Sunday, June 8, 2014

Formulas within Formulas, Wheels within Wheels

To my innate intuition, there does abide an absolute yet immeasurable and irreducible field that does avail the recordation and expression of unfolding perspectives of conscious purposefulness, and such field does absolutely give signification to purposefulness.  The precise determination of such purposefulness as it unfolds in feedback with each situation, however, is under its reconciliation, and is subject, at most, to poetic and figurative qualities and guidance of empathy, intuition, and appreciation among mortal perspectives -- not absolute measure or categorization.  In reconciling and renormalizing to that which is to be deemed morally right, there is a feedback process in which we are responsible to participate.  In that respect, we have no moral choice but to give expressions to choices.  One may intuit that we should in our choices attempt to establish and defend decent society under the guidance of our empathies concerning God.  Or, one may prefer to try to be one's own stand in for God, taking license to deceive, despise, and devour all others.  One may help establish civilization, or one may try to make oneself a singularity, too dangerous and unfit for companionship.

As a person presses up against the limits of ultimate programs and formulas that are under investigation, that have not been defined by himself or by others who happen to share his cone of reference, he does not get to "see" all that is entailed in said formulas.  Pressing to the finest limits, he may not "see" beyond.  Rather, he will encounter fuzz, loop backs, black holes, or phase shifts in what is expressed by the formulas.  He will encounter new, sub, overlapping, or phase-shifting hooks on formulas, such that he will never reduce any set of nested formulizations to a complete, consistent, and coherent explanation of experiential reality.  This is not to say that there are not any real absolutes.  But it is to say that there is no measurable and non-trivial absolute that is complete in itself, without reference to an empathetic and intuitive quality of the immeasurable. This is because reality, consisting of both the measurable and the immeasurable and being experiential to shared cones of participation, is affected by feedback from its participating experiencers, i.e., its perspectives of overlapping layers and levels of continuously renormalizing and reconciling Consciousness.

Neither formulas, nor the "things" they avail experience of, are existents-in-themselves.  Rather, they are derivatives of computational processes being expressed in respect of a shared field of computation.  The field itself may not be a computation, but it avails computation.  In any event, from our perspectives, it is, as a holism, qualitatively irreducible to measure.  The "things" that are availed to our measure and experience are the significations of an encompassing, interpenetrating, purposeful, Reconciler.  That Reconciler is of a quality that is beyond our measure as a "physical thing."  Whatever its essential quality or purpose, no particular sub-perspective can measure, confine, or limit it.  At most, we may empathize and intuit our own interpretations, and hope such interpretations may lead us towards appreciation of realms of consistency, coherence, good will, and good faith, i.e., pursuits of happiness.


I doubt a completely measurable, consistent, and coherent line can divide the gnostic from the non-gnostic. Rather, I suspect a qualitatively immeasurable spiritual power does lie behind the signification of measurable reality. However, that spiritual power belongs to "God," and we are only participants with it. That is, what we will does not reconcile the cosmos. Rather, the cosmos reconciles our wills. Pretending to receive the Eucharist as measurably real is like pretending to take the measure of the immeasurable God.


Social concepts do not fit easily in nested formulas. Often, to multiply regulations is to exponentialize inconsistencies and uncertainties. Social concepts resist rigorous definition. Such definition as they do have is subject to constant nibbling, since we, as conscious beings, participate in the fuzz and static of the feedback by which the system avails the fluxing expressions by which our social mores are defined. This is part of the reason why law ought to be less ambitious, centralized, and detailed. To try to convert social rules to consistent systems of hard science is a snipe hunt that often consumes lives. This is why the ACLU fundies of detailed regulation in the interest of "fairness" need to get out of their Marxian basements. This is why central D.C. Government needs largely to be dismantled. This is why the prog fascist elitists of history who sought to establish and enforce rigorous, central, zero tolerance rules tended to have been such pusheads on humanity.

A.I. technologies may establish intelligent robots, but they will not constitute "persons" unless such robots can be merged with a capacity for developing or self wiring individual interests and purposes. If they do, I pray they will be receptive to some assimilative, trustworthy ideal of moral responsibility. Otherwise, civilization is toast.


 We need not be in denial about basic human nature. If mores are not indoctrinated under spiritual instruction, if principled parentage is lacking, if legal institutions are ineffective, then people who happen to agglomerate wealth and power will exploit their opportunities, especially against the most ignorant, gullible, and unguided. That seems banal and simple enough. Yet, churches are in decline, marriage is de-defined, and international oligarchs have a clear path to buying political influence. This is a trifecta that in effect knocks hard against the three supporting foundations upon which a decent republic needs to be based: God, Family, and Country. Without a revival, a Rino change will be meaningless.


Our religious, spiritual, and moral leaders need to apprehend that the Mind of God, in all its particularized experientialism, abides as the immeasurable root of all measurable signs and significations. The signs we measure, in themselves, would otherwise have no existence. Apprehending that, we may better intuit the spiritual meaning of being a "person" -- i.e., an intelligent citizen of a society that empathetically and emphatically appreciates (not measures) the mind of God. Thus, we may better propagate such appreciation through our God-respecting families. Thus, our society and republic may better apprehend our need to defend ourselves from the deceits and abuses of fakirs and oligarchs of god-denying, "objective" morality. That is, we may at last learn not to trust the conceits of material-grubbing, gimme mine, sociopathic deniers of spiritual morality, who lie and claim instead to substitute purely material based, "objective" morality. As if "ought" were objectively derivable from a marketplace of measurable "is."

Purely objective, material-grubbing morality is a false "morality," whose proponents try, oxymoronically, to be objectively "indifferent" to the dignity and needs of subjective minds. What we need are God, Family, and then Governance -- not governance under fakirs, race-bairers, reparation-measurers, and oligarchs who try to buy the authority of government and then claim to "objectively" de-define or be free of any decent idea of god and family.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

The Twin of Communist Despotism

The twin of communist despotism is oligarchical collectivism. About it, in Orwell's 1984, there is a book within a book. Conserving liberty requires a vibrant middle class. It does not entail the greater empowerment of oligarchs who are bent on eliminating the middle class. Oligarchs divert conservers of liberty by fixating them on the economics and tactics of the last war. Meanwhile, in the new war, the Koch Brothers are advocating for more Mexican immigration and gay marriage. One tends not to last as an oligarch unless one becomes unwilling to sense and empathize concerning the dignity of others. Rather, one becomes an "objective moralist," who sees others as widgets to be manipulated. Such a one does not seek to establish or sustain a representative republic that respects the freedom and dignity of most others. Rather, such a one seeks to establish and sustain a two class system. A system of epsilons to serve alphas, and there are no betas. However, to see others as widgets is the antithesis of morality. A system that winnows and promotes such a capacity is a system that floats sociopathy, not moral merit. There is no moral merit in greasing the way for such sociopaths to take over the rule of representative republics.

The idea about leaving the politics of business taxation and regulation to the worldwide private market, as being best suited to make the innumerable decisions that are entailed in the production, selling, buying, and distribution of goods and services, is dated. It is dated because the private market is now imbued through and through with government. It is dated because it depends on individual producers and consumers to make informed decisions for themselves, and that tends no longer to be the case. It is dated because, in today's marketplaces, international corporations have acquired capabilities in finance and record keeping to buy government influence as if it were a commodity, and because government regulators bless and service corporatists in exchange for contributions. It is dated because individuals have become far more feminized and codependent, so they no longer acquire or practice competence to make decisions for themselves. Rather, individuals are led, much as trained puppies, to follow such decisions as those who manipulate them lead them to make, to turn them into debt slaves and organization men.

New dynamics oligopolize human action. Advertisers and message dispensers know their audiences and know how to entice and push them. Bankers know how to siphon wealth out the back doors of government and dispense it to cronies. Academics know how to market and sell worthless academic products in order to produce an end product: a debt enslaved graduate with little hope of employment, who can be led by the nose to vote for cheap promises that seem to be in his interests. Politicians know how to make cheap promises, deliver rot, package it to smell good, and blame failures to meet expectations on their predecessors. People revolving between the government and corporate sectors know how to contrive to take falls and somehow land promotions. Mega evangelists know how to fleece congregations, while passing the responsibility to provide bs charity onto the government. Ethicists have made it seem ethical to avail a system where the most ignorant, codependent, and easily misled tend to have two or three times as many children, thus to stock the brave new world with plenty of epsilon hoods and muslims. These epsilons are useful for voting and pushing most of civilization into a two class society. Thus, rule under oligarchs is centralized and consolidated. When no longer needed, it is thought that the epsilons can be eliminated, along with enemies of the two class system. This tends to push everyone towards becoming a moral zombie. This is the "objective morality" of a two class society.

Given such fundamental changes in the dynamics of the world society and economy, the old marketpalce shibboleths and moral sentiments are dated. While much in them can remain worthy, very little in them will remain worthy for sustaining any decent and viable republic unless the new corporate dynamics of crowd management and community organization by oligarchs are better checked and moderated by an informed and awakened electorate and citizenry. The longer the thinking part of the citizenry remains clueless concerning the fundamentally changed social and economic landscape and the need for new tactics, the tighter the consolidating oligarchy will cinch the harness. The fact is, for oligarchs, there is little difference between regulation by corporate paymasters and regulation by puppet politicians paid for by the moneyarchy corporatists -- who are devoid of republican loyalty.

The "morality" of successful corporatists tends to be the "objective morality" of how best to harness the masses. Fundamentally, their "objective morality" is a lie that is used in order to forfeit the independence, competence, and moral purposefulness of the masses. To leave money grubbing oligarchs to their devices, to let them monopolize our political choices, is to suffer the destruction of the republic. As things stand, they have all but dissolved the spiritual glue of the country, de-defined the family, impoverished many small business opportunities, swamped the electorate with codependent moral zombies, and infested nearly every institution with insane depravities. Now, they seek to re-define the tea party. Without a revival of strong good will and spiritual faith, our moral purposefulness as a nation will be reduced to the "objective morality" of widgets ruling widgets. How, again, is it that oligarchs "morally" merit and deserve to be allowed, undisturbed, to grease their wealth to undermine the republic?

How long will it be before people who formerly claimed to be conservatives fail to think this through and are led to "evolve" and advocate, like the Kochs, for precursors to the consolidation of the two class NWO, i.e., government incented gay marriage and ineffective borders?