Friday, December 16, 2011

Directonal Momentum

OF SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL MOMENTUM: Government is manned by individuals in order to rule limits for societies. Government acquires astonishing social momentum, so that ways of doing things (like laws, language, and grammar) become grooved and entrenched, often for reasons long forgotten by coming generations, which remain rutted to old ways with little understanding of why. Is the logos, meaning, momentum, and inertia of government and the communications among perspectives of consciousness so different from the mass and momentum of physics? Well, social momentum is Qualitative in that it tends not to be directly measurable, while physical momentum is Quantitative in that it tends not to be measurable except directly. Yet, social and physical momentum are entwined, for qualities of social momentum could not very well be communicated absent reference to signs of physical momentum. A penny cannot be intentionally pushed up a door with either the momentum of consciousness or the momentum of physics — except upon the contribution of both. The directional momentum of each (the Qualitative and the Quantitative) is dependent upon, correlates with, and CALLS FORTH the momentum of the other. Imagining begets and grooves tinkering, which begets and grooves new physical realities — as feedback unfolds along a path that spreads before us in response to momentum behind our dance of apprehensions and appreciations. In what sort of destructive-inventiveness or harmonic-empathy is the dance of feedback calling upon us to engage now? Our wills and visions are synchronized to guide our fates. Our past is obdurate, our future is awesome, our role is participatory, and our fulfillment is to pursue. What Synchronizing Guidance may be discerned? Seek to establish and preserve civilization that facilitates and enlightens empathetic respect for creative will! (IOW, Dump Obama!) This is quite the opposite of de-civilization, which is sought by such deformed minds as seek to darken all others like themselves, into submissive obedience to mind-killing sociopathies. Death is fair and equalizing as a foil for evolution. Perhaps Zombie-Mind (Material-ism, Marx-ism, and Muslim-ism) is fair and equalizing as a foil for civilization. The trick for enlightened civilization is to keep Materialists, Marxists, and Muslims under a lid, so they don’t deal death to every free mind. A mind made completely dark cannot be enlightened. A mere mortal cannot fix such a mind. Best to quarantine such a mind, not to dither with or empower it. If we fail to quarantine minds (Obama) completely darkened by Material-ism, Marx-ism and Muslim-ism, our progeny will be returned to another thousand year age of darkness. America needs to fix herself, while de-barring zombies.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

It seems hardly anyone wants to live within the means their talents avail. When people feel entitled to live beyond means of their talents and environments, competition for raw power sharpens. When people become conditioned to have little respect for living within sustainable limits, prefering instead to respect those who abuse power in order to live beyond limits of common decency, then decency goes out the window. Tooth, claw, and sociopathic deceit become trump. If all we're doing is writing apologies for choosing sides in order to take what power can take, then the only reason to remain loyal to any union reduces to consideration for what it can gain you. Rest in peace with that, now ... Kim, Mao, Stalin, Khomeini, Saddam, OBL, later ... Madoff, Frank, Pelosi, Soros. Principles become a farcical dance of self-justifying competition among gangsters and hedgers. When more than half a society thinks that way, society tends to get the amount of trust and loyalty it deserves. What kinds of people think that way, but camouflage it? Behind masks, it seems they're all around. Libertines, anarchists, raw moral atheists, faction gangsters, and cannibal sellouts. Are there still Americans who hold assimilating values? Do contending factions respect the least clue regarding what such principles may be? Once faith and trust disintegrate, one may as well join the faction of most temporal advantage. Credit the U.S. with full faith and trust in ... what? How many horsemen twist off to rationalize that all will be better if only once and for all we kill off respect for any reconciling basis for inculcating faith, trust, and loyalty?

Anonymous said...

Delusion of being entitled won't feed or shelter anyone. Someone must produce the feed and shelter. Demanding more doesn't produce. Rewarding those who invent new ways to combine political forces in order to demand more doesn't produce. Being pampered doesn't incentive anyone to produce. For awhile, we got so technologically efficient that we began spilling out Nobels to people like Krugman and Obama. We began to think that pampering demands for entitlements would continue to spill forth a cornucopia and usher in the cosmopolitan communal caliphate. The disease is mind sloth. It festers whenever industrial-technological societies efficiently produce far more than they need. The sugar spillage often goes to the most derelict. The dilemma is this: How can modern society provide a decent safety net without pumping up plethoras of mind sloths and those who farm them? Once wealth spills out all over, how can merit be discerned and rewarded in order to sustain a decent work ethic? The marketplace is no longer an arms length, fair minded referee. A simple market model no longer works. The center of the modern marketplace is now run by a new breed of barbarians: religious fascists and frauds, crony socialists, disloyal corporatists, and international cannibals. The disease is mis-managed spillage to derelicts. I don't know the antidote. I do know that loss of assimilating faith and trust is not fixed by a philosophy that pretends to justify "do and demand as thou wilt." There's too much of that philosophy on all sides.

Anonymous said...

What we call Energy consists of stuff of Relations that are conserved and measurable in respect of a shared cone of MANIFEST experience of purposeful focus within a context. Energy is Matter unleashed. What we call Matter consists of stuff of relations that are conserved and measurable in respect of a shared cone of POTENTIAL experience (stored Energy) of purposeful focus within a context. Matter is Energy stored. What we call Energy and Matter (i.e., Substance) are the stuff of relations that are conserved and measurable in respect of a shared cone of experience, both manifest and potential, of purposeful focus within a context. What we call measurable Mass is Substance with Consciousness abstracting itself, to try to view and measure Substance apart from Consciousness. Of Consciousness of I, there abides Pre-set (Indifferent) I, Substantive (Measurable) I, and Active (Wilfully Purposeful) I. Substance is a shell game of perspective-context-purpose that God plays with God’s self. That game is the Immeasurable Mechanism by which Substance acquires measurable Mass. Substance is not requisite for Consciousness to think Qualitatively, but only to think Quantitatively — to avail measurable signification of logos, to store and communicate Idealizations and Information, and to divide Consciousness among separately imbued Perspectives of Contextual Purposefulness.

Anonymous said...

It’s nonsensical to speak of “small” living or “small” government. Living and governance are qualities, not quantifiables. One who wishes to speak of smallness or bigness of government should be invited to explain how this smallness or bigness is to be scaled, in order to compare how governments are smaller or bigger. Whatever the measure chosen (population, production, proportion of GDP allocated to commercial vs. charitable vs. familial vs. governmental sectors, etc.), it will not measure the “size” of government per se. There is dumb, bad, smart, good, and qualitative living and government. The problem with government is not smallness or bigness. Whatever the living space-time available, it will be filled with some manner of living and governance — whether it be natural, factional, social, cultural, religious, or self governance. The problem governance presents has less to do with its smallness or bigness than with its smartness, suitability, level, and quality of distribution. The West values the examined life, individual conscience, freedom of will, and ordered liberty. The East values regimented manners. Where West meets East, there’s bound to be heated friction. It’s suicidal for either to try to force the other to change. If the West desires to preserve ordered liberty, it had best defend borders, stop enriching market cannibals, stop inviting disintegration, and stop centralizing power beyond the most local levels where power can be guided most consistently with decent regard for individual liberty. Don’t play shell games trying to figure out which politician advocates for the biggest government. Instead, pay attention to which politician advocates for the smartest and most appropriate levels for delegations of power. That test necessitates a component of subjective judgment, suitable to the unfolding situation. If such a test is not to fly off into meaningless space, it needs to be tethered to reconciling faith, mores, purpose, i.e., respect for the idea that humanity is endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights, i.e., freedom to be human, i.e., freedom to think for oneself. For the West, government serves only to avail decent, ordered liberty. For the East, government-religion-tradition serve those who seek power to trump the liberty of all others. For Adam Smith-Jesus loving West, God-or-Beingness avail human freedom and dignity; order is secondary to liberty. For Marx-Allah loving East, God-or-the-Collective avail regimentation; liberty is secondary to order. For the West, the Individual is valuable; for the East, the Individual is worthless. Muddled Western minds elected an Eastern-thinking, Churchill-hating collectivist as their President. Too many NWO minds have been muddled to actually believe the West and East can and should be reconciled to a syncretism. Hard knocks will teach otherwise. "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." -- Winston Churchill.

Anonymous said...

It's not notions of Secular Purpose or Spiritual God that lead men to fight one another. What lead men to fight are conflicting notions about which qualities of Purpose or God are admirable versus deplorable. One does not apprehend likelihood of peace by gauging prevailing convictions about purpose-or-God. One apprehends likelihood of peace by apprehending qualitative differences among competing convictions about purpose-or-God. What a culture finds or rationalizes as honorable versus despicable affects its willingness to confront another. Whether affected by sentiments about the here and now or the hereafter, that which one takes -- on inculcation in faith or on conditioning in experience -- as being worth working to establish ... will influence that which one takes as being worth fighting to preserve. Each culture will follow its leaders' insights, inculcations, and conditionings. The road away from horror and towards decency is not paved in measures of dogma (whether atheistic or religious), but in qualities of assimilating insight. If violence can be measured as having proportionally diminished as we progress in time, that is more in respect of improved insight than in disrespect of higher faith.

Anonymous said...

Because dogmatic atheists rarely apprehend their own evangelism of faith, bigotry is the right word. After all, mores pulled out of air are harely less airy than mores pulled out of faith. Islamists profess there will be peace once all are subjugated to profess belief. Militant atheists profess there will be peace once all are freed from religious superstitions. Both are dogma know-it-alls. It's not notions of Secular Purpose or Spiritual God that lead men to fight one another. What lead men to fight are conflicting notions about which qualities of Purpose or God are admirable versus deplorable. One does not apprehend likelihood of peace by gauging prevailing convictions about purpose-or-God. One apprehends likelihood of peace by apprehending qualitative differences among competing convictions about purpose-or-God. What a culture finds or rationalizes as honorable versus despicable affects its willingness to confront another. Whether affected by sentiments about the here and now or the hereafter, that which one takes -- on inculcation in faith or on conditioning in experience -- as being worth working to establish ... will influence that which one takes as being worth fighting to preserve. Each culture will follow its leaders' insights, inculcations, and conditionings. The road away from horror and towards decency is not paved in measures of dogma (whether atheistic or religious), but in qualities of assimilating insight. If violence can be measured as having proportionally diminished as we progress in time, that is more in respect of improved insight than in disrespect of higher faith. All poseurs who profess knowledge feign that there is some source of Truth to believe in, yet none can prove or quantify it. In all non-trivial respects, all proceed on insight, intuition, faith ... in whatever way they may prefer to try to signify it.