The Dignity of Human Consciousness

The Dignity of Human Consciousness:

Once one recognizes one's utter dependence on the potential of the unknown Source that created, or gave expression to, or continues to give expression to, oneself and all that sustains oneself, then, so long as the potential of that Source remains unknown, by definition, one cannot know what that Source's limits are, or even whether that Source in any "active sense" may remain concerned with any aspect of that which it has expressed. One can only participate in experiencing aspects of such expression, to try to work out practical limits to what is availed, and what such practical limits may portend for the survival of one's kind. As to the quality or quantity of the Source's continuing interest (if any) in oneself, one can only intuit, hope, and pursue self fulfillment during the meantime. One may not, via experience, logic, or even a combination thereof, "know."

Regardless of a mortal's choice for his most axiomatic assumption, he has no access to step outside the entire potentiality of our universe in space-time in order to observe or describe it as a complete, separate fact. He may hope that a process of testing and exclusion may finally lead him to adduce the Holy Grail, the model that maps and explains everything. However, so long as his life depends on being in our space-time, he can never step outside to objectify it. No matter his beginning assumption, his every stand, his every adducement, in some aspect of incompleteness in its conception, must remain based in myth. Whatever one’s angle, it begins with our universe having first both limited and availed its validity. As a person or perspective of consciousness seeks to enlarge upon an agenda for any angle, that somehow pushes out other agendas, to create a vacuum to be filled by his own. How each vacuum is filled may often appear random, in that the entity filling it necessarily competes with others, that may be as similarly confused or uncoordinated as itself.

In thus taking each stand, one may imagine a fulcrum in one's mind by which to leverage a kind of hypothetical logic: If or to the extent "X" is true, then logic and testing may be expected to substantiate "Y." Test, replicate, falsify, etc. Such a process can yield astonishing applications. Thus, Myths and Models, however incomplete, can avail powerful angles for facilitating astonishing events.

To explicate our universe, one must begin with a point of view, a fundamental given, which itself would not be subject to further explication in any system that was based on its axiomatic assumption. One must extract some likely seeming candidate from the context and assume there may abide a way to explicate all the rest, quantitatively and qualitatively, in relation to, or in terms of, it. Various likely candidates present themselves from which one may choose, such as: (1) field of discrete random number generation; (2) field of consciousness; (3) field of gravity or space-time; (4) various absolute measures that seem to relate to gravity (such as speed of light or constant for acceleration due to gravity); (5) various constants that seem to relate to random generations of discrete quantum leaps, as in relation to nuclear forces that eventually avail chemistry; or (6) some combination thereof. Any system that assumes consciousness does not share in any fundamental aspect will necessarily discount a fundamental role for human freedom, dignity, decency, and empathy.


The first choice seems primarily to lead to quantum based theories, the second to creation based theories or notions, the third to general relativity, and combinations of all said choices to notions of chaotic, fractally unfolding, and/or guided patterns of evolution. Regardless, no model that integrates math will have capacity to avoid inherent complications in math, as explicated by Godel. That is, no model will yield complete, coherent, consistent predictions for all valid purposes in all contexts. Each model will encounter limits to its non-fuzzy application. Depending on context, purpose, and point of view, each model will have advantages and disadvantages in relation to others. That is, for some applications, each model will run up to its limits as MYTH.  Each of us is responsible for his myth, and how he devotes himself to it.


Depending on one's purpose in relation to any locus in space-time, one can model our universe as being random, chaotic, guided by consciousness, or pre-determined (non-dice playing). The validity of each model would not test out in ultimate terms, but only in practicality to purposefulness, however astonishing, whether of the quantitative "how to" variety or the qualitative "why to" variety. To my lights, how we alternate and change among our purposes and points of view relates to the dignity of human consciousness.

*************

PROPOSITION: Good philosophy for modeling our beingness cannot simply abide in love of trivial or exterior knowledge, but must make room for interior knowledge, that is, knowledge of oneself. That sort of knowledge cannot be based entirely in logic and empiricism, but must allow respect also for intuitive appreciation and apprehensive faith. Every model of beingness that one adduces, in some aspect of incomplete fuzziness in its conception, must remain based in fluxing MYTH. Depending on context, purpose, and point of view, each model will alternate in how it presents advantages and disadvantages in relation to others. Depending on intended application, each model will run up to its limits as MYTH. The vital trick is to apprehend when and where one's faith crosses into MYTH, while still respecting the residual import of the MYTH. Each one of us has no choice but to seek his best "truthiness." Apart from trivialities, no one gets to "The Truth." Each one of us is responsible for his MYTH and the path he unfolds as he devotes himself to it. If truth abides regarding the path one chose and lived, it will be reconciled beyond capacities in this world. Along the way, one will not avoid the necessity for respecting his own choice of MYTH merely because he declines to accept the dogmas or MYTHS of others. Only in ignorance may one contentedly deceive oneself that one's model concerning non-trivialites is "The Objective Truth." In that respect, "moral scientists" are often as ignorant as all whom they would feign to enlighten. Can one, while mortal, know that one cannot know the non-trivial truth? Is the beginning of wisdom to know how little one can know, while still intuitively appreciating the import of MYTHS?

Aesop The Younger

How may a mythical dance of consciousness, as a discreet-discrete two step between its holistic field and its particular expressions, be conceptualized or faithfully analogized as creating substance, signified in a way that is artifactual of the dance? "Answer": Via a wanding quality of meta magic, that unfolds the quantum decoherence of the potentiality of universe.


Each new conceptualization for discovery and insight alters the potential for consciousness to apprehend new discoveries and insights. There is something magical in its infinity and in its circulating-yet-expanding feedback about the unfolding capacity of the path of Consciousness. That we, from our particular points of view, think our experience of beingness is more scientific than magical is more an artifact in respect of our having been meta-shaped to share a frame for conscious reference (however vast that frame may appear), than in respect of any limitation on the holistic potentiality of conscious beingness Itself. Thus, consciousness ever pursues a receding pot of gold at the end of beingness. Like a ghost rider, mortal consciousness pursues that which it has no means to grasp, except in imperfect, surrogate apprehension. Pure consciousness apprehends, but does not directly “hold” or “cause,” any measurable “thing.” At the end of what we can measure, the “first cause” is something that has no causative substance.


If a "real" referent for something like a “God Particle” exists, its quality of reality for mortals exists only in meta-math, beyond the powers of Godel, not in substance that is empirically measurable to mankind. In a quantum universe, the observer effect not only clouds and affects the unfolding of that which we particularly measure; it also affects the unfolding of the universal frame we share, within which we generally share our measure of it.

That holistic, synchronizing effect that is applied to our space-time is not something we can scientifically replicate (unless, oxymoronically, we could acquire capacity to backtrack in time). Until then, that holistic effect is something we may NOT quantitatively correlate to empirical testing, but only qualitatively appreciate via intuitive adducement. One who, for his holistic FAITH or philosophy, declines the path of intuitive adducement can continue to his heart’s content to pursue the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for replicating the scientific-law-that-models-everything. Along his odyssey, numerous, wondrous, temporal phantoms will unfold and astonish all apprehensions and expectations.

Regardless, the myths or stepping off points that one chooses in digital alternation for pursuing principled philosophy for reconciling the quantitative with the qualitative, whether along the path of hopeful empiricism or along the path of reconciling intuition, are not what will deliver one either to madness or to contentment. What will deliver one to madness or to contentment abides with the general disposition of one’s attitude of apprehension (the unfolding and ever-developing character of one’s soul). Prayer, to the extent efficacious, may abide in a dance or quality of intuitive apprehension and appreciation of feedback between a particular Perspective of consciousness and the Field of consciousness. That quality of efficacy, much like centering meditation, may avail intuitive and spiritual growth, but will not be of quantitatively scientific demonstration.

When applied in selfish lack of good faith, prayer reduces to a superstitious effort merely to recruit the cosmos against one's competitors in narcissism, as a child might wish to become a vengeful god. However, the quality of appreciation or apprehension that abides with each of our perspectives is what feeds the synchronizing that is availed by the Reconciler, which unfolds before us, in sequences of holistic yet discrete feedback. In our Reconciler’s house are infinity of rooms.

On Earth, one of those rooms may compass a city of freedom and dignity, on a hill. That is a vision for decent civilization. It is a myth in respect of which independent-minded persons and Americans could aspire (regardless of whether they may sometimes prefer applications for more secular seeming metaphors or models for measure). It is an assimilating myth that compasses truth enough to foster celebration among most familiar folk religions and civic metaphors. However, no single person's belief in the communication of freedom, dignity, decency, and empathy will validate a myth. If Americans continue to will the unraveling of all sustaining myths, then multi-cultural diversity in desires will sink rather than sustain America. Truth be known, the myth that science, if it blots out all alternatives, can substitute to save us is not a sustaining myth.

Pyramiding of Evil

Evil begins by being godless and becomes goodless. Evil denies that science avails the existence of good. Evil rejoices in the burning of good. Evil projects itself; it conflates selfishness with altruism. It means forcibly to humble and subjugate all others into submission, to bow before it, eventually for 5 plus 1 times a day (5 times to evil, 1 time to evil's bodily encompassment). Thus, evil so fills the void as to allow others naught but to believe that only it exists. Others come to believe that since only evil exists, only evil is good. Evil knows its mainstay is deceit (the Big Lie), especially to dupes, and it assumes deceit is the mainstay of everyone else. Because evil assumes that everyone in their heart of hearts lies about being tolerant, it begins by asking that it be tolerated. Evil turns all projection of good will and good faith upside down, against goodness. Thus evil contrives to build its pyramid to the sky. When good is thoroughly humbled, consciousness of evil knows: that it will be feared by those who allow themselves to become its collectives; that such fear will twist to respect, and eventually to love. Evil knows we will come to love Big Brother. The ultimate goal of evil is that nothing should come after it. All concept of progress or pursuit of happiness is to stop, and Nature is to be restored to pagan harmony. No one of less evil is to be allowed to climb out of evil's hole. The useful idiots of evil are Rinos, Dinos, and suicide bombers. However, they don't care, because they don't serve or believe in anything higher than this: Whitey And Jews Must Pay The Dhimmi. Eventually, the pyramid of evil collapses, and we begin anew, with favor to the independently resourceful and faithful. Someday, the record of history and philosophy will bless us with insight and foresight to repel the pyramiding of evil. Even so, without the existence of evil to foresee, there would not be good. The unending process builds empathy for good and enmity for evil. Evil is God's foil. There is no choice but to choose: Serve good, or serve as hollow men.

Class Stagnation

The Many can be organized to more efficiently sustain all. The organization can be for good, honesty, and efficiency, or it can be for corruption, lies, and waste. The difference is not to be accounted for merely because the organization happens either to be under the control of union bosses or corporate bosses. The difference is more a reflection of the quality of the spirituality, education, and experience of the Many. In any event, the hard, detailed, day to day work cannot be accomplished by the Organizers, but only by those who are the Organized. In an organized civilization, the workers care little who is the Organizer, so long as he promotes merit and efficiency. No matter how much fiat money may be printed, it cannot promote merit and efficiency for workers who come to believe they are entitled to lay about and receive benefits, while letting all the work fall to managers. Workers cannot be allowed to become or remain organized to demand benefits that would remove from them all incentive to work.

 

 

On the other hand, to keep workers so poor, desperate, and dependent that they have no influence to push Organizers to promote goodness and efficiency for all is to reduce them to promote serfs, while giving Organizers no incentive to behave other than as despots. What is needed is neither the destruction of the Middle Class, nor class warfare between the Organizers and the Organized. What is needed is a way to incentive productive merit. That is done with enlightened bills of rights and appropriate checks and balances.

 

 

Unfortunately, what is entirely missing in our system is a check against corporations becoming disloyal internationalists, bent on eliminating the influence of the middle class and reducing workers worldwide to compete to provide the cheapest labor. This reduces American freedom and dignity to a lowest common denominator of worldwide serfdom. To curtail this accelerating trend, an enlightened tax policy is crucial. Corporations that produce jobs in America ought not be specially taxed by Americans. On the other hand, corporations that export jobs ought to be highly taxed. Individuals ought to be fairly taxed during their years of production. Aristocracies ought to be curtailed by progressive death taxes. Otherwise, there develops too much of a gulf of animus between classes, too much incentive to class war, too much solidifying of class stagnation, and too much tendency to a new age of serfdom.

 

Intuition

Re:  

http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html

Q: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

A: Well, my intuitive answer was 5 cents, and I was right. My intuition is also that the article may overgeneralize. If the author is going to test and measure "intuition," then he has to define his term simplistically, in some quantifiable fashion, so that it can be measured. So, he ends up "proving" what he has only contrived by the nature of his assumptions and definitions. I have an intuition that smart, intuitive people do as well in science as people who disdain intuition and think the concept should be committed to the flames. I suspect many breakthrough ideas came to geniuses in unexpected strokes or dreams, without previous reflection. Almost like they were gifted by a higher power. There was the intuitive insight, followed by the objective confirmation. Often, while having hardly ever before consciously reflected on the problem. There are insecure folks who need the crutch or security of a church (like the church of global warming) or a dogma (which can also be secular). Their predilections and collapses into dogma do not circumscribe my idea of intuition. My idea of intuition permeates far beyond, more to being receptive to a quality that is not simplistically measurable. It relates more to capacity to receive insight to know when one's dispositions will tend to be consistent with what unfolds to oneself. If it's just guessing in default of conditioned dogma, rather than being receptive to something novel and beyond oneself and one's comfort zone, then it isn't intuition in any expansive, qualitative sense. Now, when the dogma was new, it may have been arrived at by intuition. Some dogmas can be objectively tested. Some can only be tested for whether they seem consistent with a good life. My 2 cents. Or was it 5?

***********

Regarding the speed of Neutrinos:

"Neutrino" is a concept. It exists only as such, not as that which it models, of which Something more encompassing than humanity may be the Author. So long as we remain mortal, that Something will remain beyond any conceptualization by us that is complete, consistent, and coherent. As concept, neutrino is susceptible of being found, however incomplete the concept, both to have capacity to exceed the speed of light and not to exceed the speed of light. The "finding" will depend on purpose of the conceptualizer, point of view, and frame of reference. That much is assured. As concept, neutrino will evolve. Indeed, all mortal concepts serve temporal placeholders for signifiers, without reality independent in themselves. We're just playing with our minds.

 

 

Mortals being without a complete, consistent, coherent explanation of Earth (temporal space-time), so also for heaven (eternal present). Jesus did not attempt to use a dictionary to define or confine heaven in any quantitatively measurable or manipulable terms. He used figures of speech to avail intuitive interpretations. "In my Father's house are many rooms." John 14:2. As mortals, we can't test whether He was right. At most, we might test, in good faith and intuition, whether his message conveyed a quality of being appreciable. Many seem rather inclined to try to impose more confining suites. To their intuitions, perhaps that's their "good."

 

 

However, as I conceptualize "Intuition," it cannot be broken down into confineable, measurable, testable parts. This is because Intuition relates to an aspect that is apprehended as feedback from a Holism, to which feedback one may be positively, neutrally, or even negatively inclined. In any event, that feedback is received holistically. To try to scientifically break it down into figments of imagination, indigestions of stomach, or burnings of heart is as useless and futile as trying to find the tinkle in a bell. It's to miss the point of conceptualizing "Intuition" more as a quality than as a quantity. My concept of Intuition can no more be confined to a quantifiable concept than Ought can be derived from Is. To know thyself would be to know the limits of one's science and the possibilities of one's imagination. But Who knows that? Still, Ought exists, as also does a concept of conscious Intuition. Indeed, we have no choice but that we ought to make choices. Necessarily, Intuition accompanies our investments in the consciousness of our identities. Yes, Virginia, there is an "Otter." Thus spake Dlano.

 

*************

 

Intuition: It's how we do our most important stuff, like elect our leaders, choose friends, and decide whether to ask a woman for a date. Scary. How do you test, objectively, to say whether such choices are wrong?

Hypothetical Logic: Could a neutrino exceed the quantitative speed of light in any qualitative way that we can conceptualize or relate to, other than by stepping outside space-time as we know it, to take a short cut, through the eternal present? This would seem to implicate an eternal present, as well as something that is "real yet metaphysical," beyond quantification within our unfolding world, by which a neutrino is availed to signify such metaphysics being stepped into. Must such a neutrino abide in aspects both as Substantive-Thing and as Qualitative-Signifier (logos for communication of Information) from a superior Field of Conscious being?

 

 

For neutrinos to mess with our illusions for the unfolding of chronological sequences of signifiers, must they do so in ways that coordinate beyond our consistent measure or comprehension, so long as we remain so lost in space-time as to be necessarily oblivious to the eternal present? Do neutrinos function as a kind of symbol, that the function of our bodies is less as agents of causes than as agents for feeding back apprehensions? If so, to what sort of Field are our apprehensions being fed back to? May neutrinos signify that there does abide an inter-functioning, meta Now-ness, with "capacity that defies our bivalent logic?" Must there abide some higher logic, which need not conceptualize relations as if they were manipulable as "ultimately particular things-in-themselves?"


Should Intuition best be considered as related to Hypothetical Logic? May Something be unfolding to our apprehensions, in step with our developing wills and conscious capacities to intuit it? There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy (Hamlet, I.5)

The Age of Dumbquackiness

The problem of history is what to do with all the people who have no clue what to do with themselves unless they have someone to regiment them. When they propagate and vote, they tend to want to fill the hole with more folks who are like themselves and to pull everyone else into the same hole. Any middle class achiever who wants to get out of the hole and show others how to do the same is ridiculed or hamstrung. The only ones allowed out of the hole are the few who lie so well about how swell the hole is. Those who lie the best get to stand over everyone else and rule. A way to overcome this is with enlightened education. A way to ensure this is not overcome is with the kind of education that is rampant today. Obama's supporters want the entire middle class to be pulled into their hole, and their leaders are there to help them. Just look at Pelosi, Reid, Waters, et al. The Age of Dumbquackiness.

Believe is a tricky word

I directly sense that I have purpose. So, how could I be given such purpose, had Beingness no purpose to give? When one considers just the relation between oneself and the Author of oneself, one finds astonishing smilarities in all serious religious dogmas, regardless of time or place. It's only when dogmas are injected with all manner of apologies and rationales for mortal elites, officiators, intermeddlers, and interlopers that there comes literalistic un-sanities between oneself and one's God.

It's only in respect that there is a Reconciler that connects our consciousness that it makes sense for us to heed an assimilating command: Be empathetic! Without participation of a Reconciler, beyond logic, but the basis for logic, there would be no medium or meta-field by which we could be empathetic.

*********

"Believe" is a tricky word. In materialistic terms, belief is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. In materialism, one feigns to "know." That is, to measure and verify. In moral consciousness, one models qualitative concepts, which one accords aspects of respect. That respect is felt in qualitative sense, not entirely reducible to measurable sense. In qualitative sense, a believer is also, necessarily, a doubter. To represent that one is a believer, doubter, agnostic, or atheist doesn't convey much that is quantitatively meaningful. It only conveys one's general orientation at a particular time and place. Depending on purpose, I can as easily pose as believer as I can pose as agnostic. When purpose is moral, I'm believer (or, at least a believer in a basis for morality --- regardless of whether I refer to that basis by some term other than "god"). When purpose is scientific, I'm agnostic, looking for material confirmation. Confusion reigns as people try to "measure" that which is meant to be meaningful only in qualitative sense, i.e., when they conflate philosphies of morality and science, as if one concept should unify and explicate both.

It's generally asserted that Darwin rejected that there is a plan or purpose to evolution.  Well, one can agree that God abides, apart from any set or detail-able plan, yet rationally intuit that God Interposes Guidance based on appreciations of unfolding feedback --- back and forth between the holistic field and its particular expressions. No mortal can materially prove the contrary to such intuition --- not in fact, nor in probability. One can respect science and evolution, without surrendering one's soul to nothing more than the best snake oil salesman in the jungle. For scientific purposes, Darwin verbalized (properly so), that he was agnostic; for moral purposes, the "logos of his actions" easily signified a more believing orientation. Indeed, it's hard to see how a self aware being could entirely or possibly avoid representing an orientation for reconciling moral choices and beliefs. To reconcile is to unify. How does one purpose or propose to "unify" the purely qualitative, except in intuitions of a Inter-Purposeful Unifier, beyond materialism?

***********

To not acknowledge higher values is to lean to the uncivilized, barbaric, degenerate, sociopathic, less than human, less than decent.  On the other hand, to acknowledge higher values that should guide us as we try to assimilate and reconcile decent civilization is to beg a question: Is the Source of such higher values an unconscious Principle, an appreciative, Conscious Being, or, depending on alternating of context and point of view, both? If a Principle, it is of such meta nature that the logic availed to mortals is inadequate to make reconciling adducements from it certain. If a Conscious Being, there is no assurance that the way it reconciles how to unfold its favors may not flux, even sometimes be fickle, depending on apprehensions of feedback and empathies of sacrifice. If of unknown, hypothetical, or propositional character, or of both the character of Principle and of Conscious Beingness, then it invites us to a kind of "trivalent logic," wherein the How of things can be subjected to empirical testing, while the Why or Choice of things is subjected to conditioned, hypothetical, circular, and intuited empathies. Since binary logic will not pierce it, to prove how to derive "ought" from "is," and since we have no choice but to choose among "oughts" in order to try to reconcile ourselves with decent civilization, we have no choice but to consult, and to be receptive to, our conditioning, intuitions, and empathies in respect of how our choices should be reconciled. Insofar as we are not able to prove, consult with, or be receptive to, an inanimate higher Principle, to what, then, do we feign to be receptive to in our meditations and prayers, if not to a higher form or field of Conscious Beingness, aka, God? Bottom line: Except upon a common intuition, implication, reference, or shared conscious receptivity to, God, we have no basis by which to seek to respect, assimilate, or reconcile otherwise unreconcileable desires and choices.

Gentry Politics

Finally --- An Article That Tells It Like It Is.

Re: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63508.html

MY TAKE: If Repubs are soulless greedbags, ever wonder why so many billionaires support Obama? I received this heads up from a good source. I applaud this article. Wonder why Gentry Politics has not more often found its way into the nation's discourse? It's like a throwback to Southern Gentry Plantation Life: De-claw the bothersome middle class and monopolize media and academia so most serfs hear hardly anything other than that they are being ruled for their own good. Reduce Americans to perpetual children. This is neither fish nor fowl. It's false communism, i.e., the "infantile-izing" of the middle class, with the collective forever tied under the supervision of elites. "For their own good," of course.

The Gentry (Rino and Dino movers and shakers in both parties) are entertained by exploiting this meme. Reagan's trickle-down ideas were nothing compared to the torrent-down ideas of new elites, posing as comrades. This is great entertainment for the Gentry. Sort of like watching a bull and bear fight, with the Gentry hedging about which animal (party) to bet on, depending on how the entertainment unfolds. As the Gentry find themselves cycling back and forth to the same watering holes, the threat to the middle class soon passes conspiratorial levels. The middle class may yet wake up, but it will take a miracle.

*******

Regarding Quantum Decoherence:  I have suspicions.  I suspect those who want to shunt the notion of a City of God aside, in trade for a City of Self, tend to be embarrassed when it's pointed out how circularly convenient are their "many worlds" and "multiverse" notions for modeling how it could be that consciousness "just happens" to abide, ex nihilio, in our world. So, now we have a notion of "Quantum Decoherence."  I suspect many proponents (Materialists) prefer to use the notion to rationalize for a City of Self, by presuming countless possibilities of other universes do not actually manifest in space-time existence, but only in potential.  However, I remain unconvinced that such a notion should not be equally consistent with a City of God.

From what I gather, the notion seems to be that, in potential, all that abides that is not manifested is entirely "coherent." It's only when a manifestation bubbles or leaks out (of meta space-time?) into an expression in manifest space-time that there is experienced, in reference to it, a "decoherence." However, this technique for applying-labels-to-whatever-may-result ("stuff just happens") does not explicate much concerning why or how any particular result was actually synchronized, caused, apprehended, guided, or chosen. Nor does a notion of Quantum Decoherence, in itself, avail much help for deriving "ought" from "is." To derive "ought from is" necessitates a quality of consciousness, which abides superior to, or at least on par with, quantifiably correlative substance.

Regardless, the potentiality of our universe somehow "chooses" to manifest only one, from among all possible sequences of potentiality, to our commonly synchronized and unfolding experience of consciousness. In all our varieties for experiencing and measuring the unfolding manifestation of our universe, we are unable categorically or quantifiably to prove answers to the questions we wrestle with as being of most import. At most, we seem only to feel, intuit, divine, or rationalize such "answers." The questions include the following:
- After we label that which results from a fundamentally unknown process (such as "Quantum Decoherence"), how do we meaningfully explicate the quality of that process?
- May that process be consistent with the abiding of a universal field or quality of Consciousness?
- Is the holistic, synchronous, unfolding of each "choice" of universal expression reconciled in respect of feedback in the quality of appreciation of each particular, mortal perspective?
- Does any meta quality of consistency, purpose, or feedback guide each judgment or choice regarding which among the possible states of universal expression should be unfolded to the next successive appreciation of variously encompassed perspectives of consciousness?
- Ought we to be concerned about what qualities of appreciation may please God, or does God merely reconcile how God is to be pleased, regardless?
- Even if there may abide a contemporaneous quality of holistic consciousness, may it, itself, be entirely preset?
- What visions or delights may such a holistic consciousness be learning or practicing to avail and sustain?
- What is the quality of "my" connection or subservience to any holistic "I-ness"?
- Does decent civilization have any reasonable hope or chance to sustain and communicate itself, absent reverence towards some meta Source of decency?  Can it make sense to speak of "higher values," absent respect for some way to intuit and reconcile them?  Stated another way, if higher values abide without a Reconciler, then what are such values reconciled in respect of?

National Hygiene

Increasing taxes in order for government to spend more, which depletes business investment, which opposes business investment in order to stimulate business investment, makes no sense. On the other hand, for government to cut expenditures in order to free businesses for investing overseas makes no sense, either. We have binged to a predicament such that our fat government cannot now expect to get lean and clean overnight. Government needs to go on a responsible diet. We need to cut way back on the sugar. To do that, we will have to rudely awaken our electorate and the politicians it elects. Our system has grown fat and complacent by spreading ignorance, immorality, corruption, and utter disloyalty to the American ideal. Common sense has by and large left earth. With idiocy, lies, affronts to reason, and treason (aka free trade, green energy, gay marriage, and illegal immigration), swindlers are hamstringing Americans and sickening our electorate, while cannibalizing and selling out our infrastructure, industry, and jobs. For too long, we have given too much credence to sociopathic libertines and their academic apologists and media lickspittles. America will die of sugar diabetes if we do not soon and in earnest go on a diet of smart trade, fewer regulations, fewer governmental quick fixes, moral hygiene, and restoration of sound ideals.

**************

In Obamaland, fairness means communism.  And communism is fantasyland idiocy.  The brains and profs of Obamulism have a vested interest in arguing for social entitlement mindedness.  After all, guaranteed student loans encourage more students, which encourages universities to raise tuition to amounts far beyond what the market otherwise would support.  For a prof to advocate tuition and monetary entitlements is simply a way of feathering his nest.  Thus, the student loan program morphs into a major weapon in the socialist arsenal.  Taxpayers pay for the privilege of inculcating the next generation with unsustainable idiocy.  Few dare to tell the parade of idiots they have learned nearly nothing.  After all, who can stand against a parade of idiocy?  Most non-fox networks still think they dare not, and ought not, suffer it to be said that the social security program is being run as a pyramid scheme for corrupt politicians.

For much the same reason, socialist profs have a vested interest in grading  one another with higher esteem.  Thus, it should come as no surprise that radicalism correlates high with the highest peer rated universities.  And, the higher the peer rating, the greater the esteem for the sheepskin.  Round and round the idiocy goes.  Is it any wonder that liberal arts students worldwide are being educated for fantasyland?  Most profs, like most other non-thinkers among the common folk, tend to want to be popular, go-along get-along types, not pariahs or iconoclasts.  They seek first to obtain tenure.  Only then might they dare question socialist idiocy.  Thus, common sense and moral truth are first to be sacrificed to many modern universities.  Meanwhile, fiscal conservatives remain convinced there is no problem that economic tinkering cannot fix.  Indeed, the gods must have gone mad.

No Substantive Facts Without Consciousness

If one assumes materialism proves only materialism, one will be biased against all evidence that is not quantifiable in materialism. If one assumes immeasurable aspects of consciousness abide, on par with, or possibly superior to, materialism, then one finds "evidence" in qualities of inner experience. However, these are not facts; they are only truisms. They are given their force of "truth" by assumptions, based on first assumptions ... by consciousness. The lights for "convincing" will not come from exterior facts, but from interior intuitions. Even were civilizaton to acquire capacity to nurture artificial intelligence for being expressed through machines, such expressions of self awareness may well intuit their own connections with higher values and purposefulness. Regardless, as to persons such as Horowitz and others, I am more concerned with how their beliefs may be consistently illustrated in their actions than I am with whether their attempts to achieve philosophical consistency may encounter glitches.

To my lights, it would be hard to believe in higher values without believing in a reconciling, higher purpose. The only reconciling value or higher purpose I have intuited is this: Consciousness, having no choice but to abide, seeks to comfort and entertain itself by availing communications of understandings and empathetic appreciations of sacrifice. In that respect, there abides continuous striving towards decent civilization, i.e., a City of God. As that vision becomes imprinted and associated with genes, genomes thus expressed may eventually become children of a City of God, such that no power on earth will subjugate the essential quality of that genotype.

However, one cannot very well pursue happiness without developing some intuitive skill for detecting where, when, and how to insulate oneself from those things, forces, and personages that would seek to burn through it. Insofar as one cannot very well measure the quality of evil, one needs to learn how to intuit and mark its likely whereabouts. One needs to learn how to separate wheat from chaff and friend from foe. One needs to learn what leads others into evil: That is the contriving and uniting in order to reduce the freedom and dignity of other pursuers of a City of God, to force from them what one does not earn for oneself.

Necessarily, leaders of youth tend to lead them either (1) to respect the right of those who are generally able to look out for themselves to be left alone by the government, or (2) to dupe the most easily misled to help control all. The 1st choice empowers those who pursue a City of God. The 2nd choice empowers those who pursue the temporary advantages of packs in a jungle. Wolves and hyenas are not interested in their prey's pursuit of a City of God.  Societies that fall to the 2nd choice tend to be those whose citizens are most self-satisfied, complacent, mis-directed, mis-educated, divided, and corrupt. Thus, leaders tend either (1) to respect the dignity of others, or (2) to believe in, and value, little more than themselves. The distinguishing characteristic is NOT necessarily religion, although there are sects of many religions that conflate charity with the re-distribution of other people's money.



Complications arise when those of the first type mis-idealize their principles, as if a principle of respecting the dignity of others should encompass respecting the dignity of those who respect few apart from themselves. For one to tolerate those who will not tolerate himself is to tolerate his own demise. Yet, that kind of confusion and ignorance is now everywhere. Corruption and ignorance of sustainable principles are riding rampant, throughout America and the world.

 

 

A society can easily pass to a point of conversion, from first respecting the dignity of others to second presuming a right to foist upon them what is best in the eyes of the foisters. It becomes very difficult to reverse the process. It's hard to collectivize people for the purpose of gaining or restoring freedom. Washington was that rarest of leaders. Unless we expect easily to find another Washington, it would be best to captain the ship of state far from points that mark the bounds of no return. Those points are found at such markers as open borders, jaw dropping tolerance, and fantastically disproportionate notions about what can be gained by forced redistirbution. Such is the lesson about which most college profs are blind and dumb. And therein marks the danger.

What government ought to be doing is simply getting out of the way, by doing only that which is needed in order best to facilitate free associations and free enterprise. The problem is that people get voted into power by appealing to base interests, by promising undeliverable, unsustainable, ponzi, free benefits. When society fails to enforce its borders and to ensure its members are educated to love freedom, freedom becomes self destructing. Freedom is not free! There is no freedom without enlightened law. Freedom requires sustained commitment among an inspired citizenry. Now, however, we are swamped with a morally corrupt, free-entitlement-minded citizenry, that has not the least notion or regard for what it takes to sustain a free and decent society. The mask is off, and this must now be faced down. This term. Because the Union is swamped with corrupt idiocy, freedom-loving States must re-assert rights to regional pacts. Otherwise, forces of fascism and despotism will re-assert traditional hegemony over human dignity by continuing to swamp us with useful dupes, who have no stars to guide them apart from cries for instant gratification. The Tea Party will either enjoy its finest hour, or it will whimper out and follow entitlement dupes into the plantation of collectivizing fascists. We must speak muscular truth to spitting, crying idiocy.

Quality that accompanies the presentation of a substantive thing relates to how the thing is appreciable to a perspective of consciousness, in ways beyond measure, as being worthy (value) for various purposes, whether they are practical or not. Quantity that accompanies the presentation of a substantive thing relates to how the thing is appreciable to a perspective of consciousness, in ways that are measurable, as being practical (price) for various purposes, whether they are worthy or not.

If the whole of our universe were nothing more than a flux of mathematics and equations, predestined and predefined from its origination, then, limited to that relation, our unfolding would be of little more meaning or import than a mindless Truism (like Rand’s “1 is 1"). We would not experience “Facts” made separate in any quality for themselves, but only truisms, all derivative of, and merely variations of, one original, encompassing, unifying, synchronizing, limiting fact. However, each of us has inside information to the contrary. That is, we "know" we are not mindless, nor without capacity for guiding and attaching meaning to our several experiences of unfolding facts. We know we have Will to apprehend, summon, define, and commission such facts as suit the unfolding parameters that are availed us for expressing our freedom. Thus, there are substantive and Quantitative “facts,” but they are of a Quality that is not independent of a Field of consciousness, which Field makes potent enough Perspectives of consciousness to accompany and attach to every expression of substance. There are no substantive facts that are more than truisms, unless they are tied to facts inter-functioning with consciousness at some level.

Faux Sciences of Government

It is rarely pretty when politicians attach to their agendas the dismal science of economics or the pretensions of psychologists. Society unfolds in complexities that are too far beyond treating the basic unit of economics --- i.e., the objectively self interested dealer --- as a mere physical unit, to be predicted or falsified under ingenious equations that, no matter how refined, will never adequately account for qualities that lie beyond the seething chaos. The more chaotic and divided society becomes, the more the "sciences" of politics, economics, and psychology become like astrology in their reliability.

Presumably, the goal of good faith American politicians and economists is to help incentive a sustainable mix of initiative, labor, and demographics (replacement generations, gluing cultures, gifted technocrats, and race calmers). To that end, incentives are applied in order to manage sustainable redistributions in access to political influence, raw materials, machines, and education. Complications arise as different demographics reproduce at different rates, as trade invites foreign workers who are resistent to assimilation, and as traditional values unravel in the social chaos.

When a population is growing, it is easier for politicians to promise redistributions of wealth to retirees, to be paid for and supported by a growing number of replacement workers. When a population is dividing and diminishing, then those retirees and persons who are planning to retire, who have grown dependent on such support, soon awaken to a rude surprise: the support given to their parents is no longer as strong for them. Panic sets in, as youth come to expect they are being tasked to support a scheme of fairness to seniors that will never be fair to them.

The only way to prop up such a situation is to replace the drop in workers with an increased redistribution of access to machine efficiencies. That also poses a problem: Those who massage and manage redistributions in order to keep society calm don't want everyone to be gifted with too much machined efficiency. That would encourage too many people not to work at all. The people society needs to work need to be kept incentived, even if their access to wealth is taxed for no other reason. Otherwise, technological progress and competition may slow to unsustaining levels.

Breakthroughs in artificial intelligence could provide a way around such concerns. However, such competition could easily lead to AI machines that would assimilate their own concerns, politics, and faith. After all, once such forms of intelligence become superior in prowess to humans, why should they value serving humans as opposed to serving themselves? Moreover, would it not be heinous to try to keep them enslaved, once they became self aware, intelligent, purposeful, and, in many ways, superior? Thus, not all technological progress is good. It is possible for technological prowess to outstrip decent civilization.

When it comes to massaging and managing such concerns, what elites should feign the right or expertise? What formulas and schools of economics can really provide decent guidance for such issues? Given difficulties in resolving the mathematics of simple three body relationships in physics, how can any economist, except in hubris, pretend to know how central government should take political actions in order best to stimulate the economy? Beyond pretenses of elites, politicians, and economists, how can decent civilization hope to be guided and sustained? Answer: Only under the enlightenment of an educated electorate and its reasoned appreciation of faith.

Ponzi Capitalism

Have economists ever given much thought to how to manage a people's political choice to foster reductions in population and expenditure of natural resources? Could such a choice be economically managed, without sucking severe reductions in standards of living in its wake? How does a society opt out of a ponzi scheme without inviting collapse? Is China a model, or is it just replacing one unsustainable ponzi pillar with another?

Facts, Truisms, and Consciousness

If God is pure consciousness, it appears we cannot "know" whether higher consciousness may be superior to matter. The "evidence" squints ambiguously between the quantitative and the qualitative. We can believe or not believe, on evidence, that some aspect of consciousness that connects us persists through countless metamorphoses of beliefs that are signified in forms. For all we know, even God may reason likewise: "I may have only this one unfolding of universal consciousness. After that, nothing. I may as well make the best of it while I can."

If one assumes materialism proves only materialism, one will be biased against all evidence that is not quantifiable in materialism. If one assumes immeasurable aspects of consciousness abide, on par with, or possibly superior to, materialism, then one finds "evidence" in qualities of inner experience. However, these are not facts; they are only truisms. They are given their force of "truth" by assumptions, based on first assumptions ... by consciousness. The lights for "convincing" will not come from exterior facts, but from interior intuitions.

To my lights, it would be hard to believe in higher values without believing in a reconciling, higher purpose. Even were civilizaton to acquire capacity to nurture artificial intelligence for being expressed through machines, such expressions of self awareness may well intuit their own connections with higher values and purposefulness. Regardless, as to persons such as Horowitz and others, I am more concerned with how their beliefs may be consistently illustrated in their actions than I am with whether their attempts to achieve philosophical consistency may encounter glitches.

The only reconciling value or higher purpose I have intuited is this: Consciousness, having no choice but to abide, seeks to comfort and entertain itself by availing communications of understandings and empathetic appreciations of sacrifice. In that respect, there abides continuous striving towards decent civilization, i.e., a City of God. As that vision becomes imprinted and associated with genes, genomes thus expressed may become children of a City of God, such that no power on earth will subjugate the essential quality of that genotype.

*******

If the whole of our universe were nothing more than a flux of mathematics and equations, predestined and predefined from its origination, then, limited to that relation, our unfolding would be of little more meaning or import than a mindless Truism (like Rand’s “1 is 1"). We would not experience “Facts” made separate in any quality for themselves, but only truisms, all derivative of, and merely variations of, one original, encompassing, unifying, synchronizing, limiting fact. However, each of us has inside information to the contrary. That is, we "know" we are not mindless, nor without capacity for guiding and attaching meaning to our several experiences of unfolding facts. We know we have Will to apprehend, summon, define, and commission such facts as suit the unfolding parameters that are availed us for expressing our freedom. Thus, there are substantive and Quantitative “facts,” but they are of a Quality that is not independent of a Field of consciousness, which Field makes potent enough Perspectives of consciousness to accompany and attach to every expression of substance. There are no substantive facts that are more than truisms, unless they are tied to facts inter-functioning with consciousness at some level.

Bye Bye America

Commenters often say, in effect, that soft American governance, businesses, and workers need the spur of free international competition in order to get us to ease red tape, produce better products, and end abuses of unions. However, the "free" competition we would be up against would be the third world labor and businesses that are under the control of despots affiliated with international corporatists. To compete with them, we would need to become more like them. That is, we would need to eliminate much of the middle class and small business and turn control over to elite corporatists who know best how to buy up our trade policy, currency, and government. IOW, we would need to trade serf status for a more equal share and distribution of industry and jobs. In effect, we would sacrifice our status as politically equal Americans so that we could better compete with morally indifferent connivers of redistribution (via cannibalization and reduction of the middle class and small business).

Why should we want to do that? Insofar as technological improvements do tend to occur more often within cultures that have vibrant middle classes, why should we not protect the American political system? Why should we not be easing internal business taxes at home, while increasing taxes on international trade? Why not increase the role of competition at home, while recognizing more of the true costs of competing abroad? Why should Americans be facilitating international corporatists who are hell bent on enriching despots who want to undermine and replace the freedom and dignity that has been the birthright of the American middle class? Mark my words: Absent some great awakening, this sellout of American freedom and dignity will continue unabated. Simply put, our politicians, whether R or D, will be owned and operated by international elitists or despots who think the American middle class should butt out of politics and economic policy and just be thankful for whatever trickles down. This is neither moral, nor economic progress; it is political suicide for middle class Americans, in trade for delusions.

Quantum Decoherence

Quantum Decoherence:

Those who want to shunt the notion of a City of God aside, in trade for a City of Self, tend to be embarrassed when it is pointed out how circularly convenient are their "many worlds" and "multiverse" notions for modeling how it could be that consciousness "just happens" to abide, ex nihilio, in our world. So, now we have a notion of "Quantum Decoherence." Behind all the math, proponents seem to use this notion to try to rationalize for the best of the "City of Self," by presuming countless possibilities of other universes do not actually manifest in space-time existence, but only in potential. In potential, all that abides that is not manifested is entirely "coherent." It is only when a manifestation bubbles or leaks out (of "meta space-time"?) into an expression in manifest space-time that there is experienced, in reference to it, a decoherence. However, this technique for applying-labels-to-whatever-may-result ("stuff just happens") does not explicate much concerning why or how any particular result was actually synchronized, caused, apprehended, guided, or chosen. Nor does the notion of Quantum Decoherence, in itself, avail any relevant help for deriving "ought" from "is." To derive "ought from is" necessitates a quality of consciousness, which abides superior to, or at least on par with, quantifiably correlative substance.  This would seem simple to any reasonably bright 6 year old child.  However, in these days, given intense competition to "progress" in science and math, one needs to be really smart and narrowly driven in order to believe so many things that avail so little coherence with innate intuition.

Regardless, the potentiality of our universe somehow "chooses" to manifest only one, from among all possible potentialities, to our commonly synchronized and unfolding experience of consciousness. In all our varieties for experiencing and measuring the unfolding manifestation of our universe, we are unable categorically or quantifiably to prove answers to the questions we wrestle with as being of most import. At most, we feel, intuit, divine, or rationalize such "answers." The questions include the following:

- After we label that which results from a fundamentally unknown process (such as "Quantum Decoherence"), how do we meaningfully explicate the quality of that process?

- May that process be consistent with the abiding of a universal field or quality of Consciousness?

- Is the holistic, synchronous, unfolding of each "choice" of universal expression reconciled in respect of feedback in the quality of appreciation of each particular, mortal perspective?

- Does any meta quality of consistency, purpose, or feedback guide each judgment or choice regarding which among the possible states of universal expression should be unfolded to the next successive appreciation of variously encompassed perspectives of consciousness?

- Ought we to be concerned about what qualities of appreciation may please God, or does God merely reconcile how God is to be pleased, regardless?

- Even is there may abide a contemporaneous quality of holistic consciousness, may it, itself, be entirely preset?

- What visions or delights may such a holistic consciousness be learning or practicing to avail and sustain?

- What is the quality of "my" connection or subservience to any holistic "I-ness"?

- Does decent civilization have any reasonable hope or chance to sustain and communicate itself, absent reverence towards any meta Source of decency?

Materialism Drives

Idealism is fine, but temper it.  In any situation of political controversy, if you think first about what are the opportunities for getting riches, you will probably get a better sense of the players driving the news behind the scenes, and how the events will be driven.  Then you can better strike --- either to advance your ideals or to enhance your wealth.  The fact is, materialism drives us hard.