philosophy does not evolve or “progress” to be explicable in purely objective logic or measureable math, then by what wisdom or intuition may one reasonably espouse independent or alternative means to the collective, for the pursuit of civilizing happiness? Is it not obvious that moral wisdom cannot reasonably be based or communicated entirely in science or measurements, nor by ambiguous metaphysical literalisms or shamans? So, how can moral wisdom that is pertinent to its times be reasonably felt, communicated, carried forward, and “evolved?”
Is there some kind of direct, intuitive, empathetic receptivity to a shared higher Identity, which is built into each perspective of consciousness, needing only to be called upon in good will and good faith? To the extent we let ourselves be receptive to such Source, do we tend to recognize that which is worthwhile and that which is not … as we sense and experience it? Becoming thus receptive, do the logos, symbols, sacred stories, and figures of speech needed to communicate good will and good faith then tend to follow, measured more in consciousness than in math? Perhaps, what is most sacred is receptivity to the Source. For that, the parables are secondary, are they not? In making moral, social, and political choices, does not each principled perspective of consciousness need most fundamentally to ascertain or follow a most coherent moral and political philosophy, and then fashion or interpret religious parables and legal models as secondary?
Evolution, as mortals conceptualize it, is fact in the trivial sense that things evolve. Big whump! The question is: Do things evolve purely at (1) random, (2) design, (3) physical predetermination, or (4) some combination thereof? Is there any way, from our limited and particular perspective of the whole, “to prove” or reliably say which of the four is true? On such a large issue, forget navel-gazing scientists. Ask: Since we are discussing proof, as in logical or mathematical proof, what do logicians and mathematicians say about that? I suspect we cannot know. I suspect we can usefully model and conceptualize. However, the usefulness for which we do so will depend on our purpose and context of view and reference. When our purpose is to reason together about civilizing choices we “should” make with regard to resources availed us, show me, prove to me, how it is that “science” is more reliable or more “truthy.” So far, on moral issues, I see children babbling; play acting as if they were “moral scientists.” After all, isn’t that sort of “dress up” what little elite tots who “know best” most love to do? Mummy and Daddy are so impressed!
I suspect most Collectivists do not consider God to have any relation to a flow of "rights" – whether from God through King to people or from God through people to public servants. That is, unless by "God" one means a state of nature and evolution that is purely secondary to the law of tooth and claw, such that the Lion King and his cohorts are always supreme -- political parties be damned. In that respect, elections among collectivists are only a temporary charade, while power is consolidated within the single party syndicate of the state-of-nature, historical-necessity, dialectic-materialists. The only role for the bourgeoisie and the proles is to try to bet on (“pro-pink”) the right tooth-and-claw contender within the single party. That is, the "right" of power contenders is to collectivize, and the "right" of the people at large is to be collectivized. Under aristocratic rule, at least there was lip service to God. Under modern collectivism, the rulers deign that they are Gods (aka "elites"), such that no lip service is requisite.
From A.T. -- @Desert Wheeze, re: “What is this hang-up on the physical vessel of our souls?”
Good point! Another way of looking at it is to consider that physics, however it unfolds or evolves, may constitute a bookmark for the logos or means for continuity in communication among those aspects of consciousness which are beyond physics. If so, of course physics is measurably consistent! Were it not, how else could we communicate?
However, those who wish to believe that evolution found in physics is the “be all end all” seem to be suggesting there are true and best answers to what we “should” do (or legislate) in matters of specific details (such as in moral instruction for school children), for which they believe agents of the State can find and provide objective answers, through logic and/or empiricism. Apparently, only those intuitions, interests, and empathies that can be rationalized to some silly materialist formulation are worthy of moral respect.
Apparently, single-minded (zombiefied?) “objectivists” would suggest that elite “reasoners” can actually find, derive, and prove those answers which are “best” for the rest of us (at least, for those of us who are able to follow). So, if we of the collective fail to follow the justness and rightness of elites’ “proofs,” they imply we are lacking in sufficient mental adeptness. Finding us lacking, they believe we should simply shut up and obey Big Brother’s elites -- or be brought into obedience, per Bill Maher, kicking and screaming, if necessary. But I say, until they inspire and convince me, in respect of the “better angels of my nature,” I decline to believe that they have the best approach to moral issues. That, I suspect, is the unbridgeable chasm between Independents and Collectivist Statists.
*****
SOURCE OF SOMETHINGNESS:
There is something supernatural or magical about the notion of “thingness” having arisen out of “nothingness”; there is Something that is beyond the ken of our empirical comprehension. Warily apart from that Something -- which is implicit in every thingness and beingness -- each of us tries to assert his perspective of Will, leveraging whatever means and principles we may. Yet, none of us has a lever by which to move the universe. Somehow, we intuit purposefulness, i.e., that we “should” be about doing things. Beyond intuition, we do not really much know the character of the Something-Source. Even so, we seek basis for communicating among others about that which we should be doing. Not comprehending the Source, we often test or seek substitute rationalizations. So, we come to hope to find answers about the Source by being receptive to other than the Source, even though such other is always incomplete and often corrupt.
We know we have moral purpose, i.e., we must make choices, even though we have no accurate, empirical means by which to measure our moral gain or loss. So, should we invent a substitute God, one that we can in some ways measure, and then rationalize moral codes around it? Should such God sponsor “the greatest good for the greatest number?” Problem is, one hardly needs a three digit IQ to apprehend how vague that is, or how corrupt it soon becomes to feign otherwise.
Fundamentally, we can choose between two political approaches to the problem of how best to seek civilized assimilation and governance: First, we can choose to trust to assimilate and come together in empathetic respect of each conscious perspective of the meta-Something. So doing, we may find that we become less in need of detailed supervision by busybody “elites.” Second, we can ridicule and abandon thoughts about the meta-Something and instead invest our faith in elite practitioners (Nomenklatura?) of “objective” dialectic materialism and science, to teach us (the collective) “proper” mores and politics.
At bottom, history is about an unfolding confrontation between (1) Individualists who respect a meta Guide versus (2) Groupies who respect collectivizers and being collectivized. At bottom, adherents of both approaches are “religious.” Those scientists who imagine humanity can do “better” without a notion of God tend to be among apologists for Nomenklatura. After all, what’s their alternative? Would collectivizing despots by any other name smell as sweet?
Re: "... purpose and value in an ultimately meaningful universe."
An interesting debate among biologists relates to whether and how evolution may proceed through individuals versus collectives. F. A. Hayek made some perhaps analogous observations about how moral notions unfold or evolve, depending on whether a society is oriented more towards respect for individuals versus collectives. Effects of evolution may be magnified when they occur at points among individuals or collectives that are laden with power to redirect the history that follows.
Is evolution really only random, or is it necessarily laden with factors of choice? When may that determination depend more on one's purpose and worldview than on universal fact? The "truthiness" of our standard model in physics would necessarily come up incomplete were it to try to incorporate a theory of morality and the four fundamental forces into one unifying theory. The "truthiness" of our religious models comes up incomplete when they try to force metaphysical ideas into literal, scientific service in that part of our world that we measurably relate to as physics.
We need means to appreciate what delineates the consciousness of morality apart from the domain of physics. I doubt those delineations can be reconciled by mortals in one domain, either in metaphysics or in science. I believe it is fraud secondary to God-envy for any scientist, evolutionist, or elitist to presume himself best equipped to intrude upon the rest of we collectives to try to forcibly specify the "truly best" and most detailed minutiae of legalisms posing as moral principles derivative of "science."
Re: Evolution of Information and Purposefulness:
Does Information evolve? To what extent may Information from our histories, cultures, designs, and choices evolve and be carried forward, to be represented in our currently availed materials, forms, genes, and consciousness? To a free thinker, is it not valid to discredit scientists and elites when they presume knowledge or authority to ordain the moral philosophy which is “most correct or best” in respect of how Information, culture, and civilization “should” be carried forward? For example, do not appeals to Darwinism seem inappropriate for recommending a civilizing system of law? Yet, merely discrediting big-brother elitism is hardly enough. This is because one does not defeat something with nothing. One needs to investigate and espouse alternative philosophy.
If moral philosophy does not evolve or “progress” to be explicable in purely objective logic or measureable math, then by what wisdom or intuition may one reasonably espouse independent or alternative means to the collective, for the pursuit of civilizing happiness? Is it not obvious that moral wisdom cannot reasonably be based or communicated entirely in science or measurements, nor by ambiguous metaphysical literalisms or shamans? So, how can moral wisdom that is pertinent to its times be reasonably felt, communicated, carried forward, and “evolved?”
Is there some kind of direct, intuitive, empathetic receptivity to a shared higher Identity, which is built into each perspective of consciousness, needing only to be called upon in good will and good faith? To the extent we let ourselves be receptive to such Source, do we tend to recognize that which is worthwhile and that which is not … as we sense and experience it? Becoming thus receptive, do the logos, symbols, sacred stories, and figures of speech needed to communicate good will and good faith then tend to follow, measured more in consciousness than in math? Perhaps, what is most sacred is receptivity to the Source. For that, the parables are secondary, are they not? In making moral, social, and political choices, does not each principled perspective of consciousness need most fundamentally to ascertain or follow a most coherent moral and political philosophy, and then fashion or interpret religious parables and legal models as secondary?
Evolution, as mortals conceptualize it, is fact in the trivial sense that things evolve. Big whump! The question is: Do things evolve purely at (1) random, (2) design, (3) physical predetermination, or (4) some combination thereof? Is there any way, from our limited and particular perspective of the whole, “to prove” or reliably say which of the four is true? On such a large issue, forget navel-gazing scientists. Ask: Since we are discussing proof, as in logical or mathematical proof, what do logicians and mathematicians say about that? I suspect we cannot know. I suspect we can usefully model and conceptualize. However, the usefulness for which we do so will depend on our purpose and context of view and reference. When our purpose is to reason together about civilizing choices we “should” make with regard to resources availed us, show me, prove to me, how it is that “science” is more reliable or more “truthy.” So far, on moral issues, I see children babbling; play acting as if they were “moral scientists.” After all, isn’t that sort of “dress up” what little elite tots who “know best” most love to do? Mummy and Daddy are so impressed!
CRONY CAPITALISM and COLLECTIVIST SOLIPSISM
CRONY CAPITALISM – CRASS OR NOBLE:
That Americans are now saturated with crony capitalism is obvious. But is there debate about whether the usual purpose of crony capitalists is crass or noble? Do our crony rulers mean well for us, or do they primarily mean well for themselves? Well, insofar as they believe in no higher value than their own promotions by whatever means possible, why should anyone be hoodwinked to believe they mean well for anyone apart from themselves? That they are often practiced liars, even to themselves, is obvious. But how can any well meaning, reasonably capable person fail to see the worst among them for the monsters that they are?
If the law of the jungle is the only force that drives evolution (or even if one only believes such is so), why should anyone respect any scruple higher than the desire to replicate and perpetuate the most vicious aspects of oneself against all with whom one has not been conditioned to identify? Why in the world should anyone not among the favored gang expect any treatment that is other than marginally cynical, abusive, or ruthless? Once billionaires acquire means to own governments and politicians, or to compete to acquire such ownership, what in each crony’s life-journey should cause anyone but a fool to doubt that cronies will so compete?
Arms-length capitalism is great. But when the gulf in political and economic influence between haves and have-nots is allowed to become a chasm wide enough to harden opposing empathies, then what manner of political checks and balances can possibly protect any well-meaning masses? Certainly not collectivism! After all, collectivism is just differently masked crony capitalism, i.e., pillaging rule under the most practiced of pretended benefactors.
The idea of America has been ruthlessly infected from within. To have any hope to combat the raging infection, Americans need to re-kindle a civilizing notion of evolving mores, superior to the stunted notion of evolution that is now popular among crony elites and used by them to rationalize cynical rule. We need continuously to consider: What is the character of the Source of evolution, persistence, and replication? What is the character of the Source of consciously appreciable forms and patterns, which appear to be secondary to a system of mathematical parameters for regulating a generally directional force in space-time? Does the Source prefer that its individuated perspectives of moral expression should evolve to choose to communicate in respect of “do unto others before they do unto you,” or in respect of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” The dignity of each American, as being responsible for his or her own moral conscience, is at stake.
FACE OF COLLECTIVIST SOLIPSISM:
Obama is a petty little man who has taken grievance mongering to heights not recently scaled. He could teach an entire course, "Polypsych," i.e., "the science of becoming a political celebrity by constantly lying to the body politic." In "1984," George Orwell wrote: "There is a word in Newspeak.... duckspeak.... Applied to an opponent, it is abuse. Applied to someone you agree with, it is praise." When Bush took from you, it was a tax. When Obama takes from you, it's a doubleplusgood redistribution.
Obama promised he would spread wealth by taking only from the rich. What he omitted to say was that he would actually increase the wealth of the corrupt cronies among the rich who support the regime that fronts him. How? By indirectly taxing and impoverishing the mass of middle class producers. In Newspeak, that's actually doubleplusungood.
What is fronting Obama? A cynical, lying, corrupt regime that is built on entitlement and hatred. Those are the feelings that constitute its "higher values."
That Americans are now saturated with crony capitalism is obvious. But is there debate about whether the usual purpose of crony capitalists is crass or noble? Do our crony rulers mean well for us, or do they primarily mean well for themselves? Well, insofar as they believe in no higher value than their own promotions by whatever means possible, why should anyone be hoodwinked to believe they mean well for anyone apart from themselves? That they are often practiced liars, even to themselves, is obvious. But how can any well meaning, reasonably capable person fail to see the worst among them for the monsters that they are?
If the law of the jungle is the only force that drives evolution (or even if one only believes such is so), why should anyone respect any scruple higher than the desire to replicate and perpetuate the most vicious aspects of oneself against all with whom one has not been conditioned to identify? Why in the world should anyone not among the favored gang expect any treatment that is other than marginally cynical, abusive, or ruthless? Once billionaires acquire means to own governments and politicians, or to compete to acquire such ownership, what in each crony’s life-journey should cause anyone but a fool to doubt that cronies will so compete?
Arms-length capitalism is great. But when the gulf in political and economic influence between haves and have-nots is allowed to become a chasm wide enough to harden opposing empathies, then what manner of political checks and balances can possibly protect any well-meaning masses? Certainly not collectivism! After all, collectivism is just differently masked crony capitalism, i.e., pillaging rule under the most practiced of pretended benefactors.
The idea of America has been ruthlessly infected from within. To have any hope to combat the raging infection, Americans need to re-kindle a civilizing notion of evolving mores, superior to the stunted notion of evolution that is now popular among crony elites and used by them to rationalize cynical rule. We need continuously to consider: What is the character of the Source of evolution, persistence, and replication? What is the character of the Source of consciously appreciable forms and patterns, which appear to be secondary to a system of mathematical parameters for regulating a generally directional force in space-time? Does the Source prefer that its individuated perspectives of moral expression should evolve to choose to communicate in respect of “do unto others before they do unto you,” or in respect of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” The dignity of each American, as being responsible for his or her own moral conscience, is at stake.
FACE OF COLLECTIVIST SOLIPSISM:
Obama is a petty little man who has taken grievance mongering to heights not recently scaled. He could teach an entire course, "Polypsych," i.e., "the science of becoming a political celebrity by constantly lying to the body politic." In "1984," George Orwell wrote: "There is a word in Newspeak.... duckspeak.... Applied to an opponent, it is abuse. Applied to someone you agree with, it is praise." When Bush took from you, it was a tax. When Obama takes from you, it's a doubleplusgood redistribution.
Obama promised he would spread wealth by taking only from the rich. What he omitted to say was that he would actually increase the wealth of the corrupt cronies among the rich who support the regime that fronts him. How? By indirectly taxing and impoverishing the mass of middle class producers. In Newspeak, that's actually doubleplusungood.
What is fronting Obama? A cynical, lying, corrupt regime that is built on entitlement and hatred. Those are the feelings that constitute its "higher values."
BEING AN AMERICAN
BEING AN AMERICAN: What does it mean, in one’s heart, to be an American? If ODSTR (“Obama the Duckspeaking Totus Reader”) has any clue, it’s only about what it takes to overcome being an American. This man does not seek to advance American ideals. He seeks to replace them. And what are his tools? What does Obama mean when he extols “diversity?” What kind of diversity? Does he admire the black, brown, red, or yellow person who admires traditional American values? Really? Forget race. What Obama really means is he wants to flood America with anti-independent, anti-free-thinking, anti-god-fearing, co-dependent, easily gulled, entitlement-minded collectivists and progressives. Since ghetto cultures he needs in order to drown America consist largely of contiguous cultures that largely happen not to share values of WASPs, Obama promotes “diversity” and “open society.” But notice: Few of the diversity folks Obama extols are of a background that admires the values that define traditional Americans. Speaking of diversity, when in the name of diversity did his Party welcome conservative-minded minorities? The “change” Obama wants is to “dhimminize” American style individual freedom of conscience. Does Obama “profile” in a belief that whites largely oppose him? If not, why is it so important to him to keep America’s borders wide open? If Obama’s programs are reasonable, decent, and appropriate, then why does he assume they cannot be justified to the present citizenry, without erasing our borders? How can any real American, of whatever race, find Obama’s goals to be anything other than evil?
MORAL RELATIVISM
MORAL RELATIVISM – DEPENDS ON THE PRIMACY OF THAT TO WHICH ONE RELATES:
I'm not confident the stumbling block for moral concerns pertains to moral relativism, per se. I think the problem pertains more to how moral relativism is defined and related. Should moral relativism be in the service of God, without intermediaries (scientists, prophets, popes, and imams), or should moral relativism be in the service of Big Brother, without God?
Should we regard one another as potential lamps of God, or should we regard one another only as tools of Big Brother? If we regard one another as potential lamps of God, what is the common moral light (or Source of empathy) to which we are all invited to relate? If we regard one another only as tools of Big Brother or his regime, to what means will we not stoop to accomplish his ends (i.e., "save the planet")?
Do we live only to be collectivized to secular purposes of the regime (Big Brother or Big Imam), or do we collectivize only to live, i.e., to pursue our common interests as God gives us individually the light to see them? Do we fashion government to preserve individual dignity and freedom or to scourge us with collective enslavement? Do we rely on inculcating self respect and encouraging individual alms to charities, or do we rely on “government-forced-charity” and reduction of people to public entitlement beggars? Those are ways to state the dilemma.
Maybe it’s semantics, but I’m not sure I quite see respect for individual freedom as being counter either to moral values or to rationalism. IOW, I see a dilemma, but it may be over thinking the problem to see a double dilemma. Simply put, it is not the government’s place to enforce every moral value. It is the government’s place to provide only a limited framework for preserving the general expression of moral values by individuals. That said, I do agree that some values (some family values) may be so essential to our continued assimilation as a viable and moral nation as to necessitate “group action” (protection and advocacy) both by government and by spiritual and moral leaders.
I'm not confident the stumbling block for moral concerns pertains to moral relativism, per se. I think the problem pertains more to how moral relativism is defined and related. Should moral relativism be in the service of God, without intermediaries (scientists, prophets, popes, and imams), or should moral relativism be in the service of Big Brother, without God?
Should we regard one another as potential lamps of God, or should we regard one another only as tools of Big Brother? If we regard one another as potential lamps of God, what is the common moral light (or Source of empathy) to which we are all invited to relate? If we regard one another only as tools of Big Brother or his regime, to what means will we not stoop to accomplish his ends (i.e., "save the planet")?
Do we live only to be collectivized to secular purposes of the regime (Big Brother or Big Imam), or do we collectivize only to live, i.e., to pursue our common interests as God gives us individually the light to see them? Do we fashion government to preserve individual dignity and freedom or to scourge us with collective enslavement? Do we rely on inculcating self respect and encouraging individual alms to charities, or do we rely on “government-forced-charity” and reduction of people to public entitlement beggars? Those are ways to state the dilemma.
Maybe it’s semantics, but I’m not sure I quite see respect for individual freedom as being counter either to moral values or to rationalism. IOW, I see a dilemma, but it may be over thinking the problem to see a double dilemma. Simply put, it is not the government’s place to enforce every moral value. It is the government’s place to provide only a limited framework for preserving the general expression of moral values by individuals. That said, I do agree that some values (some family values) may be so essential to our continued assimilation as a viable and moral nation as to necessitate “group action” (protection and advocacy) both by government and by spiritual and moral leaders.
Orwell's 1984
ORWELL’S 1984:
Re-read Orwell's 1984. Reconsider the worldwide drift towards the rule of the collectivized by the collectivizers. What does it matter, whether the collectivizers are called Imams, Nobles, Nomenklatura, or International Cronie Capitalists? If those whose primary goal is projection of power over the collective manage to prevail over those whose primary goal is empathetic appreciation among the free, then the result will be the same, regardless of whatever the label applied to the political system, whether "socialism" or "capitalism." That result, as Orwell noted, will be a boot on the face of humanity -- forever. For conservers of liberty, who believe in human freedom and dignity, the battle is against collectivizers, no matter what the label they may apply to themselves. In that light, I don't see present trends as necessarily favoring conservers of liberty. Indeed, individual decency can hardly expect automatically to prevail over collective brutality, absent eternal vigilance.
Re-read Orwell's 1984. Reconsider the worldwide drift towards the rule of the collectivized by the collectivizers. What does it matter, whether the collectivizers are called Imams, Nobles, Nomenklatura, or International Cronie Capitalists? If those whose primary goal is projection of power over the collective manage to prevail over those whose primary goal is empathetic appreciation among the free, then the result will be the same, regardless of whatever the label applied to the political system, whether "socialism" or "capitalism." That result, as Orwell noted, will be a boot on the face of humanity -- forever. For conservers of liberty, who believe in human freedom and dignity, the battle is against collectivizers, no matter what the label they may apply to themselves. In that light, I don't see present trends as necessarily favoring conservers of liberty. Indeed, individual decency can hardly expect automatically to prevail over collective brutality, absent eternal vigilance.
Free Trade
FREE TRADE:
FREE CORPORATIST TRADE: The Founders’ idea was to fashion a government that would check itself, intrude as little as possible, and provide for such essential and common needs as can be met only by government, such as for common defense of the nation’s borders. However, borders and even entire cultures can be undermined and overwhelmed not only by physical invasion, but also by infection by corporatist ruses. Insofar as each corporation is created, licensed, and approved by the government, the government has at least an obligation to regulate its creation so that it does not run amuck over the freedom and dignity of the people. In that respect, ask: Must government regulate actions of international corporatists at least to the extent necessary so they are not allowed to render republican representation a charade? To ask such a question is to light its answer: Of course! Because the idea is not to replace government with free reigning international corporatism. Rather, the idea is to defend a nation of freedom and dignity against the onslaught of international collectivism – regardless of whether the onslaught is by direct invasion across borders or by indirect infection, through international corporatist viruses.
QUESTIONS BEGGED: I would think more about fundamental questions that are begged and not answered. Such as: Just how much open-society, free-trade, and devil dealing can we afford with collectivist countries, without capitulating to be collectivized by them? Isn’t international crony corporatism its own form of collectivism? In any event, I would not unlock my doors to trade with someone bent on undermining my home just because I was envious of bananas or diamonds. As for the rare earth stuff, well, I suspect we could trade for that without allowing ourselves to be undermined. Yes, if men were angels, free trade would be great. For that matter, if government were competent, Krugman's collectivist solutions would work.
However, seeing the door locked, the smart wolf will always come courting in coat and tie. But underneath, he is still a wolf. Too often, the salesmanship of "trust me, I just want what's best for the world" is camouflage, al-Taqiyya, or plain old Mafiosi, holiday-turkey pretense. Simply put, I don't see it as good trade to lose our industry in order to deal bananas or diamonds with despots, just because "free trade" has a nice ring to it. We need not be blind to how Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is in thrall of moneyed (corporate) interests, paying only lip service to principles of representation. Just my 2 cents.
UNREALITY OF FREE TRADE: It would be one thing if there were such a thing as free trade. Or if we were talking about free trade between individuals and small businesses. But I suspect most of what passes for "free trade" is done under the guise of fictitious persons, i.e., corporations, many of them international -- with no loyalties to nations, persons, or values, and with few qualms against doing whatever is needed in order to compete in the local culture.
Being so "tolerant" in our diversity, I wonder how much we are learning to look the other way, as evolving "corporate mores" find no shame in selling national secrets or investing internationally (even illegally) in politicians. Not to mention that various nations still engage in practices calculated to favor local corporations, maintain local prices, and help dump stuff on our markets.
My point is, once free trade comes to be an illusion, in that we are the only ones doing it, while everyone else is robbing us blind, it seems a little short sighted to think, well, if we set the example, maybe we can get others to follow. Sort of reminds me of Obama setting the example to try to get Muslims to "unclinch their fists."
Frankly, I suspect North America probably has almost all the resources it needs. I hardly see the reason to help Arabs develop energy resources while we restrict our own, so we can enrich them so they can undermine us at home. Look under the apologies for "free trade" and I suspect there will be found a lot of "free corruption." In any event, an infectious kind of Soros corruption has made America very ill, IMO.
I would be far more comfortable if we were talking about free trade among nations that respect individual freedom and dignity over regimes that run roughshod over the collectivized, as by socialism, communism, despotism, or corporate-run statism. But we are not. As I see it, "free trade" tends to be a slogan used by those who wish to collectivize us because it still carries some nice connotations.
SMART TRADE: IMO, we need "smart trade" more than free trade. The kind of "free trade" we have now will inexorably ruin American industry and feed the rise of collectivizers. It hardly comforts me that collectivizers who come to own America's politicians and thus rule the rest of us happen to be cronie capitalists instead of traditionally socialistic despots. Either way, for everyone who isn't the lead dog, the view for the middle class that is to be ruled will be the same.
FREE CORPORATIST TRADE: The Founders’ idea was to fashion a government that would check itself, intrude as little as possible, and provide for such essential and common needs as can be met only by government, such as for common defense of the nation’s borders. However, borders and even entire cultures can be undermined and overwhelmed not only by physical invasion, but also by infection by corporatist ruses. Insofar as each corporation is created, licensed, and approved by the government, the government has at least an obligation to regulate its creation so that it does not run amuck over the freedom and dignity of the people. In that respect, ask: Must government regulate actions of international corporatists at least to the extent necessary so they are not allowed to render republican representation a charade? To ask such a question is to light its answer: Of course! Because the idea is not to replace government with free reigning international corporatism. Rather, the idea is to defend a nation of freedom and dignity against the onslaught of international collectivism – regardless of whether the onslaught is by direct invasion across borders or by indirect infection, through international corporatist viruses.
QUESTIONS BEGGED: I would think more about fundamental questions that are begged and not answered. Such as: Just how much open-society, free-trade, and devil dealing can we afford with collectivist countries, without capitulating to be collectivized by them? Isn’t international crony corporatism its own form of collectivism? In any event, I would not unlock my doors to trade with someone bent on undermining my home just because I was envious of bananas or diamonds. As for the rare earth stuff, well, I suspect we could trade for that without allowing ourselves to be undermined. Yes, if men were angels, free trade would be great. For that matter, if government were competent, Krugman's collectivist solutions would work.
However, seeing the door locked, the smart wolf will always come courting in coat and tie. But underneath, he is still a wolf. Too often, the salesmanship of "trust me, I just want what's best for the world" is camouflage, al-Taqiyya, or plain old Mafiosi, holiday-turkey pretense. Simply put, I don't see it as good trade to lose our industry in order to deal bananas or diamonds with despots, just because "free trade" has a nice ring to it. We need not be blind to how Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is in thrall of moneyed (corporate) interests, paying only lip service to principles of representation. Just my 2 cents.
UNREALITY OF FREE TRADE: It would be one thing if there were such a thing as free trade. Or if we were talking about free trade between individuals and small businesses. But I suspect most of what passes for "free trade" is done under the guise of fictitious persons, i.e., corporations, many of them international -- with no loyalties to nations, persons, or values, and with few qualms against doing whatever is needed in order to compete in the local culture.
Being so "tolerant" in our diversity, I wonder how much we are learning to look the other way, as evolving "corporate mores" find no shame in selling national secrets or investing internationally (even illegally) in politicians. Not to mention that various nations still engage in practices calculated to favor local corporations, maintain local prices, and help dump stuff on our markets.
My point is, once free trade comes to be an illusion, in that we are the only ones doing it, while everyone else is robbing us blind, it seems a little short sighted to think, well, if we set the example, maybe we can get others to follow. Sort of reminds me of Obama setting the example to try to get Muslims to "unclinch their fists."
Frankly, I suspect North America probably has almost all the resources it needs. I hardly see the reason to help Arabs develop energy resources while we restrict our own, so we can enrich them so they can undermine us at home. Look under the apologies for "free trade" and I suspect there will be found a lot of "free corruption." In any event, an infectious kind of Soros corruption has made America very ill, IMO.
I would be far more comfortable if we were talking about free trade among nations that respect individual freedom and dignity over regimes that run roughshod over the collectivized, as by socialism, communism, despotism, or corporate-run statism. But we are not. As I see it, "free trade" tends to be a slogan used by those who wish to collectivize us because it still carries some nice connotations.
SMART TRADE: IMO, we need "smart trade" more than free trade. The kind of "free trade" we have now will inexorably ruin American industry and feed the rise of collectivizers. It hardly comforts me that collectivizers who come to own America's politicians and thus rule the rest of us happen to be cronie capitalists instead of traditionally socialistic despots. Either way, for everyone who isn't the lead dog, the view for the middle class that is to be ruled will be the same.
RELIGION OR CRIME
RELIGION OR CRIME: If the Mafia sent out circulars inviting people to come to a series of seminars to learn how to be wise guys and to get ahead by killing or enslaving neighbors, and actually conducted training and mind-conditioning meant to extract promises that the participants would so engage, then would our laws or Constitution preclude closing down all such seminar sites as are shown to foment such conspiracies? Would the result be different, were the Made Men, Captains, and Bosses to suddenly announce that God had instructed them in a vision that He had chosen them to wage such violence as jihad? When our Constitution talks about freedom of religion, did the founders intend to tie the government's hands from protecting the citizenry of free men and women from being terrorized by conspiratorial, violence-mad cults? IOW, when a local facility calls itself a religion, church, or mosque and yet shows itself to be prone to incitement of conspiratorial, violence-mad cultism, then is there some magical, talisman-like effect to the word "religion?" IOW, is a facility where incitement to violence-mad cultism is preached a church or religion, just because the locals label it as such? IOW, is there any objective, reasoned, LIMITING meaning to "religion?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
