.
Suppose there abides an all defining, vectorizing, and conserving black hole, with a pode and antipode. From one direction of its vectoring its antipode absorbs and permits no escape of all mass and light that fall too close to its domain. Out the other direction its pode emits all mass and light and permits no return. Apart from its inference, no creation of it can ever consciously communicate its complete quality or potential to any other creation. It cannot in itself be measured, for all measure of space, time, matter and energy is its inferior derivative, not its definer. It may be inferred to conserve, from the alpha to the omega. But it cannot be inferred how much range its outbursting must encompass before it must be called back. Within itself, its potential cannot be inferred or tested by a derivative mortal. A mortal fascinated with math and empiricism may assume present perceptions offer clues to the all defining black hole (ADBH). A mortal may assume that present measures of its expression are indicative of limits of its potential expression. Such assumption may lead to useful tinkering for a narrow bandwidth of space and time, and it may entertain a mortal during his occupation of beingness. But only false hubris would lead such a mortal to presume he had defined the limits of his definer.
.
Apart from empirically assumptive tinkering, what else may a mortal mind test, as by experiments and intuitions flickering within the mind? May a mortal reasonably come to assume any quality, either about the ADBH or about THAT which may inspire the quality of expression that unfolds and feeds back to it? May the ADBH itself be intuited to be a derivative, as an expression of a holistic and consciously appreciative Guide? May one concept reasonably represent an unknown but limiting potential or objective nature of the ADBH, while another concept reasonably represents that which appreciates and guides the unfolding quality and conscious character of its subjective expressiveness?
.
As to range: There need not be either a big crunch or a big bang. There may simply be a big conservation between pode and antipode. For all a mortal can know, given that mortal perceptions of space-time-matter-energy are derivatively inferior, such pode and antipode may be inferentially experienced as if consisting of innumerable bits and iterative representations of antipode collectors, even though all were representations of a single, unifying pode. Or there may abide quantitatively innumerable podes of emission, connected qualitatively as a singularity, which we find convenient to interpret as if of a single big bang.
.
As to range: There need not be either a big crunch or a big bang. There may simply be a big conservation between pode and antipode. For all a mortal can know, given that mortal perceptions of space-time-matter-energy are derivatively inferior, such pode and antipode may be inferentially experienced as if consisting of innumerable bits and iterative representations of antipode collectors, even though all were representations of a single, unifying pode. Or there may abide quantitatively innumerable podes of emission, connected qualitatively as a singularity, which we find convenient to interpret as if of a single big bang.
4 comments:
Saying government should have no power to incent traditional families: I don't agree with that, but it is rather beside the point. Government has incented traditional marriage for many years. It cannot very well back out now without Cloward-Piven-like legalistc chaos. Not to mention further degradation of faith and trust by the American people in their governors. What is going on now is activist fiat by judges to make thousands of laws now mean what they were never intended to mean.
The central government provides for national defense. It provides for various bases in some states and not in others. Few thinkers would say the government cannot do that. Even more so than the military, the family is the foundation for preserving a republic through the generations. To undermine the family is to replace it with government. The central government can decide on pay for the military and for allotments and medical care for the families of its military personnel.
People often confuse themselves about government, as if "small government" were some kind of good in itself. However, the goal of a federal government should be the delegation of governing power to the most feasible level that is closest to the people. The problem is not big government, per se, but unduly centralized government that has arrogated powers to itself that should best be left to local levels --- especially those powers and rights that should be left to the people at large under the Bill of Rights.
The reason central government is getting away with its arrogation is because too much of its apparatus is under the thumbs of a disloyal crony establishment. There is no talismanic cure by simply saying the states should be exclusively entrusted with concerns about what kinds of families should be incented under government policies at the various levels. Certainly, the left and gay agenda in all their oozing glory do not try to impose broad, simplistic lines of limiting authority against themselves. At least, not any lines that they follow for very long in any principled way. The family IS THE BASIS for limiting the undue arrogation of centralizing government control. To my lights, to allow the family to be undermined in the name of principled defense of "small government" makes no sense. Rather, it will be the death knell of a republic that actually respects and listens to its middle class thinkers. It IS THE FAMILY that gives us hope of "small government." Without the family, we will get more big government by big brother than any of the leftists on Scotus have the brains to imagine.
This is why it is nonsense for Olson to argue that he and his gay mafia can draw a line at two person marriage. What should we be supposed to say about whether polygamy is compatible with a republic that facilitates equality of opportunity? I think we have a choice: We can seek to sustain a republic that facilitates equality of opportunity. Or we can fall to a state of affairs where him what gots, gets.
Re: "Olson is spouting nonsense"
When society unravels, words can mean anything. When words can mean anything, they communicate nothing. The purpose is to make marriage and the family mean nothing. In this way, the state can fill the vacuum with whatever it wants. In this way, those who fund and bend the state can turn most human beings into plastic plaything dollies. Indeed, one man can pretend another man is his wife. For those who are oblivious to reality and to any responsibility to their country, family, or progeny, how fun is that? Olson is spouting destruction and tyranny. When Congress wrote the multitude of laws that relate to the regulation and dispensation of family and military related rights and responsibilities, it was not doing so under a definition of marriage as embracing same sex partners. But now, in one fell swoop, judges want to redefine the words of such laws to make them mean what the legislators never intended them to mean. Now this is power! Legislators can make one law at a time. Judges can go back and rewrite thousands of laws, retroactively. Obamachange is the mark of the ground under our feet turning into quicksand.
As a medium of exchange, money is backed by the faith and trust of the people, I.e., Americans and those who rely on the dollar as a reliable measure of value. What with Obamachange, the quality of assimilated faith and trust of the people in their elitist governors and private owners is unraveling. The people who thought money was the end all be all will never figure out the necessary relation between quantitative price and qualitative value, between economics and faith/trust. Right now, there isn't much about the wealth redistributing and stealing regime of knowitall secular humanists to have faith in.
Post a Comment