Saturday, March 26, 2011

Of Ayn Rand and The Donald

Ayn Rand cared so passionately (religiously?) about her philosophy, it made me wonder: Why did she care so much whether I care mainly or only about myself? Did she ever give mature consideration to that, or to the limits of "self"? For what reason should one aspire either to establish a best life for oneself, or to help establish a decent, sustainable civilization? I don't think godless Libertarians or Objectivists hold the answer to America's future. Review Alexis de Tocqueville, to reconsider the key role for religiously based moral values in the formation of American secuilar independence, with less need for insufferably detailed legal regulation.

By now, one may have expected technology, robots, and enlightenment to have brought humanity to a life of balanced ease and satisfaction for all, sort of like Brave New World or the deck in Wally. That hasn't happened, and it appears not likely to happen. So what has happened? Was early America only a fluke, brought on because Europeans with power were only too happy to encourage those of independent classes to emigrate?

It seems that a fundamental propensity among Europeans and the rest of the world has caught up with America, to swamp American independents with masses of the sort that tend to want little more than (a) to want very much that no one else should have more than them, and (b) to reward the few among the class of "farmers of humans" who enjoy making that happen. History appears determined to pull humanity back into the muck of feudalism. That is the end to which most of our institutions are adapting. There are obvious ways to forestall the slide, but none are being adopted. Every independent minded person knows that a nation, to be a nation, must enforce its borders. To remain independent, a nation must adopt an immigration policy that favors independent minded people. It must adopt a trade policy that does not rot out its industrial base or its energy independence. It must guard against the crushing, snowballing accumulation of legalism and elitist regulation of the masses. It must preserve respect for many of the moral and cultural standards under which America assimilated. It must respect the kind of standards that are essential to decent, sustainable civilization. It must advance the kind of infrastructure and standards that facilitate competitiveness with the rest of humanity.

A decent, sustainable nation must advance beyond merely distracting its citizenry with inefficiencies that reward only sell outs and cannibals, such as:  Regulators who occupy us with needless restrictions and reports, that hardly anyone reads or understands; educators who perform mainly as babysitters, raising the next generation of codependent minded sloths; taxes that discourage industry, except to export it; and health care that no one understands, that is filled with lawless indulgences.

Instead, America is overburdening its citizenry in every possible way. Our independents are overburdened with those who aspire only to be sloths, taken care of by government, and by those who aspire by power or wealth to be the new elites, aristocrats, or oligarchs --- to reduce everyone else to serfs and sloths. This is the tsunami of immigrants America has been distracted to allow to swamp the land.

It appears unlikely that what needs to be done will be done: Enforce the borders. End the income tax and the corporation tax. (They are affronts to industry, enterprise, and capitalism.) Keep death taxes. (They are essential to protect us from a rising class of new aristocrats.) Deploy sane tariffs and tax out of country transfers of money. (They are essential to keep oligarchs who own politicians from cannibalizing and selling out the country.) Establish two kinds of consumption taxes: A national sales tax, and a national consumption tax that is based, progressively, on each citizens yearly consumption. Purpose: Fund government and redistribute consumptive wealth (not income). (Reason: Protect the nation against snowballing advantages and abuses of new aristocrats.)  Eventually amend Constitution to establish single payer national health care safety net. (Reason: Common standards and basic infrastructure are essential. The cost of the present multitude of scam artists and regulatory details is simply unsustainable.  Meantime, use regional agreements among States to establish feasible health care programs.)

How likley is any program for preserving America against the NWO tsunami? About as likely as Donald Trump being elected President. Or as likely as American independents waking up and realizing that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are representing America or doing anything other than greasing or apologizing for our slide back to a new feudalism --- which will not be run under national borders, but under corporate baronies --- operating under a corrupt and loose hierarchy of kick backs and back scratchers.

Something about the human genome seems to make paramount the need of some to be powerful over others, and the need for others to be ruled. This appears to be a fundamental biological alignment. It is not something Independents can change or defend against merely by attempting to engage in reason with genetically inclined Aristocrats and Sloths.  Thus far, America's leaders are subjugating independent minded Americans, to push us back under the thumbs of Aristocrats, with the rest of the Sloths in earth's bucket.

Saturday, March 19, 2011



THE RULES: Why do reason and logic seem so powerful, even powerful enough to adduce that our material universe arose out of a singularity, if our universe is just a random, improbable bubble out of a void? May we adduce what is the character or nature of the void, or of the field that bubbled out of it? Is it worthwhile, meaningful, or usefully inspirational to refer to that holistic field as being partially, completely, or indeterminably material, immaterial, spiritual, conscious, or metaphysical? Is the essence of that field one of randomness, predetermination, or unfolding appreciation of consciousness (will?), as measured by a meta holism against a derivative and imaged sum of its parts? Must every worthwhile or meaningful concept regarding the essence of such field depend upon a conceptualizer’s purpose, point of view, and/or frame of reference?

Well, the logic, indeed, the very thoughts, that we share consist in whatever is prescribed and synchronized for being presented or expressed through us, in participation with a universe or field that we happen to share. From a quantitative point of view, the field is what it is. From a qualitative point of view, it tends to become what it quantitatively apprehends and qualitatively appreciates.

Regardless, why do so many of our relationships seem to unfold in such respect for logic, math, and reason? May it be that our situation seems coordinate with reason only because our situation is what the field that we happen to share is continuing to participate in prescribing for us?

To our reason, the field is easily considered to be "great." To the field itself, aside from its relationship with us and with its other particular points of reference, the field may simply abide as a beingness — while in its relationship with us, it ‘fields” — sort of like a noun-verb (or gerund). That is, as a noun changer, it apprehends its changing purposes in how it fields us. In that respect, its potential as “changeless changer” is what avails our meaningfulness, which is derivative of the relationship of feedback that is directly apprehended between the field as a holism and the field as it fluxes, forms, imbues, and identifies with its various and particular foci of reference (i.e., its qualitative points of consciousness and its quantitative particles of physical expression).

Given the imbuement of perspectives of consciousness, how else could they interrelate, communicate, or apprehend a common situation --- were they not synchronized in respect of the same adducible rules?

INHERENT TRIVALENCY OF CONCEPUALIZATIONS ABOUT THE RULES: Given a trivalence that is implicated in many of our explanatory models, how much of our bivalent (true-untrue) reasoning is based on vanity? Every attempt to explicate one's existential situation seems to be irreducible, except to various uncertain, inherently trinitarian relationships or analyses, such as relationships of: Wholes, parts, rules; Existence, representation, identity; Fields, particles, observers; Space, time, substance; Lines, points, grid leaps; Substance, representation, observer; Stored information, interactive information, radiating information; Reality, void, appearance; Reality, imagination, receding synthesis; Substance, immateriality, interface; Discrete, continuous, transcendent; Measurable, experienceable, metaphysical; Quantitative, qualitative, conscious; Determined, random, appreciated (chosen); Mortal consciousness, logic, experience; Rationality, rationalization, inexplicability; Incompleteness, inconsistency, incoherence; Exhaustive, mutually exclusive, fuzzy; Axiom, logic, entropic expansions of orbiting reasoning; East, west, going east by sailing west; Synchronous cause, sequential cause, associated artifact; Objective, subjective, emotive; Indifferent, caring, insane; Possible, manifest, unfolding; True, untrue, indeterminable; Known, unknown, unknowable; Believable, doubtful, trivial; Evidenced, intuitive, wishful; Purpose, perspective, context; Manifestation, conceptualization, interrelation; Essence, catalyst, transmission; Sensed, sensor, buffering medium; Focus, frame of reference, the beyond; Illusion, delusion, allusion; Information: Qualitative, quantitative, axiomatic; Information: holistic, particular, mediating; Space, time, information (whether stored as substance or as consciousness); Stored energy, stored information, consciousness; Disorganizing energy, organizing information, consensus of consciousness; Plausibility, practicality, perplexity; The trivial, the teasing, the transcendent; The here, the now, and the Twilight Zone, Etc.

We may seek meaning and fulfillment, but to expect to find them in mere conceptualizations, apart from the pursuit, seems vain.

TRIVALENCY, THE THREE BODY PROBLEM, AND HEISENBERG LIKE UNCERTAINTY: Our very space, time, and substance are trivalent in their relationships, each being defined, circularly, only in relative and relational respect of, and in terms of, the others, rather than as any fundament in itself. This poses something perhaps analogous to a three body problem: Insofar as our relations are trivalent, how -- in any complete, consistent, and coherent way -- can any merely bivalent-reasoning or equation-testing pierce the limits of the relationship of any two, while ignoring the relatively unwatched role of the other? How will a quantity or quality of precision of focus with respect to one not entail a loss of care of precision with respect to the other?  While any observer focuses on one point of view within a frame of reference, how can such observer simultaneously analyze or focus on the limits or role of any other, or on his effect on such other by choosing instead to focus on its leprechaun counterpart?  Given the cracked symmetry of a trivalent universe, without practical faith, to what extent should we trust bivalent logic?

INFORMATION: Information seems not to exist as a thing that can be discovered in itself, but rather as a potential that is subject to being associated with conscious experience, under rules, which depend for their determination upon a range of parameters, which depend for their determination upon how a perspective of consciousness happens to identify with and come within such information's relative field of influence. Information may even be converted to a perspective of consciousness, if it happens to become organized in a way that allows it to become identitied with an experience of a quality of apprehension in how other information that happens to come within its field of influence is unfolded to its experience. Thus, information may be experienced, processed, or stored in aspects of the quantitative, the qualitative, or the becoming.

CAUSATION: When considered deeply enough, Indifferent Gravity and Caring Appreciation (Will?), both, will seem commensurate with unpredictable apprehensions of perspectives of consciousness, unfolding along paths of the eternal present, tending to incline towards appreciations. Although appreciations may not be well considered as being entirely willed, neither are they predictable, and they do seem generally to affect how and where particles come to find expression within fields. Certainly, appreciations are important to meaningful consciousness. Indeed, if nothing that we can isolate, measure, or control is really causal, in itself, then both Gravity and Will --- depending upon one's purpose, perspective, and context --- may be as reasonably conceptualized as being causal (rather than merely artefactual) as anything else --- including the conscious apprehensions of participating, appreciative, and emotionally invested perspectives of appreciation.

FIRST CAUSE: Among meta notions, a notion of a first cause seems generally not helpful. Little of meaning, if any meaning at all, is accomplished by positing a first cause that created itself and everything else. However, other meta concepts may be helpful, inspirational, perhaps even, in part, fairly or rationally said to be evidenced.

There may be meaning and value in conceptualizing or modeling about an unpredictable (guiding?) dance of qualitatively appreciative feedback between a meta, parallel universe of a holism and our universe (being comprised of a sum of apparent particulars). So conceptualized, neither the holistic universe nor the universe of fluxing particulars would be the ultmate cause of the other, but would be a not-completely-predictable intuitor or appreciator of the other. The emotive quality of their relationship would be intuitive, rather than measurably predictable. Whatever the upshot, in our universe, we would rationalize the empirically measurable results as abiding consistent with whatever Rules we may discover that support their measuring. Yet, we would have no way to predictably control whatever the meta rules may prescribe or synchronize as the rules that we translate in practice.

We may recognize, in practice, that sequences of events synchronize, follow, and associate with various rules, however incomplete. We may recognize that our experiences of consciously synchronized interpretations lag a short time behind whatever combination of factors may have associated to avail each unfolding experience of mortal consciousness. That is, our conscious interpretations of our decisions, choices, and will are artifactual of decisions already made a split sequence before our brains have caught up to interpret them. Our brains are not the causes of our decisions, but the interpretors of them. So, how far back must we go, to get to "the cause" of each event that we interpret as unfolding before us?

Insofar as substance (matter and energy) is not its own cause, every standard model that tries to explain our conscious existence restricted only to terms of physically measurable substance is doomed to incompleteness, incoherence, and fluxing ambiguity. Each such model will necessarily resort to a catch all for ambiguities --- such as dark matter, dark energy, dark physicalism, meta branes, cosmological constants, etc.

Should we come to consider empirical or substantive "causation" to be only a practical concept, serviceable to particular purposes and contexts, but not serviceable to provide a unifying explication or standard model for how our universe functions?

IDENTITY: The only experience by which "I" receive information, in order to interpret a quality of consciousness, even self awareness, is feedback from information that is conveyed to me, apart from my self, which is organized into organic representations for the interpretation by or of my self. Similarly, perhaps the only experience by which God receives information, in order to interpret a quality of holistic awareness, is feedback from information that is conveyed to the holism, somehow apart from the holism, which is organized into synchronous representations for the interpretation of the holism. In that way, perhaps the holism is more than merely the sum of its parts, as in the special case of a meta class unto itself, that is not defined simply by adding its parts. In any case, it seems that consciousness --- whether particular or holistic --- may not be defined in respect of itself, but only in respect of the quality of its representational experience of events somehow interpreted as being apart from itself.

As particular perspectives, we do not deal directly with the field as a holism, but only through a veil of interpretations of representations of qualities and quantities. Regardless, the field (God?) requires that we experience ourselves as attempting to interpret a quality of sense about our situation, and, in feedback, the field is qualitatively affected by the quality of sense we make, however imperfect --- regardless of whether we interpret the field as being caring, despotic, or indifferent.

GOD ABIDES: In meta-parallel space-time, God abides, in quantitative power, a meta-split-sequence before the parallel universe that avails the quality of our local observation and interpretation. The "eternal present" is a flux that bridges parallel universes:  field and particle; whole and parts; quantitative and qualitative; holistic consciousness and perspectives of consciousness.

Our consciousness has no causal effect, directly upon material. Rather, the effect of our consciousness is qualitative, upon God, as the Changeless Changer, somehow appreciating a quality in our apprehensions, and then factoring to guide our further unfolding.

Our direct effect on God is not measurable, because it is qualitative, not quantitative. Our prayers, apprehensions, and appreciations only affect the quantitative in an indirect way, and not in any way by which we can in complete accuracy measure any non-trivial interface.

While we may take pride in our technology and its increasing complexity and accuracy, there is no humunculus or little man of will who is driving our brains and bodies and making all our decisions. Rather, our brains avail a quality of conscious interpretation to decisions that have already been made a split sequence previous.

And this does not apply only to complex brains, but to every sort of organized, electrical, magnetic, chemical, nuclear, energetic, nerve center. For example, a mass of plutonium does not by itself interpret, decide, or know when it will next emit a radioactive particle. Yet, somehow, at some level, rules prescribe each emission, and it is only a practical "answer" to "explain" the "cause" as "randomness" --- as if there abides a separate, independent, synchronizing, indifferent, immaterial, metaphysical random-effect-generator.

Rather, if a random effect generator does abide, it abides not as an independently causal entity, but rather in a trinitarian causal relationship, consisting of a relationship with two other aspects of our unified existence. Such Trinity consists of The Rules, the Holistic Field, and its variously expressed Particles. The upshot is Consciousness (or consciousness stored as information) --- unpredictable in its unfolding appreciations, both at holistic level and at a parallel level of particular perspectives.

FREE WILL:  To be concerned whether such consciousness enjoys a quality of "free will" is to distract oneself from what is meaningful. Whether or not consciousness enjoys free will, it has no means of knowing, it has no choice but to function as if it does have morally responsible will, and there is no way to know or to certainly predict that it does not. In any case, feedback from the apprehensions and moral appreciatons of consciousness has moral effect for our unfolding pursuits of meaningfulness.

As to the unfolding of that which is measurably quantitative (stored consciousness), it will always follow rules. No matter that our consciousness may apprehend, or that holistic consciousness may deign to guide changes or redirections:  Each redirection will not be sensed by us as a violation of any physical parameter of The Rules, because each such redirection will always conform to the degrees of freedom that are availed by the parameters and rules that govern the unfolding interacton of all that is interpreted as quantitative substance.

GOD CARES: Quantitatively, I cannot show that any appreciation of my consciousness associates with, or participates to effect any redirection of, the unfolding of matter, because my consciousness always occurs a split sequence after each quantitative, substantive directive has already issued. Insofar as my particular perspectives are identified with locally interpreted quantizations, I can never be privy to the quanticizing decisions of the Decider of our localisms. At most, I only intuit that the quality of my consciousness has a causal effect, through God, i.e., through the feedback of my apprehensions in respect of that which does interfunction to guide the unfolding. (For example, I notice that many fields do not collapse to effect particular expressions, absent feedback with a participating observer.)

Why may God tend, in an immeasurably, yet qualitative fashion, to favor appreciations, prayers, and sacrifices? Perhaps, to lead us to a higher quality of feedback? Would God then favor those who are dumbest, yet most passionate and brutal in their religious inclinations, or those most intuitive and receptive to a general feeling of empathy (Golden Rule)?

Intuitively, God wants us to evolve and progress, to intuit a field of holistic caring, and to inculcate that sense of caring among ourselves, as particular perspectives of that holistic consciousness. This may take beingness and cultures through a progression of forms, until enlightened culture is eventually brought forth.

The culture we experience as progressing on earth may have a counterpart, in respect of God's rules for holistic reconciliation. That is, the quality of our apprehensions may play a role in how heaven unfolds. Intuitively, the quality of cross that we bear is made meaningful or comprehensible in that it is also borne by God.

PARALLEL UNIVERSE: Each of our particular perspectives of consciousness is inferior to a synchronizing holism; each apprehends changing manifestations a split sequence after each change has already been decided, determined, and synchronized. The experience and quality of moral consciousness that identifies with, and melds with, our local substance (bodies and context) lags a split sequence behind the holism that may be conceptualized as participating in the synchronization of all that is locally measurable with respect to our bodies.

Rationally, God may be conceptualized as participating in the deciding of each quantitative synchronization a split sequence before our local consciousness apprehends. Thereafter, God would respond to the feedback that is the emotional quality of our subsequent apprehensions. For moral precepts, it may be worthwhile to consider the Holism as if it were the Decider of our Localisms, while we Localisms are perhaps an accumulative factor for such decisions. (Insofar as the Holism does not entirely predict the Localisms, and the Localisms cannot predict the Holism, may each attribute a synchronizing effect or will to the other?  Does God listen to us?)

To better appreciate meaning in the unfolding, eternally fluxing present of our universe, ought we to conceptualize or apprehend an ambiguous, unpredictable, qualitative interface between two parallel universes --- a universe of the whole (God?) and a universe of the sum of particulars (mortals?)? Intuitively, may a parallel universe of meta time synchronize with an unfoldment of information and decisions, in synchronously discrete units, each of which precedes our locally interpretive apprehensions? Perhaps, all information we receive is buffered, so that we can experience local interpretations that are varying, yet remain consistent with it.

META SYNCHRONICITY VS. MORTAL RELATIVITY: While sequences in changes in Information are preserved in synchronous and instantaneous quantum leaps, the EMR by which Information (stored or radiating forms of dormant consciousness?) is often represented and conveyed to each active observer or perspective of consciousness is interpreted by each perspective as riding EMR that is delayed, by curvature in space-tme context, to a speed that is kept to a standard relation, relative to each observer's locus.

Particles are not real in themselves, but are placeholders, condensed relative to perspectives of consciousness, for facilitating the storeage, transmission, and communication of information in a way that is synchronized throughout the universe we share. Each perspective of consciousness receives only such placeholding representations and particles of information as are consistent with the Rules that govern the transmission of information. No perspective of consciousness receives all information that is stored in the fields. However, each perspective interprets meaning out of such sequences of information as it receives and as it assesses that others are receiving.

At holistic level, Informational changes operate in meta sequences that are directly synchronized and instantaneous. However, in how such changes are received by local perspectives of consciousness, they are synchronously buffered, so that each perspective will apprehend a consistent and local interpretation.

THERE IS EVIDENCE: It is measurable, intuitive, and logical that decisions are first made at a meta synchronizing level, and are only thereafter adopted by local bodies (brains), with which consciousness is identitifed.  We become conscious of such decisions only after such decisions have already been made.  Thereafter, such decisions are manifested, marked, and stored in such objective, placeholding physicalisms as our brains. In that way, we experience and sense the placeholding of each new beginning of each new event, contemporaneously with each new perception of each new physical unfoldment.  (When I say "we" and "perception," I am referring to every level of perception at every locus within the space-time of our shared universe.) Every placeholding change in physicalism is associated with every change regarding the experience, potential experience, or unfoldment of information to a perspective of consciousenss at some level.  In that way, each discrete tic in the synchronization of space-time is its own "big bang" or miraculous singularity --- AND OUR EXPERIENCE AND PROOF OF SUCH META SYNCHRONIZATION IS UBIQUITOUS.

NOTE THAT A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION IN ADVANCE OF A QUALITY OF LOCAL APPRECIATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT REGRESSIVE:  To note that the decisions of a brain are made in advance of the brain's own consciousness is to beg a question:  Is the brain's appreciation of its own consciousness made in advance?  Intuitively and perhaps definitionally, no.  Actual experience of a quality of consciousness would, by definition, be contemporaneously simultaneous with its actual experience.  While the quality of consciousness lags behind the quantitative sequence that avails it, it does not lag behind the quality of its own quality.  As to one's appraisal of the quality of one's consciousness, that is a different issue.  One's consciousness of such an appraisal would lag behind whatever the quantitative sequence that avails it.  Thus, if God somehow apprehends the quality of a mortal's consciousness, such apprehension by God either lags behind the mortal's experience, or is contemporaneous with it, but is not previous to it.  IMHO.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Regarding Thinking

Regarding Thinking:  Am “I” the active agent in the thinking process? Or is my body and perspective of consciousness so inextricably melded, organized, and leveraged as to constitute a receptacle or placeholder for storing impressions and feedback in such a way that my sensations, ideas, and choices are formulated, stored, and synchronized consistent with the context and focus of my general locus? Does my brain make thoughts, or does it function as a receptor (oracle?) for translating thoughts and wills that are beyond my merely local self, to bring them into apprehension in the general vicinity of my material locus? Does my brain receive thoughts and choices, which it is organized to translate as feedback, a split sequence after such thoughts and choices have already been accorded their direction? Does my I-ness (my consciousness of self identity) encompass much more than my materially measurable body and brain?

Among concepts about beingness, consider interrelating a concept of a smallest ultimate particle of physicalism with a concept of a most independent essence of consciousness: Intuitively, at a most fundamental and shared level, every Qualitative, interrelating perspective of consciousness that has capacity to be organized for leveraging higher levels of feedback, sensation, and awareness must directly sense a most fundamental aspect of that with which it has capacity for apprehending in Quantitative interrelations.

Some Changeless Changer (holistic conscious will?), in its Changeless capacity for experiencing qualitative aspects, must therewith relate directly to its capacity to express Changing, quantitative aspects. At some meta, reverential, and most fundamental level, quantitative aspects of substance must be sequentially and qualitatively experienced by immaterial consciousness — without need of a homunculus ( or physical brain for representational mediation.

At the interface of such a level of experience, consciousness may experience itself as being qualitatively different from that of which it is quantitatively conscious, but the experience of such a difference would abide only by virtue of a meta capacity of the Changeless Changer. In whatever meta way that Changeless Changer may experience or guide its beingness — to experience aspects of itself as being qualitatively conscious versus quantitatively physical — that way is not amenable of being entirely reduced to the modeling or representation of any particular perspective or mortal. Nor is that way amenable of being swept aside by science as being superfluous among perspectives of shared consciousness — either as to morality or as to empathy. Scientists only delude themselves of their holy grail (Higgs boson?): an empirical or physical way for replacing or eliminating the apprehension of a shared field of immaterial consciousness (i.e., “God”).

I suspect the smallest ultimate particle of physicalism and the most independent essence of consciousness are but unfolding models or modes for storing or experiencing two sides of a single metaphysical coin, i.e., the Changeless Changer. Both models have their important uses, but, to alter a formulation by Einstein, physicalism without consciousness is lame, while consciousness without physicalism is blind. Without an identifiable changer, change makes no innate sense; without change, an identifiable changer conveys no meaning. A meta essence abides, at a level beyond empirical reduction or bivalent proof. Whether one may prefer to conceptualize or imagine that it does not abide has no effect, except within a world of epiphenomenal delusion. Innate and intuitive to consciousness, however one may rationalize or attempt to believe the Changeless Changer should either be ignored or celebrated, it will — always and everywhere — reconcile, abide, and avail perspectives for the expression of consciousness.

Lakos Hoax

The Sokal Hoax brought home how absurd it can be to suggest an approach to solving an assumed quantitative problem by resorting to mathematical analyses of concepts whose non-quantitative aspects are not first recast. That would be akin to trying to quantify how righteous is the sky. However, the Hoax could just as easily be inverted (a Lakos Hoax?), by suggesting that a given qualitative concern should be resolved by resorting strictly to non-qualitative apprehensions. This would be akin to deciding the extent to which a person (or witch?) was good or evil by counting the bubbles in any given quantity of her spit.

The more important concerns that we encounter will generally carry aspects both of the quantitative and the qualitative. We cannot resolve such concerns by resorting only to an appreciation of one or the other, the quantitative or the qualitative. We cannot scientifically prove a best ethics for how to advance science in every situation. We tend to presume our quantitative, math based science is rational, while our qualitative, moral based preferences are emotional. A moment's thought, however, tends to show the interface is much fuzzier than that. The quantitative is mixed with the qualitative because we tend to choose to measure that which draws our interest, and vice versa. An uneasy problem remains: How should we occupy ourselves in our given time, space and resources? Should we apply poetic license to whip ourselves into various states of caring, or should we (care so much about rational accuracy as to) remain indifferent? Is there some way to measure scales of "caring indifference?" It appears that emotional apprehensions will (and should?) always fuzz the paths of our technological unfoldments. Perhaps the last laugh will be on Sokal (or Lakos).

Unexpected feedback will always surprise a role for intuition, immateriality, poetry, inspiration, awe, and the source of each common beginning. In that, we share a moral connection with a unifying sponsor. To my lights, it tends to be love of semantics more than of truth, often born of frustration, that incites so many to prefer to say (for they cannot prove) that the Unifiying Sponsor is Some Thing not worthy of unifying reverence.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Of Free Will and the Holism

How the Holism Cares:

Except outside of space-time (perhaps by vibrating or stepping back and forth, between and across, two different kinds of space-time or chronological sequencing?) or, alternatively, only if all of space-time always and already abides (and is simply perpetually recycled through a recurrent context of the Eternal Present) --- how else could the whole entire field of consciousness, as a whole, ever relate to or CARE about ITs constituent parts, as parts, except upon ITself becoming a part --- whereupon IT, by seeming logical necessity, would, paradoxically, no longer be a whole?

Assuming we are not locked into a recycling Eternal Present, then, intuitively, to abide as our Changeless Changer, must the Holism carry some Meta Power, beyond mortal measure or observation, to vibrate or dance back and forth, discretely, between ITs entirety as a field and ITs expression of ITs parts? Must Its manner of relating to us remain beyond our control, replication, and measurable kin, so that IT must remain regressively impossible for us ever to confine the entire universe of ITs expression to any standard model for summing ultimate building blocks of empirically measurable matter, indifferent particles, or elusive Higgs bosons?

Indeed, may such “indifferent particles” as seem to relate to us abide to the field of our perception only as dormant, informational, placeholding aspects of expressions of the Holistic Field? May matter (or substance) simply be the Changeless Changer in an aspect of rest, like information that is abiding in a state of meta inertia?

If so, in what aspects or ways might the Changeless Changer, when alternating to a state of being consciously aware, actively participate in apprehending and therewith guiding how the substance of our relations unfolds within availed degrees of freedom? Perhaps, a mortal may only intuit such a quality of holistic guidance, based on that quality of one’s own consciousness, which is itself beyond being reduced to any empirical formulation.

To a receptive mind, the astonishing synchronicity of a mind boggling array of biological unfoldment suggests that guidance and feedback with such a Holism is a constant, continuous, and fundamental basis for all of moral empathy with fellow perspectives of consciousness. Empathy seems natural. Most people would seem not to deny a spiritual or fundamentally real basis for empathy — unless they are aberrationally taught that empathy should be reserved only for one’s tribe or religion and that empathy in itself has no moral basis — thereby tending to harden them towards becoming unfeeling and isolated egoists or tribal primitives.


How the Holism wills:

The essential aspect about mortal "Will" is not that it is entirely independent or "Free" of the milieu of physical substance and feedback that is interpreted as being "Causal," which is synchronized among all sets, signs, and fluxes of measurable substance.  Rather, the essential aspect about will is that it is Conscious, i.e., that it is somehow availed to be representationally appreciative and receptive, beyond boundaries of any brain, to a dance of measurable feedback between fields and particles --- albeit, not independent of the character of whatever the Implicated Meta Essence out of which arose the point of singularity from which beginning has unfolded the space-time that we experience as our universe.


A "Changeless Changer" requires that quantitative predictability and qualitative will must coextend, each to define the other --- depending on fluxes in purpose, point of view, and frame of reference. Because of their coextensive codependence, neither objectivism nor subjectivism can provide a complete model of either physical or moral reality. Further, every plane upon which objectivism and subjectivism meet will necessarily produce fuzz and uncertainty, because every focus of qualitative perspective with quantitative context is also necessarily changing --- constantly and continuously.

May qualitative Consciousness and quantitative Physical Substance be of a same Meta Essence, receiving their qualitative versus quantitative aspects secondary to the locally fluxing purpose, perspective, and context of the Meta Essence? May substance be a form of consciousness, tending not to be recognized as such insofar as it is morally inactive, indifferent, organizationally unimbued, dormant, undirected, or random? May consciousness be a form of substance, not often treated or recognized as such insofar as it is qualitatively active, caring, continuously changing, morally directed, and defiant of being closely and completely measured?  Intuitively, is there not a holistic, reconciling, meta quality of Consciousness that is beyond the measure of that which we see signed as substantive nature, precisely because Whatever is the superior source of consciousness (moral purposefulness?) is also the superior source of nature?


Does our universe, in its quantitative and material aspect, carry any reality that is independent in itself, apart from being represented to the fluxing apprehension of a meta, Changeless Changer? As a measured entity, can the unfolding river of our universe be stepped into twice by any conscious being? Is it fairly implicated to any self aware expression of conscious beingness that whatever may be the source of its consciousness may also be the unchanging source of our measurable universe? If the identity of our universe is only a relational one, inferior to the apprehensions of a meta, Changeless Changer, then is not all that is measurable about our bodies and substance only a representation, sign, or logos of the meta ideas, thoughts, words, apprehensions, emotions, and purposes of the Changeless Changer? May the Changeless Changer, like us, be limited in not having capacity or potential to idealize, apprehend, or relate to thoughts, absent byproduct of representations framed as measurable placeholders (stored consciousness?) in respect of idealizations of particles of points for forming grids in relation to fields?

Descendents of the Vikings

From the left, I keep reading rosy scenarios about how much more progressive, scientific, peaceful, rational, and happy are the nations now the descendents of the Vikings. Supposedly, we lackeys of America would be so much better off, if only we would put the hammer down on the values of religious hicks that evolved with the assimilation of a can-do America of days now past. We just need to relax and accept that our betters have only our best interests at heart. I can be critical of excess American jingoism and religious literalism of the past. As for swallowing the offerings of leftists without a closer look see, not so much. I would like to see some less biased and more comprehensive analysis of just how well these descendents of the Vikings are really doing. Are they replenishing their demographic? Can they defend their culture from being rotted out from within? Do they value the defense of any culture? What are their ideals, apart from "good delusions, happy days?" Are their children being raised to be responsible grown ups, with some understanding that the highest value and goal of humanity is not simply to exist in a state of passive, soma fed, moo cows? As cultures or nations, will they even exist 30 years from now? I sense room for improvement in America, not necessarily along the lines advocated by leftist lint lovers. America still has a chance to endure, because many Americans are still imbued with a sense of self reliance and individual potency. Does Europe have that chance?

@Thus spake Dlanorrenrag.

End of the Family

It is childish to presume government should get out of the business of governing people. By definition, government governs. Government will govern people, and eventually government will govern whatever higher intelligence may replace people. The question that cuts more to the chase is whether government should govern people through families or by replacing families and rendering them obsolete.

No doubt, many people have emotional or intellectual grievances against the notion of families. Some presume replacement by government, run by benevolent elites, would be better. They may wish to transition to such a system by having government place home and school monitors and bureaucrats, to ensure parents and teachers do not inculcate children with politicially incorrect ideas. ("I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you become politically correct. Don't worry about me. Watch my NWO pendulum and pay attention only to more pressing concerns, such as the lifting of all boats by acceding to the free trade of international crony capitalists.")

These people want to undermine any spiritual or religious component of marriage by denigrating all literalisms of religions, thereby hoping to attack all traditional values that have grown up in every culture that is not to their liking. They also undermine any traditional values of culture simply by dividing culture with multi cultural diversity --- as if diversity merely for the sake of diversity were a guaranteed good in itself.

Marriage can be understood, in part, as representing a cohabitation contract that is subject to enforcement not by the federal government, but by state governments. If cohabitors do not otherwise specify, the government, by law, for the protection of children and ordered decency, imposes a default contract. Cohabitors can expressly choose such contract by entering into formal marriage, or they can become bound to the State sanctioned contract by their actions, by entering into marriage at common law. Cohabitors can amend such default contracts by entering into prenuptial agreements, or by undertaking relationships alien to marriage. The state sanctioned default contract for cohabitations among monogamous pairs of persons of opposite sex tends to proscribe such contracts between persons who are already married, too young, or too closely related. It often encourages cohabitors to have children, as by respecting the authority and rights of parents and by giving them various tax incentives. It provides for inheritance, in default of a will, and it confers certain rights of representation among familial persons who are next of kin. Much of this could be done by express contract, but most people, as they are starting out in relationships, tend not to foresee or prescribe for such contingencies.

So a role for government in prescribing default provisons for cohabitation contracts is appropriate. Only those who want to "fundamentally change" America argue that States lack such interests and authority. What human secularists and their social upheaval apologists vent their disgust against is that such contracts should be called "marriages," rather than merely "contracts in default of other provisions upon entry into monogamous cohabitation." They want to force each State to recognize that there is nothing special about its interest in encouraging the celebration of certain aspects about how the next generation is to be raised. Why the disgust of opponents of society's interest in defending marriage should outweigh the disgust of ordinary persons with the irresponsible exemplars and polyamorous behavior of many homosexuals is not a point that is justified in logic or science. Rather, it is a point that is insinuated and forced, as by the slithering of a snake, by infiltrating to control what is broadcast in media and academia.

I am wrapping up a reading of Sam Harris' The End of Faith, as well as The Moral Landscape. I find he inventories the moral and religious concerns of humanity quite well. I agree with him that much good could be done by bringing the tools of quantitative science into closer interface with concerns for the quality of conscious well being among human beings. (I regard the field of consciousness as implicating religious overtones for empathy at a higher level; he seems to regard it as having spiritual overtones. Religious, spiritual; tomato, potato; interfaces of fluxes of perspectives of consciousness, souls --- how much is his disgust with the values that continue to evolve with religious influence affected by his semantics?) Regardless, if Harris denigrates opponents of same sex marriage as being unscientific, as if implying proponents were scientific, then he oversteps --- and offensively so.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Of Moon Bats among Fundies and Militants


By a process of Eastern pre-modern and Western post-modern meditation and deconstruction (dissolution of wholes by intricate analysis of their parts), one may deconstruct a bell until it no longer may ring. Indeed, one may deconstruct all of substance, until it dissipates into mere words (dormant information or“stored consciousness”) — layered on top of “some meta flux of becomingness” which is so ineffable, ethereal, and ephemeral as to be beyond description or measure in relation to any model that can be coherently correlated with physics — even though, intuitively (unavoidably?), such Meta beingness is implicated.

Yes, we still experience an unfolding appreciation and manipulation of sensations and signs of interactions and relations among apparent fields and their expressions of particles. No, we have no way of knowing what is the most fundamental essence that causes or underlies such sensations and signs of “substance,” or that avails us with our interpretations of selfhood and individuated agency of causation. Indeed, one may deconstruct selfhood itself, until one’s very consciousness of one’s identity merges to become pure consciousness — that is aware of no self.

From the standpoint of Meta Word, consciousness and physics would seem to be interchangeable, in that both are derivations of a more fundamental essence. Depending on purpose, perspective, and context, consciousness can be expressed as physics, and physics can be expressed as consciousness; that is, active, informationally qualitative consciousness can be converted to a stored or radiating form of informationally quantitative physics, and vice versa --- however, not without a directional, sequential, relational, expanded, entropic change in the shared field of space time.

We have no perspective or model by which to relate, simultaneously, to an unfolding of consciousness into physical substance, or to an unfolding of physical substance into consciousness. We have no coherent model that can accomodate light at the same space-time locus as being comprised of both waves and particles, nor do we have any coherent model that can equate (or beam?) a conversion of the quality of consciousness back and forth into a quantity (or quantum) of physical substance. Yet, we may infer, from an implicated standpoint of Meta Word, that consciousness is actively unpredictable substance, and substance is stored, inactive consciousness --- depending only on how Meta Word deigns to unfold.

Given this state of affairs, one may ask (trivalently): (1) Is consciousness inferior to and derivative of substance; (2) is substance inferior to and derivative of consciousness; or (3) are mortal experiences of both consciousness and substance necessarily implicated as being inferior to and derivative of Meta Essence (Meta Word?) — that is, does there abide a Meta Being that has trivalent capacity to avail changing-interpretations-of-the-changeless, to reconcile all that is Possible ... with all that is Manifest ... with all that is Unfolding?

For convenience, I take liberty to refer to such Meta Word as “God.” This puts me at odds with most who seek the comfort of more popularly contending states of confusion. As to religious fundamentalists and their assorted, attempted literalists, I am loathe to accept any mere “sacred” text of words, translated in respect of any expanding universe of circular definitions that are collected in dictionaries for mere mortals, as being apt for defining (or confining) “God.” As to militant atheists, I am loathe to accept that mankind should sever relations with the history of our unfolding traditions and moral values (of which most such texts and myths can be useful repositories, when properly or figuratively interpreted). Rather, I seek to bring quantitative science face to face with qualitative morality.

I begin with an intuition about morality, which I take to be common and reasonably objective. First, I decline to try to replace God with respect to any need to judge the subjective merit (or soul?) of each person or perspective of consciousness. Rather, I try to build on a moral ethos, not altogether unlike Kant's Categorical Imperative. My test is: What is necessary or helpful to facilitate a civilization that avails its members with decent opportunities to freely pursue their individual quests for meaning and fulfillment?

Insofar as Meta Word is manifestly at work in guiding us to states of consciousness that are leveraged with brain capacities as powerful as we find among human beings, it strikes me as reasonable, perhaps even obvious, that civilization ought not needlessly stymie such powerful perspectives of consciousness in their individual pursuits of meaning. That is not an intuition that is derivative of science. Rather, that is an intuition that may come direct from one’s state of beingness. Once accepting that qualitative intuition, techniques of quantitative science can be brought to facilitation, face to face. In that way, a “science of morality” may come to make sense, as may broader political platforms.

Given pursuit of a science of morality, manageable questions become obvious: What parameters of family and social values are necessary to sustain decent civilization? Should such values be sustained by law, not hindered by law, or only be encouraged by tradition, howsoever it happens to unfold? What kind of regulation of economic activity and trade can best facilitate free enterprise? How can citizens of good will be protected from crony capitalists? What kind of traditional myths, parables, and figures of speech are best understood and suited for inspiring the kind of analogical reasoning about values that is needed in order to inspire appropriate moral standards, to assimilate and preserve decent society?

To my lights, it is morally insane to expect to preserve decent society based on nothing more than government established worship of savage competition, hiding behind masks of calculated abuse and greed by faux libertines who maneuver to own the government (and to erase nations). It is insane to expect that government “ought” to force toleration of every multi culti affront to demographic maintenance and assimilation of traditional values, merely to expand opportunities for godless and greed based maneuvering among contenders for controlling laws, finances, taxes, entitlements, and government gifted monopolies.

The kid in Sixth Sense saw dead people. As an equal opportunity offender of fundies and militants, I see moon bats.


Decent civilization, trying to be tolerant, has allowed gays, Muslims, crony capitalists, communal utopians, and stick up artists to overstep.  Decent civilization will fall, if it tries too hard to accomodate such who want to subjugate it.

Monday, March 7, 2011

The Changeless Changer

The Changeless Changer:

Mere words can never accord a complete, non-circular accounting of reality, because our words cannot define reality in itself, but only circular definitions of other words. Still, what is most interesting does not consist in word games or in words in themselves, but in that we exist to appreciate consciousness of poetry, i.e., what it is like to use words. Something (Meta Word?) abides, known even to inferior animals, of which the words of mortals are only an inferior derivative, but of which our mere words, in themselves, cannot create or define. At best, our words and models can enhance a qualitative or poetic appreciation of the reality of which they are dependent, but our words, by themselves, cannot change the shared, synchronizing, unifying, underlying reality with which each of us is only an inferior participant, dependent upon a common and superior holism.

Meta Word abides in all by which is experienced the subjective sensation of every inferior word, sound, sight, relation, reaction, conversion, equation, parameter of transition, feel, instinct, and emotion. Meta Word avails that by which we all – even inferior beings – pull at the same bootstrap – “scientists of ethics” not excepted. It is only out of the holism of the Meta Word that all of particular, subjective, and apparent experiences, attractions, repulsions, and organizations unfold, in synchronous feedback with observed and observable manifestations.

Our shared sense of reality does synchronously flux and change, yet an essence of reality remains changeless — in that it humbles all of its particular participants. Reality abides as a trivalent, holistic identity:  The possible, the manifest, and the unfolding. That which changes is the aspect or sense of reality that unfolds to our shared appreciation. However, our common and abject Dependence upon that reality neither changes FOR us, nor is such Dependence changeable BY our mere manipulations of words, metaphors, and models. Still, we DO participate in an ongoing, continuous, logarithmic, discrete, and digital changing and unfolding of choices among both fields and particulars of possible, overlapping, and fuzzy realities. With what meta sense, energy, or power do we do that? I suggest that all change emerges and dances in flux with apprehensions of meta energies of fields and perspectives of meta consciousness. To me, a quality of subjective intuition – which refuses to be denied – suggests that Something of higher power abides, with which each of our perspectives of consciousness participates. Beyond that, mere words will not confine that Something, but may help remind or inspire us as we assimilate in respect of it.

To appreciate that a higher reality does abide, beyond the words of mere mortals, necessitates appreciation of a non-quantitative, non-empirical kind of poetry, intuition, and inner sense. Meta Word is that which avails our empiricism, by adding quantitative layers on top of qualitative connotations of what otherwise would exist only as ephemeral words and un-manifested possibilities for the organization of “information” (i.e., “stored consciousness”). Meta Word may be appreciated as that by which physics (stored information, i.e., stored consciousness) and flesh are added to mere words.

How else to appreciate or “define” Meta Word, I know not — except to bow, in common and due respect of it. All that we measurably experience in consequence of Meta Word is measurable only in relation to models, analogies, and metaphors about it. The words of mortals that we find inscribed in our science books and “sacred” texts have no power to explicate God’s sole, special, or Meta Word. This is because we have no power to comprehend God, much less to comprehend a complete or limiting exposition of God’s Meta Word. Rather, we deal only with impressions concerning the words and poetry that flow to us through inspired mortals. Still, in proper context, we can find value and guidance in the inspired words that flow through mortals, as they connect us to our antiquity — warts and all. Such texts help bridge our context, to connect us with how we have come to be defined, measurably and poetically. However, it is no use to suggest that such are the ultimate words of Nature or God, for we have no means, while mortal, to apprehend such ultimates or to conceit to comprehend the Meta Word.

Yes, we can model and relatively measure such aspects of that part of the potential of reality that are presently manifest to our shared experience. No, our hubris avails us no power of declaration by which to limit the entire potentiality of reality. For us, our “sacred” texts can provide no limiting description — either of the entirety of reality or of God. Rather, the value of sacred texts concerns our capacity to refer to them, to connect us with our past, to help guide and inspire us during our unfoldment along our shared and poetically meaningful path through time. God abides; beyond that, sacred texts facilitate, at most, only figurative interpretations or apprehensions of God.

The door that separates our particular experiences from the holistic experience of God has never been breached by any mere mortal — neither by the best of our philologists, nor by the best of our logicians. “I” abide only as an inferior participant, dependent upon the superior holism of Meta Word. In that aspect, as a shorthand reference, for convenience of communication, I intuit value in referring to such Meta Word as “God.” Still, it is my sense that we have no moral sanction to abandon unfolding responsibility or reason to literalistic impressions of entire texts of antiquity. For argumentation, sacred texts are often of poetic value, not scientific value. They can help attest to what we would will, not to what God must demand. This is because neither the Cosmos nor God are subservient to the mere will of mortals.

At best, each of us can advocate for good will only in respect of that which we intuit to accord with our humble receptivity to the higher values of Meta Word. To my interpretation and intuition, present context calls for Americans to seek to preserve civilization that accords decent respect for the freedom, dignity, and well being of each well meaning individual.


To abide (to be recognized or recorded?) as a "Changeless Changer" (Unified universe? God? Ineffable essence?) necessitates a dance between a scientifically backed, indifferent objectivism and a willing, caring subjectivism. A Changeless Changer requires that quantitative predictability and qualitative free will must coextend, each to define the other --- depending on fluxes in purpose, point of view, and frame of reference. Because of their coextensive codependence, neither objectivism nor subjectivism can provide a complete model of either physical or moral reality. Further, every plane upon which objectivism and subjectivism meet will necessarily produce fuzz and uncertainty, because every focus of qualitative perspective with quantitative context is also necessarily changing --- constantly and continuously.

The field of consciousness perceives the particle as being quantitative, while the particle of consciousness perceives the field as being quantitative. Neither the field nor the particle is "really" quantitative or qualitative, in itself, but only in relation -- depending on attitude of view and frame of reference. The idea of an ultimate, substantive, reconciler --- whether quantitative (Higgs Boson?) or qualitative (White Haired God of Abraham?) --- is flawed and bogus.

Saved by the Light

What lit up the Enlightenment was white European culture --- not because of its whiteness, but because of its culture. Not all cultures are equal. Some are inferior, and some are especially evil. When the test is, What is needed to sustain a decent civilization? then it becomes glaringly apparent that Islamic culture is evil. Applying the proper test, it is often glaringly obvious regarding the shared sacrifices that are necessary. Decent Americans hunger for that kind of leadership. Why aren't we getting it, and why is the light of European culture being buried before our eyes? Well, look around at who is benefitting from inculcating people that Western culture is bad and that it is bad to "act white?" Decent people have too long been lulled into allowing decent civilization to be canibalized by the most opportunistically corrupt, cynical, and historically ignorant. We have failed to ask, Why should European culture stand aside and allow itself to be replaced by ignorance and evil? Why should we bow before a NWO comprised of the most cynically corrupt? When enough Westerners begin asking the right questions, we may yet enter into the kind of shared sacrifice and assimilation of individual effort that is needed in order to rescue the light.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Nothing Indecent, Nothing Preserved

Nothing Indecent, Nothing Preserved:  Consider a concern from the other side of a coin, and set aside a notion that declining respect for a concept of a decent and caring God is the root cause of moral and cultural decline of the West. Instead, consider whether the root cause is the loss of any assimilating identity in the West. Ask: What is inspiring our people, that they are identifying with, bonding with, finding meaning in, and seeking fulfillment from?

Are we identifying with anything that can unite us, apart from giving free rein to personal greed and entitlement? Absent respect for some higher notion of assimilating moral sentiments, will Providence stretch out its invisible hand to guide us, in respect of nothing more than mere greed? When each feigns to be his own gold standard, so that the only purpose felt is to do that which pleasures only us, then how can any nation, culture, family, or system of belief ward off the corrosion of such a moral vacuum?

Look at the tug of war between Dino unionists and Rino corporatists: are they united in pulling America apart at its seams? Do those who fund either party identify with any interest or value that is fit to preserve a decent civilization? Or do they only hire shills to promote their own greed and lust?

How can we sustain faith that working together can preserve a worthwhile ideal of America, once we have lost faith that many others really want to preserve America? How can shutting down greed-based public service unions help America, so long as greed-based international corporatists are freed to ruin America? How can improving our military technology defend us, so long as we place over us those who seek mainly to sell us out? How can political activism help us, so long as we only strengthen forces that are pulling us apart, instead of empowering and representing a decent middle class that is actually inspired in respect of assimilating, higher values?

Can America preserve assimilating faith in herself, without preserving faith in any unifying purpose that is higher? What we have to fear is the prevailing and deadening loss of faith in a sustaining and common decency. When nothing is indecent, then nothing is what we will preserve.