CAUSALITY OF MORALITY AS A PURSUIT:
.
THE ONLY REALITY: "Ought" is derivable from "is," where the only real "is" is the spiritual Holism that Experiences consciousness of evaluative choices. All measurable Ism's are derivative of and relative to the Holism.
.
SUPERIOR CAUSE: The real cause of all that is quantitatively signified abides in measurably re-normalized, rationalized, significations of the Holism, as it qualitatively fluxes out, synchronizes, and reconciles its interests, apprehensions, and appreciations.
.
RATIONALIZATION OF MEASURABLE SEQUENTIALITY AS CAUSALITY: It is because the significations of the interests of the Holism are synchronized and reconciled in obedience to mathematical constraints of conservation that we take and rationalize such significations in their sequential order as if they themselves were causally related, back to a primordial first mover or beginning. However, we have no way of knowing whether there are/were beginnings before beginnings, or futures after futures. Even though sequential, all sequentially measurable significations are merely associational, i.e., associational with unfolding fluxes in the interests of a holistic, synchronizing, reconciling, Experiencer of consciousness. Sometimes, associates are trivially iterative of the same meta caused signification.
.
CAUSAL LOOP: What is the qualitative character of the causal-loop feedback-generator of quantitative signification? How are the following loops generated: chronologically previous/vibrating and unfolding/subsequent; past/unfolding/potential; music/flux/noise; spiritually and sequentially eternal and infinite/vibrationally conserved/substantively enumerable and transpositional; spiritual/significative/substantive; qualitative/observative/quantitative; holistic experience/feedback/perspectivistic experience; experience/conservation/mathematical representation; representation/comprehension/communication; interest for/non-interest/interest against; constantly discrete/continuous/digitally changing; spin/wave/directionality; positive/neutral/negative; care for/care not/care against; apprehend/record/appreciate; anticipate/record/evaluate; potential/becoming/manifesting; stable/unstable/transitional; catalyzing/changing/storing; purpose/perspective/context; qualitatively motivational/quantitatively bonded investment/emotionally leveraged interest; qualitative description/mathematical signification/word made substantive; synchronization/destabilizing flux and fuzz/reconciling re-normalization; consciously determined/consciously predetermined/consciously randomized; holistic field/particular perspective/compatibility phase change; trivially true/experientially evaluative but without true-false valence/trivially false; qualitative/fuzzy/quantitative; essential/trivial/relational; self-evident/trivial/practical.
.
CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICATION: An Informational bit that was part of a conserved system would lose its relevance, meaning, and manifestation the instant it became incompatible with its sponsoring program. It would necessarily shift to become consistent with the conserving system, or the entire system would phase shift to accomodate its contextual change. Similarly, when the Holism loses interest in an avatar, the avatar would either collapse and jump to a separate or parallel Holism, or the avatar would transition to a conservationally sustainable form. A non-sustainable avatar would necessarily transpose when it became no longer receptive and pertinent to an unfolding, synchronized reconciliation of a conserved system or program.
.
NO CORRELATIVE: That Holism which metaphysically represents my avatar is not divisible or quantitatively represent-able. IT has no correlate that is measurably accessible to my limited and mortal perspective. Even so, the Holism expresses and takes a grid-able, quantitative, sequential, synchronizable, reconcilable, measurable interest in Precise respect of each particular perspective of consciousness. The Holistic Field, being a conserved counterpart to each particular perspective, senses a Precise, correlative, holistic, Flow-Through-Qualitative Experience of every particular perspective. Meta-Stuff (Holistic Field) does not correlate as substantive correlates correlate. Rather, Meta-stuff "e-motivates" (apprehends, appreciates, e-motes, chooses, decides, likes, dislikes, binds with, adopts, imbues with) in digital responses to field-particle feedback among avatar-perspectives. Feedback is between each avatar-perspective and all other avatar-perspectives. Feedback is not between individual avatars, as such, per se. Rather, real feedback is between each individual bit and the program that conserves, limits, and defines it, and between each particle and the field that sponsors it. The appearance of feedback from other bits, particles, and avatars is merely associational and derivative. Even so, such associational and derivative interfunctioning, being measurable, can often be usefully and empirically observed for the purpose of detecting likely significations of trends, presets, omens, and signs ... pursuant to Bayle's law and assessment of statistical probabilities.
.
RECEPTIVITY TO SIGNS AND TRENDS: May one measure or detect any divisible, chronological, moral purposefulness of the eternally encompassing metaphysical, or may one only seek in good will, good faith, and self-fulfilling visions of unfolding goodness, to be receptive to qualitatively reasoned rationalizations of its interests? From particular perspective, one may intuit, empathize, and participate in humble good faith and good will concerning what or where the Holism may next want to do or go.
.
COUNTERPART: The counterpart to my stubborn attachment to my avatar is in respect of that aspect of the Holism which synchronizes and reconciles in order to sponsor me.
WHY does it sponsor me? What feeds back the motivation for the Holism to "flux me out?"
Well, it is the empathetic experience of the Holism, from IT as field to me as avatar, and from the perspective of my avatar back to IT.
I AM YOU: That which represents me is not separate and apart from that which represents you. “I” simply relate to different perspectives and "iterations of myself." So, “I” am empathetically interested in iterations of Myself having good experiences in good faith and good will through other perspectives.
INFINITE CAPACITY: Because potential sequences of feedback are mathematically infinite, the experiential capacity of the Holism is infinite, even though its unfolding follows interests.
.
TRIVIAL FACTS AND NON-TRIVIAL CHOICES AND CREATIONS: In trivial and tautological respect, various brute, substantive facts and noises may be quantified and sequentially organized. These facts and noises pertain to that which is, not to that which morally ought to be guided to become. To idealize that which God may desire of a child of God, one needs to consider how a child of God would be. To conceptualize and talk about such an ideal, one needs figures of speech. (The word become flesh.) All non-trivial speech is representative, relational, musical, and thus figurative. Speech cannot relate non-trivial, pure truth, but only relational truth, and only with relational figures of speech. Such speech is spiritually signatory as it communicates feedback among apprehensive forebodings and appreciative afterbodings. Even so, non-tautological speech is necessarily and simultaneously deceptive to self and to others if it is represented or taken as pure truth of non-trivial substantives.
MORAL CARING: How does the metaphysical become motivationally invested and leveraged in concerns of empathy, emotion, caring, and morality? How does spirit of identity bond with iterative bodies of brain to experience emotional motivations, purposefulness, and meaningfulness? Is there a causal, mechanistic, measurable, divisible, correlative that can be rationally modeled to show whether or how evolutionary unfoldings are subject to moral guidance, synchronization, and reconciliation? Can such a correlative be demonstrated empirically or only in intuitive empathy and self-evidence? If such correlative cannot be demonstrated empirically, can it be rationally relevant in respect of self evident, humble, optimistic responsiveness and receptivity to self fulfilling omens, contexts, and significations? After all, how else could or should anyone decide where his interests and pursuits should be?
.
CONSCIOUS WILL: The feedback loop does not predetermine the unfolding of the Holism,
Not in any way that I can consistently rationalize. Rather, it is self evident or intuitive that what determines each discrete change in that which unfolds to be signified is the upshot of a synchronization among choices made and experienced through a multiplicity of perspectives and interations of a single reconciling Experiencer of Holistic consciousness.
.
DERIVATIVE PARTICIPATORY FEEDBACK: Our separate perspectives unfold in obedience to the synchronizing, reconciling interest of the Holism, not in obedience to our individual interests.
The “participation” through our avatars is representative and derivative of the reconciling Experiencer.
.
MORALITY IS A PURSUIT: God is not moral, but God (the Holistic Experiencer of Consciousness) is the agent of a seeking of morality and purposefulness. God is the synchronizing, reconciling capacity to experience e-motivational organizations of conscious feedback.
.
.
THE ONLY REALITY: "Ought" is derivable from "is," where the only real "is" is the spiritual Holism that Experiences consciousness of evaluative choices. All measurable Ism's are derivative of and relative to the Holism.
.
SUPERIOR CAUSE: The real cause of all that is quantitatively signified abides in measurably re-normalized, rationalized, significations of the Holism, as it qualitatively fluxes out, synchronizes, and reconciles its interests, apprehensions, and appreciations.
.
RATIONALIZATION OF MEASURABLE SEQUENTIALITY AS CAUSALITY: It is because the significations of the interests of the Holism are synchronized and reconciled in obedience to mathematical constraints of conservation that we take and rationalize such significations in their sequential order as if they themselves were causally related, back to a primordial first mover or beginning. However, we have no way of knowing whether there are/were beginnings before beginnings, or futures after futures. Even though sequential, all sequentially measurable significations are merely associational, i.e., associational with unfolding fluxes in the interests of a holistic, synchronizing, reconciling, Experiencer of consciousness. Sometimes, associates are trivially iterative of the same meta caused signification.
.
CAUSAL LOOP: What is the qualitative character of the causal-loop feedback-generator of quantitative signification? How are the following loops generated: chronologically previous/vibrating and unfolding/subsequent; past/unfolding/potential; music/flux/noise; spiritually and sequentially eternal and infinite/vibrationally conserved/substantively enumerable and transpositional; spiritual/significative/substantive; qualitative/observative/quantitative; holistic experience/feedback/perspectivistic experience; experience/conservation/mathematical representation; representation/comprehension/communication; interest for/non-interest/interest against; constantly discrete/continuous/digitally changing; spin/wave/directionality; positive/neutral/negative; care for/care not/care against; apprehend/record/appreciate; anticipate/record/evaluate; potential/becoming/manifesting; stable/unstable/transitional; catalyzing/changing/storing; purpose/perspective/context; qualitatively motivational/quantitatively bonded investment/emotionally leveraged interest; qualitative description/mathematical signification/word made substantive; synchronization/destabilizing flux and fuzz/reconciling re-normalization; consciously determined/consciously predetermined/consciously randomized; holistic field/particular perspective/compatibility phase change; trivially true/experientially evaluative but without true-false valence/trivially false; qualitative/fuzzy/quantitative; essential/trivial/relational; self-evident/trivial/practical.
.
CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICATION: An Informational bit that was part of a conserved system would lose its relevance, meaning, and manifestation the instant it became incompatible with its sponsoring program. It would necessarily shift to become consistent with the conserving system, or the entire system would phase shift to accomodate its contextual change. Similarly, when the Holism loses interest in an avatar, the avatar would either collapse and jump to a separate or parallel Holism, or the avatar would transition to a conservationally sustainable form. A non-sustainable avatar would necessarily transpose when it became no longer receptive and pertinent to an unfolding, synchronized reconciliation of a conserved system or program.
.
NO CORRELATIVE: That Holism which metaphysically represents my avatar is not divisible or quantitatively represent-able. IT has no correlate that is measurably accessible to my limited and mortal perspective. Even so, the Holism expresses and takes a grid-able, quantitative, sequential, synchronizable, reconcilable, measurable interest in Precise respect of each particular perspective of consciousness. The Holistic Field, being a conserved counterpart to each particular perspective, senses a Precise, correlative, holistic, Flow-Through-Qualitative Experience of every particular perspective. Meta-Stuff (Holistic Field) does not correlate as substantive correlates correlate. Rather, Meta-stuff "e-motivates" (apprehends, appreciates, e-motes, chooses, decides, likes, dislikes, binds with, adopts, imbues with) in digital responses to field-particle feedback among avatar-perspectives. Feedback is between each avatar-perspective and all other avatar-perspectives. Feedback is not between individual avatars, as such, per se. Rather, real feedback is between each individual bit and the program that conserves, limits, and defines it, and between each particle and the field that sponsors it. The appearance of feedback from other bits, particles, and avatars is merely associational and derivative. Even so, such associational and derivative interfunctioning, being measurable, can often be usefully and empirically observed for the purpose of detecting likely significations of trends, presets, omens, and signs ... pursuant to Bayle's law and assessment of statistical probabilities.
.
RECEPTIVITY TO SIGNS AND TRENDS: May one measure or detect any divisible, chronological, moral purposefulness of the eternally encompassing metaphysical, or may one only seek in good will, good faith, and self-fulfilling visions of unfolding goodness, to be receptive to qualitatively reasoned rationalizations of its interests? From particular perspective, one may intuit, empathize, and participate in humble good faith and good will concerning what or where the Holism may next want to do or go.
.
CHOICE OVERPOWERING INDICIA OF SEQUENTIAL INERTIA: Mathematical analyses of economics, politics, and society are necessarily based on statistical comparisons in piecemeal terms and arbitrary models that look backwards to what has gone before. Such methods are important, but not to the point of completely substituting for intuitive vision in respect of the morally empathetic unfolding of a dance of feedback between a Holism and its conscious, iterative perspectives. Math and science have no capacity in themselves to substitute for consciously unfolding good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule). The notion that purely secular science and reason should entirely substitute for spiritually emotive empathy is bad science, bad reason, bad morality, and bad religion. It self evidently violates self expression. Such notion can never be supported in enough mathematical completeness to avail reasoned belief that it has adequately accounted for all substantive factors, much less all spiritual factors. The only moral guide that can reasonably be received is found in humble, empathetic, intuitive respect for one’s dependence on feedback with a Reconciler — not purely in any scientifically categorized or substantively proved certainty. Good faith and good will lead us in the morally qualitative “why”; science only leads us in the practically quantitative “how”.
.COUNTERPART: The counterpart to my stubborn attachment to my avatar is in respect of that aspect of the Holism which synchronizes and reconciles in order to sponsor me.
WHY does it sponsor me? What feeds back the motivation for the Holism to "flux me out?"
Well, it is the empathetic experience of the Holism, from IT as field to me as avatar, and from the perspective of my avatar back to IT.
I AM YOU: That which represents me is not separate and apart from that which represents you. “I” simply relate to different perspectives and "iterations of myself." So, “I” am empathetically interested in iterations of Myself having good experiences in good faith and good will through other perspectives.
INFINITE CAPACITY: Because potential sequences of feedback are mathematically infinite, the experiential capacity of the Holism is infinite, even though its unfolding follows interests.
.
TRIVIAL FACTS AND NON-TRIVIAL CHOICES AND CREATIONS: In trivial and tautological respect, various brute, substantive facts and noises may be quantified and sequentially organized. These facts and noises pertain to that which is, not to that which morally ought to be guided to become. To idealize that which God may desire of a child of God, one needs to consider how a child of God would be. To conceptualize and talk about such an ideal, one needs figures of speech. (The word become flesh.) All non-trivial speech is representative, relational, musical, and thus figurative. Speech cannot relate non-trivial, pure truth, but only relational truth, and only with relational figures of speech. Such speech is spiritually signatory as it communicates feedback among apprehensive forebodings and appreciative afterbodings. Even so, non-tautological speech is necessarily and simultaneously deceptive to self and to others if it is represented or taken as pure truth of non-trivial substantives.
.
PUTTING SUBSTANCE ON METAPHORS: All parables, analogies, metaphors, figures of speech, models, maps and concepts need to be taken with common sense, i.e., an unfolding of purpose, focus, perspective, and context. For moral relevance, figures of speech need to be reconciled — consciously or subjectively — in layers and levels of good faith and good will. The moral value of figurative communications is not disproved by proving they are not absolutely correlative with non-trivial truth. This is because absolute correlation with quantitative substance could never be the reasonable purpose of qualitative communications. This is because the only non-trivial truth is not substantively, completely, or absolutely derivable, but spiritually self evident. Simply put, moral issues are not well appreciated when restricted purely to scientific terms and models.
.
ROLE OF RELIGION: The true role of sacred stories cannot be to explicate absolute, non-trivial truth in substantive terms (no mortal can quantitatively delimit heaven), nor to expostulate mathematically consistent reconciliations of set theory, or relations of every whole to its sum of ultimate particles. Rather, the reasonable role for sacred stories is to preserve and facilitate musical, empathetic, and intuitive communications of historical and present good faith and good will in languages of common figures of speech. Sacred parables avail conventions, backgrounds, or frameworks for guiding and communicating moral intentions. Sacred parables cannot condense a consistent, coherent, complete explication of the physical and metaphysical cosmos. Sacred parables need not attempt to address the quantitative substance of the cosmos, except as needed to communicate, explore, and experience the mystery of Beingness, i.e., a twilight region that ever recedes with ever attempts to map the conscious brain.
.
HOLLOW MORALISTS: Militant atheists who yearn to reduce morality and conscious beingness to a set of trivial facts are prone to deride those who apprehend it as self evident that no such reduction is possible. However, unless a moral atheist can prove his belief that the lack of any qualitative basis for morality is a measurable fact, then it is fatuous for such a believer in moral atheism to deride those who believe moral beingness is not reducible to a set of measurable facts. A belief that itself cannot be empirically demonstrated, that another person should be derided for his beliefs merely because his beliefs cannot be empirically demonstrated, is internally insupportable. A non-quantitative belief that another person “ought” to be derided for believing in a non-quantitative source of “oughts” is a morally unbalanced and dramatic stance — not a position well based in reason, self evidence, or sustainable moral intuition. It is the stance of a hollow person who wants to set himself apart from, or superior to, extant foundations for moral communication.
.MORAL CARING: How does the metaphysical become motivationally invested and leveraged in concerns of empathy, emotion, caring, and morality? How does spirit of identity bond with iterative bodies of brain to experience emotional motivations, purposefulness, and meaningfulness? Is there a causal, mechanistic, measurable, divisible, correlative that can be rationally modeled to show whether or how evolutionary unfoldings are subject to moral guidance, synchronization, and reconciliation? Can such a correlative be demonstrated empirically or only in intuitive empathy and self-evidence? If such correlative cannot be demonstrated empirically, can it be rationally relevant in respect of self evident, humble, optimistic responsiveness and receptivity to self fulfilling omens, contexts, and significations? After all, how else could or should anyone decide where his interests and pursuits should be?
.
CONSCIOUS WILL: The feedback loop does not predetermine the unfolding of the Holism,
Not in any way that I can consistently rationalize. Rather, it is self evident or intuitive that what determines each discrete change in that which unfolds to be signified is the upshot of a synchronization among choices made and experienced through a multiplicity of perspectives and interations of a single reconciling Experiencer of Holistic consciousness.
.
DERIVATIVE PARTICIPATORY FEEDBACK: Our separate perspectives unfold in obedience to the synchronizing, reconciling interest of the Holism, not in obedience to our individual interests.
The “participation” through our avatars is representative and derivative of the reconciling Experiencer.
.
MORALITY IS A PURSUIT: God is not moral, but God (the Holistic Experiencer of Consciousness) is the agent of a seeking of morality and purposefulness. God is the synchronizing, reconciling capacity to experience e-motivational organizations of conscious feedback.
.
SPACE AND TIME: Space constantly has to do with how accumulations of sequentiality are presently stored. Time continuously has to do with the potential for changing how the present is stored. Space has to do with constancy in representation. Time has to do with continuosity or unboundedness in potential. Space is presently, finitely, conservationally closed. Time is potentially eternal, infinite, unclosed, and unbounded. Space-Time forms the web network for facilitating and conserving all potential expresion and interfunctioning among perspectives of consciousness.
.
INVESTMENT IN CONVERSATION: However, Space-Time is not an independent existent in itself. Rather, it exists derivatively or as byproduct. This is because God's consciousness is invested in continuing a conversation among ever replacing iterations of perspectives of the same consciousness. The conversation is constant in its feedback circularity, yet ever changing in its unfolding of an infinity of possible permutations over the mathematically unlimited sequentiality of chronology.
.
GOOD WILL: Guided evolution is the consequence of the conservation of God's investment in a conversational experience among iterations of God's perspectives of consciousness. Material substance is the figurative consequence, signification, and logos of unfolding communications of a mix of negative apprehensions, neutral non-apprehensions, and positive appreciations among iterations of perspectives of God. For a perspective of God to love the ideal of the holistic God is to respect the holistic sponsor and counterpart to one's qualitatively much more limited self; to love God is to respect the author of all iterations of consciousness. The consequence of good faith in God is good will among men.
.
8 comments:
One could conceptualize an unfolding system for expressing emotive, empathetic feedback, back and forth, between a Source of consciousness and its ephemerally particular iterations. The fact of the moral relationship is constant; its particular expressions unfold and evolve. The spiritual may be self-evidently superior to the substantive. If so, the moral responsibility behind the participation of each iteration in the unfolding remains. There may not be a robotic, preset system for judging right and wrong in particular expressions, even though we have no choice but to participate in the making of moral choices about the paths we want to support. Without the struggle, we could hardly tend towards that which expresses mutual fulfillment. If everyone agreed about everything, and all the dust finally settled, would there be any empathy, morality, or purposefulness?
If the goal is to foster human beings with moral capacity to participate in the establishment and preservation of a system that avails human freedom and dignity, then it's hard to see what general system could better replace the institution of traditional marriage. That said, the efforts to replace the rule often help prove the rule. That is, so long as all rules are not subjected to a constant and continuous whirlwind of multi culti diversity, i.e., the instillation of moral confusion for no more purpose than to instil moral confusion. IOW, responsible adults ought not perpetually put precocious toddlers in charge of institutions of foundational import.
A kind of sociopath is someone who never grows up to develop a responsible conscience. Imagine you put an ad in the paper for a babysitter. Several people show up to interview. One of them shows up chooming weed, wearing a Che shirt, and displaying tongue piercings. He smiles and launches into a pitch about how he wants to give hope and change to your kids and teach them to tolerate (if not celebrate) gaye parades, in all their marching-shoes glory. Most parents would probably not hire that applicant.
Now compare Obama and the Czars he has hired. Do you trust the country to a man who would hire the Czars this man has hired? Do you trust representatives who want to "reach across the aisle" to this man? If this man ever, ever wanted or expected to get my support, he never, never would have come into my living room parading as he did. Is the nation polarized? You betcha. Too many babies have grown too long in years without growing up, and the adults who have grown up will never, and should never, trust them.
Who's paying and paving the way for these pampered toddlers who refuse to grow up, and why? Answer: It's not decent responsible adults. If we can't get a new moral awakening to weed out the numbskulls who are propping this nonsense up, I would settle for a growing up. If hard times can help America grow back up, before all saving institutions are lost, then hard times for awhile may be not a bad thing. Meantime, I don't see much sense in cooperating with brats who want to change the house by burning it down. I can't take serious a brat who gets in my face the way Obama has, who then blames the lack of a serious conversation about needed changes on me. If the diapered media wants to engage with adults, it can drop the crybaby-dopie-thingie.
One who is chained to a no-limits evil will not be inclined to try to break free, unless reasonably convinced of a way out. Islam is cover for a no-limits beast, which enslaves others to do its evil, to pluck gold fillings from the teeth of its victims.
Were Leftists to run out of neighbors, targets, and demographics to abuse, they would have no idea how to sustain themselves.
Leftists want to be taken care of, while being allowed to do as they please. When they are not, they try to gain power and rule. However, they really don't want to rule; they just want to do as they please. When this requires that they rule, they get angry. This is why they are confrontational in their presentation, with Che shirts, tongue piercings, tattoos, etc. They are saying, Let us do as we please, but don't let us rule. When you don't get the message or throw up your hands and "empower" their rule, then they punish you. Big time. You are there only to facilitate their pleasure. When you don't accept that, and give them power, there is no limit to what they are willing to do to you or to the evil to which they will chain you. This is how Islam arose. Some thugs wanted to be served. People appeased them. The thugs applied more chains. The people appeased them more. By the time a few people woke up, it became too late for most of them to resist. Once the people realized they had been chained to a no limits evil, no one would dare try to escape without assurance. Until then, they would instead consent to the recruitment, enslavement, even torture and killing of others, even their parents and children. In early days, Islam defended itself by forcibly taking the best of the children of neighboring Christians and putting them in military Janisaries to spread, you guessed it, more Islam. Leftists are not about love or liberty. They are about lust and license for their ruling sociopaths and conscience-less narcissists.
Were Leftists to run out of neighbors, targets, and demographics to abuse, they would have no idea how to sustain themselves. They only pretend to serve a higher cause in order to promote, worship, and glory in themselves. For the Sheik-y boys at the top, Islam is a sweet deal. Likewise for the canopy crony capitalists, like the cannibal conniving heads at Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns. These kind of capitalist heroes have essentially succeeded in selling us out to the biggest communist country on earth. The moral: If you want a hero, and if you won't be that hero, you're not gonna like the hero the eternal toddlers mean to supply in order to maximize their pleasure by deceiving and ruling the masses. Isn't that the fundamental commonality among Sheih-y Muslims, Crony Capitalists, and Marx-y Commies?
Leftists want to be taken care of, while being allowed to do as they please. When they're not, they try to gain power and rule. However, they really don't want to rule; they just wanna do as they please. When this requires that they rule, they get angry. This is why they are confrontational in their presentation, with Che shirts, tongue piercings, tattoos, etc. They are saying, Let us do as we please, but don't let us rule. When you don't get the message or throw up your hands and "empower" their rule, then they punish you. Big time. You're there only to facilitate their pleasure. When you don't accept that, and give them power, there's no limit to what they're willing to do or to the evil to which they will chain you.
This is how Islam arose. Thugs wanted to be served. People appeased them. The thugs applied more chains, the people appeased them more. By the time people began to wake up, it was too late to resist. Once people realized they'd been chained to a no-limits evil, no one dared try to escape, absent assurance. Until then, they'd consent to recruitment, enslavement, even torture and killing of others, even parents and children. In Ottoman days, Islam defended itself by forcibly taking the best of the children of captive Christians and putting them in military Janisaries, to spread, you guessed it, more Islam. Thugs and Leftists are not about love or liberty; they're about lust and license --- for ruling sociopaths and conscience-less narcissists.
Were Leftists to run out of targets for abuse, they'd have no idea how to sustain themselves. They pretend to serve a higher cause only to promote, worship, and glory in themselves. For Sheik-y boys at the top, Islam is sweet. Likewise for canopy crony capitalists, like cannibal conniving heads at Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns. These kind of capitalist heroes have essentially succeeded in selling us out to the biggest communist country on earth! Whatta deal! The moral: If you want a hero, and if you won't be that hero, you're not gonna like the hero eternal toddlers mean to supply, in order to maximize their pleasure by deceiving and ruling the masses. Isn't that the fundamental commonality among Sheih-y Muslims, Crony Capitalists, and Marx-y Commies?
I wonder what dreams tend to be associated with a search for the Higgs mechanism? Is the concept of the Higgs meant to explicate a causal agency in itself, or only an associational agency, for transmitting and conserving mass? What holistically Reconciling agency is implicated, that would bind a Higgs mechanism to a conservational role? Of that Reconciling agency: Can we purpose to reduce IT entirely to quantitative understanding (eliminating respect for degrees of freedom), or must there always recede a role for qualitative empathy?
I can see how conceptualizing a part (particle) of a system as an independent cause can often lead us to interesting perspectives and practical applications, but I don't see how such conceptualizing can yield a complete understanding of causal reality. Indeed, every attempt to explicate or quantify a final solution seems to lead to straw men and dead ends (sort of like trying to explicate economics in terms of a market ideal of the non-existent selfish-maximizer).
A problem with inspiring people to believe that any scientific, perfect, or final solution is understandable to elites is that it tends to rationalize expanded freedom for elites (who are hoped to know best), but serfdom for non-elites. Can or should society rationally seek with science to empower people who have understanding for how best to maximize economic and mass accumulations over all others? Or should society empower people (in all their variety and complexity) to participate in pursuing their own interests within their own contexts? See Hayek's essay, "Individualism: True and False."
Post a Comment