The Dignity of Human Consciousness:
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?
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?
13 comments:
I don't think Obama will step aside. I sometimes doubt his main goal is to get reelected. I'm not sure, but his main goal could simply be to do all he can to help his alliance against the middle class to bring down America as we know it, so it can be replaced. I suspect Dinos and Rinos can be bribed to his alliance. Indeed, if another Rino is elected, the "good work" of replacing America as we know it would go on, even were Obama not reelected. I think Obama very much dislikes America as we know it. Even if he agitates and goes down in flames, the nation would be misguided in its relief if it thought a Rino would not carry on the work of downgrading the independency of the middle class. I suspect that's where he draws his energy. I'm watching Herman Cain and hoping he's the antidote, the real deal.
I have been wondering how an ordinary American political candidate, relying nearly exclusively on the Tea Party, could possibly compete against the financial resources that are availed by soulless cannibals and Bilderbergers to an alliance of crony Rino capitalists and crony Dino socialists. The answer may relate to skill in swimming with sharks. Maybe Herman Cain can show a way for decent, middle class Americans to compete against a juggernaut of crony cannibals bent on selling out and replacing America. However, this confederacy of cannibals will not go down without treachery. I fear for the suffering of our next President, if he tries to heal Americans against what lies scheming against us.
The Democrat Party is an entitlement minded party. An entitlement minded party, almost by definition, is not interested in the desires of anyone else. The one entitlement a Democrat will not accede to in anyone else is the entitlement to be left alone. A Democrat is by nature conditioned such that his interests run first to himself, then to preserving his apparatus so he can continue to force others to fork their stuff over to him. Democrat empathy is just a word that means never having to say you're sorry for using government to force crony style charity. Democrat Motto: Would you like to give to the union?
Materialists always point to Maslow's hierarchy to argue that freedom doesn't matter if there's no food or shelter. Kind of a silly argument when food and shelter are plentiful. What really grates against them is that anyone else has more stuff. Why? Because, having no other values, they know no other way to measure themselves. The very worst thing an electorate can do is to turn its governance over to such ilk. Once done, it's hard to take it back. Nor shall we easily take it back this time, for the death grip of a materialistc alliance of crony capitalists and crony socialists is aligned against every decent American.
Some people continue to advocate that freedom should tolerate, even enrich and nation-build, non-freedom. To do so is not to advocate for freedom, but for the subjugation and eventual destruction of freedom. The American meme can no better tolerate the Islamic meme than matter can tolerate anti-matter.
To teach American children that Islam deserves to be respected is to prepare America for subjugation. Matter did not subjugate anti-matter except by somehow propagating more of itself in our universe. That is how the Islamic world means to subgugate America: by an excess of propagation.
There is too much of gap in wealth at the very top. However, the very wealthy and the poor are not at political odds. Rather, the very wealthy tend to use the very poor, and the very poor tend to be so easily misled that they don't even see how they are being abused. The result is a crony alliance of Rinos and Dinos against the decent middle class. To my lights, that chasm in wealth is extremely dangerous to democracy. That's why I want tariffs, a progressive consumption tax, death taxes, and encouragement for private charities in ways that would not make them just tax dodges for the very wealthy. The way the Aino Alliance is running things, trust me: Even a household income of $160,000 will hardly put a middle class family with two kids in much more security than a family with $50,000. The more a middle class person makes, the fewer governmental handouts he gets, and the more he pays in taxes. I have not noticed that much increase in lifestyle from making more money. The apparatus being dealt by the Unholy Alliance of Rinos and Dinos levels against that. The more the redistributers of wealth redistribute, the more the gap grows. Make more money, you won't qualify for low interest loans to help kids in college. Give government backed loans to students, tuition goes up. Mandate a decrease in credit card fees, banks start charging monthly debit card fees. Guarantee mortgage loans, house prices go up. Every time the Unholy Alliance invents a new scheme, it eventually and always results in a Ponzi effect. What's the end game? Elimination and leveling of the middle class. Meantime, Dems always say, "Well, we meant well."
Re: If food and shelter were so plentiful, why are they both so expensive in comparison to other points in history?
They aren't. At other points in history, people starved or were killed and the conqueror took the spoils. In America, anyone who needs emergency medical care can go to a facility. Anyone who is hungry can go to the Salvation Army. Anyone can hang out at a day labor station. Anyone who needs comfort can join a church. There's even have a church for atheists: The Unitarian-Universalist Church. Problem is, too many people think their dignity entitles them not to have to do those things. My question: Given that many of them deliberately made choices that were naturally inclined to put them in a bad spot, precisely what "entitles" them to continue in such a state of entitlement mindedness?
Manfred Max-Neef? Who cares? Check http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701-1-s&va=maslow%27s+hierarchy+of+needs: At the base, you will find: breathing, FOOD, water, sex, sleep, homoestasis, excretion; then SECURITY OF BODY (this is shelter), security of body, employment, resources, morality, the family, health, property. I don't think "food and shelter" is an unfair shorthand rendition of that, even though a Maslow purist may have preferred "physiological-safety" as a more inclusive shorthand rendition. In any event, even on the Maslow table, you will find morality and family included even at the fundamental levels.
Notice I haven't said jobs are plentiful. However, there is a safety net in place that is provided both by government and by volunteer agencies. Unemployment benefits have been considerably extended. People don't pay debts off in the order you indicated. They don't pay their bills with grocery and rent money. You don't find many families living under overpasses. You do find a lot of addicts, people who have made intentional and bad choices, and folks who have reconciled themselves to that lifestyle. Also, folks who simply do not want to do the routine the Salvation Army requires. Yes, more needs to be done, even for them. However, how many folks from the community of democrats do you see out there helping them? When you start making the salary of a good pilot, I doubt you will have much patience with derelicts coming around and claiming they are entitled to their share of your work.
I think middle class Americans want government to butt out, regulate less, and quit so much intrusive posturing as knowing what is best, or as having a "right" to take from some in order to try to enhance self esteem for others (while mainly rewarding and empowering cronies). Self esteem doesn't come from taking from others out of a sense of entitlement. Against local parents, government is not entitled to mandate the teaching of Islamic tolerance or sensititivity training in the classroom. Teachers are not entitled to discount grades when a student says "God bless you" after someone sneezes. Against local parents, government is not entitled to prescribe, build, or regulate walls that prevent students (who are people too!) from expressing the myth language of their values. Government ought not feel entitled to prescribe walls against free speech that favor some myths over others. BTW: EVERY value system IS myth or meme based --- even Dawkins' value system (assuming he has one). By that, I mean every value system has some aspect of "truthiness," but does not constitute "The Truth" in any empirically demonstrable way. Indeed, you and I both resort to favored myths as we go about trying to sort out principles to live by.
To the extent we are principled, I think we try to ascertain that myth or meme that can best support decent society. I just don't find much of that in the Democrat Myth. The main thing I see in the Democrat Myth is an assertion of entitlement to construct apparatus to take from those who work in order to give to those who feel entitled. That kind of gangster mindset will just never get past my BS detector.
Herman Cain is a successful black business man with substantial training for a mathematical mind who is a strong Baptist. I doubt he wants government making intrusive, affirmative-action regulations in people's bedrooms. I also doubt he wants governmental mandates sought by Code Pink and the ACLU that are meant to erect walls against myth-based free speech concerning values. Go Herman!
Libertines often seem oblivious to how much moral issues permeate economic concerns. The Regime's outrages against morality cross every economic concern, including concerns that relate to Civics, Immigration, Self Reliance, Spirituality, Family, Education, honest Communication, Business, and Military. Moral outrages include: Civic (spreading immoral notions of entitlement to gang up in order to take from others); Civic and Immigration (undermining the integrity of of the electorate by interfering with states' efforts to help enforce the border); Civic, Self Reliance, and Economic (pretending to love America and to want to help middle class strivers while stabbing them in the back via an Unholy Alliance of Aino Cronies under an unrelenting series of regulatory Ponzi schemes); Civic, Family, Education, and Religion (appointing education czars bent on conditioning minds of third graders that they must tolerate Islam, polygamy, and same sex marriage); Communication (establishing codes of politically correct newspeak that promote the division and ungluing of the citizenry); Business (choking off domestic energy production in ways that enrich crony capitialitic forces of anti-competitive-capitalism); and Military (destablizing the balance of power in the middle east viz a viz Israel).
Because all such moral concerns directly impact the economy, there is No Intelligent Way to push such moral concerns into a back corner in order to concentrate only on economics.
Just another double bind. Ainos don't want ID laws because they discourage influx of cheap illegal labor, yet they want ID laws (and computer dossiers on everyone) because they would facilitate control over a servile citizenry. Americans would want ID laws if they would be used to reduce the influence of aliens while not adding to the control of cronies who essentially own our government. However, that would not happen. These kinds of double binds will become more and more noticeable in many more areas as our governance becomes more corrupt and unsustainable. It's a sign of coming Ponzi collapse. Another example: Government debt so high it cannot service the debt unless it keeps interest rates artificially low, yet artificially low interest rates deter banks from making loans to help businesses to lead the economy towards recovery. Crony capitalism in alliance with crony socialism is fundamentally destroying America. In his heart of hearts, these are interesting times for Obamanuts. Until leaders with vision inspire the will and the way to restore and defend America against all corrupters and cannibalizers, foreign and domestic, our downfall will only accelerate. Until then, what government giveth with one hand, it will continue to More Than Take Away with the other. We're not climbing out of any hole; we're digging deeper.
Reading The Aeneid. Thinking about the role of Myths. Just talked to nephew Mike. Don't worry about deciphering me. That's hopeless. Behind words, I doubt we're that far apart. Regarding truthiness: Most people are confused about that also. I think most of them really believe The Truth is out there. I don't. I think all meaningful truth is interpermeated with the subjective interior. Even though I'm about as clear about that as Stephen Colbert. Regardless, behind all the abstract talk about economy, taxes, money, and redistribution, I think there's a fairly simple reality: Too many people think the governmental magic of Obama's Stash can fix it so hardly anyone needs to produce anything. But you can't eat fiat money, no matter how much you spread it. Redistributing fiat money is not going to fix an economy in which most people are looking: for ways not to have to work, ways to discourage other people from working, or ways to live off other people's work. Even if everyone pulled their pants off the ground. I think a good part of the reason times are so much tougher than they should be in a society that rewarded good sense is because so many people have deluded themselves that we could all be rich if we just redistributed money around. Meantime, while we've been deluding ourselves in that way, people in other countries have been busily working away, actually producing, and thereby taking our industry into their lands. Instead of working to get that industry back, rabble rousers like Obama ilk continue to delude themselves that redistributing money to the poor would solve our problems. It's not pants around ankles that I worry about; it's brains. Brains around ankles have impoverished and hocked the next generation. I suspect the entitlement mindset doesn't rest when it comes to other issues, like entitlement to chemical addictions (sugar, alcohol, cannibas, endorphins, dopamine, serotonin). To me, that mindset is emblematic of moral issues.
Too many scientists have become prone to trying to replace priests in hubris for "knowing" The Truth. I wish they would return to more humility, for seeking what works. Since our unfolding is not static, and all things do not remain the same, the best myth or model that works is prone to change with the times. The best myth may more often accompany decentralized judgment than the "settled truth" that any central cadre wants to enforce. Too often, we mistake practical myths (hypotheses) for The Settled Truth. When scientists rely on argumentation in order to propagate their models as settled truth for how we should confine our choices, they reduce themselves to apologists for those despots who believe themselves entitled to deny choices for all others. Although things do not remain the same, hubristic despots would feign to make things remain the same. This is how we get bureaucrats taking away choices about even the flush capacities for toilets. More and more bureaucrats are enlisted to write reams of regulations to serve despots for denying people freedom of choice. This is done by replacing incomplete and untestable religious myths with incomplete and often untestable scientific models. The difference is, more priests than scientists apprehend the myth aspects in their models. Having taken away the tools of religious inquisitors, we now give new tools to bureaucratic fascists. These neo-myth enforcers recite a new kind of Latin, which the unwashed are expected not to read for themselves: Latin from the new holy book of "settled scientific truth." I'm not against religion or science. I'm against despotic hubris.
The capacity for minds that are enslaved to be twisted to insanity and madness is terrible to behold. There's a saw making the rounds about how to twist minds in a culture of monkeys: Start with a cage containing 11 monkeys. Inside, hang a banana (on a brass ring?) from the top and place stairs under it. Soon, a monkey will climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. Do the same each time a monkey makes an attempt to get the banana, until all have been hosed. Soon, any monkey who tries to get the banana will get the crap beat out of him by all the others. Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey and replace him with a new one. The new monkey will attempt to climb the stairs only once, because the others will enforce the encultured consequence. Likewise, replace all the original monkeys, one at a time. Would not the anti-banana culture endure, nonetheless? Why? Because in the minds of the monkeys, that's the way it has always been! This is why, from time to time, it can be helpful to replace all monkey bureaucrats and enforcers at the same time. If you just bring in a temporary new majority, the old culture (especially if allowed to pass on its genes?) will simply wait for a new 12th monkey.
Post a Comment