Monday, December 27, 2010
Head Cloud
If humanity does not soon undo itself, the "capitalism of stuff" may be on its way out. The new competition may consist less in things than in fractal clusters of clouds, ideas, inspiration, and organized information. Indeed, the concept of a particular self, limited to the perimeter of a physical body, may be on its way out, once means are discovered for leveraging the capacity of the human brain, at will. Then, the competition will be to entice different perspectives of consciousness to share (mind meld?) or invest in various possibilities for the unfolding experience of information. The actual construction of what we take to be "physical things" may come to be delegated to a system of various levels of macro and micro computing machines (merger of Matrix and Tron?). When that happens, what would become of the role of capitalism? Instead of managing money, will not some system be needed for managing and trading psychic credits? Ought God, when inspired to particular apprehension, then be conceptualized as the head cloud of psychic investment chips, each chip being encoded with each organized perspective of consciousness as some kind of charge-potential or bio-psychic metric? Once human beings evolve to no longer do the physical work to manufacture stuff, but only participate mentally in the directing of stuff, then under what competitive process will manufacturing and consuming be organized, and how will the psychic herd be thinned?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Intuitively, don't psych counselors self select to be most prone to psych disorders? Why, then, should they be respected to the point of monopolizing that which is deemed normal versus sick? Many of us have seen online Shakespearian insult bots (such as, thou "crusty botch of nature"). No doubt, given the geometrically progressing capability of computing, we shall soon have logic-insult-bots. Then, every rat packing, math monkeying, psycho-renormalizer can periodically input his own living, evolving system of terms (which cannot be other than incomplete in respect of rigor of definition of terms for being mutually exclusive and exhaustive). (Btw, how’s the search for the Higgs Boson going?) Soon, every app possessor will have astonishing capacities for manipulating math ... at his fingertips. Being necessarily incomplete, every systematic input into such apps, which can be fuzzed and fudged at its edges, will be available for producing or confirming its own biased reality tunnel ... subject, of course, to unforseen, unintended, and often “hot” consequences.
Take evolving notions of marriage. How long will it be before some batty bot is applied to convince those geniuses who are most easily mesmerized by math and weakest in intuition that, in the name of diversity, we ought to celebrate a notion of polygamous marriage? No doubt, most logic insult bots would then be able to confirm a bias amongst gangsters, i.e., that they ought to be able to engage, via blood oath, in marriage and loyalty to one another (to make marriage to the mob a reality by having mobsters take one another as polygamous spouses). Given privileges for spouses not to testify against one another, this should make for interesting, “progressive” precedents in criminal law. Call the upshot the Happily Married Mob. Should not the “bright” humanists among us agree? After all, who are we to take issue against any diverse practice that is engaged in by millions, if not billions? And is not the mob an international, capitalistic, and open society, thus capable of delivering golden eggs?
Why do so many vaunted humanists seem to think, in the name of diversity, that we “ought” to celebrate everything that “is” – especially when it is corrosive to our own culture, country, and assimilated identity? Thou farking bot-iacs: When will thou learn that “ought” cannot be derived in bivalent logic from “is?” When it comes to moral, empathetic aspects that are qualitative, not quantitative, and immeasurable, not measurable, Luke, look to the Source. Alternatively, you can join Godel down the wonderfully mad rabbit hole of math, to brightly “justify” doing all that thou wilt. Ain’t empirical science a hoot (especially when we give its priests a monopoly in the public square)! So lets turn gov, education, and mass-mind-massaging entirely over to adolescent math monkeys who claim to understand trillions, but who never actually grew up. Not.
Bivalent math may solve math-world challenges just fine; not so much the challenges of the trivalent world of consciousness -- not even for "brights." The process of unfolding and designing for what ought to be entails, unavoidably, an immeasurable, intuitive, empathetic, participatory process of feedback among various perspectives, which are reconciled in respect of a real, shared field of consciousness. If we respect consciousness, we need to envision more what we should reasonably desire to become, not just what is our immediate desire. Consciously designing for what ought to be does not entail merely blessing the diversity of what is, as being what ought to continue to be (or as what ought to be imported to America). We need a more consciously-transcendent and less materialistically-spreading notion of "progress" -- Progs be hanged (figuratively).
Note: There remains an important place both for math and for vision. That place consists in having the wisdom to evaluate those factors that should be weighed in order to facilitate a society that can sustain a decent regard for freedom of expression and enterprise among its members. That place is not in spreading wealth or in diversifying values merely for the sake of some notion of mathematical leveling. Obviously, dishonoring marriage, removing parents from the raising of children, addicting minds to dope, removing incentives to produce, rendering the nation non-viable, and imposing piles of debt on future generations are goals that are neither decent nor sustainable. Rather, they are the implicit goals of angry, aging, spiritually malformed, adolescent narcissists.
As to the question of original creation and subsequent unfoldment: There is no more reason to believe natural selection functions in respect of random survival and replication of the so called fittest than that the so called fittest is selected by an unfolding synchronization of conscious design based on systematic apprehensions of feedback. Math and so called missing links will not answer this question. Indeed, whatever occurs for a time will be called, trivially, "the fittest" to its context. What the dickens does any reasoning person think such a trivial concept as the fittest can prove?
It's not politically correct to excel or to stand out. All must be egalitarian androgyny. Last night, I called to reserve a flight for myself and my wife. The agent inquired what was my gender. After having been told the second ticket was for my wife, she inquired, "And what is your partner's gender?" She apologized, remarking she was required to ask in that way.
Under politically correct and comprehensive new environmental management, no proud middle class is to be allowed. The shiftless, envious left wants to homogenize and level the middle class, even at cost of impoverishment, and the bluebloods don't want to have to accord the middle class any say. Dumbed and divided segments of the middle class are being lined up and cultivated as mushrooms: kept in alternating hums of dark, homogenizing, senseless noise, and nourished on animal waste. Love means never having to say you're sorry about aspiring to be only a mushroom or a mushroom cultivator.
Post a Comment