Platonic Virtues of States and Ctizens:
If even God were uncertain of ultimate teleology or purpose, would not God, so far as we can reasonably relate, share some of our platonic, day to day purposes, i.e., to pursue happiness, as by inculcating opportunities to learn courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice?
Think categorically and consider: What if every thing, every event, every person, and every State were courageous, wise, temperate, and just? Then, unless perfect and without propensity to forget or backslide, how would anyone experience reminders, absent occasional testing and sharpening against the cowardly, foolish, intemperate, and evil? So long as pursuits of art, science, and novelty remain unobtained, how shall such pursuits otherwise be sharpened?
WHAT BELIEVERS IN "PROGRESS" SEEM OFTEN NOT TO APPREHEND:
That it is good for one citizen to work full time as a potter does not make it good that all persons should be potters;
That it is good that one person of skill is richly rewarded does not make it good that all persons should be richly rewarded;
That it is good that a skilled person should be richly rewarded does not make it good that he should, by means of his riches, rule most others as serfs;
That a person is skilled at investing in stocks does not make it good that he should be allowed to manipulate stocks so as to acquire influence to rule others as serfs;
That trade across national borders can enrich all does not make it good that trade should be so incorporated as to empower those who rule the corporation then to corrupt, replace, and rule the cultures of all states;
That a person believes neither God nor the State are as qualified as he or his notions to avail the ground of being and of citizenship does not make it good that other persons should tolerate, humor, or facilitate his belief.
Rather, I suspect that which qualifies any person to deny authority to any other to feign intercessionary authority as spokesperson or avatar for God is such person's direct intuition and empathy as a perspective of conscious free will.
To believe otherwise is to open wide the way for those who would canibalize entire communities, cultures, and states.
******
Why do economic "scientists" seem always to offer up cargo cult math, while refusing to devote even a footnote's worth of consideration to the most important of values, i.e., the values that are beyond quantitative measure, like those of freedom and dignity, protected under a nation that is founded to preserve for its citizens such values above all others?
Why does the free trade mantra so often seem fitted to freezing minds to the "justice" of rule of nations under corporate oligarchs, as if the mores and traditions of all cultures pale in value when compared to the justness of being ruled by our oligarchic betters, as if all that cannot be folded into a dollar calculaton were mere humbug, for which millions have died, for no purpose of worth?
How long before the mask slips from the most vociferous of free traders, to reveal the hirelings of just one more cohort of Progs? Does the mask slip only after the nation is ka-put?
As one considers the models and math of Krugman, Obama, and Soros, as if the same were intended to facilitate jobs and prosperity for a free and independent America, at some point, seeing the models and math make no sense, should one reassess one's premises? What if the goal has little to do with jobs and prosperity for a free and independent America? What if the goal of Krugman and Obama is to reduce America in order to facilitate some kind of worldwide, economic kum ba yah? What if the goal of Soros is to front the cohort that is to feed from the economic open society? What if Krugman and Obama are deluded about the capacity for mankind to live in worldwide harmony, while Soros is deluded about his capacity to lead Americans and mankind into worldwide villeinage?
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Allah-Borg-Corp
Re: Allah-Borg-Corp
To force a human being, physically or by whip of necessity, to act, profess, and believe other than consistent with his authentic self is very nearly to rob him of the potential of his soul. It is to force him to surrender and submit to an Allah-Borg-Corp.
Islam and Marxism are only derivatives, not the essence of soul succubi. They are secondary to their men behind the curtain, i.e., their funders. In modern times, these funders tend to be international-corporate-banking-securities-hedge-artists and government-favor-trading-influence-peddlers. Such artistry is now mainly performed under cover of international corporatism, because corporations respect no boundaries in territory, culture, or mores. To put those international corporatists, whose confluent effluent undermines America, under America’s supervision would be to shrivel the lifeblood that funnels to Islam and Marxism. So, how can that kind of adult supervision be invigorated?
For that, there is no perfect constitution, empirical solution, or model. If there is truth in the idealism of George Berkeley, it is because those aspects of physics which we take to be amenable of modeling in terms of pure, empirical massiveness are artifactually and ultimately dependent upon forms and organizations of rules for forming in-form-ation. Those are availed by a holistic source of consciousness; they are availed as our ground of being and basis for communication. The physical signposts we talk about and model are not means for the explicating of their own ends. They are only means for appreciating and communicating such pursuits as we perspectives of consciousness happen to find ourselves pursuing within any slice of space-time. The only true north star for moral interaction abides not in absolutist rationalism or empiricism, but in a spiritual basis, i.e., an ineffable capacity for empathy in communication among perspectives of the One same fundamental consciousness.
The faster an intellectually honest person tries to model and push a narrow slice of empirical experience into duty for focusing and clearly explicating and communicating all of "reality," the sooner his empirical delusions reach the absurd. The more complex the "physical" system, the more often and more quickly the absurd is reached and ignored. Thus, imagination begets information, begets “mass,” begets surprising potentials, uncertainties, and conundrums. All abides in God's good time. IOW, adult supervision necessitates spiritual adults. Indeed, the idea of America can hardly survive without idealists. So, we have no choice but to muddle about, seeking balance while we apprehend only our pursuits of fulfillment, not our actual fulfillment, tinkering with those forms which avail tinkering.
To my taste, we desperately need forms for putting international corporatists on probation. The issue is: Should corporations properly be considered as citizens of the world and also as simultaneous citizens of various States to which they owe no particular loyalty? When should corporations and their main shareholders be considered akin to illegal aliens or traitorous citizens? For that, consider some temporal measures for "comprehensive tinkering" and, if necessary, constitutional amendments, to wit:
ADULT GROUNDING OF PAID TO BE CORRUPT FEDS (to stop the treasonous, corporate-sponsored sell out of America to global collectivism):
1) Stoutly identify that which is the enemy of human freedom and dignity, i.e., the enemy of the idea of America (which includes Islamism, Marxism, and Globalism);
2) Follow the money (cui bono) and learn to spot the language of collectivizing deceivers, communalist and corporatist, alike;
3) Require detailed accounting by corporations of all domestic business that is in any respect done in corporate form within America;
4) Prohibit any corporation that fails to organize a financially solvent domestic subsidiary from transacting any business or transferring any goods, funds, credits, or stocks in America or across America’s borders;
5) Put a sur tax of 10 percent on every extra territorial transfer or investment of domestic corporate goods, funds, credits, wire transfers, or stocks that cross national borders;
6) Prohibit any foreign national, or non-domestic corporation, from owning more than 10 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;
7) Prohibit foreign nationals and non-domestic corporations from aggregating to own more than 20 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;
8) Allow domestic corporations to obtain finder’s fees and to sue for unfair competition in instances where other corporations are found to have failed to pay the 10 percent sur tax on extra national transactions;
9) Give domestic shareholders authority to bring class actions to forfeit (or acquire) stocks of all foreign nationals found individually, in organized groups, or in joint stock companies to hold more than 10 percent of the stock of a domestic corporation;
10) Rescind the limited liability of every stockholder (whether person or organized group) who owns more than 10 percent of a corporation that is found liable for penalties or damages in contract, tort, or civil liability;
11) Establish parameters and procedures to identify abusers and to cashier or forfeit their rights to buy, inherit, or own property in the form of corporate stocks;
12) Put a 25 percent “political consumption tax” per annum on every political contribution that accumulates, per individual or per organized bundle, that amounts to more than $10,000, and then apply the tax revenues exclusively to retiring public debt;
13) Include for calculating such tax all salaries and payments for all activities designed to increase political influence or to influence political action, including: indirect payments to otherwise unpaid czars, community organizers, political propagandists, op-ed writers, political pundits, political satirists, political fund raisers, and political parties;
14) Prohibit all contributions and measurable enhancements to American politicians from non-domestic, extra-national corporations or foreign nationals, and establish forfeitures and jail terms violators and their agents;
15) Require every lobbyist and corporation that contacts or contracts with the federal government to keep open books to identify in detail its history of: campaign contributions; contacts with federal officials above a certain grade; all federal laws and regulations promulgated with regard to clients or products;
16) Require that no lobbyist, governmental employee, official, or “unpaid czar” be allowed to hold stock – in any company that sells products to the federal government – that is valued at more than $200,000 or that person’s gross annual income, whichever is less;
17) Require that a person who runs or works for a regulatory agency, who writes or enforces federal regulations, must not have worked for, been salaried by, be married to, or a partner with a person who has worked for, any corporation that remains subject to specific and detailed regulation under such agency ... unless such person is vouched for, on the record, by the committee in Congress that happens specifically to be charged with oversight of such affairs;
18) Require that every person whose income or salary exceeds $100,000 per annum — who runs, works for, or is given detailed access to (i.e., “czars”), a federal regulatory agency – must provide a complete and verifiable resume of his or her birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations; and verifiable list of his or her political donations made to any person or cause in an accumulated amount of more than $500;
19) Entitle each candidate for federal office to require all other such candidates to provide complete and verifiable resumes of birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations, and verifiable list of political donors (individuals and organizations) who have donated or bundled more than $500;
20) End federal interference with States in the enforcement of their international borders;
21) Prohibit the immigration and naturalization of members of all groups, clubs, and creeds that are inimical to, or on any kind of jihad against, the culture of freedom and dignity of Americans, to include communists and Islamists;
22) Require that the federal government not budget expenditures in any fiscal year that would allow any State to receive per capita federal funding for total internal construction, expenditures, and salaries that would accumulate to more than 200 percent of the per capita funding of any other State – absent 2/3 approval of both the House and the Senate;
23) End the income tax and replace it with sales/consumption/transaction taxes, to include a tax on retail sales and a progressive tax only against individuals, based on annual accumulated consumption. Use it to "spread wealth" indirectly and to a level closer to the people, by returning much of it directly to the States on a per capita basis.
24) Empower governors of the States at any time to remove a sitting President, upon a 3/5 vote of no confidence by 30 or more governors, provided they represent at least 2/3 of the general population.
Admittedly, these are filled with loopholes that would eventually be exploited. That is unavoidable. After all, we can only pursue the destruction of evil; we cannot actually accomplish it.
... Or, we can watch idly as Corp Sponsored Noble Progs "fundamentally change" (i.e., globally collectivize) America into a third world, lowest common denominator of serfs. Can aristocratic stock ownership in serf companies be far behind?
To force a human being, physically or by whip of necessity, to act, profess, and believe other than consistent with his authentic self is very nearly to rob him of the potential of his soul. It is to force him to surrender and submit to an Allah-Borg-Corp.
Islam and Marxism are only derivatives, not the essence of soul succubi. They are secondary to their men behind the curtain, i.e., their funders. In modern times, these funders tend to be international-corporate-banking-securities-hedge-artists and government-favor-trading-influence-peddlers. Such artistry is now mainly performed under cover of international corporatism, because corporations respect no boundaries in territory, culture, or mores. To put those international corporatists, whose confluent effluent undermines America, under America’s supervision would be to shrivel the lifeblood that funnels to Islam and Marxism. So, how can that kind of adult supervision be invigorated?
For that, there is no perfect constitution, empirical solution, or model. If there is truth in the idealism of George Berkeley, it is because those aspects of physics which we take to be amenable of modeling in terms of pure, empirical massiveness are artifactually and ultimately dependent upon forms and organizations of rules for forming in-form-ation. Those are availed by a holistic source of consciousness; they are availed as our ground of being and basis for communication. The physical signposts we talk about and model are not means for the explicating of their own ends. They are only means for appreciating and communicating such pursuits as we perspectives of consciousness happen to find ourselves pursuing within any slice of space-time. The only true north star for moral interaction abides not in absolutist rationalism or empiricism, but in a spiritual basis, i.e., an ineffable capacity for empathy in communication among perspectives of the One same fundamental consciousness.
The faster an intellectually honest person tries to model and push a narrow slice of empirical experience into duty for focusing and clearly explicating and communicating all of "reality," the sooner his empirical delusions reach the absurd. The more complex the "physical" system, the more often and more quickly the absurd is reached and ignored. Thus, imagination begets information, begets “mass,” begets surprising potentials, uncertainties, and conundrums. All abides in God's good time. IOW, adult supervision necessitates spiritual adults. Indeed, the idea of America can hardly survive without idealists. So, we have no choice but to muddle about, seeking balance while we apprehend only our pursuits of fulfillment, not our actual fulfillment, tinkering with those forms which avail tinkering.
To my taste, we desperately need forms for putting international corporatists on probation. The issue is: Should corporations properly be considered as citizens of the world and also as simultaneous citizens of various States to which they owe no particular loyalty? When should corporations and their main shareholders be considered akin to illegal aliens or traitorous citizens? For that, consider some temporal measures for "comprehensive tinkering" and, if necessary, constitutional amendments, to wit:
ADULT GROUNDING OF PAID TO BE CORRUPT FEDS (to stop the treasonous, corporate-sponsored sell out of America to global collectivism):
1) Stoutly identify that which is the enemy of human freedom and dignity, i.e., the enemy of the idea of America (which includes Islamism, Marxism, and Globalism);
2) Follow the money (cui bono) and learn to spot the language of collectivizing deceivers, communalist and corporatist, alike;
3) Require detailed accounting by corporations of all domestic business that is in any respect done in corporate form within America;
4) Prohibit any corporation that fails to organize a financially solvent domestic subsidiary from transacting any business or transferring any goods, funds, credits, or stocks in America or across America’s borders;
5) Put a sur tax of 10 percent on every extra territorial transfer or investment of domestic corporate goods, funds, credits, wire transfers, or stocks that cross national borders;
6) Prohibit any foreign national, or non-domestic corporation, from owning more than 10 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;
7) Prohibit foreign nationals and non-domestic corporations from aggregating to own more than 20 percent of the goods, funds, credits, or stocks of any domestic corporation;
8) Allow domestic corporations to obtain finder’s fees and to sue for unfair competition in instances where other corporations are found to have failed to pay the 10 percent sur tax on extra national transactions;
9) Give domestic shareholders authority to bring class actions to forfeit (or acquire) stocks of all foreign nationals found individually, in organized groups, or in joint stock companies to hold more than 10 percent of the stock of a domestic corporation;
10) Rescind the limited liability of every stockholder (whether person or organized group) who owns more than 10 percent of a corporation that is found liable for penalties or damages in contract, tort, or civil liability;
11) Establish parameters and procedures to identify abusers and to cashier or forfeit their rights to buy, inherit, or own property in the form of corporate stocks;
12) Put a 25 percent “political consumption tax” per annum on every political contribution that accumulates, per individual or per organized bundle, that amounts to more than $10,000, and then apply the tax revenues exclusively to retiring public debt;
13) Include for calculating such tax all salaries and payments for all activities designed to increase political influence or to influence political action, including: indirect payments to otherwise unpaid czars, community organizers, political propagandists, op-ed writers, political pundits, political satirists, political fund raisers, and political parties;
14) Prohibit all contributions and measurable enhancements to American politicians from non-domestic, extra-national corporations or foreign nationals, and establish forfeitures and jail terms violators and their agents;
15) Require every lobbyist and corporation that contacts or contracts with the federal government to keep open books to identify in detail its history of: campaign contributions; contacts with federal officials above a certain grade; all federal laws and regulations promulgated with regard to clients or products;
16) Require that no lobbyist, governmental employee, official, or “unpaid czar” be allowed to hold stock – in any company that sells products to the federal government – that is valued at more than $200,000 or that person’s gross annual income, whichever is less;
17) Require that a person who runs or works for a regulatory agency, who writes or enforces federal regulations, must not have worked for, been salaried by, be married to, or a partner with a person who has worked for, any corporation that remains subject to specific and detailed regulation under such agency ... unless such person is vouched for, on the record, by the committee in Congress that happens specifically to be charged with oversight of such affairs;
18) Require that every person whose income or salary exceeds $100,000 per annum — who runs, works for, or is given detailed access to (i.e., “czars”), a federal regulatory agency – must provide a complete and verifiable resume of his or her birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations; and verifiable list of his or her political donations made to any person or cause in an accumulated amount of more than $500;
19) Entitle each candidate for federal office to require all other such candidates to provide complete and verifiable resumes of birth, residence, passport travels, education, employment, stock ownership, history of official and elective offices, political affiliations, and verifiable list of political donors (individuals and organizations) who have donated or bundled more than $500;
20) End federal interference with States in the enforcement of their international borders;
21) Prohibit the immigration and naturalization of members of all groups, clubs, and creeds that are inimical to, or on any kind of jihad against, the culture of freedom and dignity of Americans, to include communists and Islamists;
22) Require that the federal government not budget expenditures in any fiscal year that would allow any State to receive per capita federal funding for total internal construction, expenditures, and salaries that would accumulate to more than 200 percent of the per capita funding of any other State – absent 2/3 approval of both the House and the Senate;
23) End the income tax and replace it with sales/consumption/transaction taxes, to include a tax on retail sales and a progressive tax only against individuals, based on annual accumulated consumption. Use it to "spread wealth" indirectly and to a level closer to the people, by returning much of it directly to the States on a per capita basis.
24) Empower governors of the States at any time to remove a sitting President, upon a 3/5 vote of no confidence by 30 or more governors, provided they represent at least 2/3 of the general population.
Admittedly, these are filled with loopholes that would eventually be exploited. That is unavoidable. After all, we can only pursue the destruction of evil; we cannot actually accomplish it.
... Or, we can watch idly as Corp Sponsored Noble Progs "fundamentally change" (i.e., globally collectivize) America into a third world, lowest common denominator of serfs. Can aristocratic stock ownership in serf companies be far behind?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Cartesian relation between mass and information
Of Godel and Descartes -- Cartesian relation between mass and information:
No measurable thing or event can be completely described either in purely local or purely universal terms. Rather, any complete inventory of descriptions, even if possible, would require sets of descriptions from the conscious perspectives of particulars and the perspective of the holism. However, this is inherently productive of ambiguity, uncertainty, and non-linear, often circular or spherical transformations or transmogrifications.
It’s not just that there are measurables that consist in having simultaneous aspects for being wholes and parts (field waves and particles). It’s that all abstractions and representations of descriptions and events that appear to unfold in respect of relations among such wholes and parts have their own aspects for consisting of wholes and parts. That is, every event can be abstracted for being modeling and considered as if it had a local, “mass-like cause,” and every such event can also be considered, simultaneously, to have a contextual like, “field cause.”
Necessarily, the feedback that fluxes between such local perspectives and the holism is synchronous and coordinate with what we experience as “causally” related sequences. This flux between the encompassing field and the local perspectives of consciousness may have more to do with the manifestations of information that lead to appearances of mass-like cause then may otherwise, at superficial consideration, appear to be the case.
If consciousness is the source and cause of all appearances, relations, and measurables, then no logical set of appearances can entirely encompass or cause consciousness. That is, information dressed up as mass (forms, sizes, motions, and densities) is caused to appear to consciousness; consciousness is not caused to appear to information or mass. IOW, mass is derivative of information, which is derivative of exchanges of communications among variously organized and/or overlapping layers and levels of particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness.
If mass is “in-form-ation-made-physical,” and our perspectives of consciousness couple with mass in order to avail us expressiveness as conscious beings, then must at least One conscious being couple directly with information in order to create our various perspectives as conscious beings? Yes, but our perspectives will communicate information in Cartesian-coordinate respect of mass-agents of cause, such masses being expressed in respect of numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities. IOW, the capacity of information and mass to give expression to one another is necessarily in respect of a dualistic, Cartesian relationship. At least, for mortals who are subject to the rules that bind the measurables of our universe.
May any inferior perspective of consciousness ever directly sense or communicate the essence of an informational exchange, except upon coupling in respect of causal relations among numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities (i.e., masses)? IOW, can fluxing layers and levels of immaterial agents, souls, angels, or ghosts possibly be self aware, to see and talk with one another? Or, across mediums, to us? May an encompassing, holistic consciousness avail a character or ground of being for such communications? I seem to have no empirical way to justify such a belief. Is there a mathematical way? An intuitive or empathetic way?
With ordinary algorithms, our knowledge allows us to manipulate local relations with predictable results. However, to know the algorithm that synchronizes all parameters with the holism, we would need to have holistic means to test and effect predictions with it. This we could not do, without being able to step outside the universe with which our very definition and beingness depends. That is, I believe there is such a meta algorithm, but I cannot see how we could “know” it, apart from justified belief. Regardless, assuming it abides, its functioning would seem easily translatable as akin, for us, to a synchronizer of expressions of free will.
No measurable thing or event can be completely described either in purely local or purely universal terms. Rather, any complete inventory of descriptions, even if possible, would require sets of descriptions from the conscious perspectives of particulars and the perspective of the holism. However, this is inherently productive of ambiguity, uncertainty, and non-linear, often circular or spherical transformations or transmogrifications.
It’s not just that there are measurables that consist in having simultaneous aspects for being wholes and parts (field waves and particles). It’s that all abstractions and representations of descriptions and events that appear to unfold in respect of relations among such wholes and parts have their own aspects for consisting of wholes and parts. That is, every event can be abstracted for being modeling and considered as if it had a local, “mass-like cause,” and every such event can also be considered, simultaneously, to have a contextual like, “field cause.”
Necessarily, the feedback that fluxes between such local perspectives and the holism is synchronous and coordinate with what we experience as “causally” related sequences. This flux between the encompassing field and the local perspectives of consciousness may have more to do with the manifestations of information that lead to appearances of mass-like cause then may otherwise, at superficial consideration, appear to be the case.
If consciousness is the source and cause of all appearances, relations, and measurables, then no logical set of appearances can entirely encompass or cause consciousness. That is, information dressed up as mass (forms, sizes, motions, and densities) is caused to appear to consciousness; consciousness is not caused to appear to information or mass. IOW, mass is derivative of information, which is derivative of exchanges of communications among variously organized and/or overlapping layers and levels of particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness.
If mass is “in-form-ation-made-physical,” and our perspectives of consciousness couple with mass in order to avail us expressiveness as conscious beings, then must at least One conscious being couple directly with information in order to create our various perspectives as conscious beings? Yes, but our perspectives will communicate information in Cartesian-coordinate respect of mass-agents of cause, such masses being expressed in respect of numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities. IOW, the capacity of information and mass to give expression to one another is necessarily in respect of a dualistic, Cartesian relationship. At least, for mortals who are subject to the rules that bind the measurables of our universe.
May any inferior perspective of consciousness ever directly sense or communicate the essence of an informational exchange, except upon coupling in respect of causal relations among numbers, forms, sizes, motions, and densities (i.e., masses)? IOW, can fluxing layers and levels of immaterial agents, souls, angels, or ghosts possibly be self aware, to see and talk with one another? Or, across mediums, to us? May an encompassing, holistic consciousness avail a character or ground of being for such communications? I seem to have no empirical way to justify such a belief. Is there a mathematical way? An intuitive or empathetic way?
With ordinary algorithms, our knowledge allows us to manipulate local relations with predictable results. However, to know the algorithm that synchronizes all parameters with the holism, we would need to have holistic means to test and effect predictions with it. This we could not do, without being able to step outside the universe with which our very definition and beingness depends. That is, I believe there is such a meta algorithm, but I cannot see how we could “know” it, apart from justified belief. Regardless, assuming it abides, its functioning would seem easily translatable as akin, for us, to a synchronizer of expressions of free will.
John Birch Society
Regarding the John Birch Society: Who are Welch’s successors, and have they evolved? If they notice that our borders are not being enforced, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice our energy production is being shut down while Soros makes out on Brazilian adventures, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice our inner cities are being emasculated and our minorities are being taught they are owed, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice more and more families are being cast aside as the primary unit for raising the next generation, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice pre-adolescents are being trained early to be sheep for TSA pat downs, I presume that is more than mere opinion. If they notice our politicians are essentially ignoring the will of some 60 percent of the electorate, I presume that is more than mere opinion.
When I add these kinds of insults up, I don’t need a statistical analysis based on data selected to a purpose to calculate whether this is all more than just coincidence. I don’t need a disinterested bystander from outside the system of the universe to acquire a firm belief that something important is out of balance.
Anyone who takes on the international corporatist leviathan that is undermining America is going to get relentlessly tagged as, guess what? A lunatic. So it’s important not to be silenced by mere name calling. Regarding the N.W.O.: No one nowadays even bothers to hide high level talk about it. Why should they? Any pipsqueak who repeats it is labeled a lunatic. Even though the words and the events are all around. It’s like we’re walking about as zombies while the billionaire owned media relentlessly tells us, “None of this is real.”
This is something new. It’s not hypnosis, not Stockholm Syndrome, not mass hysteria, and not Eloi and Morloch. It’s something like mass, organization-man, self emasculation. Is the effect heightened by something in the water, the dope, or the subliminal?
So, I’m concerned when billionaire-run media hound us to give up, impressing us that resistance is futile and our opinions are lunatic. I’m concerned when conservatives are encouraged to line up in a circle and open fire on one another. If one shows signs of being impervious to name calling, is one to be put on a watch list? To have one’s opinions erased? Are we getting down to the last remaining Americans on earth?
I’ll look at references. I want to confirm where the modern JBS is factually wrong, intellectually dishonest, or sensationally bonkers. Until then, I’ll not call them nutjobs. That would be little better than the nut media calling Tea Partiers baggers. I’ll review the references. Admittedly, I begin with a suspicion, that no media of significance is willing to make a frontal assault against the N.W.O., or to suggest ways to attack it. After all, that’s not where the easy money is. But if we don’t open eyes, we’re toast.
When I add these kinds of insults up, I don’t need a statistical analysis based on data selected to a purpose to calculate whether this is all more than just coincidence. I don’t need a disinterested bystander from outside the system of the universe to acquire a firm belief that something important is out of balance.
Anyone who takes on the international corporatist leviathan that is undermining America is going to get relentlessly tagged as, guess what? A lunatic. So it’s important not to be silenced by mere name calling. Regarding the N.W.O.: No one nowadays even bothers to hide high level talk about it. Why should they? Any pipsqueak who repeats it is labeled a lunatic. Even though the words and the events are all around. It’s like we’re walking about as zombies while the billionaire owned media relentlessly tells us, “None of this is real.”
This is something new. It’s not hypnosis, not Stockholm Syndrome, not mass hysteria, and not Eloi and Morloch. It’s something like mass, organization-man, self emasculation. Is the effect heightened by something in the water, the dope, or the subliminal?
So, I’m concerned when billionaire-run media hound us to give up, impressing us that resistance is futile and our opinions are lunatic. I’m concerned when conservatives are encouraged to line up in a circle and open fire on one another. If one shows signs of being impervious to name calling, is one to be put on a watch list? To have one’s opinions erased? Are we getting down to the last remaining Americans on earth?
I’ll look at references. I want to confirm where the modern JBS is factually wrong, intellectually dishonest, or sensationally bonkers. Until then, I’ll not call them nutjobs. That would be little better than the nut media calling Tea Partiers baggers. I’ll review the references. Admittedly, I begin with a suspicion, that no media of significance is willing to make a frontal assault against the N.W.O., or to suggest ways to attack it. After all, that’s not where the easy money is. But if we don’t open eyes, we’re toast.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Do Maxwell Demons crap?
Re: “an equation which shows that the "amount" of non-locality is determined by the uncertainty principle” / “Why doesn't nature allow even stronger non-locality?” See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101118141541.htm.
Re: Energy also has mass. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
Hmm. Well, might mass just be a store of energy, and stored energy just be a store of information? Is mass like a signpost, derivative of the interfunctioning of perspectives of conscious apprehension of information?
A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.
This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?
Does a Nature algorithm limit choices for individually experienced relationships among our perspectives of the here and now, and does another algorithm (“God” algorithm?) avail means by which choices are universally synchronized throughout our domain?
To suppose there abides a meta-synchronizing algorithm would seem hardly distinguishable from supposing our holistic situation is expressive of “free will.”
Re: Energy also has mass. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
Hmm. Well, might mass just be a store of energy, and stored energy just be a store of information? Is mass like a signpost, derivative of the interfunctioning of perspectives of conscious apprehension of information?
A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.
This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?
Does a Nature algorithm limit choices for individually experienced relationships among our perspectives of the here and now, and does another algorithm (“God” algorithm?) avail means by which choices are universally synchronized throughout our domain?
To suppose there abides a meta-synchronizing algorithm would seem hardly distinguishable from supposing our holistic situation is expressive of “free will.”
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Yin and Yang, or Problem of Evil?
Problem of Evil:
George Soros probably fears that if he does not seize and wield the ring of power, an even more evil, or less worthy, person will. Thus his little soul leads him into evil. That evil challenges We The People to reset the balance. At present there is a gross imbalance in the Force. And yet, another imbalance looms – the one where thousands upon thousands shall each acquire a death star of his or her own, to bring oblivion or suffering to all. Save means to ensure the good will of all, how shall that time of sorrows be deflected?
Elite leaders rise from muck and contrive to produce a sign or a change in the direction of a pattern. The pattern becomes a fad or machination, until too many among the masses apprehend the trick. At that time, by factoring the trick, they reduce its potency. Whereupon elites “move on,” like little cat feet. Until then, the ideal for elites is often to keep the lowest levels in enough darkness so they will not know or feel the pain of being bent or consumed to purposes of higher elites. There will always be leader elites. The issue is: How best should they be given their head?
It seems different levels of perspectives of consciousness feed off and subjugate the wills of others. Hinduism recognizes a caste system, as did Huxley, in Brave New World. A representative republic avails that process to be maximally spread out. Yet, the role of the lowest class will always be to do as it is manipulated to do – coercively, voluntarily, or even for its own perception of interests (even if misled). Which among subgroups of masses should elites bring along to their heights? How? Why? What of when each elite acquires access to power enough in frustration to annihilate all?
Will humanity necessarily at some point acquire tech skills beyond capacity to communicate or relate for purposes that are consistent with stable peacefulness? Should elites see Islam as a way to temporize, by chaining most among the dangerous masses to keep their heads tightly screwed to the cave? Must technological power always be balanced against mass repression? Is the good of human civilization necessarily purchased by domesticating lower animals, to be kept in the dark?
Is this really a problem of evil? Or is it more a problem of yin and yang, a dance between the Field of consciousness and its assorted particles of perspective ... for the experience, appreciation, recordation, absorption, and pursuit of fulfillment by the holistic field of consciousness? Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. What is the yang of, "If I don't do it, someone else will?"
Never Ending Fix
Having in youth experienced harsh, nationalistic collectivization, Soros, like a new *Xerxes, imagines imposing upon us a kinder, gentler form of collectivization. He thinks power would be less abused were it safely tucked into the hands of elite, international corporatists of no national loyalties. Thus continueth the banality of evil. Soros would regulate away our freedom to save us our security. However, to so take a people’s dignity is to ensure neither their freedom nor their security.
There is an imbalance in the force separators of power. Something is amiss. However, we are not consulted so long as we remain un-aroused. Many remain so desirous to milk the present imbalance in order to become rich that they fail to notice how the ladders to wealth are being pulled up. The ladders grow longer and longer, but have lost connection to common decency. We deal in currency and laws, the value and meaning of which are manipulated at will by those who have acquired hegemony over us. The way up has connected with sinisterism against respect for ordinary people. So long as we decline to come to grips with this, why should we expect other from God?
Whiny kids often blame their whininess on their parents, some of whom then blame God, as if the problem of whininess (and evil) were the doing of ancestors or God. But God, as the field for synchronizing static feedback, “consults” with us as a whole, regarding the future to unfold for our progeny. There is little of good government for a society that respects no assimilating, meta beliefs. Those who “know,” based on justified belief, have been with us since the dawn of recorded history, when they noted: **Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. To open receptivity to channels of intuition and empathy, we need better to appreciate a veil of ignorance. To hope to improve a society’s balance of human freedom and dignity, consider what plan would presently be best, were the assignment of one’s consciousness within such society to be made at random.
I doubt we are pre-fabrications of a God who has left us. ***And I doubt we are the ad hoc results of natural selection within an otherwise entirely dumb force-field of nature. Rather, I suspect we are unfoldments of consciousness. We are engaged in a dance of feedback among perspectives of consciousness with their holism. We remain accountable to respect our particular roles. We partake of free will, but we do not entirely dictate to it. All that proceeds … dances along a many faceted way.
Our system of governance and economics will not be “fixed” merely by elite mechanics of the likes of Soros. Rather, it will be consolidated against us. If we unite, we the people can break the means availed to sinisterists for manipulating the system for wealth creation and political dictate. Victory will not reside entirely in any rule or system. To not be a hollow prelude to blowback, victory must be joined with at least some kind of awakening to higher mindedness.
*******
*"I am Xerxes, great king, king of kings, the king of all countries which speak all kinds of languages, the king of the entire big far-reaching earth."
-- King Xerxes I, on foundation tablet at Persopolis, the capital city of the Persian empire. http://www.wideworldofquotes.com/quotes/king-xerxes-i-quotes.html
**http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html
***”Pantheists also believe in the absence of a divine personal being who created the universe. Instead, they attest to a divine essence, an impersonal force, a cosmic energy that flows throughout all things in the universe. This energy is called "the One," "the divine," "Chi," or "Brahma." In Star Wars, it is called the Force.” http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217915/k.7FF6/The_Worldview_of_Star_Wars.htm
There is an imbalance in the force separators of power. Something is amiss. However, we are not consulted so long as we remain un-aroused. Many remain so desirous to milk the present imbalance in order to become rich that they fail to notice how the ladders to wealth are being pulled up. The ladders grow longer and longer, but have lost connection to common decency. We deal in currency and laws, the value and meaning of which are manipulated at will by those who have acquired hegemony over us. The way up has connected with sinisterism against respect for ordinary people. So long as we decline to come to grips with this, why should we expect other from God?
Whiny kids often blame their whininess on their parents, some of whom then blame God, as if the problem of whininess (and evil) were the doing of ancestors or God. But God, as the field for synchronizing static feedback, “consults” with us as a whole, regarding the future to unfold for our progeny. There is little of good government for a society that respects no assimilating, meta beliefs. Those who “know,” based on justified belief, have been with us since the dawn of recorded history, when they noted: **Good thoughts, good words, good deeds. To open receptivity to channels of intuition and empathy, we need better to appreciate a veil of ignorance. To hope to improve a society’s balance of human freedom and dignity, consider what plan would presently be best, were the assignment of one’s consciousness within such society to be made at random.
I doubt we are pre-fabrications of a God who has left us. ***And I doubt we are the ad hoc results of natural selection within an otherwise entirely dumb force-field of nature. Rather, I suspect we are unfoldments of consciousness. We are engaged in a dance of feedback among perspectives of consciousness with their holism. We remain accountable to respect our particular roles. We partake of free will, but we do not entirely dictate to it. All that proceeds … dances along a many faceted way.
Our system of governance and economics will not be “fixed” merely by elite mechanics of the likes of Soros. Rather, it will be consolidated against us. If we unite, we the people can break the means availed to sinisterists for manipulating the system for wealth creation and political dictate. Victory will not reside entirely in any rule or system. To not be a hollow prelude to blowback, victory must be joined with at least some kind of awakening to higher mindedness.
*******
*"I am Xerxes, great king, king of kings, the king of all countries which speak all kinds of languages, the king of the entire big far-reaching earth."
-- King Xerxes I, on foundation tablet at Persopolis, the capital city of the Persian empire. http://www.wideworldofquotes.com/quotes/king-xerxes-i-quotes.html
**http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html
***”Pantheists also believe in the absence of a divine personal being who created the universe. Instead, they attest to a divine essence, an impersonal force, a cosmic energy that flows throughout all things in the universe. This energy is called "the One," "the divine," "Chi," or "Brahma." In Star Wars, it is called the Force.” http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217915/k.7FF6/The_Worldview_of_Star_Wars.htm
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Math of Nature, Free Will, and God
The Math of Nature, Free Will, and God:
There seems to abide a perpetual relationship of feedback that fluxes between two domains that either define or correlate with our ground of being. Each domain obeys an algorithm, one that is perhaps discoverable and derivable to mortals, the other, if knowable, is knowable only to God.
The first algorithm (Nature) controls limits or parameters for choices that may be implemented for individual relationships among our variously measurable perspectives of the here and now. On one side, this algorithm seems to bespeak an unperceived essence; on the other side, it bespeaks appearances.
The second algorithm (God) is of a domain that avails means by which choices are universally synchronized throughout our domain. It is beyond our control or derivation, but receptive in our intuitive appreciation. The immeasurable quality of that which we appreciate is the feedback in consideration of which it effects each successive universal choice. On one side, it operates as a holistically synchronizing algorithm; on the other side, operations in respect of it are to us indistinguishable from a operations in respect of a notion of free will, as implemented and synchronized by God, as variously appreciated through our separate perspectives.
Thus, notions of nature, free will, and God cohere consistently.
********
Is mass just a store of energy, and is stored energy just stored information?
Is mass a signpost, derivative of the interfunctioning of perspectives of information?
See http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/11/experiment-makes-enery-from-information/1.
There seems to abide a perpetual relationship of feedback that fluxes between two domains that either define or correlate with our ground of being. Each domain obeys an algorithm, one that is perhaps discoverable and derivable to mortals, the other, if knowable, is knowable only to God.
The first algorithm (Nature) controls limits or parameters for choices that may be implemented for individual relationships among our variously measurable perspectives of the here and now. On one side, this algorithm seems to bespeak an unperceived essence; on the other side, it bespeaks appearances.
The second algorithm (God) is of a domain that avails means by which choices are universally synchronized throughout our domain. It is beyond our control or derivation, but receptive in our intuitive appreciation. The immeasurable quality of that which we appreciate is the feedback in consideration of which it effects each successive universal choice. On one side, it operates as a holistically synchronizing algorithm; on the other side, operations in respect of it are to us indistinguishable from a operations in respect of a notion of free will, as implemented and synchronized by God, as variously appreciated through our separate perspectives.
Thus, notions of nature, free will, and God cohere consistently.
********
Is mass just a store of energy, and is stored energy just stored information?
Is mass a signpost, derivative of the interfunctioning of perspectives of information?
See http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/11/experiment-makes-enery-from-information/1.
Monday, November 15, 2010
South Park political philosophy – sailing left by sailing right
South Park political philosophy – sailing left by sailing right:
Conceptualize a population of gambling investors in a virtual nation run by moral philosophers with scruples like the South Park kids. The first 1000 gamers to show an interest are allowed to acquire virtual citizenship by having traded $1000 in actual dollars with a casino caretaker (The Coon) for $1000 worth of investment chips (Uncle Game dollars) in a virtual national bank/securities dealer (South Fed), which owns 1000 shares of virtual stock (Uncle Game bonds) in each of 1000 paper corporations, each share being initially and arbitrarily valued at $1.00.
Each time a gamer manages to buy or trade for a majority interest in a stock, he receives a premium dividend credit. Every citizen-gamer begins under the same system of thorough surveillance. No gamer is allowed to see surveillance film, but is availed with robot-supplied, matrix interpretations of the surveillance. Every citizen is availed an identical, robotic, investment adviser (I-bot), whereby everyone receives the same perfect advice at the same time. Excepting intervals for placing of puts and bets, all I-bots have the complete history for every gamer’s virtual balances and stock investments.
SYMMETRICALLY EQUAL AND INTERCONNECTED OPPORTUNITY: Each put for each offer to trade or buy Uncle Game dollars or virtual stock is required to be made in increments that are blind to all other citizens and robots. Once offers are placed, all see all at once, and trading among participants commences for that round on the order of first come, first served. (Like a stock exchange with incremental huddles.) Unknown to the robots and players is the psychological profile of any of the gamers.
Initially, every I-bot may avail its human master the same perfect analysis. In consequence, the initial recommendation availed to each master will entail a dilemma not altogether unlike that confronted by Buridan’s ass. That is, unless forced by some randomizing program, no I-bot will be able, by deploying bivalent logic, to avail a recommendation. Only after symmetry is forcibly broken, and after the first round of trades (bets, losses, and wins), would a non-forced I-bot avail a “voluntary” recommendation based purely in bivalent logic (at expense of ignoring data not fitted to its model). Even then, each I-bot would have recursive access to every other I-bot’s information and logic. That is, it would “know” that any recommendation it makes for taking advantage of any change in conditions will be the same as the recommendation availed by every other I-bot. Insofar as no I-bot has reason to presume its master will fail to follow recommendations, none will fashion a recommendation that attempts other than a strategy for staying even with the game.
To help avoid recursiveness, all network connected I-bots may avail an array of mathematically based recommendations, in descending order of priority. As their masters begin to show signs of personality predilections (or tells), each I-bot will have been programmed to make adjustments accordingly, to try to help its master at least to stay even. Every other I-bot connected to the network will know the recommendations each is making, but will not know whether any recommendation was accepted until all bets for a round are placed.
ADVENTURE TO INDEPENDENCE: At some point, the game should be taken to a SECOND level. Each I-bot should be partially disconnected from the network, so it will not know all that the other I-bots know. In compensation, commensurate with each recommendation, each I-bot will be allowed to “advise and learn” from its master the total amount its master wants to bet on each round. Surveillance among I-bots will remain in place, except to the point of surveilling the amounts of all masters’ offers or puts until after they are placed.
Now the game will have become much more like poker: Information regarding tells, facial tics, personality predilections, false tells, false-false tells, and so on, will be collected. However, such information will be collected by the I-bots, not directly by their human masters (who will remain separated behind opaque walls). This kind of collection of information is not perfectly amenable to bivalent modeling or communication. Even if the I-bots are somehow programmed with capacity to “learn,” they will be limited by necessary incompleteness in their initial models and frames of logical analysis. Their masters’ experiences and skills for many-sided logic and intuitive (gut) analysis will loom larger as factors, even though the masters will only have access to non-camera data that is imperfectly translated and presented by their I-bots.
ADVANTAGE TO GANGSTERS: Eventually, the game is taken to a THIRD level, such that all surveillance is shared among I-bots and masters, except during intervals of actual putting of bets. Some masters (The Coon?) will have force of personality that will be more suitably advantageous for the game. For them, recommendations of robots will be relegated to a more minor role. Feedback will tend eventually to reward the most skilled at projecting a many sided kind of logic. Eventually, those are the masters who will become the oligarchs. Eventually, they will learn to gang up with other oligarchs, by deploying a meta language of signals, which may even be hidden in the character of their bets. This is when the game goes to the dark side, when brutish propensity to gangsterism trumps merit.
Depending on fluxs in the oligarchic balance of power, signals will eventually lead to deliberately false signals, even to false-false signals. This will lead to devious forms of clique-language consultations among masters and I-bots, leading to program adjustments and meta programming, to assist in evaluating the quality and trustworthiness of signals. Eventually, losing non-oligarchs will be reduced to placeholding peons, useful to convey messages (indirect, positive, negative, exploratory) to other powers still of significance in the game.
If all peons die out, challenge and meaning for the dominant players will fade. This will lead to oligarchs lending encouragement to peons, to game on. At some point, peons (Mysterium?) will sense this state of affairs. What will or should they do? Short of blowing up the game, is there any avenue for peons to restore dignity within the game?
Well, any serious efforts among the peons to organize will soon be co-opted. Oligarchs will pose as concerned do-gooders, even to volunteer to fund unionizing organizers. They will advise peons to watch for rallying signals. They will negotiate to change fundamentals for the game. They will facilitate communications among peons, so communications will proceed along paths that can be controlled by oligarchs. They will compromise those peons who are corrupt, ignorant, and needy, and teach them how to fool their own consciences. They will call for a convention, to establish a new order of rules, to bring all masters' representatives together in a face to face forum of faux transparence. However, the communication will be monopolized to avail transparency mainly along the line of an unholy axis among competing oligarchs (Progs). That is, communication will be facilitated along a line that erases most boundaries for peons, but not for oligarchs. Thus, competing oligarchs will remain united in axis for preserving control over peons. Within the faux-transparent forum, there will be established various front groups, such as Newsweak, Npr-nyuk, Media Nutters, Apollo Axis, MoveDammit.org, A-CLUe, Acrum, Hollybrain, Ivy-school, and Fedup.
FALL TO SOCIOPATHY: Now take the game to a FOURTH level. Keeping the game going depends on a population pyramid for passing bad debts onto the next generation of citizens. This expanding of the citizenry stimulates new “production.” It depends on rewriting rules for recruiting new immigrants, which depends on a convention and board of governors, who want to be paid, and who are easiest paid by oligarchs, on whom the board is most dependent.
So how is the board to be paid? Well, with real money, taxed against real investments, as trusted by the bank outside the game (Meta Bank) for the gaming under the virtual national bank (South Fed). How are real distributions to be apportioned, based on virtual winnings in the game? Well, by allowing gamers to invest in Uncle Game bonds and decreeing the bonds to be worth one proportionate unit against South Fed dollars and another proportionate unit against Meta Bank dollars. Thus, who controls the board controls the proportionate valuation of the real money. What began as a game entailing mutual trust and rules morphed into a game of rule making agents of a spider matrix.
To encourage peons to continue to do bidding, oligarchs (neo conquistadores) have sailed left by sailing right. How, now, do the mass of players restore the game to one of rules? Once power becomes too disproportionate, how does a system remain one of rules as opposed to one of privileged rule makers?
REDEMPTION: The wild card is this: The peons are not that stupid. They are on to the game. Using many-sided logic, they have intuited the meta-goals and programming of the Dark Garchs. Now, all the peons have to do is to idealize and implement a transforming, proportionate, revitalization of the allocation of wealth and influence among the general population of participants in the game. That is, a revitalization that will invigorate those (Kyle and Stan?) who wish to strive towards middle class dignity and independence, not to reward indolence. That is, a conservative reset to restore middle earth values of responsibility, opportunity, merit, work, initiative, freedom, and dignity.
Otherwise, the peons (lower and middle) should simply move to a new virtual table and begin their own game, anew. Problems for the middle class: How to get the lower class to look beyond entreaties of its corrupt, ignorant, and indolent; how to inspire the better angels of all; how to transform idealization into mass. Decent respecters of middle class values, unite!
DAMNATION: Alternatively, one I-bot will be fitted with a superior program that will turn it into a cyborg, fitted with a Soros mask, whereupon, except as kabuki theater, it will terminate the stock market by rendering all competitors impotent and devoid of merit in the face of its analysis. Having no reason to distinguish them in merit, all others (save its prophet, The Coon) will be reduced to peons to serve the New Entity, which will jump the virtual casino, inhale Soros’ soul, and rule the N.W.O.
Conceptualize a population of gambling investors in a virtual nation run by moral philosophers with scruples like the South Park kids. The first 1000 gamers to show an interest are allowed to acquire virtual citizenship by having traded $1000 in actual dollars with a casino caretaker (The Coon) for $1000 worth of investment chips (Uncle Game dollars) in a virtual national bank/securities dealer (South Fed), which owns 1000 shares of virtual stock (Uncle Game bonds) in each of 1000 paper corporations, each share being initially and arbitrarily valued at $1.00.
Each time a gamer manages to buy or trade for a majority interest in a stock, he receives a premium dividend credit. Every citizen-gamer begins under the same system of thorough surveillance. No gamer is allowed to see surveillance film, but is availed with robot-supplied, matrix interpretations of the surveillance. Every citizen is availed an identical, robotic, investment adviser (I-bot), whereby everyone receives the same perfect advice at the same time. Excepting intervals for placing of puts and bets, all I-bots have the complete history for every gamer’s virtual balances and stock investments.
SYMMETRICALLY EQUAL AND INTERCONNECTED OPPORTUNITY: Each put for each offer to trade or buy Uncle Game dollars or virtual stock is required to be made in increments that are blind to all other citizens and robots. Once offers are placed, all see all at once, and trading among participants commences for that round on the order of first come, first served. (Like a stock exchange with incremental huddles.) Unknown to the robots and players is the psychological profile of any of the gamers.
Initially, every I-bot may avail its human master the same perfect analysis. In consequence, the initial recommendation availed to each master will entail a dilemma not altogether unlike that confronted by Buridan’s ass. That is, unless forced by some randomizing program, no I-bot will be able, by deploying bivalent logic, to avail a recommendation. Only after symmetry is forcibly broken, and after the first round of trades (bets, losses, and wins), would a non-forced I-bot avail a “voluntary” recommendation based purely in bivalent logic (at expense of ignoring data not fitted to its model). Even then, each I-bot would have recursive access to every other I-bot’s information and logic. That is, it would “know” that any recommendation it makes for taking advantage of any change in conditions will be the same as the recommendation availed by every other I-bot. Insofar as no I-bot has reason to presume its master will fail to follow recommendations, none will fashion a recommendation that attempts other than a strategy for staying even with the game.
To help avoid recursiveness, all network connected I-bots may avail an array of mathematically based recommendations, in descending order of priority. As their masters begin to show signs of personality predilections (or tells), each I-bot will have been programmed to make adjustments accordingly, to try to help its master at least to stay even. Every other I-bot connected to the network will know the recommendations each is making, but will not know whether any recommendation was accepted until all bets for a round are placed.
ADVENTURE TO INDEPENDENCE: At some point, the game should be taken to a SECOND level. Each I-bot should be partially disconnected from the network, so it will not know all that the other I-bots know. In compensation, commensurate with each recommendation, each I-bot will be allowed to “advise and learn” from its master the total amount its master wants to bet on each round. Surveillance among I-bots will remain in place, except to the point of surveilling the amounts of all masters’ offers or puts until after they are placed.
Now the game will have become much more like poker: Information regarding tells, facial tics, personality predilections, false tells, false-false tells, and so on, will be collected. However, such information will be collected by the I-bots, not directly by their human masters (who will remain separated behind opaque walls). This kind of collection of information is not perfectly amenable to bivalent modeling or communication. Even if the I-bots are somehow programmed with capacity to “learn,” they will be limited by necessary incompleteness in their initial models and frames of logical analysis. Their masters’ experiences and skills for many-sided logic and intuitive (gut) analysis will loom larger as factors, even though the masters will only have access to non-camera data that is imperfectly translated and presented by their I-bots.
ADVANTAGE TO GANGSTERS: Eventually, the game is taken to a THIRD level, such that all surveillance is shared among I-bots and masters, except during intervals of actual putting of bets. Some masters (The Coon?) will have force of personality that will be more suitably advantageous for the game. For them, recommendations of robots will be relegated to a more minor role. Feedback will tend eventually to reward the most skilled at projecting a many sided kind of logic. Eventually, those are the masters who will become the oligarchs. Eventually, they will learn to gang up with other oligarchs, by deploying a meta language of signals, which may even be hidden in the character of their bets. This is when the game goes to the dark side, when brutish propensity to gangsterism trumps merit.
Depending on fluxs in the oligarchic balance of power, signals will eventually lead to deliberately false signals, even to false-false signals. This will lead to devious forms of clique-language consultations among masters and I-bots, leading to program adjustments and meta programming, to assist in evaluating the quality and trustworthiness of signals. Eventually, losing non-oligarchs will be reduced to placeholding peons, useful to convey messages (indirect, positive, negative, exploratory) to other powers still of significance in the game.
If all peons die out, challenge and meaning for the dominant players will fade. This will lead to oligarchs lending encouragement to peons, to game on. At some point, peons (Mysterium?) will sense this state of affairs. What will or should they do? Short of blowing up the game, is there any avenue for peons to restore dignity within the game?
Well, any serious efforts among the peons to organize will soon be co-opted. Oligarchs will pose as concerned do-gooders, even to volunteer to fund unionizing organizers. They will advise peons to watch for rallying signals. They will negotiate to change fundamentals for the game. They will facilitate communications among peons, so communications will proceed along paths that can be controlled by oligarchs. They will compromise those peons who are corrupt, ignorant, and needy, and teach them how to fool their own consciences. They will call for a convention, to establish a new order of rules, to bring all masters' representatives together in a face to face forum of faux transparence. However, the communication will be monopolized to avail transparency mainly along the line of an unholy axis among competing oligarchs (Progs). That is, communication will be facilitated along a line that erases most boundaries for peons, but not for oligarchs. Thus, competing oligarchs will remain united in axis for preserving control over peons. Within the faux-transparent forum, there will be established various front groups, such as Newsweak, Npr-nyuk, Media Nutters, Apollo Axis, MoveDammit.org, A-CLUe, Acrum, Hollybrain, Ivy-school, and Fedup.
FALL TO SOCIOPATHY: Now take the game to a FOURTH level. Keeping the game going depends on a population pyramid for passing bad debts onto the next generation of citizens. This expanding of the citizenry stimulates new “production.” It depends on rewriting rules for recruiting new immigrants, which depends on a convention and board of governors, who want to be paid, and who are easiest paid by oligarchs, on whom the board is most dependent.
So how is the board to be paid? Well, with real money, taxed against real investments, as trusted by the bank outside the game (Meta Bank) for the gaming under the virtual national bank (South Fed). How are real distributions to be apportioned, based on virtual winnings in the game? Well, by allowing gamers to invest in Uncle Game bonds and decreeing the bonds to be worth one proportionate unit against South Fed dollars and another proportionate unit against Meta Bank dollars. Thus, who controls the board controls the proportionate valuation of the real money. What began as a game entailing mutual trust and rules morphed into a game of rule making agents of a spider matrix.
To encourage peons to continue to do bidding, oligarchs (neo conquistadores) have sailed left by sailing right. How, now, do the mass of players restore the game to one of rules? Once power becomes too disproportionate, how does a system remain one of rules as opposed to one of privileged rule makers?
REDEMPTION: The wild card is this: The peons are not that stupid. They are on to the game. Using many-sided logic, they have intuited the meta-goals and programming of the Dark Garchs. Now, all the peons have to do is to idealize and implement a transforming, proportionate, revitalization of the allocation of wealth and influence among the general population of participants in the game. That is, a revitalization that will invigorate those (Kyle and Stan?) who wish to strive towards middle class dignity and independence, not to reward indolence. That is, a conservative reset to restore middle earth values of responsibility, opportunity, merit, work, initiative, freedom, and dignity.
Otherwise, the peons (lower and middle) should simply move to a new virtual table and begin their own game, anew. Problems for the middle class: How to get the lower class to look beyond entreaties of its corrupt, ignorant, and indolent; how to inspire the better angels of all; how to transform idealization into mass. Decent respecters of middle class values, unite!
DAMNATION: Alternatively, one I-bot will be fitted with a superior program that will turn it into a cyborg, fitted with a Soros mask, whereupon, except as kabuki theater, it will terminate the stock market by rendering all competitors impotent and devoid of merit in the face of its analysis. Having no reason to distinguish them in merit, all others (save its prophet, The Coon) will be reduced to peons to serve the New Entity, which will jump the virtual casino, inhale Soros’ soul, and rule the N.W.O.
To know vs. to justifiably believe
To know (number) vs. to justifiably believe (appreciate):
From A.T. -- Re: “Kant's transcendental idealism needed to make room for noumena (things we can't see) and, at the same time, attempt to explain phenomena (the things we can see).”
To know that which a thing or event is … is to be its complete author and sustainer. For anything that is not trivially true, as completely derivative of a system of definition or prescription (however incomplete that underlying system itself may be), we do not know it in the sense of “either-or.” Rather, as avatars for a conscious free will, we “know” in a sense of justified belief and chosen, purposeful commitment. That is, we know in a sense of intuition, empathy, and inspiration, as factored or justified under many sided logic, not bivalent logic.
The bivalent math that is availed to mortals is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions that are measurable to mortals. The meta algorithm is beyond mortal capacity to complete or fathom. In whatever way it functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will (i.e., God) to function.
It needs willful stubbornness to feign non-apprehension of that aspect of our basis for being which remains beyond measure, when it is necessarily implicated by that aspect which is not beyond measure. It is intuitively obvious that there are means of appreciation that are not entirely subsumed in measure, just as there are means of logic and reasoned decision making that are not subsumed in bivalence. There is many sided logic, and we necessarily relate it to every choice we make that is non-trivial (i.e., not derivable solely from a foundational system of axioms). Consider the innumerable choices and stances of taste, value, characterization, and belief that one deploys every day, which are reasonable to one’s personality and which cannot be accounted for in terms purely of bivalent logic.
What reasonable person does not make non-trivial choices that are factored and inspired in conjunction with many-sided logic? To try to constrain oneself to a life of pure, bivalent logic would be to try to surrender one’s conscious free will to an unconscious, calculating robot; it would be to willfully flagellate one’s expressiveness of free will.
*******
Insofar as mass is information made physical, as byproduct of perspectives of consciousness interrelating within a ground of being that is availed with a field of consciousness, that which one may know, physically, depends upon the quality of its shared apprehension and committment within the ground of being.
From A.T. -- Re: “Kant's transcendental idealism needed to make room for noumena (things we can't see) and, at the same time, attempt to explain phenomena (the things we can see).”
To know that which a thing or event is … is to be its complete author and sustainer. For anything that is not trivially true, as completely derivative of a system of definition or prescription (however incomplete that underlying system itself may be), we do not know it in the sense of “either-or.” Rather, as avatars for a conscious free will, we “know” in a sense of justified belief and chosen, purposeful commitment. That is, we know in a sense of intuition, empathy, and inspiration, as factored or justified under many sided logic, not bivalent logic.
The bivalent math that is availed to mortals is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions that are measurable to mortals. The meta algorithm is beyond mortal capacity to complete or fathom. In whatever way it functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will (i.e., God) to function.
It needs willful stubbornness to feign non-apprehension of that aspect of our basis for being which remains beyond measure, when it is necessarily implicated by that aspect which is not beyond measure. It is intuitively obvious that there are means of appreciation that are not entirely subsumed in measure, just as there are means of logic and reasoned decision making that are not subsumed in bivalence. There is many sided logic, and we necessarily relate it to every choice we make that is non-trivial (i.e., not derivable solely from a foundational system of axioms). Consider the innumerable choices and stances of taste, value, characterization, and belief that one deploys every day, which are reasonable to one’s personality and which cannot be accounted for in terms purely of bivalent logic.
What reasonable person does not make non-trivial choices that are factored and inspired in conjunction with many-sided logic? To try to constrain oneself to a life of pure, bivalent logic would be to try to surrender one’s conscious free will to an unconscious, calculating robot; it would be to willfully flagellate one’s expressiveness of free will.
*******
Insofar as mass is information made physical, as byproduct of perspectives of consciousness interrelating within a ground of being that is availed with a field of consciousness, that which one may know, physically, depends upon the quality of its shared apprehension and committment within the ground of being.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Of consciousness and unconsciousness; the animate and the inanimate
Of consciousness and unconsciousness, the living and the dead, the animate and the inanimate, the chosen and the reactive, the context and the particular:
Presumably, no mere particle or perspective of consciousness is a causal agent-in-itself to implement any change. Rather, every change in the physics that is presented in common to all is synchronized in respect of information and feedback that are contexted and accumulated from and among the empathies of every perspective of consciousness and the common Field of consciousness.
A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.
This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?
Indeed, are all of physical masses and their causative relations mere derivatives, i.e., after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics”? Is mass merely a representative of information, produced to our sensation as byproduct of inter-apprehensions among a single Field of consciousness and its particulate expressions? Are our separate identities, experiences, and decisions secondary phenomena, derivative of the capacity of a common Field of consciousness to receive and synchronize responses to empathetic feedback from many connected, coordinate, particular perspectives?
In whatever way consciousness may express itself, by what means may it exercise free will? By what means may a perspective of free will “cause” a change in the information that is appreciated within the Field of consciousness that gives constitution to our common physics? Does each episode of empathetic appreciation constitute the “choice” that each perspective of consciousness experiences? Does the way a particle or perspective of conscious free will comes to appreciate that with which it empathizes constitute its “choice” for what is fed back to the Field, which filters and synchronizes like signals from every pertinent perspective and organization of perspectives, in order to translate each sequential change in the ground of being that is presented to the appreciation of all?
Presumably, no mere particle or perspective of consciousness is a causal agent-in-itself to implement any change. Rather, every change in the physics that is presented in common to all is synchronized in respect of information and feedback that are contexted and accumulated from and among the empathies of every perspective of consciousness and the common Field of consciousness.
A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.
This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?
Indeed, are all of physical masses and their causative relations mere derivatives, i.e., after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics”? Is mass merely a representative of information, produced to our sensation as byproduct of inter-apprehensions among a single Field of consciousness and its particulate expressions? Are our separate identities, experiences, and decisions secondary phenomena, derivative of the capacity of a common Field of consciousness to receive and synchronize responses to empathetic feedback from many connected, coordinate, particular perspectives?
In whatever way consciousness may express itself, by what means may it exercise free will? By what means may a perspective of free will “cause” a change in the information that is appreciated within the Field of consciousness that gives constitution to our common physics? Does each episode of empathetic appreciation constitute the “choice” that each perspective of consciousness experiences? Does the way a particle or perspective of conscious free will comes to appreciate that with which it empathizes constitute its “choice” for what is fed back to the Field, which filters and synchronizes like signals from every pertinent perspective and organization of perspectives, in order to translate each sequential change in the ground of being that is presented to the appreciation of all?
Based on many-sided logic, I believe we are not here because of dumb Natural Selection among vacuous voids nor because of Intelligent Design of a remote God. Rather, we are here in respect of Conscious Design that is unfolding in interaction with an involved Field of consciousness. I believe no particle of consciousness is a free willing or causal agent-in-itself. Yet, I believe conscious free will does exist, and that “I” am not IT, even though I experience free will by being bound up in appreciation of it. I believe that is reason, properly understood, to respect a universal receptivity to empathy. Be ye empathetic.
******
GOD: Our math is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions which we mortals are able to measure, quantify, predict, or reliably or statistically replicate or manage. That meta algorithm is beyond our mortal capacities to complete or fathom. In whatever way that meta algorithm functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will to function.
******
GOD: Our math is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions which we mortals are able to measure, quantify, predict, or reliably or statistically replicate or manage. That meta algorithm is beyond our mortal capacities to complete or fathom. In whatever way that meta algorithm functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will to function.
What’s your faith?
What’s your faith?
Much of economic theory has devolved in respect of an imaginary world in which there was arms length competition among individual buyers and sellers. That world, if ever it existed, is become subservient to a different meme, in which oligarchs trade in the buying and selling of influence over masses, masses who have been neutered under a system that has reduced drones’ economic and political influences to pittances and delusions. Drones are becoming made to compete against the lowest common denominator of third world labor. Their currency is being manipulated that they might pay for their own neutering. Their cultural boundaries are being diversified to the point of diminishing relevance. Their mores are being made subservient to a greater good of the community, as imagined by elitists in the service of oligarchs.
In this faux “open society,” economists are bent to be apologists for masters of competing interests. Pscyho-historical analyses are made under pretense that the old economic model is still relevant. However, the world has phase-shifted, and reigning oligarchs have little interest in explaining to the common man how his trust is purposely being deluded and manipulated. No doubt, many see this, yet despair whether it would be good or possible to change it. Their dilemma becomes how to make themselves relevant or useful to the reigning paradigm.
The highest currency of the new order deals less in gold backed money than in acquiring means for the absolute manipulation of trust. Those means are to avail power: to control banking and fiat money; to entertain and manipulate psychological fashions, fads, and wants; to manipulate media dissemination of information; to “educate” the next generation; to diversify, divide, and rule the various populations and cultures; to glorify (and manipulate) social “science”; to discredit, anger, and divide traditional churches; to regulate small business people and the middle class into political and economic impotency; and to regulate the detailed behavior of every peon -- right down to his last ration for carbon credits.
What should we do? What does God want us to do? Does God desire that we should be instrumental to establish civilizations to record remembrances of decency, sustainability, purposefulness, challenge, pathos, and glory? Does God wish the sting of competition and battle, to wring out appreciation of the unexpected? Does God volunteer, through us, for lab rat duty?
I suspect evolution is considerably affected by an interpenetrating field of consciousness. I also suspect the goals of such field, while encompassing, may flux in respect of some hierarchy, sort of like Maslow’s. During the short span of recorded history, the default position of humanity seems to have been in subservience to ruling elites. Is America an aberration or a harbinger?
Is it possible to sustain a humane, challenging civilization that avails equal opportunity for freedom of expression and enterprise? Must every such society, to the extent it leads to power to utterly destroy (i.e., too much power in disparate hands of too wide a multitude), be efficiently pushed back down to a default position of mass servitude? Is the best that can be done for the masses that they be comforted in their delusions, like Temple Grandin’s cows? What’s your faith?
Much of economic theory has devolved in respect of an imaginary world in which there was arms length competition among individual buyers and sellers. That world, if ever it existed, is become subservient to a different meme, in which oligarchs trade in the buying and selling of influence over masses, masses who have been neutered under a system that has reduced drones’ economic and political influences to pittances and delusions. Drones are becoming made to compete against the lowest common denominator of third world labor. Their currency is being manipulated that they might pay for their own neutering. Their cultural boundaries are being diversified to the point of diminishing relevance. Their mores are being made subservient to a greater good of the community, as imagined by elitists in the service of oligarchs.
In this faux “open society,” economists are bent to be apologists for masters of competing interests. Pscyho-historical analyses are made under pretense that the old economic model is still relevant. However, the world has phase-shifted, and reigning oligarchs have little interest in explaining to the common man how his trust is purposely being deluded and manipulated. No doubt, many see this, yet despair whether it would be good or possible to change it. Their dilemma becomes how to make themselves relevant or useful to the reigning paradigm.
The highest currency of the new order deals less in gold backed money than in acquiring means for the absolute manipulation of trust. Those means are to avail power: to control banking and fiat money; to entertain and manipulate psychological fashions, fads, and wants; to manipulate media dissemination of information; to “educate” the next generation; to diversify, divide, and rule the various populations and cultures; to glorify (and manipulate) social “science”; to discredit, anger, and divide traditional churches; to regulate small business people and the middle class into political and economic impotency; and to regulate the detailed behavior of every peon -- right down to his last ration for carbon credits.
What should we do? What does God want us to do? Does God desire that we should be instrumental to establish civilizations to record remembrances of decency, sustainability, purposefulness, challenge, pathos, and glory? Does God wish the sting of competition and battle, to wring out appreciation of the unexpected? Does God volunteer, through us, for lab rat duty?
I suspect evolution is considerably affected by an interpenetrating field of consciousness. I also suspect the goals of such field, while encompassing, may flux in respect of some hierarchy, sort of like Maslow’s. During the short span of recorded history, the default position of humanity seems to have been in subservience to ruling elites. Is America an aberration or a harbinger?
Is it possible to sustain a humane, challenging civilization that avails equal opportunity for freedom of expression and enterprise? Must every such society, to the extent it leads to power to utterly destroy (i.e., too much power in disparate hands of too wide a multitude), be efficiently pushed back down to a default position of mass servitude? Is the best that can be done for the masses that they be comforted in their delusions, like Temple Grandin’s cows? What’s your faith?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Decision and Causal Agents
Decision and Causal Agents:
Mortals communicate in respect of discoverable, reliable laws for a system of physics, which regulates mathematically measureable fields and particles with regard to identity, indiscernibility, organization, form, symmetry, exclusivity, density, mass, energy, charge, potential, wave, velocity, and discrete transmutation of quanta. Trivially, the parameters for the math and the physics for that system “are what they are,” subject only to discovery and empirical confirmation. Bivalent logic can help us adduce accurate, non-contradictory measures of such aspects as are measurable. As to rigor, it has been said that “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” (Ernest Rutherford.) There is also rigor in technological, engineering, and computing applications.
However, respecting social studies, apart from lies, damn lies, and statistics, what does rigorous science, math, or logic have to do with anything very much? For non-trivial social studies (such as political science and sociology), how often are survey questions skilled to “educate” the masses to pre-contrived results? How valid is it for such non-trivial scientists to rely on bivalent logic, as opposed to many-sided logic and common sense intuition and empathy? Why suppose it essential to make a good political or military leader that he be a skilled bivalent logician? Why suppose there is only one (“either-or”) proper way to skin a cat? How much confusion is generated in trying to fit inappropriate subjects, in inappropriate ways, to bivalent logic? Simply put, bivalent logic is inappropriate to empathetic decision making: when there is to be factored a role for free will; when there is to be factored not merely a state of being, but a state of becoming; when there is to be factored the uncertain skill or power to produce a particular state (“make it so”); when there is to be factored vagueness in the description of the state of being; and when there is to be factored an uncertain range of interests, utilities, and empathies within the context of a wider community.
Consider the singular Source that underlies our state of affairs. Why suppose it must be a monad? Why suppose it must be Either unchanging Or continuously or constantly changing? Insofar as IT it beyond our comprehension, why choose to infer that it is other than a one of a kind “changeless changeling?” Why choose to suppose God to be other than dualistic, like a two sided coin, one side (Spirit) having an immeasurable capacity to appreciate and express free will, the other side (Nature) having measurably limited capacity to record sequential feedback, neither side being able to abide apart from being connected with the other? Why confuse the two or suppose that the nature of God should know in advance the choices that are to be made by the spirit of God? As God functions as a measurer, God can know what can be known; as God functions as an appreciator, God can appreciate (value, choose, reward, reinforce, diminish, punish) what can be appreciated.
In conjunctive feedback, God can learn, even though not even God need necessarily know in advance of feedback to be appreciated what choices or synchronicities in design that God will implement. That is, as Spirit, God has capacity to avail us our separate perspectives for the empathetic appreciation of feedback from choices; yet, as Nature, God has capacity to avail us our physical ground of being, which is derivative of a meta-fluxing Field or aspect of God’s nature, in respect of which Information is presented and synchronized to parameters for our interactive communication. Physics is simply Information made inanimate within a meta ground of being. Thus, there abides conscious free will, but not apart from a conscious Field that provides our ground of being.
So, by what means may a perspective of free will “cause” a change in the information that is appreciated within the field that gives constitution to our common physics? Each episode of empathetic appreciation constitutes the choice that each perspective of consciousness experiences. The way a particle or perspective of conscious free will comes to appreciate that which it so chooses to empathize with is fed back to the Field, which filters and synchronizes like signals from every pertinent perspective, in order to translate for each sequential change in the ground of being that is presented to the appreciation of all. That is, no perspective of consciousness is a causal agent-in-itself to implement any change. Rather, every change in the physics that is presented in common to all is synchronized in respect of information and feedback that are accumulated from and among the empathies of every perspective of consciousness and the common Field of consciousness.
Our brains receive synchronized instructions a split sequence before they record the manifestation (conversion to physical information) of each decision that has already been made. That is, physics and physical causation are derivatives; they are after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics.” The separateness of our identities, experiences, and decisions are secondary phenomena, being derivative of the capacity of the common Field of consciousness to receive empathetic feedback from many coordinate perspectives.
Mortals communicate in respect of discoverable, reliable laws for a system of physics, which regulates mathematically measureable fields and particles with regard to identity, indiscernibility, organization, form, symmetry, exclusivity, density, mass, energy, charge, potential, wave, velocity, and discrete transmutation of quanta. Trivially, the parameters for the math and the physics for that system “are what they are,” subject only to discovery and empirical confirmation. Bivalent logic can help us adduce accurate, non-contradictory measures of such aspects as are measurable. As to rigor, it has been said that “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” (Ernest Rutherford.) There is also rigor in technological, engineering, and computing applications.
However, respecting social studies, apart from lies, damn lies, and statistics, what does rigorous science, math, or logic have to do with anything very much? For non-trivial social studies (such as political science and sociology), how often are survey questions skilled to “educate” the masses to pre-contrived results? How valid is it for such non-trivial scientists to rely on bivalent logic, as opposed to many-sided logic and common sense intuition and empathy? Why suppose it essential to make a good political or military leader that he be a skilled bivalent logician? Why suppose there is only one (“either-or”) proper way to skin a cat? How much confusion is generated in trying to fit inappropriate subjects, in inappropriate ways, to bivalent logic? Simply put, bivalent logic is inappropriate to empathetic decision making: when there is to be factored a role for free will; when there is to be factored not merely a state of being, but a state of becoming; when there is to be factored the uncertain skill or power to produce a particular state (“make it so”); when there is to be factored vagueness in the description of the state of being; and when there is to be factored an uncertain range of interests, utilities, and empathies within the context of a wider community.
Consider the singular Source that underlies our state of affairs. Why suppose it must be a monad? Why suppose it must be Either unchanging Or continuously or constantly changing? Insofar as IT it beyond our comprehension, why choose to infer that it is other than a one of a kind “changeless changeling?” Why choose to suppose God to be other than dualistic, like a two sided coin, one side (Spirit) having an immeasurable capacity to appreciate and express free will, the other side (Nature) having measurably limited capacity to record sequential feedback, neither side being able to abide apart from being connected with the other? Why confuse the two or suppose that the nature of God should know in advance the choices that are to be made by the spirit of God? As God functions as a measurer, God can know what can be known; as God functions as an appreciator, God can appreciate (value, choose, reward, reinforce, diminish, punish) what can be appreciated.
In conjunctive feedback, God can learn, even though not even God need necessarily know in advance of feedback to be appreciated what choices or synchronicities in design that God will implement. That is, as Spirit, God has capacity to avail us our separate perspectives for the empathetic appreciation of feedback from choices; yet, as Nature, God has capacity to avail us our physical ground of being, which is derivative of a meta-fluxing Field or aspect of God’s nature, in respect of which Information is presented and synchronized to parameters for our interactive communication. Physics is simply Information made inanimate within a meta ground of being. Thus, there abides conscious free will, but not apart from a conscious Field that provides our ground of being.
So, by what means may a perspective of free will “cause” a change in the information that is appreciated within the field that gives constitution to our common physics? Each episode of empathetic appreciation constitutes the choice that each perspective of consciousness experiences. The way a particle or perspective of conscious free will comes to appreciate that which it so chooses to empathize with is fed back to the Field, which filters and synchronizes like signals from every pertinent perspective, in order to translate for each sequential change in the ground of being that is presented to the appreciation of all. That is, no perspective of consciousness is a causal agent-in-itself to implement any change. Rather, every change in the physics that is presented in common to all is synchronized in respect of information and feedback that are accumulated from and among the empathies of every perspective of consciousness and the common Field of consciousness.
Our brains receive synchronized instructions a split sequence before they record the manifestation (conversion to physical information) of each decision that has already been made. That is, physics and physical causation are derivatives; they are after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics.” The separateness of our identities, experiences, and decisions are secondary phenomena, being derivative of the capacity of the common Field of consciousness to receive empathetic feedback from many coordinate perspectives.
Truth Values
Truth Values --- as to non-trivial truths: There would seem to abide the truth of what Presently is, the truth of the Potential of what presently is (or possibly may be), the truth of what Should be, and the truth of what Shall be. There are oft thought to abide: the present truth, the desired truth, the truth of the uncertainly desired, the truly repented, the trivially known truth, the intuitively and empathetically believed truth, the reasonably hoped for truth, the unnecessary to know truth, the not wanted to know truth, and the unknowable truth. There are unknown knowns, known unknowns, known knowns, and unknown unknowns.
When one speaks of "truth" to another, such other (to the extent he is less than harmonious with the perfection of the unfolding whole) will be deluded regarding his experiences and perceptions, yet he will rationalize a fuzzy and changing interpretation of them. The "truth" of his experiences is nested in respect of the overlapping experiences of others, which, in their entirety, are nested in respect of ("condensate of") a single Field for synchronizing experiences of truth. As to all particulars which that Field should desire, no mere mortal can very well speak precise, non-trivial truth to another. Rather, we can (in empathy, enmity, or indifference) communicate to try to redirect, transform, coordinate with, amplify, or reduce the fuzzy delusions of each other, to try to make each other's delusions more harmonious with one's own interpretations (or delusions).
Each of our perspectives emanate in respect of variously organized and leveraged combinations of iterations of a same indiscernible identity, i.e., particle of conscious free will. Even so, as to experiential effects of such combinations, none of us can communicate to any other the precise quality of what it is like to be of, or to experience, our differing contexts, perspectives, and life paths. We can, with symbols for feedback, communicate aspects of, and build on, that which seems to be replicable or reliable in respect of confidences and trusts. Yet, the paint on the lily, to capture, model, and communicate the final and absolute essence of the quality of each of us, will forever elude us. Each time we seek to confine Reality with a different model, metaphor, or concept for the ultimate building block for matter, such may well lead us to a different experience, to transmogrify in respect of each new, failed capture. So long as we remain faithful to try to force final success out of any particular model, our efforts to plumb the essence will lead us to potentially never-ending notions of ever new kinds of quantum level particles (Higgs boson, anyone?).
I believe this is because "the final truth" is not in dumb particles of matter, but related to ourselves, i.e., organizations of particles within fields for the expression of our conscious will. (Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141) ) That is, we ourselves express perspectives of organizations of Something that is, in individual aspect, beyond precise empirical measure, manipulation, or proof (i.e., particles of conscious will). Of each such particle, there is no other model than itself. Each particle of conscious will is indiscernibly identical to all others, yet cannot abide apart from being nested with a common Field of consciousness. Our variety in experience and perspective is not in respect of any difference among such ultimate particles, apart from relative locus and context in respect of a common Field. That is, our variety is in respect of how such particles continue to couple and organize in respect of a single Field that sponsors and unfolds to present all, in synchronous feedback.
Our existential interactions will never be fully explicated in respect of any purely empirical notion about dumb matter. (When Hawking says, "Science will win." he is, I believe, wrong. When Hume said to commit all of metaphysics to the fire, I believe he simply failed to apprehend that nothing that is non-trivial can be modeled or communicated entirely apart from intuitions of metaphysics.) This is because conscious will is not sensibly derivative of dumb, entirely measurable particles condensed from a singular bubble out of a dumb void.
Rather, individually immeasurable particles of conscious will are continuously condensed, absorbed, recycled, and re-coupled in respect of a singular Field of consciousness. As to inanimate matter that appears to whatever extent to such perspectives of consciousness to be dumb, predictable, and measurably quantifiable, such matter is either byproduct of feedback in intercommunications among the Field of consciousness and its particles of condensate, or it is simply coordinate with their influence.
This view is not inconsistent with some of the very earliest of recorded religious traditions, as in varieties of Vedanta Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Nothing in modern logic, math, or science, or in the gilding of subsequent religious traditions, has capacity to discredit the essence of this view in terms of its moral worth, logic value, or empirical probability. Indeed, bivalent logic is inappropriate to the consideration of religious and moral subjects. Rather, many-sided logic is the appropriate vehicle. Thus, the worthwhile and fundamental moral point is this: Each of us experiences only a perspective based on differently unfolding organizations of identical particles of conscious will. Intuitively, we will tend more to be morally empathetic of the pursuits of one another to the extent we come to appreciate that fundamental, circular, self-fulfilling intuition -- whether consciously or subconsciously. Simply put, consciousness of feedback (will, intuition, and empathy) has always existed (and, intuitively, always will) -- regardless of whether or when that which we rather fuzzily call biological life was first caused to evolve.
This is an intuition that has been with us from the dawn of recorded history (and likely before). It is an intuition for a way to demarcate between that which is empirically measurable and that which is only to be appreciated within a fluxing context of feedback among the Field of consciousness and its particular perspectives, not to be scientifically manipulated in any particular sense.
It is an intuition that cannot be shown in logic to be inconsistent with experience, and it is directly open to each independent thinker. It is an intuition from which science can run, but cannot hide. Nor can such intuition be eradicated. Not even by the most expensive of dope, alcohol, or “educating” diversion. Not by worship of interloping Statism, Marxism, Paganism, Shamanism, Papism, or Imamism. And not by so-called objectivism, logical positivism, or analytic philosophy.
When one speaks of "truth" to another, such other (to the extent he is less than harmonious with the perfection of the unfolding whole) will be deluded regarding his experiences and perceptions, yet he will rationalize a fuzzy and changing interpretation of them. The "truth" of his experiences is nested in respect of the overlapping experiences of others, which, in their entirety, are nested in respect of ("condensate of") a single Field for synchronizing experiences of truth. As to all particulars which that Field should desire, no mere mortal can very well speak precise, non-trivial truth to another. Rather, we can (in empathy, enmity, or indifference) communicate to try to redirect, transform, coordinate with, amplify, or reduce the fuzzy delusions of each other, to try to make each other's delusions more harmonious with one's own interpretations (or delusions).
Each of our perspectives emanate in respect of variously organized and leveraged combinations of iterations of a same indiscernible identity, i.e., particle of conscious free will. Even so, as to experiential effects of such combinations, none of us can communicate to any other the precise quality of what it is like to be of, or to experience, our differing contexts, perspectives, and life paths. We can, with symbols for feedback, communicate aspects of, and build on, that which seems to be replicable or reliable in respect of confidences and trusts. Yet, the paint on the lily, to capture, model, and communicate the final and absolute essence of the quality of each of us, will forever elude us. Each time we seek to confine Reality with a different model, metaphor, or concept for the ultimate building block for matter, such may well lead us to a different experience, to transmogrify in respect of each new, failed capture. So long as we remain faithful to try to force final success out of any particular model, our efforts to plumb the essence will lead us to potentially never-ending notions of ever new kinds of quantum level particles (Higgs boson, anyone?).
I believe this is because "the final truth" is not in dumb particles of matter, but related to ourselves, i.e., organizations of particles within fields for the expression of our conscious will. (Cassius: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141) ) That is, we ourselves express perspectives of organizations of Something that is, in individual aspect, beyond precise empirical measure, manipulation, or proof (i.e., particles of conscious will). Of each such particle, there is no other model than itself. Each particle of conscious will is indiscernibly identical to all others, yet cannot abide apart from being nested with a common Field of consciousness. Our variety in experience and perspective is not in respect of any difference among such ultimate particles, apart from relative locus and context in respect of a common Field. That is, our variety is in respect of how such particles continue to couple and organize in respect of a single Field that sponsors and unfolds to present all, in synchronous feedback.
Our existential interactions will never be fully explicated in respect of any purely empirical notion about dumb matter. (When Hawking says, "Science will win." he is, I believe, wrong. When Hume said to commit all of metaphysics to the fire, I believe he simply failed to apprehend that nothing that is non-trivial can be modeled or communicated entirely apart from intuitions of metaphysics.) This is because conscious will is not sensibly derivative of dumb, entirely measurable particles condensed from a singular bubble out of a dumb void.
Rather, individually immeasurable particles of conscious will are continuously condensed, absorbed, recycled, and re-coupled in respect of a singular Field of consciousness. As to inanimate matter that appears to whatever extent to such perspectives of consciousness to be dumb, predictable, and measurably quantifiable, such matter is either byproduct of feedback in intercommunications among the Field of consciousness and its particles of condensate, or it is simply coordinate with their influence.
This view is not inconsistent with some of the very earliest of recorded religious traditions, as in varieties of Vedanta Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Nothing in modern logic, math, or science, or in the gilding of subsequent religious traditions, has capacity to discredit the essence of this view in terms of its moral worth, logic value, or empirical probability. Indeed, bivalent logic is inappropriate to the consideration of religious and moral subjects. Rather, many-sided logic is the appropriate vehicle. Thus, the worthwhile and fundamental moral point is this: Each of us experiences only a perspective based on differently unfolding organizations of identical particles of conscious will. Intuitively, we will tend more to be morally empathetic of the pursuits of one another to the extent we come to appreciate that fundamental, circular, self-fulfilling intuition -- whether consciously or subconsciously. Simply put, consciousness of feedback (will, intuition, and empathy) has always existed (and, intuitively, always will) -- regardless of whether or when that which we rather fuzzily call biological life was first caused to evolve.
This is an intuition that has been with us from the dawn of recorded history (and likely before). It is an intuition for a way to demarcate between that which is empirically measurable and that which is only to be appreciated within a fluxing context of feedback among the Field of consciousness and its particular perspectives, not to be scientifically manipulated in any particular sense.
It is an intuition that cannot be shown in logic to be inconsistent with experience, and it is directly open to each independent thinker. It is an intuition from which science can run, but cannot hide. Nor can such intuition be eradicated. Not even by the most expensive of dope, alcohol, or “educating” diversion. Not by worship of interloping Statism, Marxism, Paganism, Shamanism, Papism, or Imamism. And not by so-called objectivism, logical positivism, or analytic philosophy.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Limits of Science
Limits of Science
From A.T. -- Re: "Human beings, unlike the roll of a fair die, are governed by freedom of choice"
The instant an economist or politician tells a person he must or must not do something (take dope, for example), that person will tend to want to test why. The instant you communicate a notion for how to predict the sum result of groups of interacting random decisions, that notion will simply become part of the factoring in each agent's decision making process. Soros is right that new bubbles are never ending. The very process of observing predictions changes the results (sort of like giving hot stock tips). This is why there is no such thing as perfect transparency in the communication of anything that is not trivial. How can we be perfectly transparent when we don't even perfectly understand ourselves?
This is why social sciences cannot ever compete with the hard sciences in the areas of testability and replicability. For that matter, this is also why the hard sciences go off the deep end when they try to dip into deriving ought from is or morality from nature. We need to think more about how to sustain our games without becoming so invested in proving the final solution that we destroy ourselves in frustration. Both our wisdom and our religion need to accord more respect for each individual's conscious free will. Scientists of replicability need to appreciate their limits when it comes to hubristic prescriptions for morality that accord too little respect for a fundamental, unpredictable aspect of consciousness. Science needs to grow up and apprehend its limits. Until then, we are more in the grip of confidence men who deal in self fulfilling prophecies or delusions.
From A.T. -- Re: "Human beings, unlike the roll of a fair die, are governed by freedom of choice"
The instant an economist or politician tells a person he must or must not do something (take dope, for example), that person will tend to want to test why. The instant you communicate a notion for how to predict the sum result of groups of interacting random decisions, that notion will simply become part of the factoring in each agent's decision making process. Soros is right that new bubbles are never ending. The very process of observing predictions changes the results (sort of like giving hot stock tips). This is why there is no such thing as perfect transparency in the communication of anything that is not trivial. How can we be perfectly transparent when we don't even perfectly understand ourselves?
This is why social sciences cannot ever compete with the hard sciences in the areas of testability and replicability. For that matter, this is also why the hard sciences go off the deep end when they try to dip into deriving ought from is or morality from nature. We need to think more about how to sustain our games without becoming so invested in proving the final solution that we destroy ourselves in frustration. Both our wisdom and our religion need to accord more respect for each individual's conscious free will. Scientists of replicability need to appreciate their limits when it comes to hubristic prescriptions for morality that accord too little respect for a fundamental, unpredictable aspect of consciousness. Science needs to grow up and apprehend its limits. Until then, we are more in the grip of confidence men who deal in self fulfilling prophecies or delusions.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Time for Middle Class to Bite Back
Time for Middle Class to Bite Back:
Prog Rinos and Prog Dinos remain united in a dangerous game. Progs hope the Rino-like collectivism of a cohort of international corporatists will prevail against the Dino-like collectivism of environmentalists, nationalistic socialists, and religious jihadists.
Both Rinos and Dinos want an “open society,” i.e.: more equality in the price of labor, which will cause labor to bid itself down; diversification of industry in cheap overseas labor markets (even among regimes that are despotic, Marxist, and Islamist); international currency; more international law in support of free trade; and effective erasure of national borders. Fundamentally, both Rinos and Dinos want to bury the idea of America.
Where do Rinos and Dinos differ? They differ significantly only (1) in tax tactics and (2) in how they view the elites who are to run the masses, either via a worldwide, federal government or via variously federated monopolies to be run by corporatists.
The predominant myth among Dinos is that decent, well-educated, elite governors will look out for little guys. The predominant myth among Rinos is that decent, well-educated, elite corporatists will rule the governments that will rule little guys. Simply put, Prog rulers, whether Rino or Dino, will not be decent nor will they, in any effective way, be looking out for the little guy. The cynical hope among sociopathic Progs who actually pull the strings of both Rinos and Dinos is that they will rule the little guys, either in the style of Brave New World or in the style of 1984 -- whether the little guys like it or not.
The naive take among Libertarians is that the Prog trend will diminish if we just diminish the formal role of government. However, absent assimilation of spiritual and traditional values (an ethos for alms-giving to be private, in respect of the Golden Rule, not to turn able bodied citizens into commie bums), the diminishment of the rule of law will simply be replaced with the rule of sociopaths, who will rule either in the style of a cohort of international corporatists or in the style of centrally federalized governors.
Why do Rinos and Dinos differ on tax policies? Dinos want higher taxes, to promote centrally federalized government. Rinos want lower taxes, to promote control in a cohort of international corporatists. However, sociopathic billionaire Progs tend not to care that much, either way, so long as steady “progress” continues to be made towards: breaking labor to make it bid against itself among destitute economies, keeping the masses working under the whip of necessity, internationalizing currency, promoting free trade to make the world safe for despots, and keeping borders open.
Regardless of whether taxes are raised, lowered, or kept in a perpetual state of confused and hedged uncertainty, sociopathic billionaires expect to rule – either by owning those who run the central fed or by running the corporations that run the world.
Simply put, unless conservers of liberty see what is really going on and take action to reverse it, Progs and Libs will continue, worldwide, to pull humanity towards a new worldwide dystopia (NWD), in which the freedom and dignity of the common man will be dumped to the trash heap. Unless social conservatives keep the heat on representatives, the elections of 2010 will have done nothing to stop the Prog march.
We will not preserve freedom and dignity unless we preserve spiritual values. We will not preserve spiritual values if we follow questionable creeds or corrupt and interloping authorities or if we allow central government to marginalize respectable churches and monopolize the dispersing of alms. We will not preserve decent government if we allow it to become too central and too big. We will not keep government small if we increase legalism. We will not diminish legalism or corruption if we open our borders. We will not preserve our borders if we license international corporations to ignore or run around them. We will not preserve control over international corporations to the extent they do business in America if we allow them to buy or corrupt our politicians. We will not preserve decency, freedom, or dignity if we do not wake up and reverse the shenanigans of Rino and Dino Progs and their abettors.
We need to "cut the hair" from the Progs who are funding the burial of America. If Prog billionaires (especially non-producing hedge fund speculators with a devil’s workshop of too much liquidity on their hands) have nothing better to do with their money than to try to bury America, then we need to take away their economic power. However, if we take their money and fund government, we will be playing into their hands. Since they are so loudly promoting a need to redistribute wealth, we need to take them up on it. But we must not redistribute to more government boondoggles. Not even to pay down debt. That would only encourage more government programs and the everlasting commitment to fund them thereafter.
Instead, simply relieve all speculators who clamor for more government of their excess money, and then redistribute it directly to the rest of Americans, in proportion to their yearly reported taxable income (provided that no redistribution should increase the income of anyone beyond the cutoff point for imposing the redistribution levy). Do that only once or twice and the sociopaths among the billionaires will cease clamoring to "spread the wealth" or otherwise to increase the size or role of government. It's time for middle class Americans to bite back against those who would seek to fund the "progressive" burying of America.
Prog Rinos and Prog Dinos remain united in a dangerous game. Progs hope the Rino-like collectivism of a cohort of international corporatists will prevail against the Dino-like collectivism of environmentalists, nationalistic socialists, and religious jihadists.
Both Rinos and Dinos want an “open society,” i.e.: more equality in the price of labor, which will cause labor to bid itself down; diversification of industry in cheap overseas labor markets (even among regimes that are despotic, Marxist, and Islamist); international currency; more international law in support of free trade; and effective erasure of national borders. Fundamentally, both Rinos and Dinos want to bury the idea of America.
Where do Rinos and Dinos differ? They differ significantly only (1) in tax tactics and (2) in how they view the elites who are to run the masses, either via a worldwide, federal government or via variously federated monopolies to be run by corporatists.
The predominant myth among Dinos is that decent, well-educated, elite governors will look out for little guys. The predominant myth among Rinos is that decent, well-educated, elite corporatists will rule the governments that will rule little guys. Simply put, Prog rulers, whether Rino or Dino, will not be decent nor will they, in any effective way, be looking out for the little guy. The cynical hope among sociopathic Progs who actually pull the strings of both Rinos and Dinos is that they will rule the little guys, either in the style of Brave New World or in the style of 1984 -- whether the little guys like it or not.
The naive take among Libertarians is that the Prog trend will diminish if we just diminish the formal role of government. However, absent assimilation of spiritual and traditional values (an ethos for alms-giving to be private, in respect of the Golden Rule, not to turn able bodied citizens into commie bums), the diminishment of the rule of law will simply be replaced with the rule of sociopaths, who will rule either in the style of a cohort of international corporatists or in the style of centrally federalized governors.
Why do Rinos and Dinos differ on tax policies? Dinos want higher taxes, to promote centrally federalized government. Rinos want lower taxes, to promote control in a cohort of international corporatists. However, sociopathic billionaire Progs tend not to care that much, either way, so long as steady “progress” continues to be made towards: breaking labor to make it bid against itself among destitute economies, keeping the masses working under the whip of necessity, internationalizing currency, promoting free trade to make the world safe for despots, and keeping borders open.
Regardless of whether taxes are raised, lowered, or kept in a perpetual state of confused and hedged uncertainty, sociopathic billionaires expect to rule – either by owning those who run the central fed or by running the corporations that run the world.
Simply put, unless conservers of liberty see what is really going on and take action to reverse it, Progs and Libs will continue, worldwide, to pull humanity towards a new worldwide dystopia (NWD), in which the freedom and dignity of the common man will be dumped to the trash heap. Unless social conservatives keep the heat on representatives, the elections of 2010 will have done nothing to stop the Prog march.
We will not preserve freedom and dignity unless we preserve spiritual values. We will not preserve spiritual values if we follow questionable creeds or corrupt and interloping authorities or if we allow central government to marginalize respectable churches and monopolize the dispersing of alms. We will not preserve decent government if we allow it to become too central and too big. We will not keep government small if we increase legalism. We will not diminish legalism or corruption if we open our borders. We will not preserve our borders if we license international corporations to ignore or run around them. We will not preserve control over international corporations to the extent they do business in America if we allow them to buy or corrupt our politicians. We will not preserve decency, freedom, or dignity if we do not wake up and reverse the shenanigans of Rino and Dino Progs and their abettors.
We need to "cut the hair" from the Progs who are funding the burial of America. If Prog billionaires (especially non-producing hedge fund speculators with a devil’s workshop of too much liquidity on their hands) have nothing better to do with their money than to try to bury America, then we need to take away their economic power. However, if we take their money and fund government, we will be playing into their hands. Since they are so loudly promoting a need to redistribute wealth, we need to take them up on it. But we must not redistribute to more government boondoggles. Not even to pay down debt. That would only encourage more government programs and the everlasting commitment to fund them thereafter.
Instead, simply relieve all speculators who clamor for more government of their excess money, and then redistribute it directly to the rest of Americans, in proportion to their yearly reported taxable income (provided that no redistribution should increase the income of anyone beyond the cutoff point for imposing the redistribution levy). Do that only once or twice and the sociopaths among the billionaires will cease clamoring to "spread the wealth" or otherwise to increase the size or role of government. It's time for middle class Americans to bite back against those who would seek to fund the "progressive" burying of America.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Contrast Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
A brief, less than exact comparison and contrast of Statism, Naturalism, Paganism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam:
A long line of good sense seems to flow from Vedanta Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and modern concepts relating to a Field of Consciousness. Such models for belief systems seem to make a line of coherent sense regarding: MONOTHEISM, HEAVEN AND HELL, IS/OUGHT, MORAL SERVICE, ORIGINAL SIN AND SALVATION, FREE WILL, SACRED TRUTHS OR CONTEXT DEPENDENT METAPHORS, REINCARNATION OR RESURRECTION, ALMS, PURPOSE, ESCHATOLOGY, SIGNS OF END TIMES, TRANSITION TIMES, APOCALYPSE, STURM AND DRANG, IMAGE OF GOD, AND THE GOD PARTICLE. Other belief systems are found in Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Human Secularism, Statism, and Naturalism. However, I believe these system are more confused and not as well suited to preserving decent and sustainable civilization. Bahai and Shinto also seem unnecessarily syncretismtic and confused.
MONOTHEISM:
- *All (except Paganism): God is one.
- Hinduism and Christianity: Respect that the one God often assumes a common form or aspect, by which to communicate, as flesh, to human beings.
Judaism and Islam: God does not assume any long term aspect, flesh, or identity – other than as God.
HEAVEN AND HELL:
- All (except perhaps varieties of Statism, Paganism or Buddhism): Tend to believe consciousness continues hereafter, after death of the body.
- Christianity and Islam: Character of hereafter is entirely heavenly or spiritual, with no more death.
- *Hinduism and Judaism: The here and now is fundamentally spiritual, perhaps reincarnating, and recreating; matter is derivative of the mind of God, but it is in respect of such matter that human kind relates; form no clear hypothesis as to the quality of matter or quality of cycles of life and death by which God may avail the hereafter.
IS/OUGHT:
In respect of what faith is the ring of power held? In respect of what faith ought it be held?
All (except Secular Humanists, Pagans, Statists, and Libertarians): Ought is derived in respect of intuitions, empathies, and notions about the character of the conscious will of God.
1. *Hindi: Ought is derived in respect of feedback between the field of consciousness and its particular perspectives and expressions; ought is derived in respect of flux in the character of consciousness.
2. *Christian: Ought is derived in respect of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.
3. *Jew: Ought is derived in respect of the Ten Commandments and the decent preserving of the society of one’s fellows.
4. Muslim: Ought is derived from a notion that God commands us to worship and present ourselves -- humbly, cleanly, and chastely -- to God; ought is derived from protecting the faith and waging it to the diminishment or destruction of non-believers, non-adherents, and apostates, as judged by fallible fanatics.
5. Secular Humanist and Pagan: Ought is derived from Nature.
6. Statist: Ought is derived in respect of those who rule the State.
7. Egoist, Libertarian, and Objectivist: Ought is derived from your own particular consciousness and its desires.
My hope is on the first three.
MORAL SERVICE:
- All: Serve God (except some secular Pagans consider State, Earth, or Science to entail limits of God)
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity: Preach of a God who wills charity, good faith, and good will (empathy).
- Islam: Tests believers by enlisting them in jihad against unbelievers; believers are to be eternally rewarded; unbelievers are to be eternally punished; believers are agents to help enforce the difference.
ORIGINAL SIN AND SALVATION:
- All: Man is imperfect and flawed and needs guidance to help avoid sin and evil and seek the good and the redemptive
- *Vedanta Hinduism and perhaps Zoroastrianism: Sin is not absolute in itself; the Field of consciousness is limited yet unbounded and undetermined, unfolding in respect of feedback among its parts; subfields and pursuits may overlap in interests; God records, reconciles, and synchronizes, but may also learn and experience fluxing, competing, cooperating, amplifying, and dissimilating waves of empathy. Perhaps, God is a Great Artist and Writer, but the book and the pictures may not be complete, and there is not availed to humanity an absolute, pre-set, final map for manifesting God’s intentions and teleology.
- *Vedanta Hinduism: Redemption consists in intuitive experience that God is with us, soothing our fears, comforting us that death of the body is necessary but not final as to consciousness, availing our communications, experiencing feedback of our empathies, guiding us in our pursuits of happiness and fulfillment; inspiring faith that our pursuits are worthwhile and meaningful. God works through each of us, and, in feedback and hindsight, God may celebrate or mourn aspects of each of our choices. Indirectly, God experiences varieties of joy and remorse from choices synchronized through us, learns accordingly, and adjusts the unfolding design of the general field that constitutes our ground of being. Those aspects for the design of our bodies that please God are carried forward; those that do not are not. Sometimes, tests and hardships are needed, to test and record how to improve the unfolding design.
- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Relate more to a concept that entails original sin and an absolute and pre-set standard, for all time, for judging the rightness of any particular here and now event or choice. Much stock is put in a need somehow to work off sin or to be washed of it by grace.
FREE WILL:
All: There abide limiting parameters.
*Hinduism and Zoroastrianism: You have free will, even as you must toil for your living.
Judaism and Christianity: You have free will, even as you must toil for your living, in that you are laden with original sin.
Islam: You should obey the Koran, but God determines and has predetermined whether and how you will.
Paganism and Human Secularism: Free will is an illusion; your choices are either predetermined or random.
SACRED TRUTHS OR CONTEXT DEPENDENT METAPHORS:
- All: Employ parables and figures of speech
- *Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity: Respect context, point of view, frame of reference, history, poetry, meaning in communications among human beings.
- Islam: Takes significant parts of holy text as literal word of God, and violently condemns human beings who fail or refuse to receive or understand the original text as such.
REINCARNATION OR RESURRECTION:
- All: Relate human beings to God
- *Hinduism: No heaven, no Messiah, only reincarnation; God is the essence that is directly experienced and intuited, but not via secondary senses.
- *Zoroastriansim: No Messiah; God is the essence that is directly experienced and intuited, but not via secondary senses.
- Judaism and Christianity: God gives expression through a Messiah (Judaism: Messiah is to come and rule on Earth; Christianity – Messiah has already come and will come again, to rule on Earth, defeat evil, and restore the faithful to heaven).
- Islam: No Messiah; only hellfire retribution for nonbelievers and eternal rewards hereafter for the faithful and obedient.
ALMS:
- All: Charity and Government
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity (excepting Catholicism): Prefer that alms come by way of charity than by way of government.
- Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam: Imagine that rules of kosher or legalisms can and should regulate minutiae of human interactions; conflate governmental regulation and taxation with charity (Catholicism); conflate government with church (Islam).
PURPOSE:
- All: Purposefulness
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity: Find purposefulness in living in harmony with one another and in reverence of God, without need of acting as agents to condemn non-believers or alternative believers.
- Islam: Finds little purpose in the here and now, except to serve God, by fencing the faithful and disposing of non-believers. (Without unbelievers, how do Muslims expect to occupy themselves in the hereafter? By imagining taunts for those who burn in eternal hellfire? What sort of seized and depraved mind would idealize such a system?)
*ESCHATOLOGY, SIGNS OF END TIMES, TRANSITION TIMES, APOCALYPSE:
Buddhism: Eventual escape into nirvana by learning to give up all desires.
*Vedanta Hinduism, perhaps Zoroastrianism: Flux among recurring forms for allowing consciousness to give and communicate expression; God learns in cycles, beginning anew, preserving designs based on appreciated knowledge, repressing undesired designs; perhaps karma; perhaps no end times, perhaps an eternal present, perhaps fluxing between periods of expansion and collapse or renewal and death.
Judaism: Eschatology not knowable to humanity.
Christianity: Salvation possible to perfect, eternal, heavenly bliss; those not saved to be apart from God.
Islam: Dualism of eternal heaven or paradise versus eternal hell
*Paganism: Midwife like beliefs, sometimes regarding human slaves and service to extraterrestrials.
Statism, Secular Humanism, Naturalism: Eventual entropic dissolution into nothingness; no meaningful hereafter after death; no real higher purpose.
STURM AND DRANG:
- All: Potentially helpful or harmful, or inspiring or depressing, or enlightening or apocalyptic – depending upon methods and purposes of practitioners
- *Buddhists, Secular Jews, and Protestant Christians: Tend to be less beholden to those interlopers who pretend to have a universal trump for speaking directly for God.
- Corporatists, Collectivists, Marxists, Imams, Mullahs, Priests, and ex cathedra Prophets: Tend to want to impose moral precepts based more on elite or hierarchical authority for masking territorial and personal preferences, than on insight or analysis of what is needed in terms of church and state in order to preserve a society that avails decent respect for human freedom and dignity. Some easily stoop to justify deception, torture, poison, murder, and genocide.
IMAGE OF GOD:
- All (except Statism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Paganism): Consider that man is created in an image or form like God.
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Paganism: May tend not necessarily to consider the human form as the apex of creation or evolution. May view consciousness as entailing spirituality that is not restricted to the human form.
- *THE GOD PARTICLE (by Edwin Klingman): See *’s, above. Plus, consider how a notion of consciousness, as expressed in aspects both of particles and of field, is not restricted to any particular kind of form (like human beings). Perhaps, upon removing the emphasis on a myriad of forms of God, Vedanta Hinduism or Zoroastrianism may be closest to what I intuit and to what Klingman calculates. (Klingman leans more to a dualism, i.e., wilful and not particularly measurable particles of consciousness coupling and interacting with empirically measurable matter.)
- I intuit no perfect need to hypothesize a dualism, inasmuch as empirical matter may be entirely derivative of (or byproduct of) perspectives of consciousness communicating in respect of a shared ground of being, i.e., the common Field of Consciousness (aka, God). However, Klingman’s notion of a dualism performs an invaluable service! That is, it avails a way to weight or quantify analyses of groupings or subfields of the universal Field. IOW, it simplifies the standard model of physics without doing damage to its empirical and predictive functions. It allows particles of consciousness to be indirectly lensed or quantified, by measuring (cosmological constants of?) their cumulative effects.
- *MYSELF: As to the Field of Conscious Will, I relate the consciousness aspect to intuition and the will aspect to empathetic purposefulness. Intuitively, I am more like a Vedanta Hindi or a Zoroastrian; empathetically (and culturally), I am more like a free thinking, Protestant Christian, accepting of redemptive powers of God and the flawed nature of man, but with quibbles about the concept of Original Sin. To me, the concept that God cares to relate to us is more important than any complicated explication about whether, how, or why the concept became flesh.
NOTE: Aspects of Buddhism compare favorably with Vedanta Hinduism, insofar as those Buddhists who are more appreciative that consciousness is not wedded to empirically measurable bodies, so that consciousness cannot cease. However, the cessation of desires by reaching nirvana seems foreign to a relevant, changing, learning, adventuring, purposeful, sometimes remorseful, God. As to Paganism (Wicca, Gaia’ism, Hedonism, Asceticism, Marxist Collectivism, Corporatist Collectivism, etc.) — its varieties seem to consist mainly in play acting, corruption, and nonsense on stilts.
NOTE: Egoism (Libertarianism and Objectivism) finds purpose in no purpose higher than particles of egoism, yet tends to expand such particles into a field that encompasses one’s family and those persons or causes one admires. Egoism seems a bit solipsistic or incoherent insofar as it tries to avoid reconciliation of particle of egoism to common field of consciousness by trying to define all in respect of each individual’s particular perspective. It does not seem to be a serious philosophy, although it does well point up the danger of rewarding bums and commies. IOW, purely collectivist (communistic) notions are not serious philosophies, either.
NOTE: Islam is a viciously syncretistic combination of Judaism and Christianity. It is like Judaism in denying that any Messiah has come, but like Christianity in proclaiming “good news” that a redemptive resurrection is at hand (for believers who serve as agents to help God sort souls by guarding the faith of believers and making retributive examples of non-believers). In that, Islam combines the worst features of both. That is, it takes retributive (eye for eye) justice from the Old Testament, combines it with a concept of evil for affronting God by following so-called satanic deceits in setting up “partners” (a Messiah), and then justifies jihad for diminishing or destroying all who decline to accept its interpretation in toto. In short, Islam is a gross impediment to free thought, honest belief, human dignity, and enlightened and empirical investigation.
*NOTES:
*ZOROASTRIANISM: Zoroastrianism rejects monasticism and asceticism. It has regard for a dualism of good and evil, but not of matter and spirit. (Might good and evil be two sides of one essential coin?) Does it see the spiritual world as not so different from the natural one? It rejects predestination. Human beings bear responsibility for situations and the way they act toward one another. At the end of time, evil is defeated, souls are reunited. Active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will; participation in life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.
*VEDANTA HINDUISM:
The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness, which can be experienced by anyone, but cannot be adequately conveyed in language. There is no sole book source for its philosophy. Different schools vary in how they relate a dualism of Reality (nature) and God (consciousness), which are different but mutually inseparable.
Fortunately, in good faith and good will, leaders regularly arise to bring the independent minded middle class together, to move humanity towards a better way. Often, when the hour looks bleakest, there is sent to us a Zoroaster, Aristotle, Paul, Galileo, Spinoza, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, Washington, Wilberforce, Lincoln, Planck, Templeton, Reagan, Fritjof Capra ...
WHAT I BELIEVE: I don't find any particular tradition to be entirely satisfactory. I doubt heaven, and don't believe in original sin, although I do believe mortals are prone to be flawed and need guidance. I think a kind of reincarnation makes sense. I do believe in a Field of consciousness, which interrelates with particular perspectives, the interrelation resulting in expressions of free will. I think there abides an essentially spiritual quest to establish higher levels of decent, stable, surpassing, civilizing communications, though yin and yang will play.
A long line of good sense seems to flow from Vedanta Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and modern concepts relating to a Field of Consciousness. Such models for belief systems seem to make a line of coherent sense regarding: MONOTHEISM, HEAVEN AND HELL, IS/OUGHT, MORAL SERVICE, ORIGINAL SIN AND SALVATION, FREE WILL, SACRED TRUTHS OR CONTEXT DEPENDENT METAPHORS, REINCARNATION OR RESURRECTION, ALMS, PURPOSE, ESCHATOLOGY, SIGNS OF END TIMES, TRANSITION TIMES, APOCALYPSE, STURM AND DRANG, IMAGE OF GOD, AND THE GOD PARTICLE. Other belief systems are found in Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Human Secularism, Statism, and Naturalism. However, I believe these system are more confused and not as well suited to preserving decent and sustainable civilization. Bahai and Shinto also seem unnecessarily syncretismtic and confused.
MONOTHEISM:
- *All (except Paganism): God is one.
- Hinduism and Christianity: Respect that the one God often assumes a common form or aspect, by which to communicate, as flesh, to human beings.
Judaism and Islam: God does not assume any long term aspect, flesh, or identity – other than as God.
HEAVEN AND HELL:
- All (except perhaps varieties of Statism, Paganism or Buddhism): Tend to believe consciousness continues hereafter, after death of the body.
- Christianity and Islam: Character of hereafter is entirely heavenly or spiritual, with no more death.
- *Hinduism and Judaism: The here and now is fundamentally spiritual, perhaps reincarnating, and recreating; matter is derivative of the mind of God, but it is in respect of such matter that human kind relates; form no clear hypothesis as to the quality of matter or quality of cycles of life and death by which God may avail the hereafter.
IS/OUGHT:
In respect of what faith is the ring of power held? In respect of what faith ought it be held?
All (except Secular Humanists, Pagans, Statists, and Libertarians): Ought is derived in respect of intuitions, empathies, and notions about the character of the conscious will of God.
1. *Hindi: Ought is derived in respect of feedback between the field of consciousness and its particular perspectives and expressions; ought is derived in respect of flux in the character of consciousness.
2. *Christian: Ought is derived in respect of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.
3. *Jew: Ought is derived in respect of the Ten Commandments and the decent preserving of the society of one’s fellows.
4. Muslim: Ought is derived from a notion that God commands us to worship and present ourselves -- humbly, cleanly, and chastely -- to God; ought is derived from protecting the faith and waging it to the diminishment or destruction of non-believers, non-adherents, and apostates, as judged by fallible fanatics.
5. Secular Humanist and Pagan: Ought is derived from Nature.
6. Statist: Ought is derived in respect of those who rule the State.
7. Egoist, Libertarian, and Objectivist: Ought is derived from your own particular consciousness and its desires.
My hope is on the first three.
MORAL SERVICE:
- All: Serve God (except some secular Pagans consider State, Earth, or Science to entail limits of God)
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity: Preach of a God who wills charity, good faith, and good will (empathy).
- Islam: Tests believers by enlisting them in jihad against unbelievers; believers are to be eternally rewarded; unbelievers are to be eternally punished; believers are agents to help enforce the difference.
ORIGINAL SIN AND SALVATION:
- All: Man is imperfect and flawed and needs guidance to help avoid sin and evil and seek the good and the redemptive
- *Vedanta Hinduism and perhaps Zoroastrianism: Sin is not absolute in itself; the Field of consciousness is limited yet unbounded and undetermined, unfolding in respect of feedback among its parts; subfields and pursuits may overlap in interests; God records, reconciles, and synchronizes, but may also learn and experience fluxing, competing, cooperating, amplifying, and dissimilating waves of empathy. Perhaps, God is a Great Artist and Writer, but the book and the pictures may not be complete, and there is not availed to humanity an absolute, pre-set, final map for manifesting God’s intentions and teleology.
- *Vedanta Hinduism: Redemption consists in intuitive experience that God is with us, soothing our fears, comforting us that death of the body is necessary but not final as to consciousness, availing our communications, experiencing feedback of our empathies, guiding us in our pursuits of happiness and fulfillment; inspiring faith that our pursuits are worthwhile and meaningful. God works through each of us, and, in feedback and hindsight, God may celebrate or mourn aspects of each of our choices. Indirectly, God experiences varieties of joy and remorse from choices synchronized through us, learns accordingly, and adjusts the unfolding design of the general field that constitutes our ground of being. Those aspects for the design of our bodies that please God are carried forward; those that do not are not. Sometimes, tests and hardships are needed, to test and record how to improve the unfolding design.
- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Relate more to a concept that entails original sin and an absolute and pre-set standard, for all time, for judging the rightness of any particular here and now event or choice. Much stock is put in a need somehow to work off sin or to be washed of it by grace.
FREE WILL:
All: There abide limiting parameters.
*Hinduism and Zoroastrianism: You have free will, even as you must toil for your living.
Judaism and Christianity: You have free will, even as you must toil for your living, in that you are laden with original sin.
Islam: You should obey the Koran, but God determines and has predetermined whether and how you will.
Paganism and Human Secularism: Free will is an illusion; your choices are either predetermined or random.
SACRED TRUTHS OR CONTEXT DEPENDENT METAPHORS:
- All: Employ parables and figures of speech
- *Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity: Respect context, point of view, frame of reference, history, poetry, meaning in communications among human beings.
- Islam: Takes significant parts of holy text as literal word of God, and violently condemns human beings who fail or refuse to receive or understand the original text as such.
REINCARNATION OR RESURRECTION:
- All: Relate human beings to God
- *Hinduism: No heaven, no Messiah, only reincarnation; God is the essence that is directly experienced and intuited, but not via secondary senses.
- *Zoroastriansim: No Messiah; God is the essence that is directly experienced and intuited, but not via secondary senses.
- Judaism and Christianity: God gives expression through a Messiah (Judaism: Messiah is to come and rule on Earth; Christianity – Messiah has already come and will come again, to rule on Earth, defeat evil, and restore the faithful to heaven).
- Islam: No Messiah; only hellfire retribution for nonbelievers and eternal rewards hereafter for the faithful and obedient.
ALMS:
- All: Charity and Government
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and Christianity (excepting Catholicism): Prefer that alms come by way of charity than by way of government.
- Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam: Imagine that rules of kosher or legalisms can and should regulate minutiae of human interactions; conflate governmental regulation and taxation with charity (Catholicism); conflate government with church (Islam).
PURPOSE:
- All: Purposefulness
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity: Find purposefulness in living in harmony with one another and in reverence of God, without need of acting as agents to condemn non-believers or alternative believers.
- Islam: Finds little purpose in the here and now, except to serve God, by fencing the faithful and disposing of non-believers. (Without unbelievers, how do Muslims expect to occupy themselves in the hereafter? By imagining taunts for those who burn in eternal hellfire? What sort of seized and depraved mind would idealize such a system?)
*ESCHATOLOGY, SIGNS OF END TIMES, TRANSITION TIMES, APOCALYPSE:
Buddhism: Eventual escape into nirvana by learning to give up all desires.
*Vedanta Hinduism, perhaps Zoroastrianism: Flux among recurring forms for allowing consciousness to give and communicate expression; God learns in cycles, beginning anew, preserving designs based on appreciated knowledge, repressing undesired designs; perhaps karma; perhaps no end times, perhaps an eternal present, perhaps fluxing between periods of expansion and collapse or renewal and death.
Judaism: Eschatology not knowable to humanity.
Christianity: Salvation possible to perfect, eternal, heavenly bliss; those not saved to be apart from God.
Islam: Dualism of eternal heaven or paradise versus eternal hell
*Paganism: Midwife like beliefs, sometimes regarding human slaves and service to extraterrestrials.
Statism, Secular Humanism, Naturalism: Eventual entropic dissolution into nothingness; no meaningful hereafter after death; no real higher purpose.
STURM AND DRANG:
- All: Potentially helpful or harmful, or inspiring or depressing, or enlightening or apocalyptic – depending upon methods and purposes of practitioners
- *Buddhists, Secular Jews, and Protestant Christians: Tend to be less beholden to those interlopers who pretend to have a universal trump for speaking directly for God.
- Corporatists, Collectivists, Marxists, Imams, Mullahs, Priests, and ex cathedra Prophets: Tend to want to impose moral precepts based more on elite or hierarchical authority for masking territorial and personal preferences, than on insight or analysis of what is needed in terms of church and state in order to preserve a society that avails decent respect for human freedom and dignity. Some easily stoop to justify deception, torture, poison, murder, and genocide.
IMAGE OF GOD:
- All (except Statism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Paganism): Consider that man is created in an image or form like God.
- *Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Paganism: May tend not necessarily to consider the human form as the apex of creation or evolution. May view consciousness as entailing spirituality that is not restricted to the human form.
- *THE GOD PARTICLE (by Edwin Klingman): See *’s, above. Plus, consider how a notion of consciousness, as expressed in aspects both of particles and of field, is not restricted to any particular kind of form (like human beings). Perhaps, upon removing the emphasis on a myriad of forms of God, Vedanta Hinduism or Zoroastrianism may be closest to what I intuit and to what Klingman calculates. (Klingman leans more to a dualism, i.e., wilful and not particularly measurable particles of consciousness coupling and interacting with empirically measurable matter.)
- I intuit no perfect need to hypothesize a dualism, inasmuch as empirical matter may be entirely derivative of (or byproduct of) perspectives of consciousness communicating in respect of a shared ground of being, i.e., the common Field of Consciousness (aka, God). However, Klingman’s notion of a dualism performs an invaluable service! That is, it avails a way to weight or quantify analyses of groupings or subfields of the universal Field. IOW, it simplifies the standard model of physics without doing damage to its empirical and predictive functions. It allows particles of consciousness to be indirectly lensed or quantified, by measuring (cosmological constants of?) their cumulative effects.
- *MYSELF: As to the Field of Conscious Will, I relate the consciousness aspect to intuition and the will aspect to empathetic purposefulness. Intuitively, I am more like a Vedanta Hindi or a Zoroastrian; empathetically (and culturally), I am more like a free thinking, Protestant Christian, accepting of redemptive powers of God and the flawed nature of man, but with quibbles about the concept of Original Sin. To me, the concept that God cares to relate to us is more important than any complicated explication about whether, how, or why the concept became flesh.
NOTE: Aspects of Buddhism compare favorably with Vedanta Hinduism, insofar as those Buddhists who are more appreciative that consciousness is not wedded to empirically measurable bodies, so that consciousness cannot cease. However, the cessation of desires by reaching nirvana seems foreign to a relevant, changing, learning, adventuring, purposeful, sometimes remorseful, God. As to Paganism (Wicca, Gaia’ism, Hedonism, Asceticism, Marxist Collectivism, Corporatist Collectivism, etc.) — its varieties seem to consist mainly in play acting, corruption, and nonsense on stilts.
NOTE: Egoism (Libertarianism and Objectivism) finds purpose in no purpose higher than particles of egoism, yet tends to expand such particles into a field that encompasses one’s family and those persons or causes one admires. Egoism seems a bit solipsistic or incoherent insofar as it tries to avoid reconciliation of particle of egoism to common field of consciousness by trying to define all in respect of each individual’s particular perspective. It does not seem to be a serious philosophy, although it does well point up the danger of rewarding bums and commies. IOW, purely collectivist (communistic) notions are not serious philosophies, either.
NOTE: Islam is a viciously syncretistic combination of Judaism and Christianity. It is like Judaism in denying that any Messiah has come, but like Christianity in proclaiming “good news” that a redemptive resurrection is at hand (for believers who serve as agents to help God sort souls by guarding the faith of believers and making retributive examples of non-believers). In that, Islam combines the worst features of both. That is, it takes retributive (eye for eye) justice from the Old Testament, combines it with a concept of evil for affronting God by following so-called satanic deceits in setting up “partners” (a Messiah), and then justifies jihad for diminishing or destroying all who decline to accept its interpretation in toto. In short, Islam is a gross impediment to free thought, honest belief, human dignity, and enlightened and empirical investigation.
*NOTES:
*ZOROASTRIANISM: Zoroastrianism rejects monasticism and asceticism. It has regard for a dualism of good and evil, but not of matter and spirit. (Might good and evil be two sides of one essential coin?) Does it see the spiritual world as not so different from the natural one? It rejects predestination. Human beings bear responsibility for situations and the way they act toward one another. At the end of time, evil is defeated, souls are reunited. Active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will; participation in life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.
*VEDANTA HINDUISM:
The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness, which can be experienced by anyone, but cannot be adequately conveyed in language. There is no sole book source for its philosophy. Different schools vary in how they relate a dualism of Reality (nature) and God (consciousness), which are different but mutually inseparable.
Fortunately, in good faith and good will, leaders regularly arise to bring the independent minded middle class together, to move humanity towards a better way. Often, when the hour looks bleakest, there is sent to us a Zoroaster, Aristotle, Paul, Galileo, Spinoza, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, Washington, Wilberforce, Lincoln, Planck, Templeton, Reagan, Fritjof Capra ...
WHAT I BELIEVE: I don't find any particular tradition to be entirely satisfactory. I doubt heaven, and don't believe in original sin, although I do believe mortals are prone to be flawed and need guidance. I think a kind of reincarnation makes sense. I do believe in a Field of consciousness, which interrelates with particular perspectives, the interrelation resulting in expressions of free will. I think there abides an essentially spiritual quest to establish higher levels of decent, stable, surpassing, civilizing communications, though yin and yang will play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
