From http://www.philelmore.com/objectivism/obvslib.htm: Ayn Rand put it this way "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
Well, both Objectivism and Libertarianism are inadequate as philosophies. In part, this is because they do not reasonably deal with the problem of whether or when to emancipate “mind orphans,” i.e., people who have lost their minds, never had independent minds, never reasonably developed their minds, or who have had their minds so rigorously trumped as to surrender their own freedom of thought by simply rationalizing to accept whatever their leaders say in any given moment.
Example: Ghetto kids (age is not the determining factor) who essentially worship the dramatic and fashionable poses of heroes they have bonded to who have access to megaphones. Does it really make reasonable sense to demand “reason” of an infant? Or of someone whose culture has essentially molded them by using techniques common to inducing Stockholm Syndrome? Is it not apparent that a problem with both Objectivism and Libertarianism consists in failures to relate reason to cultural context, i.e., failures to apprehend that neither enlightened reason nor sustainable culture can long endure independent of one another? That is, there may be freedom to advocate one’s superiority over the demise of a worthy culture, but it may not be a very well reasoned application of freedom.
Fundamentally, Objectivism and Libertarianism take a particle view of light, but ignore light’s wave/field functions. Fundamentally, Objectivism and Libertarianism fail because they try to explicate a complete philosophy by taking only the perspective of parts, without appreciating that each perspective of consciousness has an aspect of being condensate of a more encompassing Field of consciousness. In short, they try to be independent of God, but necessarily fail.
If either Objectivism or Libertarianism made good sense in particular applications, one might expect various defenders to explicate reasoned political platforms and principles for dealing with specific social problems. (If central government should be decentralized, then how much power should states have, and when should the central government disagree when the state government gets too intrusive for the tastes of local libertarians or anarchists? When should freedom and liberty be enforced?) If a philosophy could facilitate governance, one might expect adherents could draw and enforce lines and codes around which society could actually be coaxed or inspired to assimilate. Problem: Has anyone recorded a long sustainable society of Objectivists or Libertarians?
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Existence exists; God gods
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/
In what sense, if any, may it reasonably be suggested, generally, that "existence exists"? (Or that Reality reals, or God gods?) In what sense may it be "reasonable" for one generally to suggest that "existence exists" ... in recognition that it is reasonable to postulate that a particular thing exists ... in that, as understood or postulated, the thing has potential to be measured by, or otherwise to influence, a perspective of consciousness?
***********
Individualists (Objectivists, Libertarians, Anarchists) often prefer to try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only particular perspectives. Collectivists (Communists, Progressives, Islamists) often try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only an encompassing field. Regardless, this kind of “either-or” conceptualizing does not logically support all reasonable aspects of human interaction. Rather, there is a feedback dance, not entirely reducible to an "either-or" kind of logic or measure. To exist and persist, that which is holistic or objective has to dance and exchange information with that which is particular, subjective, or imperfect. Interaction among conscious perspectives entails regard for, and unfolding reconciliation with, such interpretations of acculturated, accumulated information as are projected via the avatar by which each identity effects its representations, each to all others.
“Either-Or” logic has its place: To model EMR, one may model light for some purposes as if light were comprised of expressions of particles; for other purposes, one may model as if light were comprised of expressions of waves. One does not exhaust modeling for how light functions merely by choosing either to model light as particles or as waves (or as “wavicles”). One does not completely model light via any one model or concept, or even by any collection of concepts. Axiom: A particular perspective of consciousness cannot completely model the whole of consciousness, because (1) the whole may flux or find expression beyond the sum of its parts; and (2) each particular representation of the whole, as a part, is limited to being circularly defined in respect of its common relation with all other parts. Once a part collapses apart from its field, its perspective for interpreting the field will be limited to the remainder of the field. A class of cows, as a class, is not itself cows; a whole of parts is not, as a whole, defined entirely by any sum of its parts.
Bivalent logic works well for conceptualizing how to manipulate those aspects of reality which seem indifferent to consciousness. But a different approach (trivalent logic?) is necessary to appreciate relations among those aspects of reality which are not indifferent to feedback with one’s consciousness. One needs to appreciate people as people, not as mere bundles of matter to be indifferently manipulated.
To the extent consciousness is not entirely and merely artifactual of relations among indifferent aspects of reality, it stands to reason that more than mere formalization and empiricism are needed to participate reasonably among perspectives of consciousness. Rather, one must dance with the accumulated and continuously changing organization of information that is represented by each other perspective of consciousness.
Axioms: Reality is not created, reality bites, change is continuous, targets of logic are always moving, particular experiences are effected via synchronization among consciously choosing agents within limits of parameter fields, a Field of consciousness avails such choices, and God really exists ... "godding" and dancing with us. Those aspects of reality may be considered as self-evident, intuitive, or empathetic. They are not derivative, so they cannot be derived, measured, quantified, or proven via mere logic. Aspects of such axioms may, however, be subjected to tests for mathematical consistency and empirical replicability
Regarding consciousness versus indifferent matter: Does a photon in any way accumulate or store information that could be translated as a representation or conceptualization that it is expressed in coordination with a field? Does any aspect of a photon effect representations by which to know it exists, or that it exists as an expression?
In what sense, if any, may it reasonably be suggested, generally, that "existence exists"? (Or that Reality reals, or God gods?) In what sense may it be "reasonable" for one generally to suggest that "existence exists" ... in recognition that it is reasonable to postulate that a particular thing exists ... in that, as understood or postulated, the thing has potential to be measured by, or otherwise to influence, a perspective of consciousness?
***********
Individualists (Objectivists, Libertarians, Anarchists) often prefer to try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only particular perspectives. Collectivists (Communists, Progressives, Islamists) often try to model consciousness and morality as if they were derivative of only an encompassing field. Regardless, this kind of “either-or” conceptualizing does not logically support all reasonable aspects of human interaction. Rather, there is a feedback dance, not entirely reducible to an "either-or" kind of logic or measure. To exist and persist, that which is holistic or objective has to dance and exchange information with that which is particular, subjective, or imperfect. Interaction among conscious perspectives entails regard for, and unfolding reconciliation with, such interpretations of acculturated, accumulated information as are projected via the avatar by which each identity effects its representations, each to all others.
“Either-Or” logic has its place: To model EMR, one may model light for some purposes as if light were comprised of expressions of particles; for other purposes, one may model as if light were comprised of expressions of waves. One does not exhaust modeling for how light functions merely by choosing either to model light as particles or as waves (or as “wavicles”). One does not completely model light via any one model or concept, or even by any collection of concepts. Axiom: A particular perspective of consciousness cannot completely model the whole of consciousness, because (1) the whole may flux or find expression beyond the sum of its parts; and (2) each particular representation of the whole, as a part, is limited to being circularly defined in respect of its common relation with all other parts. Once a part collapses apart from its field, its perspective for interpreting the field will be limited to the remainder of the field. A class of cows, as a class, is not itself cows; a whole of parts is not, as a whole, defined entirely by any sum of its parts.
Bivalent logic works well for conceptualizing how to manipulate those aspects of reality which seem indifferent to consciousness. But a different approach (trivalent logic?) is necessary to appreciate relations among those aspects of reality which are not indifferent to feedback with one’s consciousness. One needs to appreciate people as people, not as mere bundles of matter to be indifferently manipulated.
To the extent consciousness is not entirely and merely artifactual of relations among indifferent aspects of reality, it stands to reason that more than mere formalization and empiricism are needed to participate reasonably among perspectives of consciousness. Rather, one must dance with the accumulated and continuously changing organization of information that is represented by each other perspective of consciousness.
Axioms: Reality is not created, reality bites, change is continuous, targets of logic are always moving, particular experiences are effected via synchronization among consciously choosing agents within limits of parameter fields, a Field of consciousness avails such choices, and God really exists ... "godding" and dancing with us. Those aspects of reality may be considered as self-evident, intuitive, or empathetic. They are not derivative, so they cannot be derived, measured, quantified, or proven via mere logic. Aspects of such axioms may, however, be subjected to tests for mathematical consistency and empirical replicability
Regarding consciousness versus indifferent matter: Does a photon in any way accumulate or store information that could be translated as a representation or conceptualization that it is expressed in coordination with a field? Does any aspect of a photon effect representations by which to know it exists, or that it exists as an expression?
Original Sin
Intuitively, perhaps empathetically, there exists and abides a Field (God?) which has power or capacity to give conscious expression to mathematically related arrays of incomplete and unpredictable choices of perspectives of itself. The Field is a unifying Being which enjoys a property of Existing. All else among particulars that exist owe their beingness to the Field.
In respect that each array, and each perspective of each array, mirrors an incomplete, particular representation of the whole of the Field, none can mirror or avail a complete measure or explication of the power or capacity of the Field Itself. Rather, the Whole is of a class that is not encompassed among, or to be explicated by, any mathematical functioning or summing of its Parts. One does not adduce its existence by syllogistic logic or by empirical measure. With conscious intuition and immeasurable empathy, one may or may not choose to adduce the existence of such Field, either by according one’s life as if it exists or as if it does not. For that, sub-metaphors are not useful in literal respect (for one cannot measure God), but in figurative respect.
What one can do is sense and communicate (in relative terms and metaphors to such other perspectives of the Field which happen to share one’s frame of reference) about the context with which the Field happens to give expression to each particular self. In doing so, one can intuit, and empathize about, one’s derivative dependence upon the Field. One can comport one’s consciousness with reasoned regard for unfolding expressions and processes of the Field. One can mathematically model and measure such various aspects of such processes as may relate to oneself. And one can, in empathy and intuition, be receptive to guidance regarding how one “ought” to choose to measure or tinker about such unfoldment. That the Field is beyond comprehension in respect of the logic of our incomplete perspectives is not an argument against its existence. Rather, one's choice at any level of consciousness to appreciate the existential pervasiveness of a common Source of perspectives of the one Identity of consciousness depends upon the character of one's intuition and empathy, not upon the quality of one's logic or the precision of one's empirical measure.
Regardless, one cannot with mathematical precision prove or know what one ought to do, nor how that which one does may affect the future of the unfoldment under the Field. One can, and perhaps should, in good faith and good will, apply Reasoned Empathy in respect of one’s feedback in relations with the unfoldment. By “Reasoned Empathy” I do not mean unconditional love for every conceivable kind of rot or rotter. Rather, I mean respect for that which one intuits should be unfolded. What I intuit the Field purposes to unfold or communicate is reasoned awe across the perspectives and capacities of the whole and its parts. I doubt the Field purposes either (1) a Umma for the loving or encouraging of cannibalistic or irrational subjugation of perspectives of mind or (2) a Utopia for the purposeless rotting and doping of rotters and dopers. I doubt the Field condemns its perspectives for original sin of being imperfectly incomplete, in that there would seem no other way to have a perspective of the whole Field (unless such perspective itself could be like an independent holism).
To a limited extent, Original Sin has been a useful concept for reminding people of the undoubted fecundity of evil in the world, and of the undoubted commitment required to struggle against evil. No doubt, innocents need to be reminded how surrounded they are by misguided, amoral, cannibals. No doubt, innocents need to be encouraged to be receptive to higher guidance, to help them learn to distinguish among the good, the misguided, the amoral, and the evil. However, apart from those purposes, the concept of original sin has been overdone and reduced to literalistic irrationality. One may seriously wonder how cousin concepts to Original Sin can be co-opted by statist hegemonists. But there is little sense in supposing God should wish to impose eternal punishments against fallible, temporal perspectives of beings, who need experience and guidance to better intuit how to comport with God's unfolding purposefulness. There is little sense in supposing that consciousness, in itself, is other than an Identity, with potential for communicating choices among various contextual perspectives of itself. There is little sense in supposing that any exchange of empathy during a communication among perspectives of consciousness should be based other than in reasoned inspiration and appreciation. There is little sense in pretending any particular perspective of consciousness has authority as a stand in for the judgment of the entire Field of God. Rather, if moral responsibility means anything, each perspective must be morally responsible to give effect to its own interpretation of the array of choices availed in the unfoldment, of which every other person is only a bit actor, not a stand in for God.
The kind of concept advocated herein, of God as the Field of Consciousness, is bound to irritate fundamental believers and authorities for traditional sacred texts, as well as atheistic materialists and overgreedy empiricists. For the near future, it may be that to advocate for such a concept is to volunteer to be put on a relatively small island. Yet, the company is good. Maturely considered, the concept (1) may allow one to be intellectually honest with oneself, (2) is consistent with intuitions of many, (3) enhances the best parts of the moral guidance of sacred texts, (4) does not hamper appreciation of traditional and sacred parables, (5) overcomes various moral deficiencies of both secular and sectarian fundamentalists, (6) is not inconsistent with testable scientific formalizations, (7) hampers science not in the least, and (8) facilitates respect for the best of traditional American values of freedom and dignity. In short, it seems the concept of God as Field of Consciousness for expressing the unfolding of experience need not forbid a reasoned reconciliation of the Big Bang, 1984, Brave new World, Atlas Shrugged, American Exceptionalism, and the New Testament. Indeed, Ayn Rand's ideal regarding the mind of man seems to implicate mind of the Field.
In respect that each array, and each perspective of each array, mirrors an incomplete, particular representation of the whole of the Field, none can mirror or avail a complete measure or explication of the power or capacity of the Field Itself. Rather, the Whole is of a class that is not encompassed among, or to be explicated by, any mathematical functioning or summing of its Parts. One does not adduce its existence by syllogistic logic or by empirical measure. With conscious intuition and immeasurable empathy, one may or may not choose to adduce the existence of such Field, either by according one’s life as if it exists or as if it does not. For that, sub-metaphors are not useful in literal respect (for one cannot measure God), but in figurative respect.
What one can do is sense and communicate (in relative terms and metaphors to such other perspectives of the Field which happen to share one’s frame of reference) about the context with which the Field happens to give expression to each particular self. In doing so, one can intuit, and empathize about, one’s derivative dependence upon the Field. One can comport one’s consciousness with reasoned regard for unfolding expressions and processes of the Field. One can mathematically model and measure such various aspects of such processes as may relate to oneself. And one can, in empathy and intuition, be receptive to guidance regarding how one “ought” to choose to measure or tinker about such unfoldment. That the Field is beyond comprehension in respect of the logic of our incomplete perspectives is not an argument against its existence. Rather, one's choice at any level of consciousness to appreciate the existential pervasiveness of a common Source of perspectives of the one Identity of consciousness depends upon the character of one's intuition and empathy, not upon the quality of one's logic or the precision of one's empirical measure.
Regardless, one cannot with mathematical precision prove or know what one ought to do, nor how that which one does may affect the future of the unfoldment under the Field. One can, and perhaps should, in good faith and good will, apply Reasoned Empathy in respect of one’s feedback in relations with the unfoldment. By “Reasoned Empathy” I do not mean unconditional love for every conceivable kind of rot or rotter. Rather, I mean respect for that which one intuits should be unfolded. What I intuit the Field purposes to unfold or communicate is reasoned awe across the perspectives and capacities of the whole and its parts. I doubt the Field purposes either (1) a Umma for the loving or encouraging of cannibalistic or irrational subjugation of perspectives of mind or (2) a Utopia for the purposeless rotting and doping of rotters and dopers. I doubt the Field condemns its perspectives for original sin of being imperfectly incomplete, in that there would seem no other way to have a perspective of the whole Field (unless such perspective itself could be like an independent holism).
To a limited extent, Original Sin has been a useful concept for reminding people of the undoubted fecundity of evil in the world, and of the undoubted commitment required to struggle against evil. No doubt, innocents need to be reminded how surrounded they are by misguided, amoral, cannibals. No doubt, innocents need to be encouraged to be receptive to higher guidance, to help them learn to distinguish among the good, the misguided, the amoral, and the evil. However, apart from those purposes, the concept of original sin has been overdone and reduced to literalistic irrationality. One may seriously wonder how cousin concepts to Original Sin can be co-opted by statist hegemonists. But there is little sense in supposing God should wish to impose eternal punishments against fallible, temporal perspectives of beings, who need experience and guidance to better intuit how to comport with God's unfolding purposefulness. There is little sense in supposing that consciousness, in itself, is other than an Identity, with potential for communicating choices among various contextual perspectives of itself. There is little sense in supposing that any exchange of empathy during a communication among perspectives of consciousness should be based other than in reasoned inspiration and appreciation. There is little sense in pretending any particular perspective of consciousness has authority as a stand in for the judgment of the entire Field of God. Rather, if moral responsibility means anything, each perspective must be morally responsible to give effect to its own interpretation of the array of choices availed in the unfoldment, of which every other person is only a bit actor, not a stand in for God.
The kind of concept advocated herein, of God as the Field of Consciousness, is bound to irritate fundamental believers and authorities for traditional sacred texts, as well as atheistic materialists and overgreedy empiricists. For the near future, it may be that to advocate for such a concept is to volunteer to be put on a relatively small island. Yet, the company is good. Maturely considered, the concept (1) may allow one to be intellectually honest with oneself, (2) is consistent with intuitions of many, (3) enhances the best parts of the moral guidance of sacred texts, (4) does not hamper appreciation of traditional and sacred parables, (5) overcomes various moral deficiencies of both secular and sectarian fundamentalists, (6) is not inconsistent with testable scientific formalizations, (7) hampers science not in the least, and (8) facilitates respect for the best of traditional American values of freedom and dignity. In short, it seems the concept of God as Field of Consciousness for expressing the unfolding of experience need not forbid a reasoned reconciliation of the Big Bang, 1984, Brave new World, Atlas Shrugged, American Exceptionalism, and the New Testament. Indeed, Ayn Rand's ideal regarding the mind of man seems to implicate mind of the Field.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Ayn Rand and Corporatist Oligarchs
PYTHON:
Regarding Corporatist Oligarchs of the Third Kind: (1) Some Oligarchs defend, (2) some produce, and (3) some loot, as by buying and selling political pawns, like commodities.
Ayn Rand abhorred looters, even corporate looters. Problem is, I have found nothing in her philosophy that avails effective means to stop, slow, or shame looters, especially international corporate looters. The only possibly effective means appears to be to promote an informed electorate. Problem is, the oligarchs run most of the means for informing the electorate. And information, to be made sense of, needs to be assimilated in respect of a worldview. But Rand’s philosophy did not avail a worldview that could be effective to counter oligarchic looters and their usefully indoctrinated idiots. Here meme was “reason” in the service of the ideal man. A more effective meme would be reasoned empathy (enlightened selfishness).
Were it more generally appreciated that every particular perspective is only an incomplete perspective in the service of one field of consciousness, that is, were we to restore respect for reasoned empathy, we may have a better chance to reclaim human freedom and dignity from the clutches of oligarchs of the third kind, i.e., oligarchs who are so depraved as to be disloyal to common human decency. Oligarchs reason just fine, but they reason almost exclusively about how to look out for themselves. In effect, the wire of empathy that connects them to the better part of humanity has been severed. They have not reasoned their way to this severance; they have rationalized the severance.
What I mean by “empathy” is capacity to apprehend, not measure, aspects of the beingness of one’s own mind, fluxing in the minds of others. Such empathy is not, per se, love of self or of others. Rather, it is respect for the exploratory purposefulness of a common mind, as it chooses to experience and express its dignity in the perspectives of oneself and of others. So stated, I consider reasoned empathy to be a more fundamental attribute of mindful will than reasoned materialism.
Empathy entails respect, not just for others, but for the common mind that freely expresses itself through perspectives of all expressions of consciousness, (not just of human beings), as well as of oneself. Empathy does not measure a precise cutoff between life and not-life. Rather, empathy apprehends a quality of connection among expressions of conscious will that is not precisely limited to mere circuits of material or bodily energy, but often suggests itself in moments of apparent deja vu, stunning coincidence, incredible insight, or burst of creativity – not so much as if one had saved oneself by one’s own merit and “reasoned” to such insights, but more as if one had received one's insights, gifted in association with the On High.
All perspectives of consciousness have capacity for empathy, but not all are faithful to, strongly receptive to, or confident of it. Key to empathy is respect for the regard by others of their own freedom and dignity, not mere exchange for (or base satisfaction of) the material and glandular wants of others. To accord “love” in response to bad habits and addictions of derelicts tends mainly to reinforce them to lifetimes of such bad habits.
To facilitate decent human civilization, a mores of empathy (“value for value”) ought not be restricted to a realm of material measure, but should be expanded to a realm of worthy respect. A decent civilization ought not pervert mores based on empathy by rationalizing beggings or lootings against independent individualists or by rationalizing forced conversions or submissions of non-members of gangs or sects of collectivists to thugish fascists or religious police.
Tragically, the only real bastion for defending decently civilizing, sustainable mores -- America -- is now beset – within and without, at all sides, secular and sectarian – by force minded collectivizers in unholy axis with useful idiots who have been conditioned to rationalize that they need to be collectivized. Thus, the breath of America is being constricted by a Python Axis that is financed by a depraved host of international, collectivizing oligarchs.
*******
Conservers of individual liberty have little hope to unwind this Python monster from the head down, as by recruiting counter funding in order to counter purchase our own whore politicians. Rather, the best way to unwind this monster is from the bottom of the tail – from the grass roots up. Since most entrenched institutions are now owned and operated for the interests of the international corporatist oligarchy, it will be a terrible struggle to unwind this Python and to restore America to an honored place, distinct from the worldwide collective. Yet, it is a struggle for which I intuit that our good will is aligned with that of the Field of Consciousness, common to all of us.
As to the Python (and its components – the international corporatist oligarchs who produce nothing and besmirch everything, who trade mainly in the buying and selling of political whoredom): It has no spirit-sustaining philosophy, no way to make its rationalizations decently sustainable, no way to prevent its members from imposing its tyranny and soul death on one another, and no way to avoid the death of a thousand addictions.
So long as we retain strength of will in respect of higher empathy, those who have collapsed to the depravity of international gangsterism will, at some point, be lead either to their own overdose or towards a better way. Until then, until pockets of resistance can gather inspiration and strength enough to sap and unwind the Python, we need to resist where we can and persevere where we must. Effective inspiration will prevail in due time. It is a terrible challenge to unwind the Python from America. It is beyond the pale to expect America to unwind the Python from the world. America can best serve the world by serving as a beacon for human freedom and dignity. For that, it is hardly of more import that Americans be liked than that producers be liked by persons satisfied to be bums.
Bottom line: So as not needlessly to have incited counterproductive misunderstanding between Christian Conservatives and Randian Objectivists, Ayn Rand, on hindsight, should have hearkened her Ideal Man to the value of Reasoned Empathy, instead of to a kind of reasoned materialism. In that way, the major part of her purpose would have been served, without stirring counterproductive mistrust among natural allies. Had she done so, it was not necessary for her to try to discredit or seek entirely to replace "Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" (God) with her notion of "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man." Both are incomplete concepts, neither map should be confused with the actual territory, and both are useful myths. The myths ("Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" and "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man") can and should be reconciled, to align for modeling the best motivations of thinking Christian Conservatives and thinking Objectivists.
Regarding Corporatist Oligarchs of the Third Kind: (1) Some Oligarchs defend, (2) some produce, and (3) some loot, as by buying and selling political pawns, like commodities.
Ayn Rand abhorred looters, even corporate looters. Problem is, I have found nothing in her philosophy that avails effective means to stop, slow, or shame looters, especially international corporate looters. The only possibly effective means appears to be to promote an informed electorate. Problem is, the oligarchs run most of the means for informing the electorate. And information, to be made sense of, needs to be assimilated in respect of a worldview. But Rand’s philosophy did not avail a worldview that could be effective to counter oligarchic looters and their usefully indoctrinated idiots. Here meme was “reason” in the service of the ideal man. A more effective meme would be reasoned empathy (enlightened selfishness).
Were it more generally appreciated that every particular perspective is only an incomplete perspective in the service of one field of consciousness, that is, were we to restore respect for reasoned empathy, we may have a better chance to reclaim human freedom and dignity from the clutches of oligarchs of the third kind, i.e., oligarchs who are so depraved as to be disloyal to common human decency. Oligarchs reason just fine, but they reason almost exclusively about how to look out for themselves. In effect, the wire of empathy that connects them to the better part of humanity has been severed. They have not reasoned their way to this severance; they have rationalized the severance.
What I mean by “empathy” is capacity to apprehend, not measure, aspects of the beingness of one’s own mind, fluxing in the minds of others. Such empathy is not, per se, love of self or of others. Rather, it is respect for the exploratory purposefulness of a common mind, as it chooses to experience and express its dignity in the perspectives of oneself and of others. So stated, I consider reasoned empathy to be a more fundamental attribute of mindful will than reasoned materialism.
Empathy entails respect, not just for others, but for the common mind that freely expresses itself through perspectives of all expressions of consciousness, (not just of human beings), as well as of oneself. Empathy does not measure a precise cutoff between life and not-life. Rather, empathy apprehends a quality of connection among expressions of conscious will that is not precisely limited to mere circuits of material or bodily energy, but often suggests itself in moments of apparent deja vu, stunning coincidence, incredible insight, or burst of creativity – not so much as if one had saved oneself by one’s own merit and “reasoned” to such insights, but more as if one had received one's insights, gifted in association with the On High.
All perspectives of consciousness have capacity for empathy, but not all are faithful to, strongly receptive to, or confident of it. Key to empathy is respect for the regard by others of their own freedom and dignity, not mere exchange for (or base satisfaction of) the material and glandular wants of others. To accord “love” in response to bad habits and addictions of derelicts tends mainly to reinforce them to lifetimes of such bad habits.
To facilitate decent human civilization, a mores of empathy (“value for value”) ought not be restricted to a realm of material measure, but should be expanded to a realm of worthy respect. A decent civilization ought not pervert mores based on empathy by rationalizing beggings or lootings against independent individualists or by rationalizing forced conversions or submissions of non-members of gangs or sects of collectivists to thugish fascists or religious police.
Tragically, the only real bastion for defending decently civilizing, sustainable mores -- America -- is now beset – within and without, at all sides, secular and sectarian – by force minded collectivizers in unholy axis with useful idiots who have been conditioned to rationalize that they need to be collectivized. Thus, the breath of America is being constricted by a Python Axis that is financed by a depraved host of international, collectivizing oligarchs.
*******
Conservers of individual liberty have little hope to unwind this Python monster from the head down, as by recruiting counter funding in order to counter purchase our own whore politicians. Rather, the best way to unwind this monster is from the bottom of the tail – from the grass roots up. Since most entrenched institutions are now owned and operated for the interests of the international corporatist oligarchy, it will be a terrible struggle to unwind this Python and to restore America to an honored place, distinct from the worldwide collective. Yet, it is a struggle for which I intuit that our good will is aligned with that of the Field of Consciousness, common to all of us.
As to the Python (and its components – the international corporatist oligarchs who produce nothing and besmirch everything, who trade mainly in the buying and selling of political whoredom): It has no spirit-sustaining philosophy, no way to make its rationalizations decently sustainable, no way to prevent its members from imposing its tyranny and soul death on one another, and no way to avoid the death of a thousand addictions.
So long as we retain strength of will in respect of higher empathy, those who have collapsed to the depravity of international gangsterism will, at some point, be lead either to their own overdose or towards a better way. Until then, until pockets of resistance can gather inspiration and strength enough to sap and unwind the Python, we need to resist where we can and persevere where we must. Effective inspiration will prevail in due time. It is a terrible challenge to unwind the Python from America. It is beyond the pale to expect America to unwind the Python from the world. America can best serve the world by serving as a beacon for human freedom and dignity. For that, it is hardly of more import that Americans be liked than that producers be liked by persons satisfied to be bums.
Bottom line: So as not needlessly to have incited counterproductive misunderstanding between Christian Conservatives and Randian Objectivists, Ayn Rand, on hindsight, should have hearkened her Ideal Man to the value of Reasoned Empathy, instead of to a kind of reasoned materialism. In that way, the major part of her purpose would have been served, without stirring counterproductive mistrust among natural allies. Had she done so, it was not necessary for her to try to discredit or seek entirely to replace "Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" (God) with her notion of "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man." Both are incomplete concepts, neither map should be confused with the actual territory, and both are useful myths. The myths ("Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" and "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man") can and should be reconciled, to align for modeling the best motivations of thinking Christian Conservatives and thinking Objectivists.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Reasoning
REASONING:
I don’t deny that reasoning takes place. The process of moral reasoning is self evident. What I deny is that such process takes place apart from, or superior to, the free will that associates with a perspective of consciousness. Reasoning about moral values is not a process that arises wholly within a brain, derived of some mythological, separate and independent “faculty” for crunching numbers. Rather, arriving at anything that can be recognized as reasoning entails a feedback process, whereby a brain receives, responds, and reconciles with stimuli and information from the Field that encompasses it.
Each model about moral purposefulness by which a brain thereby stores information unfolds in direct, intuitive relation with the Field. In a sense, the intuition of a perspective is not reasoning, but is accumulating a kind of direct storeage of information, even though such information is product of a process whereby reasoning has taken place. Continuously fluxing additions and changes to a brain’s storing of its records of experience do not unfold as products of intentional, mathematical calculations. They unfold as direct, intuitive responses with a Field of Conscious Will. The viability of each change in representations that are stored as models in association with a brain depends more on the character of the Field, as it has attached to a particular perspective, than on any faculty or internal completeness of a model for reasoning that is being processed.
I don’t deny that reasoning takes place. The process of moral reasoning is self evident. What I deny is that such process takes place apart from, or superior to, the free will that associates with a perspective of consciousness. Reasoning about moral values is not a process that arises wholly within a brain, derived of some mythological, separate and independent “faculty” for crunching numbers. Rather, arriving at anything that can be recognized as reasoning entails a feedback process, whereby a brain receives, responds, and reconciles with stimuli and information from the Field that encompasses it.
Each model about moral purposefulness by which a brain thereby stores information unfolds in direct, intuitive relation with the Field. In a sense, the intuition of a perspective is not reasoning, but is accumulating a kind of direct storeage of information, even though such information is product of a process whereby reasoning has taken place. Continuously fluxing additions and changes to a brain’s storing of its records of experience do not unfold as products of intentional, mathematical calculations. They unfold as direct, intuitive responses with a Field of Conscious Will. The viability of each change in representations that are stored as models in association with a brain depends more on the character of the Field, as it has attached to a particular perspective, than on any faculty or internal completeness of a model for reasoning that is being processed.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
CONSCIOUS DESIGN AND INNATE NEED FOR MYTH
CONSCIOUS DESIGN --
Regarding a notion of Conscious Design:
Each perspective of Conscious Will has innate capacity for continuously receiving and storing new information, enabling it continuously to organize and accumulate abstract rationalizations upon rationalizations, in ways to help it map and navigate that external world which is shared by every perspective that can operate in respect of its frame of reference.
As each perspective seeks to make its rationalizations successful, such rationalizations gradually comport with what one may call “reason.” The mental mapping gradually coordinates more closely for certain purposes with external reality. IOW, reason about non-trivialities tends to be more a product of trial and error, i.e., inductive feedback and experience, than syllogistic deduction. As induction proceeds, information in respect of a fuzzy potential for abstract modeling is represented and carried forward in the mind. However, every one of these inductive models proceeds by way of refining such myths as may best facilitate its bearer’s successful pursuits.
All perspectives idealize (i.e., store information in respect of) each model in respect of some fundamental, yet unclear, notion or myth, which, in respect of an inherent aspect of consciousness, recedes like the end of a rainbow in the fuzzy distance (*like an ever-receding ultimate particle or ultimate concept). This is akin to a never-ending natural selection of “the fittest” among rationalized myths. However, this kind of natural selection is obviously guided by the interplay of intuition and empathy among perspectives of consciousness. It is not evolution by dumb chance, nor is it intelligently-set pre-design. It is selection by a course of design that unfolds in respect of a parameter-limited interplay among perspectives of a field of consciousness.
This unfoldment of mental models by way of “conscious design” also fits easily with a notion of natural selection among material bodies. “Conscious design” (unfolding design, as opposed to dumb random design or intelligent pre-set design) avails a different perspective for defining what is meant by the natural survival and replication of “the fittest.” Conscious design is also consistent with the selective unfoldment of groups of functions, beyond merely individual functions. IOW, conscious design of mental models avails a way for considering both the evolution of individual behaviors and of group (ant like) behaviors (that is, the interplay of like-minded perspectives within a parameter-limited field).
As for Darwinian (or dumb) design, it relies on a notion of “the fittest,” but it defines the fittest only circularly. That is, whatever happens to survive and replicate, it deems fittest. With that kind of trivial conceptualization, one always “wins” (just as it is always correct to say that 2 is 2). It is amazing that the Darwinian shell game continues so easily to confuse so many who feign to be thinkers as opposed to simplistic god deniers.
*****
*For example, even the model above is necessarily incomplete, because it avails no rigorous or measurable definition for an individual perspective of consciousness, capacity of consciousness, or purpose of consciousness. Rather, it models as if consciousness and its capacity and purpose were self evident, and then employs its own myth: that each otherwise undefined perspective of consciousness is a fundamental unit, in respect of which a purpose of reality can be expostulated. That said, for me, a model (or myth?) of "conscious design" seems, by and large, to be as scientific, and to perform as well for satisfying many of my purposes, as any myth-model I have thus far seen deployed by vaunted atheists. For example, it appears the Higgs boson for the standard model is no more useful a myth than the Klingman model for conscious design, referenced below.
**A quite interesting model for conscious design is explicated by Edwin Klingman, in his "Gene Man's World." I suspect it sets forth at least as good and practical a mathematical and testable model of reality and consciousness (in the aggregate) as any other model. So long as it remains non-falsified, it may be considered whether that is by trick of self definition of consciousness (akin to a trick of "insider information" as postulated by C.S. Lewis). Still, I fail to see how one may expect to do better ... especially so long as one intuits that the underlying trick is God's trick. Note: This is not to be confused with "goddidit" or superstitious models. Rather, the Klingman model appears to be as fully serviceable for practical, as well as moral, application as any other. It is sufficiently grounded so as to deserve to be as tested for mathematical consistency, empirical reliability, and practical application as any other model.
***Each new accumulation of information is a stressor, until it is somehow synthesized with each persons’s system of rationalizations, or world view. Each new synthesis tends to follow the emotionally simplest path, so that the person’s mode of synthesis will tend to paste onto his existing world view. This is why one can often predict how a long time acquaintance will react to any challenge posed by a certain kind of new information. IOW, each new synthesis respecting moral values is not based so much in respect of logic applied anew as it is based in respect of what is needed to perpetuate the survival of the person’s world view, based on his own particular accumulation of experience. This is why, based only on logic or reason, it tends to be so difficult to change a person’s fundamental views about morality. This is why voluntary forums of churches and civic clubs for leading, exercising, and assimilating intuitions and empathies are so important to the development of a reliable citizenry for sustaining a decent civilization. This is why a strategy of divide and rule and ridiculing and ungluing traditional values is so effective for dismantling a civilization, in preparation for imposing a substitute ("change") form of big, centralized, hegemonic, and arbitrary governance. This is why dissembling atheists, whether liberals or libertarians, are so dangerous to civilized liberty. In real practice, Big Atheistic Dogma and Secular Legalism tend hardly to be more respectful of, or more conducive to, individual or ordered liberty than Sharia law. Both soon bring us to the same place: Dispiriting collectivization. To try to hog tie or banish the kind of god memes that respect each individual's and each family's relationship with God (higher values) in order to substitute memes based on myths of a lawyers paradise, a workers paradise, a sex addict's paradise, or a religiously fascistic paradise, is not just counterproductive and not just unholy --- it is to place individual and family-based freedom and dignity in grave peril. It is to serve the kind of meme that dithers with dismantling borders, exporting industry, choking energy independence, enriching enemies, and inviting agents of destruction. It is how we have, within a mere 22 years, become perilously close to becoming a vassal of regimes that have low, if any, regard for individual freedom of expression. It is American Conservatives who are now the conservers of liberty. If they fail, America falls.
*********
INFORMATION:
Interplay and feedback between the Field of Consciousness and the particular perspectives of consciousness summons or produces information. The information couples with perspectives of consciousness, either in form of indirectly measurable mind, or in form of more directly measurable body or matter. Sense of "I-ness" results as a perspective of consciousness couples with information in such a way as to experience mind coupled with matter, producing sensation of distinctness in mind and body. The distinctness is artifactual of the coupling of each perspective of consciousness with information.
TRINITY:
Thus, there is a trinity: Field, Perspective, and Information. The interplay of this trinity produces the universe we share.
I-NESS:
Each sense of I-ness can experience injury or death, either by the gross dismantling of the body that is coupled with its mind, or by such disruption of the organization of information for its mind as to throw the identiy (I-ness) into shock --- shock that may even be fatal to that particular Identity that is constituted of an in-form-ationally organized expression of conscious will. Kill the information, kill the mind; kill the mind, kill the body; kill the body, kill the mind.
HEREAFTER:
So, what happens to the accumulaton of an Identity's information, upon its death or disassemblage? Well, the particular context of organization of information would seem unlikely to recur. Yet, some aspect or potential of the information and the identity and the perspective of conscious will that accompanied it ... would seem somehow to be recycled.
IDENTITY OF INDISCERNIBLES:
After all, each perspective of consciousness, stripped of all informational organization, would seem to be the same as any other, and subject to the same sort of re-coupling to recycled information as any other.
SACRED ALLEGORIES:
In that light, who is to say whether such a model could be interpreted as being reasonably consistent, at some level, with most religious metaphors?
EVIL:
What happens when, for whatever reason -- nature or nurture -- the foundation for a person's world view begins to be built on enmity instead of empathy? Well, that appears to be how evil persists in the world ... how we get an imbalance in the field ... how the lid gets twisted off the dark side. The result is an unstable, dark, hole infested, world view.
IDENTITY SUPERIOR TO LOGIC:
Each person's synthesis or idea of self, from his particular perspective, seems less based in logic or eternal reality than in the accumulated and fleeting context of his limited point of view and frame of reference. Each perspective's entire context and experience seems comprised in appreciation of information that is produced in dancing with one's counterpart for the field of consciousness. Enjoy the dance.
WORD GAMES ABOUT GOD:
Atheists seem likely to imagine that denying God and ridiculing ideas about God helps to expunge God, as well as all myths about God. But that is never what happens. Instead, atheists simply trade one set of myths for another of their own making. Then, they call the new myth about their basis for morality or values, which is of their own making, "Reason" ... or some other label by which they imagine they expunged God. However, when their new code cannot be shown to be logically or mathematically consistent, coherent, or complete, then, to be intellectually honest, it is necessarily not entirely a product of reason, but, at least in part, a product of uncertain rationalization ... which they nevertheless, on faith, try to believe, advocate, or follow.
PRIMORDIALLY EVOLVED EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO WORLD VIEW:
Atheists defend word games for replacing every God myth, which they are conditioned to abhor, with alternative myths, which they feel, at least on challenge, compelled to defend. They seek an alternative myth at all costs -- even if it entails imagining space visitors or multiples of parallel universes --because they are human. And a human being is unable to preserve sanity or identity without taking a leap, in words or acts, to rationalize and live by some sort of code or world view. An inherent, emotional need stresses and compels each person to defend his sense of self, which has coupled to the world view and extant organization of information that constitutes his body and mind.
Regardless, no one, with regard to his system of values or moral code, can replace his need for a myth of God except with another myth. When it comes to rationalizing values, one who denounces God simply makes a replacement with a label for much the same thing, which he then chooses to reference by a different name (perhaps as "reason," or as "higher atheistic values"). Indeed, one may reorganize or reprioritize one's sense of values, but one's "justification" will always be rationalized either on myth or on simple, unprincipled, inhumane, glandular call of the moment. Regardless, one whose mind retains images and representations connected with emotions will necessarily indulge rationalizations entailing myths, however illogical.
MIND DEATH:
Were one to allow one's world view to be too suddenly knocked hard off its hinges, one may suffer nervous breakdown, mental shock, perhaps even mind death.
Regarding a notion of Conscious Design:
Each perspective of Conscious Will has innate capacity for continuously receiving and storing new information, enabling it continuously to organize and accumulate abstract rationalizations upon rationalizations, in ways to help it map and navigate that external world which is shared by every perspective that can operate in respect of its frame of reference.
As each perspective seeks to make its rationalizations successful, such rationalizations gradually comport with what one may call “reason.” The mental mapping gradually coordinates more closely for certain purposes with external reality. IOW, reason about non-trivialities tends to be more a product of trial and error, i.e., inductive feedback and experience, than syllogistic deduction. As induction proceeds, information in respect of a fuzzy potential for abstract modeling is represented and carried forward in the mind. However, every one of these inductive models proceeds by way of refining such myths as may best facilitate its bearer’s successful pursuits.
All perspectives idealize (i.e., store information in respect of) each model in respect of some fundamental, yet unclear, notion or myth, which, in respect of an inherent aspect of consciousness, recedes like the end of a rainbow in the fuzzy distance (*like an ever-receding ultimate particle or ultimate concept). This is akin to a never-ending natural selection of “the fittest” among rationalized myths. However, this kind of natural selection is obviously guided by the interplay of intuition and empathy among perspectives of consciousness. It is not evolution by dumb chance, nor is it intelligently-set pre-design. It is selection by a course of design that unfolds in respect of a parameter-limited interplay among perspectives of a field of consciousness.
This unfoldment of mental models by way of “conscious design” also fits easily with a notion of natural selection among material bodies. “Conscious design” (unfolding design, as opposed to dumb random design or intelligent pre-set design) avails a different perspective for defining what is meant by the natural survival and replication of “the fittest.” Conscious design is also consistent with the selective unfoldment of groups of functions, beyond merely individual functions. IOW, conscious design of mental models avails a way for considering both the evolution of individual behaviors and of group (ant like) behaviors (that is, the interplay of like-minded perspectives within a parameter-limited field).
As for Darwinian (or dumb) design, it relies on a notion of “the fittest,” but it defines the fittest only circularly. That is, whatever happens to survive and replicate, it deems fittest. With that kind of trivial conceptualization, one always “wins” (just as it is always correct to say that 2 is 2). It is amazing that the Darwinian shell game continues so easily to confuse so many who feign to be thinkers as opposed to simplistic god deniers.
*****
*For example, even the model above is necessarily incomplete, because it avails no rigorous or measurable definition for an individual perspective of consciousness, capacity of consciousness, or purpose of consciousness. Rather, it models as if consciousness and its capacity and purpose were self evident, and then employs its own myth: that each otherwise undefined perspective of consciousness is a fundamental unit, in respect of which a purpose of reality can be expostulated. That said, for me, a model (or myth?) of "conscious design" seems, by and large, to be as scientific, and to perform as well for satisfying many of my purposes, as any myth-model I have thus far seen deployed by vaunted atheists. For example, it appears the Higgs boson for the standard model is no more useful a myth than the Klingman model for conscious design, referenced below.
**A quite interesting model for conscious design is explicated by Edwin Klingman, in his "Gene Man's World." I suspect it sets forth at least as good and practical a mathematical and testable model of reality and consciousness (in the aggregate) as any other model. So long as it remains non-falsified, it may be considered whether that is by trick of self definition of consciousness (akin to a trick of "insider information" as postulated by C.S. Lewis). Still, I fail to see how one may expect to do better ... especially so long as one intuits that the underlying trick is God's trick. Note: This is not to be confused with "goddidit" or superstitious models. Rather, the Klingman model appears to be as fully serviceable for practical, as well as moral, application as any other. It is sufficiently grounded so as to deserve to be as tested for mathematical consistency, empirical reliability, and practical application as any other model.
***Each new accumulation of information is a stressor, until it is somehow synthesized with each persons’s system of rationalizations, or world view. Each new synthesis tends to follow the emotionally simplest path, so that the person’s mode of synthesis will tend to paste onto his existing world view. This is why one can often predict how a long time acquaintance will react to any challenge posed by a certain kind of new information. IOW, each new synthesis respecting moral values is not based so much in respect of logic applied anew as it is based in respect of what is needed to perpetuate the survival of the person’s world view, based on his own particular accumulation of experience. This is why, based only on logic or reason, it tends to be so difficult to change a person’s fundamental views about morality. This is why voluntary forums of churches and civic clubs for leading, exercising, and assimilating intuitions and empathies are so important to the development of a reliable citizenry for sustaining a decent civilization. This is why a strategy of divide and rule and ridiculing and ungluing traditional values is so effective for dismantling a civilization, in preparation for imposing a substitute ("change") form of big, centralized, hegemonic, and arbitrary governance. This is why dissembling atheists, whether liberals or libertarians, are so dangerous to civilized liberty. In real practice, Big Atheistic Dogma and Secular Legalism tend hardly to be more respectful of, or more conducive to, individual or ordered liberty than Sharia law. Both soon bring us to the same place: Dispiriting collectivization. To try to hog tie or banish the kind of god memes that respect each individual's and each family's relationship with God (higher values) in order to substitute memes based on myths of a lawyers paradise, a workers paradise, a sex addict's paradise, or a religiously fascistic paradise, is not just counterproductive and not just unholy --- it is to place individual and family-based freedom and dignity in grave peril. It is to serve the kind of meme that dithers with dismantling borders, exporting industry, choking energy independence, enriching enemies, and inviting agents of destruction. It is how we have, within a mere 22 years, become perilously close to becoming a vassal of regimes that have low, if any, regard for individual freedom of expression. It is American Conservatives who are now the conservers of liberty. If they fail, America falls.
*********
INFORMATION:
Interplay and feedback between the Field of Consciousness and the particular perspectives of consciousness summons or produces information. The information couples with perspectives of consciousness, either in form of indirectly measurable mind, or in form of more directly measurable body or matter. Sense of "I-ness" results as a perspective of consciousness couples with information in such a way as to experience mind coupled with matter, producing sensation of distinctness in mind and body. The distinctness is artifactual of the coupling of each perspective of consciousness with information.
TRINITY:
Thus, there is a trinity: Field, Perspective, and Information. The interplay of this trinity produces the universe we share.
I-NESS:
Each sense of I-ness can experience injury or death, either by the gross dismantling of the body that is coupled with its mind, or by such disruption of the organization of information for its mind as to throw the identiy (I-ness) into shock --- shock that may even be fatal to that particular Identity that is constituted of an in-form-ationally organized expression of conscious will. Kill the information, kill the mind; kill the mind, kill the body; kill the body, kill the mind.
HEREAFTER:
So, what happens to the accumulaton of an Identity's information, upon its death or disassemblage? Well, the particular context of organization of information would seem unlikely to recur. Yet, some aspect or potential of the information and the identity and the perspective of conscious will that accompanied it ... would seem somehow to be recycled.
IDENTITY OF INDISCERNIBLES:
After all, each perspective of consciousness, stripped of all informational organization, would seem to be the same as any other, and subject to the same sort of re-coupling to recycled information as any other.
SACRED ALLEGORIES:
In that light, who is to say whether such a model could be interpreted as being reasonably consistent, at some level, with most religious metaphors?
EVIL:
What happens when, for whatever reason -- nature or nurture -- the foundation for a person's world view begins to be built on enmity instead of empathy? Well, that appears to be how evil persists in the world ... how we get an imbalance in the field ... how the lid gets twisted off the dark side. The result is an unstable, dark, hole infested, world view.
IDENTITY SUPERIOR TO LOGIC:
Each person's synthesis or idea of self, from his particular perspective, seems less based in logic or eternal reality than in the accumulated and fleeting context of his limited point of view and frame of reference. Each perspective's entire context and experience seems comprised in appreciation of information that is produced in dancing with one's counterpart for the field of consciousness. Enjoy the dance.
WORD GAMES ABOUT GOD:
Atheists seem likely to imagine that denying God and ridiculing ideas about God helps to expunge God, as well as all myths about God. But that is never what happens. Instead, atheists simply trade one set of myths for another of their own making. Then, they call the new myth about their basis for morality or values, which is of their own making, "Reason" ... or some other label by which they imagine they expunged God. However, when their new code cannot be shown to be logically or mathematically consistent, coherent, or complete, then, to be intellectually honest, it is necessarily not entirely a product of reason, but, at least in part, a product of uncertain rationalization ... which they nevertheless, on faith, try to believe, advocate, or follow.
PRIMORDIALLY EVOLVED EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO WORLD VIEW:
Atheists defend word games for replacing every God myth, which they are conditioned to abhor, with alternative myths, which they feel, at least on challenge, compelled to defend. They seek an alternative myth at all costs -- even if it entails imagining space visitors or multiples of parallel universes --because they are human. And a human being is unable to preserve sanity or identity without taking a leap, in words or acts, to rationalize and live by some sort of code or world view. An inherent, emotional need stresses and compels each person to defend his sense of self, which has coupled to the world view and extant organization of information that constitutes his body and mind.
Regardless, no one, with regard to his system of values or moral code, can replace his need for a myth of God except with another myth. When it comes to rationalizing values, one who denounces God simply makes a replacement with a label for much the same thing, which he then chooses to reference by a different name (perhaps as "reason," or as "higher atheistic values"). Indeed, one may reorganize or reprioritize one's sense of values, but one's "justification" will always be rationalized either on myth or on simple, unprincipled, inhumane, glandular call of the moment. Regardless, one whose mind retains images and representations connected with emotions will necessarily indulge rationalizations entailing myths, however illogical.
MIND DEATH:
Were one to allow one's world view to be too suddenly knocked hard off its hinges, one may suffer nervous breakdown, mental shock, perhaps even mind death.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Python Axis
The grand meme of Atlas Shrugged --- of creative Republican entrepreneurs being drug down by collectivist Democrat ne’er do wells --- is often misapprehended. The era of a Republican party, led by entrepreneurs who actually produce, is gone. To be misdirected to that bygone era is to ignore what is choking us now. What we have now is a remnant of disorganized, unrepresented, creative, middle-class, small-business Americans being choked into political oblivion by an axis of easily-bribed Dino louts, being pulled around by a looting ball of Rino snakes, which has acquired preposterous power to fund shenanigans by squeezing the money trust, merely by squeezing currency reserves against sovereign notes. Rinos are the brains of the python, and Dinos are its muscle, but they’re of the same snake. Obama knows to enrich his creepy handlers much more so than his snake-food admirers.
This modern Ruling Elite, or Python Axis, is not entrepreneurial in the sense of earning wealth by actually inventing or building much of anything. Instead, it insinuates itself through complex and indecipherable financial instruments and reorganizations, to choke all middle men and all creative, small-business entrepreneurs. It squeezes out wealth by insinuating deceits, with choke agents planted to control institutions of banking, media, academia, entertainment, Congress, regulatory agencies, off-shore secret organizations, and (likely) organized crime and piracy.
In investing in, and buying, governments, the Python Axis soon learns to insinuate its messages in the deceitful language of governance. In service of the Python, the Axis writes regulatory concepts that are so meaninglessly open ended as to constitute delegations of the rule of law to the rule of regulatory agents and judges. The forked tongue of the Axis hisses in the language of law, but directs in the language of fascism.
Ask: What infused Obama, an inexperienced tool of radicals, with confidence that he could front the Python Axis? His experience as a community organizer, rubbing elbows with useful idiots who really believe in a worker's paradise, could not have infused him with that confidence. People like Soros had to have had their hooks into Obama long before he began making poppycock promises to proles. The Axis must have recruited and soothed Obama, thusly: Accept our agenda, don't worry about what you need to say, and we'll write the script for you on Totus.
So how does one free oneself from a python, much less a snake ball? If one attacks a python’s head directly, by oneself, to try to wind it off one's body from the head down, one has no chance. What are required are industrious, virtuous friends to unwind the python from the tail up. Doing that necessitates a focused, organized assimilation of individualist values, to institute power to severely punish every attempt to manipulate currencies for buying laws and governments, as if they were mere commodities.
In the face of the monstrous meme of modernity, by what faith can any industrious, free-minded, middle class unite, take action, and preserve morale? How can the common-sense middle class refute insinuations that the Python Axis of Dinos and Rinos (Chinese model?) is “for our own best interests?” How can we refute that elites know best, mean well, and will deploy their oligarchical control in order to institutionalize organizations for the “fair and equal” interests of the collective N.W.O? How can we refute that the individual is impotent against superior duplicity of the python-ruled collective? Well, for that, Atlas Shrugs still presents considerable prescience.
Imagine a N.W.O. that comes to be run by competing gangs of louts and looters, which promote their rulers based on who is most elite in the craft of deceit. (After all, the louts they rule can’t handle the truth anyway.) So ask: Will that system of elitist rule of collectives lead us to peace in the valley? Has it ever? Presently, we have (1) a reclining American model (that is being rapidly dissolved into a twin for the Chinese model), (2) a rising Chinese model, and (3) raging Islamic fascism. Of these three, the only one that can hope to remain strong enough to tolerate keeping its neighbors at arms length is the American model. The other two do not mean to tolerate long term equilibrium: There is no hand wringing and no questioning; they mean to rule.
If the American model, like the twin towers, continues to collapse, each of the remaining models will attempt to purge the other in an intolerably violent cataclysm. (Consider the nukes of Europe, once Islam overpowers Europe from within.) Elitist rule does not lead to peace in the valley until it first extracts total surrender of mind from the collective. Even then, elitist rule will bring only the peace of mind death. The shadow of worldwide corruption and darkness looms -- unless decent Americans wake up. Against this challenge, Obama is no champion; he is but a tool for forces of despair, with no timely capacity to learn to be otherwise. In the name of decency, the sooner Obama, Soros, and their looting posse are relegated to a proper level of competence and contrition, the better.
This modern Ruling Elite, or Python Axis, is not entrepreneurial in the sense of earning wealth by actually inventing or building much of anything. Instead, it insinuates itself through complex and indecipherable financial instruments and reorganizations, to choke all middle men and all creative, small-business entrepreneurs. It squeezes out wealth by insinuating deceits, with choke agents planted to control institutions of banking, media, academia, entertainment, Congress, regulatory agencies, off-shore secret organizations, and (likely) organized crime and piracy.
In investing in, and buying, governments, the Python Axis soon learns to insinuate its messages in the deceitful language of governance. In service of the Python, the Axis writes regulatory concepts that are so meaninglessly open ended as to constitute delegations of the rule of law to the rule of regulatory agents and judges. The forked tongue of the Axis hisses in the language of law, but directs in the language of fascism.
Ask: What infused Obama, an inexperienced tool of radicals, with confidence that he could front the Python Axis? His experience as a community organizer, rubbing elbows with useful idiots who really believe in a worker's paradise, could not have infused him with that confidence. People like Soros had to have had their hooks into Obama long before he began making poppycock promises to proles. The Axis must have recruited and soothed Obama, thusly: Accept our agenda, don't worry about what you need to say, and we'll write the script for you on Totus.
So how does one free oneself from a python, much less a snake ball? If one attacks a python’s head directly, by oneself, to try to wind it off one's body from the head down, one has no chance. What are required are industrious, virtuous friends to unwind the python from the tail up. Doing that necessitates a focused, organized assimilation of individualist values, to institute power to severely punish every attempt to manipulate currencies for buying laws and governments, as if they were mere commodities.
In the face of the monstrous meme of modernity, by what faith can any industrious, free-minded, middle class unite, take action, and preserve morale? How can the common-sense middle class refute insinuations that the Python Axis of Dinos and Rinos (Chinese model?) is “for our own best interests?” How can we refute that elites know best, mean well, and will deploy their oligarchical control in order to institutionalize organizations for the “fair and equal” interests of the collective N.W.O? How can we refute that the individual is impotent against superior duplicity of the python-ruled collective? Well, for that, Atlas Shrugs still presents considerable prescience.
Imagine a N.W.O. that comes to be run by competing gangs of louts and looters, which promote their rulers based on who is most elite in the craft of deceit. (After all, the louts they rule can’t handle the truth anyway.) So ask: Will that system of elitist rule of collectives lead us to peace in the valley? Has it ever? Presently, we have (1) a reclining American model (that is being rapidly dissolved into a twin for the Chinese model), (2) a rising Chinese model, and (3) raging Islamic fascism. Of these three, the only one that can hope to remain strong enough to tolerate keeping its neighbors at arms length is the American model. The other two do not mean to tolerate long term equilibrium: There is no hand wringing and no questioning; they mean to rule.
If the American model, like the twin towers, continues to collapse, each of the remaining models will attempt to purge the other in an intolerably violent cataclysm. (Consider the nukes of Europe, once Islam overpowers Europe from within.) Elitist rule does not lead to peace in the valley until it first extracts total surrender of mind from the collective. Even then, elitist rule will bring only the peace of mind death. The shadow of worldwide corruption and darkness looms -- unless decent Americans wake up. Against this challenge, Obama is no champion; he is but a tool for forces of despair, with no timely capacity to learn to be otherwise. In the name of decency, the sooner Obama, Soros, and their looting posse are relegated to a proper level of competence and contrition, the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
