Cerebral Vandals, Collectivists, and Progressives:
Radical collectivists (aka “Progressives”) think they know best, the masses are stupid, and the middle class is misguided or evil. They want detailed, central power – not only over what is produced, but how it is produced and how it is distributed. Imagining themselves as cerebral Vandals, they feel entitled to extract booty for their efforts in seizing control over all choke points of government. Of course, this is for our own “greater good.” (Sarc.) Of course, this also soon translates into asserting collective ownership over materials and land, insofar as details about: how such properties are used and distributed, and who are to be empowered to profit therefrom.
Soon, radical collectivists come to recognize and promote only their own and to usurp or outlaw concepts of private property, individual responsibility, and rewards based on individual merit in initiative or innovation. Eventually, radical collectivists reduce ordinary people to pets, citizens to subjects, electorates to shadows and dead men voting, and decency to lab rat experiments. This is what comes of decent society surrendering the spiritual glue that holds its center in exchange for the “scientific” religion of faith-based radical collectivism.
Insofar as higher, empathetic Consciousness seeks unfolding, civilizing communications and insights among companions, the goals of those who would ignore the citizenry – in order to substitute forced collectivism for freedom of mind – serve an evil “obamanation,” i.e., a foil to decency, America, and God.
Radical collectivists, having forsaken God and individual responsibility in order to substitute the “scientific” right of elites to rule the collective, have no quarrel with whatever the means needed to force the collective. Any individual who dares to challenge the will of those in the despotic hierarchy for ruling the collective will be ridiculed, reviled, branded as a racist or heretic or religious nutcase, expelled to political purgatory, or shot.
Every radical collectivist is high on collectivist religion. For him, beingness is nothing but a con-test of scientific, collectivist survivalism, i.e., hive mind. His emotional content is totally committed to his cause. His mind is locked behind “Borg conditioning,” which makes him all but impervious to reason or empathy beyond the collectivist cause. The persona that has come to possess him cannot imagine anything beyond the Borg, much less any higher standard or Source of conscious empathy. That persona is utterly convinced it is “rightfully” entitled to require that its demands be served. Since that persona is “right,” everyone below it in the collectivist hierarchy is a cool zero.
This is the nature of the mind set of evil, whose encroachments free thinkers tolerate at utmost peril. This is the character of the perennial war of good versus evil. To willingly and entirely surrender one’s moral responsibility to the struggle of the collective is not mere moral hazard. It is soul suicide. I suspect, for soldiers of the Marx-Allah-Borg agglomeration, there are no 72 virgins hereafter. There is mind-sacrificed, soul-dead, drugged-out oblivion.
****
I am gratified that more and more folks at AT seem to be catching on -- that people who make big money off government have a stranglehold on the middle class. F. Hayek had been saying similar things since the late 30's. Lifson posted "Weekend Reading" at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/weekend_reading.html, praising an article that pretty well lays it out. Maybe middle class leaders are beginning to coalesce.
But understanding the problem is different from advancing ways to solve it. There seems to be a tendency to think, now that we understand the problem, that it will recede. But I don't detect that Obamanauts much care that some of us know what he is about. Even when we return the House to Republican control, we will continue on the same road to serfdom, just at a slightly slower pace.
While I believe we will turn this around, I don't yet see the mechanism. I'm enjoying that AT at least has a clear view of the problem, regardless of anything I may comment. So, now what is the road to resolution? I'm just not seeing any likely resolution or substantial change in direction, absent a substantial change, revival, new assimilation, or re-awakening in how we come to approach old spiritual values. There's a big hole in our present attempts.
The social conservatives at AT who are religious literalists tend to have good values, but dictating those values in law will not work and is not really conservatism, IMO. In a way, using government to dictate values is the same collectivist problem, regardless of whether the dictate is to reestablish Blue Laws or to establish detailed carbon monitoring. Someone like Hayek or Niebuhr needs to awaken a following that will appreciate the worthwhile, figurative truths that are at the heart of Jesus' message. IMO, those truths were not about inciting the collective to force redistributions of material wealth. On a spiritual basis, for inspiring truths about why and how to preserve individual freedom and dignity, I see stuff at the perimeter, but nothing that is gaining purchase.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Perennial Struggle Between Two Main and Irreconcilable Worldviews
Perennial Struggle Between Irreconcilable Worldviews:
Civilizations repeatedly war to establish hegemony between variations on the same two competing visions, one I intuit to be valid, the other invalid:
. The valid vision is based on respect for core family values and higher decency. It pertains to representative republicanism and features many ideals of Jesus, i.e., voluntary communication about, and service to, a higher, caring Source. The “weakness” of such vision is that adherents often project too much trust in good faith of others. Adherents often misapprehend the power of an alternative vision, however false or evil such alternative may be.
. The alternative, invalid foil for such vision throws decency to the wind in pursuit of imagined “science of morality” or decree of objective uniformity. It features the sort of arbitrary and totalitarian rule as idealized by Mohammed. It forces collectivization, and it requires the collective to serve the whims of indifferent, deceiving, often sociopathic elites. Adherents desperately search for unifying platforms or causes, while expelling any notion of the God who speaks to each person, replacing such notion with elitist whims, masqueraded as science or prophecy.
Conceptualize: God is that Identity of reconciliation which one can intuit or receive, without force, of which each mortal is only a perspective. One has no power to force another to intuit that of which such other is unable, unready, and unwilling to receive. One can guide another’s intuition, for such other to find the key to unlock his or her own understanding. The only valid God is consistent to the core of each mortal’s subjective being, i.e., the God who is accepted, willingly, without force that tries to substitute for one’s own authentic will.
Dangerous kinds of manmade laws disrespect the dignity of each family and instead seek to force, rather than to lead, each person to conform to unnecessary and detailed intrusions under the apparatus of the State, as run by officious elites. The perennial struggle by agents of human liberty and decency is against agents of officious sociopathy, masquerading as moral scientists, defenders of the planet, or prophets.
****
If your special interest is to dissolve American liberty in order to replace it with international collectivism to be run by reliably corrupt elites, then Obama is your guy ... and you are his.
Civilizations repeatedly war to establish hegemony between variations on the same two competing visions, one I intuit to be valid, the other invalid:
. The valid vision is based on respect for core family values and higher decency. It pertains to representative republicanism and features many ideals of Jesus, i.e., voluntary communication about, and service to, a higher, caring Source. The “weakness” of such vision is that adherents often project too much trust in good faith of others. Adherents often misapprehend the power of an alternative vision, however false or evil such alternative may be.
. The alternative, invalid foil for such vision throws decency to the wind in pursuit of imagined “science of morality” or decree of objective uniformity. It features the sort of arbitrary and totalitarian rule as idealized by Mohammed. It forces collectivization, and it requires the collective to serve the whims of indifferent, deceiving, often sociopathic elites. Adherents desperately search for unifying platforms or causes, while expelling any notion of the God who speaks to each person, replacing such notion with elitist whims, masqueraded as science or prophecy.
Conceptualize: God is that Identity of reconciliation which one can intuit or receive, without force, of which each mortal is only a perspective. One has no power to force another to intuit that of which such other is unable, unready, and unwilling to receive. One can guide another’s intuition, for such other to find the key to unlock his or her own understanding. The only valid God is consistent to the core of each mortal’s subjective being, i.e., the God who is accepted, willingly, without force that tries to substitute for one’s own authentic will.
Dangerous kinds of manmade laws disrespect the dignity of each family and instead seek to force, rather than to lead, each person to conform to unnecessary and detailed intrusions under the apparatus of the State, as run by officious elites. The perennial struggle by agents of human liberty and decency is against agents of officious sociopathy, masquerading as moral scientists, defenders of the planet, or prophets.
****
If your special interest is to dissolve American liberty in order to replace it with international collectivism to be run by reliably corrupt elites, then Obama is your guy ... and you are his.
OLIGOPOLIST COMPETITION VS. MARKET SOCIALISM
OLIGOPOLIST COMPETITION VS. MARKET SOCIALISM:
Even when there are not competitors within an industry, its production will still have to compete among buyers with limited budgets who have need of other kinds of production. Hence, even oligopolists will have to respect the marketplace in respect of what their buyers, mainly middle class, can budget. Even oligiopolists can likely adjust prices more rationally than could central socialist planners. But should social planners ever avail periodic boosts to help credit a wider class of buyers with means to expand the market of potential buyers for various kinds of durable goods?
Even when there are not competitors within an industry, its production will still have to compete among buyers with limited budgets who have need of other kinds of production. Hence, even oligopolists will have to respect the marketplace in respect of what their buyers, mainly middle class, can budget. Even oligiopolists can likely adjust prices more rationally than could central socialist planners. But should social planners ever avail periodic boosts to help credit a wider class of buyers with means to expand the market of potential buyers for various kinds of durable goods?
Of Marri-moni
Of Marri-moni:
Must American law accede that every private relation that parties thereto wish subjectively to call a “marriage” must objectively be so accepted by the general government? Must Yankee law really accede that every feather that enters into a relationship with a cap is macaroni? Or marri-moni? What sort of smithy with words would believe “equal protection under the law” should entitle everyone and every relation to be made equal, as in health care, as in being made equal in brains, brawn, and beauty?
Whatever the random or karmic events that may bring one to one’s happenstance of birth or disposition in life, should one be entitled to be freed from such karma or happenstance, by calling upon society to intervene with constitutional rights, genetic treatments, and robotic enhancements, in order to make one “equal” in one’s relations with all others … indeed, in order to ensure that no other is ever allowed to become “more equal?” Should equal protection in relations mean that everyone is entitled to woo and seduce whomever of whatever sex (or number) one can, and thereafter to require that government must recognize “the conquest” on whatever terms the dominant member demands?
Can this be a serious, sustainable proposition or path for the real world? Should everyone, as their dispositions please them, be entitled to claim to be married when it is advantageous and single when it is not? Alternatively, perhaps even on the same tax page? Why not? If an advocate can be found to argue one side, an advocate can surely be found to argue the other. Just think of the killing an advocate with a forked tongue could make, arguing both sides at once!
Must American law accede that every private relation that parties thereto wish subjectively to call a “marriage” must objectively be so accepted by the general government? Must Yankee law really accede that every feather that enters into a relationship with a cap is macaroni? Or marri-moni? What sort of smithy with words would believe “equal protection under the law” should entitle everyone and every relation to be made equal, as in health care, as in being made equal in brains, brawn, and beauty?
Whatever the random or karmic events that may bring one to one’s happenstance of birth or disposition in life, should one be entitled to be freed from such karma or happenstance, by calling upon society to intervene with constitutional rights, genetic treatments, and robotic enhancements, in order to make one “equal” in one’s relations with all others … indeed, in order to ensure that no other is ever allowed to become “more equal?” Should equal protection in relations mean that everyone is entitled to woo and seduce whomever of whatever sex (or number) one can, and thereafter to require that government must recognize “the conquest” on whatever terms the dominant member demands?
Can this be a serious, sustainable proposition or path for the real world? Should everyone, as their dispositions please them, be entitled to claim to be married when it is advantageous and single when it is not? Alternatively, perhaps even on the same tax page? Why not? If an advocate can be found to argue one side, an advocate can surely be found to argue the other. Just think of the killing an advocate with a forked tongue could make, arguing both sides at once!
Country Class
The “Country Class” is beginning to see clearly the termites that are rotting America from within. However, these termites are funded with obscene amounts of money, and they have their proboscises deep into every significant institution of control. It will take strong medicine to evict them. Without strong medicine, elitist termites will utterly and mercilessly destroy human freedom and dignity. We see the problem, and we are beginning to see the medicine and the regimen that are required to solve it. Whether we will take needed action in time is the issue.
Neo-Transcendentalism
Neo-Transcendentalism:
A “rock” is not a rock, as such. Nor, ultimately, is a rock matter or energy, which are concepts (albeit, concepts shared at some level of appreciation by every perspective of consciousness that shares in and relates to our universe). Rather, a rock is a locus of stored information for affecting unfolding mathematical relationships, which represent mathematical potential within the holistic web, upon which we draw for such purposes as are permitted by our shared mathematical constants and limits. Nor is the “locus” of the rock in space-time, as such. Rather, it also is stored information, i.e., information stored to the imaginative appreciation of a meta-Source of holistic potential and ever-present consciousness. IOW, a rock (and the quarks it is made of and the space-time it occupies) is a symbolic placeholder for information that is stored for the common appreciation and use of every perspective of consciousness that encounters or considers it and that may, in potential, encounter or consider it. IOW, every rock is naught but the sensible byproduct or “logos” of the interaction of consciousness, imagination, will, and purposefulness among all particular, holistic, and potential perspectives of consciousness. IOW, without at least the contemporaneous or prior potential for consciousness, there could not be any rock, in any meaningful sense.
******
Of intuition, empathy, morality, and purposefulness:
Is empathy necessarily at least contemporaneous with creation of “physics,” perhaps even pre-cedent? What so-called inanimate or animate “matter” or point of view can function, receive and store information, or effect “choices,” without somehow being “empathetic of,” or receptive to, its more holistic or encompassing surroundings or frame of reference? What non-triviality can sensibly be said to abide, apart from a conceptual frame? “The Dude” abides, man!
Our memories of sequences find rational assortment in respect of models. In physics, a standard model conceptualizes that there are four fundamental forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational. However, we can hardly conceptualize how such forces, and the holistic web of space-time-matter-energy within which they arose, arise, and persist, may have unfolded derivative of a meta Source (or even a meta Nothingness?). That is, fundamental forces seem to be shadowed with a meta aspect. Does the meta aspect synchronize the mathematics of the holistic web in some instantaneously sequential way, to impart some kind of ultimate or objective reality to each universal sequence? Are “forces” nothing but mathematically synchronized musings of a meta-holism?
Does a meta-holism, which we conceptualize as expressing agents of “force” or “causation,” operate in two aspects, one being holistically and instantaneously respectful of (self-imposed?) universal, mathematically limiting laws, the other being perceptible and measurable to each perspective of the sum of mortals, thus being intuitable only in respect of such mathematical parameters as can be made sensible to the unfolding, sequential experience of mortal perspectives?
In other words, is space-time, on some level, an illusion, so that all that seems to happen subject to “forces” or “causes” is, on that level, merely secondary to the imagination and potential of a meta Source, which, in such potential, never really changes, but simply, always and forever, abides in an unchanging, uncaused, unforced, “meta-universal present?”
In other words, does that which we conceptualize as “gravity” operate in two aspects, one being instantaneously respectful of universal, mathematically limiting laws, the other being perceptible and measurable to mortals, subject to such measurements being limited to the speed of light?
Should the purpose for which one is considering “gravity” affect whether one conceptualizes its effect as proceeding instantaneously versus proceeding at the limiting speed of light? Do we thus tend to fall into error as we slide or conflate our purposes and concepts, from the particular to the holistic, from the local frame of reference to the universal cosmos? Can a particular mortal relate to the holistic cosmos measurably, or only intuitively and empathetically? To the extent one can contemplate the infinite potential of the cosmos, is one thereby made puny or great? Does that issue not turn on the attitude or karma of one’s state of consciousness?
Perhaps there is no material hell, but only a cessation of a perspective of consciousness. Perhaps, the nirvana of true atheists is not hell, but meta R.I.P. Perhaps, those perspectives which feel a balance of value and meaning in abiding, continue the journey of consciousness, cycling through various perspectives and potentials. Perhaps, perspectives of consciousness are in constant and continuous relationships, whereby potentials are sorted out, some as being dead ends, some as being interested in continued unfolding. Given the infinite potential of math, what’s a few trillion trillion years or universes, to the unfolding of sequential iterations on the same shared theme of consciousness? In all of this, what does God want? What does self expression want? In what manner of civilization does empathy find its most cherished dignity, freedom, and expression?
A “rock” is not a rock, as such. Nor, ultimately, is a rock matter or energy, which are concepts (albeit, concepts shared at some level of appreciation by every perspective of consciousness that shares in and relates to our universe). Rather, a rock is a locus of stored information for affecting unfolding mathematical relationships, which represent mathematical potential within the holistic web, upon which we draw for such purposes as are permitted by our shared mathematical constants and limits. Nor is the “locus” of the rock in space-time, as such. Rather, it also is stored information, i.e., information stored to the imaginative appreciation of a meta-Source of holistic potential and ever-present consciousness. IOW, a rock (and the quarks it is made of and the space-time it occupies) is a symbolic placeholder for information that is stored for the common appreciation and use of every perspective of consciousness that encounters or considers it and that may, in potential, encounter or consider it. IOW, every rock is naught but the sensible byproduct or “logos” of the interaction of consciousness, imagination, will, and purposefulness among all particular, holistic, and potential perspectives of consciousness. IOW, without at least the contemporaneous or prior potential for consciousness, there could not be any rock, in any meaningful sense.
******
Of intuition, empathy, morality, and purposefulness:
Is empathy necessarily at least contemporaneous with creation of “physics,” perhaps even pre-cedent? What so-called inanimate or animate “matter” or point of view can function, receive and store information, or effect “choices,” without somehow being “empathetic of,” or receptive to, its more holistic or encompassing surroundings or frame of reference? What non-triviality can sensibly be said to abide, apart from a conceptual frame? “The Dude” abides, man!
Our memories of sequences find rational assortment in respect of models. In physics, a standard model conceptualizes that there are four fundamental forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational. However, we can hardly conceptualize how such forces, and the holistic web of space-time-matter-energy within which they arose, arise, and persist, may have unfolded derivative of a meta Source (or even a meta Nothingness?). That is, fundamental forces seem to be shadowed with a meta aspect. Does the meta aspect synchronize the mathematics of the holistic web in some instantaneously sequential way, to impart some kind of ultimate or objective reality to each universal sequence? Are “forces” nothing but mathematically synchronized musings of a meta-holism?
Does a meta-holism, which we conceptualize as expressing agents of “force” or “causation,” operate in two aspects, one being holistically and instantaneously respectful of (self-imposed?) universal, mathematically limiting laws, the other being perceptible and measurable to each perspective of the sum of mortals, thus being intuitable only in respect of such mathematical parameters as can be made sensible to the unfolding, sequential experience of mortal perspectives?
In other words, is space-time, on some level, an illusion, so that all that seems to happen subject to “forces” or “causes” is, on that level, merely secondary to the imagination and potential of a meta Source, which, in such potential, never really changes, but simply, always and forever, abides in an unchanging, uncaused, unforced, “meta-universal present?”
In other words, does that which we conceptualize as “gravity” operate in two aspects, one being instantaneously respectful of universal, mathematically limiting laws, the other being perceptible and measurable to mortals, subject to such measurements being limited to the speed of light?
Should the purpose for which one is considering “gravity” affect whether one conceptualizes its effect as proceeding instantaneously versus proceeding at the limiting speed of light? Do we thus tend to fall into error as we slide or conflate our purposes and concepts, from the particular to the holistic, from the local frame of reference to the universal cosmos? Can a particular mortal relate to the holistic cosmos measurably, or only intuitively and empathetically? To the extent one can contemplate the infinite potential of the cosmos, is one thereby made puny or great? Does that issue not turn on the attitude or karma of one’s state of consciousness?
Perhaps there is no material hell, but only a cessation of a perspective of consciousness. Perhaps, the nirvana of true atheists is not hell, but meta R.I.P. Perhaps, those perspectives which feel a balance of value and meaning in abiding, continue the journey of consciousness, cycling through various perspectives and potentials. Perhaps, perspectives of consciousness are in constant and continuous relationships, whereby potentials are sorted out, some as being dead ends, some as being interested in continued unfolding. Given the infinite potential of math, what’s a few trillion trillion years or universes, to the unfolding of sequential iterations on the same shared theme of consciousness? In all of this, what does God want? What does self expression want? In what manner of civilization does empathy find its most cherished dignity, freedom, and expression?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Same Old Elitist Abuse
Throughout history, the same kind of dupes have been abused by the same kind of elitists. Nowadays, we have international corporatists like Soros who gain by tipping every other person and nation into impoverished, new world order. In years past, we had nationalist types who, with state-based support, sought to impose colonial systems of mercantilism on less developed countries. But international corporatists and national mercantilists tend to be the same kind of people: Both are set on getting ahead by climbing on shoulders of dupes. In each age, elitists feign to be rescuing dupes from depredations of similar elites of the past. But the game is always the same: reduce the middle class, incite divisions among lower classes or less industrialized nations, and therewith acquire means to rule, not to serve.
Until recently, the middle class in America was not static; it had always been open to the energetic and the imaginative. Until made impotent by welfare, the poor did not tend to remain poor. Sadly, once the middle class is leveled, so that the only ones with influence of wealth or connections will be elites, the rite of initiation into elitism will come to depend upon feeling entitled and justified in reducing all others to a collectivist herd, to be administered.
Bottom line: Soros and his cohort bribe and dupe support from the lower class in order to reduce the middle class by blaming the middle class for depredations that have always been the province of cynical elitists such as Soros. How does he get away with this kind of blatant, cynical abuse? By being shameless and by bribing us with our own sweat. So long as he and his cohort rule, why should they care whether the system is called communism, fascism, corporatism, socialism, progressivism, or environmentalism? Answer: They don’t. The threat imposed by the evil, cynical, abusive kind of personality that Soros and Obama embody is more deadly than the evil the founders faced. Americans must unite or liberty will die.
Until recently, the middle class in America was not static; it had always been open to the energetic and the imaginative. Until made impotent by welfare, the poor did not tend to remain poor. Sadly, once the middle class is leveled, so that the only ones with influence of wealth or connections will be elites, the rite of initiation into elitism will come to depend upon feeling entitled and justified in reducing all others to a collectivist herd, to be administered.
Bottom line: Soros and his cohort bribe and dupe support from the lower class in order to reduce the middle class by blaming the middle class for depredations that have always been the province of cynical elitists such as Soros. How does he get away with this kind of blatant, cynical abuse? By being shameless and by bribing us with our own sweat. So long as he and his cohort rule, why should they care whether the system is called communism, fascism, corporatism, socialism, progressivism, or environmentalism? Answer: They don’t. The threat imposed by the evil, cynical, abusive kind of personality that Soros and Obama embody is more deadly than the evil the founders faced. Americans must unite or liberty will die.
Federal Preemption
On Preemption: If the Feds in fact were taking effective action meant to reduce the problem and danger of illegal border jumping, their preemption argument would be more compelling. But the feds, under this regime, are not. Moreover, it is obvious that the policy of this regime is that they deliberately are not. They cannot very well complain that Arizona's efforts are hindering theirs, when they are, if anything, standing in the way of, or at least doing all they can do to slow, border enforcement.
Given this state of affairs, and given that having a country and a constitution become of vanishing meaningfulness to the extent the federal executive is unwilling to defend them, and given that the federal apparatus is in fact doing much that, if anything, is calculated to attract illegal border jumping (as by conferring medical care, anchor citizenship, lenient bail procedures, and extremely lax enforcement methods), what then becomes of any validity to the preemption argument?
Consider the result were a president to show himself to be a tyrant, aided and abetted by a corrupt syndicate of media, who was bent on deceiving the country and in fact leveling it to become more in common with an impoverished new world order of serfs: Then, must the judiciary sit on its hands and leave the fate of the country to Congress and its choice about whether to impeach? Well, what then if Congress itself has become comprised of Progressives (aka, "Communists without principles")? Must the judiciary still accede to executive preemption? Well, in what part of the Constitution, and in what legislation, have the executive and its functionaries been given preemptive and sole power to decide whether or not the very country, its borders, and its Constitution shall be defended?
Can the judiciary fashion a principled doctrine that will limit the doctrine of preemption when it is wielded by what appears more and more obviously every day to be an unprincipled regime that trumps every principle of decency under the goal of leveling the middle class and spreading its wealth so that the rule of a few "more equal" elites shall go unimpeded?
May it be relevant, in the regime's suit against Arizona, to consider evidence of the disloyalty and sedition of the regime? IOW, that the federal executive has no intention to defend the border?
Given this state of affairs, and given that having a country and a constitution become of vanishing meaningfulness to the extent the federal executive is unwilling to defend them, and given that the federal apparatus is in fact doing much that, if anything, is calculated to attract illegal border jumping (as by conferring medical care, anchor citizenship, lenient bail procedures, and extremely lax enforcement methods), what then becomes of any validity to the preemption argument?
Consider the result were a president to show himself to be a tyrant, aided and abetted by a corrupt syndicate of media, who was bent on deceiving the country and in fact leveling it to become more in common with an impoverished new world order of serfs: Then, must the judiciary sit on its hands and leave the fate of the country to Congress and its choice about whether to impeach? Well, what then if Congress itself has become comprised of Progressives (aka, "Communists without principles")? Must the judiciary still accede to executive preemption? Well, in what part of the Constitution, and in what legislation, have the executive and its functionaries been given preemptive and sole power to decide whether or not the very country, its borders, and its Constitution shall be defended?
Can the judiciary fashion a principled doctrine that will limit the doctrine of preemption when it is wielded by what appears more and more obviously every day to be an unprincipled regime that trumps every principle of decency under the goal of leveling the middle class and spreading its wealth so that the rule of a few "more equal" elites shall go unimpeded?
May it be relevant, in the regime's suit against Arizona, to consider evidence of the disloyalty and sedition of the regime? IOW, that the federal executive has no intention to defend the border?
Tri-Valent Logic
How may the universe of the subjective relate to the universe of the objective? How may purpose, point of view, and context or frame of reference combine and react in order to allow us to communicate meaningfully about that which is assumed to be (1) indifferently random, (2) appreciably chosen, or (3) physically determined? Is any sequence “really” random, chosen, or physically determined – or do such concepts only convey meaning depending upon purpose, perspective, and context?
Does any valid conception of reality entail more than bivalent truth and non-truth? Ultimately, does matter reduce to Logos? Are there partitions and individuations of truth that depend upon purpose, perspective, and context? Is there a kind of “truth” or “non-truth” which abides only to the extent one approaches, or recedes from, that “Other,” which one pursues as fulfilling to oneself? What is the “truth” about running from the evil, ugly, or noisy in order to pursue and communicate about the good, beautiful, or musical?
Must a perspective, to be “scientific,” confine one with a subjective mind to bivalent truth values about a reality one must assume to be entirely reducible to “physics,” but which one may not prove to be so? Well, the “how” of technological advancement sometimes seems to dictate so. But the “why” of choices about how best to sustain a morally meaningful civilization does not. Therein lays a rub between those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the bivalent measurability of science versus those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the feedback-fluxing and ambivalent history of civilization.
****
Insofar as bivalent or objective logic does not apply well to moral choices, how may mortals be inspired by arguments to make choices?
An appropriate quote can help tip opinions, as where the authority is on point, well regarded, and not shown to have been mistaken. I doubt people formulate opinions on non-trivial matters such as politics based purely on clear and correct reasoning, free of logical fallacies. Rather, people necessarily tip many moral and political opinions based on arguments that simply cannot be entirely reduced to clear and correct reasoning. One such “fallacy” is the appeal by quoting authority. One may wish to encourage exchanges of thought that go beyond the well ploughed field. But another important function is to help assimilate and invigorate a political movement for helping the country to reassert adult supervision.
****
It would seem nice if we could avoid all logical fallacies and simply repeat correct conservative answers to every issue in different formulations and if we could all adduce and agree upon every correct answer under clear and correct reasoning. Except for rather trivial concerns, I have not seen much of that. Meantime, real people frequently find enough truth value to become sufficiently convinced to make choices under arguments that are filled with logical fallacies. One such fallacy is the argument made by reference to quotes and aphorisms taken from great persons. The thing is, such arguments are often enough to convince or tip an opinion.
....
A MISCELLANY OF MUSINGS: Regarding Kinds and Aspects of Logic, consider: (1) bivalence, (2) trivalence; (1) true, (2) untrue; (1) known and not convertible to unknown, (2) known but convertible to unknown, (3) unknown but knowable, (4) Unknown and unknowable; (1) Subjectively appreciated but uncertainly so; (1) Rock, Scissors, Paper; (1) consciously created; (1) kinds, (2) degrees; (1) subjective, (2) objective, (3) ambiguous, (4) dependent, (5) contextual, (1) random, (2) chosen, (3) determined, (4) overlapping; (1) parts, (2) sum of parts, (3) whole; (1) phase shifting, (2) metamorphic, (3) transcendent, (4) meta logical; etc.
Consider a perspective of sensation based on an effect of pushing a kind along a scale. Consider transitioning from degree to kind. Imagine or model a form like a hot air balloon, skeletoned with 3 lines: (1) That which presently senses; (2) that which is presently sensed; (3) and that which remembers or stores information about sequences of senses and sensations. Imagine its covering canvas consists of a meta potential, for all those possibilities which could become manifest to experiential sensateness in its space-time, but which have not yet become certain or manifest. Imagine its covering canvas also consists of those senses and sensations which do presently manifest and store information about all previous sequences of manifestations.
Imagine a trivalent triangle, consisting of 3 points connected by 3 lines. Each point represents a kind. Each line represents the degree by which each point differs from each other. Each point can be represented by its own formula. Three formulas represent the sum of the points. Each formula can change or flux only in synchronicity with flux of the other two. What Trinitarian or trivalent logic may explicate the Synchronizer? What Trinitarian may be intuited or implicated in the experience of any of the three particular formulas?
Does trivalent logic implicate a Meta Synchronizer of holistic or meta-formalizing; does it implicate that no particular formula knowable to mortals can cause or control the meta formula? Does it implicate that a formula for a part cannot acquire control over a formula for a whole, without simultaneously usurping the whole and reducing it to a part?
Is the logically complete, consistent, and coherent analysis of whether any non-trivial communication is random, chosen, or determined a matter of flux and fuzz, which depends on unfolding feedback, context, perspective, and purpose?
****
See Tri-valent logic: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Three-value+Logic; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic; http://lexnet.bravepages.com/firstorder.htm.
Does any valid conception of reality entail more than bivalent truth and non-truth? Ultimately, does matter reduce to Logos? Are there partitions and individuations of truth that depend upon purpose, perspective, and context? Is there a kind of “truth” or “non-truth” which abides only to the extent one approaches, or recedes from, that “Other,” which one pursues as fulfilling to oneself? What is the “truth” about running from the evil, ugly, or noisy in order to pursue and communicate about the good, beautiful, or musical?
Must a perspective, to be “scientific,” confine one with a subjective mind to bivalent truth values about a reality one must assume to be entirely reducible to “physics,” but which one may not prove to be so? Well, the “how” of technological advancement sometimes seems to dictate so. But the “why” of choices about how best to sustain a morally meaningful civilization does not. Therein lays a rub between those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the bivalent measurability of science versus those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the feedback-fluxing and ambivalent history of civilization.
****
Insofar as bivalent or objective logic does not apply well to moral choices, how may mortals be inspired by arguments to make choices?
An appropriate quote can help tip opinions, as where the authority is on point, well regarded, and not shown to have been mistaken. I doubt people formulate opinions on non-trivial matters such as politics based purely on clear and correct reasoning, free of logical fallacies. Rather, people necessarily tip many moral and political opinions based on arguments that simply cannot be entirely reduced to clear and correct reasoning. One such “fallacy” is the appeal by quoting authority. One may wish to encourage exchanges of thought that go beyond the well ploughed field. But another important function is to help assimilate and invigorate a political movement for helping the country to reassert adult supervision.
****
It would seem nice if we could avoid all logical fallacies and simply repeat correct conservative answers to every issue in different formulations and if we could all adduce and agree upon every correct answer under clear and correct reasoning. Except for rather trivial concerns, I have not seen much of that. Meantime, real people frequently find enough truth value to become sufficiently convinced to make choices under arguments that are filled with logical fallacies. One such fallacy is the argument made by reference to quotes and aphorisms taken from great persons. The thing is, such arguments are often enough to convince or tip an opinion.
....
A MISCELLANY OF MUSINGS: Regarding Kinds and Aspects of Logic, consider: (1) bivalence, (2) trivalence; (1) true, (2) untrue; (1) known and not convertible to unknown, (2) known but convertible to unknown, (3) unknown but knowable, (4) Unknown and unknowable; (1) Subjectively appreciated but uncertainly so; (1) Rock, Scissors, Paper; (1) consciously created; (1) kinds, (2) degrees; (1) subjective, (2) objective, (3) ambiguous, (4) dependent, (5) contextual, (1) random, (2) chosen, (3) determined, (4) overlapping; (1) parts, (2) sum of parts, (3) whole; (1) phase shifting, (2) metamorphic, (3) transcendent, (4) meta logical; etc.
Consider a perspective of sensation based on an effect of pushing a kind along a scale. Consider transitioning from degree to kind. Imagine or model a form like a hot air balloon, skeletoned with 3 lines: (1) That which presently senses; (2) that which is presently sensed; (3) and that which remembers or stores information about sequences of senses and sensations. Imagine its covering canvas consists of a meta potential, for all those possibilities which could become manifest to experiential sensateness in its space-time, but which have not yet become certain or manifest. Imagine its covering canvas also consists of those senses and sensations which do presently manifest and store information about all previous sequences of manifestations.
Imagine a trivalent triangle, consisting of 3 points connected by 3 lines. Each point represents a kind. Each line represents the degree by which each point differs from each other. Each point can be represented by its own formula. Three formulas represent the sum of the points. Each formula can change or flux only in synchronicity with flux of the other two. What Trinitarian or trivalent logic may explicate the Synchronizer? What Trinitarian may be intuited or implicated in the experience of any of the three particular formulas?
Does trivalent logic implicate a Meta Synchronizer of holistic or meta-formalizing; does it implicate that no particular formula knowable to mortals can cause or control the meta formula? Does it implicate that a formula for a part cannot acquire control over a formula for a whole, without simultaneously usurping the whole and reducing it to a part?
Is the logically complete, consistent, and coherent analysis of whether any non-trivial communication is random, chosen, or determined a matter of flux and fuzz, which depends on unfolding feedback, context, perspective, and purpose?
****
See Tri-valent logic: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Three-value+Logic; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic; http://lexnet.bravepages.com/firstorder.htm.
Why Laws Exist
Why laws exist at all: In Kagan’s circular view, mankind created the State, the State creates the rights of man, and elites run the State. Kagan’s view would have it that, when mankind created the State, man forfeited all natural or higher rights independent of the State. In a similar game of Three Card Monty, in Progressives’ view, God created physics, and laws of physics happened to evolve man, so there is no pertinent, active, higher law giver, and there are no laws or rights -- save as given to us by physics and by such elites as interpret such “moral laws” as are derivative solely from indifferent physics.
But this is nothing more than a shallow variation on an old shell game, for falsely “proving by assuming” that God and/or Nature have divinely ordained or delegated the “right to rule” to such elites as pretend to be “most fit.” This is masquerade, whereby elites tell us there is no reason by which we should care to second guess them, even as they tell us there is “reason” by which we “should care” to obey them. So what do they say when we rip off all masks and ask, “Why so?”
Without respect for a superior and active Source of laws, so that no man and no elite is given to be his own lawgiver, there would be no physical or civilized basis under which independent beings could communicate or pursue separate interests. We are able to live only within a relatively narrow range of temperatures. We enjoy changing and meaningful independence only within a relatively narrow and changing range of legalistic intrusiveness.
No doubt, Kagan recognizes that we need to minimize functions that otherwise would upset the balance of our physical environment. Does she not recognize, in like respect, that we need to avoid that which would upset that which is superior to our manmade system of laws? Does she not recognize that civilization, to convey decent meaningfulness, must remain respectfully receptive to an active Source of higher moral parameters? Does she not care that such laws as mortals experience are necessarily secondary to Something that is superior to indifference?
Bottom line: Hobbes was wrong. We did not in desperation throw up hands and contract all together to agree to subordinate ourselves to a system contrived entirely by whatever elites may come to rule us. Insofar as we conceived to “contract,” we contracted to legitimize norms in respect that all who would civilize themselves thereunder should respect that there abides a superior Guide ... above whose higher law no man is superior.
But this is nothing more than a shallow variation on an old shell game, for falsely “proving by assuming” that God and/or Nature have divinely ordained or delegated the “right to rule” to such elites as pretend to be “most fit.” This is masquerade, whereby elites tell us there is no reason by which we should care to second guess them, even as they tell us there is “reason” by which we “should care” to obey them. So what do they say when we rip off all masks and ask, “Why so?”
Without respect for a superior and active Source of laws, so that no man and no elite is given to be his own lawgiver, there would be no physical or civilized basis under which independent beings could communicate or pursue separate interests. We are able to live only within a relatively narrow range of temperatures. We enjoy changing and meaningful independence only within a relatively narrow and changing range of legalistic intrusiveness.
No doubt, Kagan recognizes that we need to minimize functions that otherwise would upset the balance of our physical environment. Does she not recognize, in like respect, that we need to avoid that which would upset that which is superior to our manmade system of laws? Does she not recognize that civilization, to convey decent meaningfulness, must remain respectfully receptive to an active Source of higher moral parameters? Does she not care that such laws as mortals experience are necessarily secondary to Something that is superior to indifference?
Bottom line: Hobbes was wrong. We did not in desperation throw up hands and contract all together to agree to subordinate ourselves to a system contrived entirely by whatever elites may come to rule us. Insofar as we conceived to “contract,” we contracted to legitimize norms in respect that all who would civilize themselves thereunder should respect that there abides a superior Guide ... above whose higher law no man is superior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
