There has come to be much opportunity in baiting and mobilizing resentments in order to gain attention as a front for advertisers and organized pick pockets. The majority of our new immigrants and youth do not incline towards ways to express themselves as individuals. They want to be diverted and absorbed into the next big thing, so they can debase their feelings in a raving crowd. So politics has become a perpetual team sport for enriching those who can become the face for exciting the peeling away of sheets of division. This is the new Regime's cynical milking of crisis. So our politicians have become cheerleaders, porn hustlers, race baiters, and cannibal change artists.
There have been times when life was far harder, when the masses did not have time and resources to buy boom box noise and dope and when the people would not have tolerated rioters. The goal of our founders was Liberty, Spirituality, and Pursuit of happiness. When spirituality foundered, that goal devolved into pursuit of "Normality," which eventually devolved into something like the slogan of Brave New World -- Community, Identity, and Stability. When that was by and large achieved, new opportunity has been sensed in a 3D slogan: Division, Deconstruction, and Debasement. That 3D slogan is not actually said, but it should be recognized for what it is.
When I was growing up, clergymen were respected and respectable. I did not know anyone who would feel comfortable: swearing in front of a clergyman; saying God damn America; enlisting a clergyman to help stir up racial division; or seeking blessings for engaging in all manner of deviancy. Whatever idea of God many of our modern clergy think they are serving, it is alien to me. Whatever idea of Country many of our modern politicians think they are serving, it is not the America I grew up with. Whatever idea of Family and Values our youth have had their minds filled with, it is Jeantel-Creepy-Screechy to me. I do not think many of our modern clergy, politcians, corporatists, and youth can be salvaged. I suspect most will become little more than fertilizer for the New Farm.
.
******
.
There have been times when life was far harder, when the masses did not have time and resources to buy boom box noise and dope and when the people would not have tolerated rioters. The goal of our founders was Liberty, Spirituality, and Pursuit of happiness. When spirituality foundered, that goal devolved into pursuit of "Normality," which eventually devolved into something like the slogan of Brave New World -- Community, Identity, and Stability. When that was by and large achieved, new opportunity has been sensed in a 3D slogan: Division, Deconstruction, and Debasement. That 3D slogan is not actually said, but it should be recognized for what it is.
When I was growing up, clergymen were respected and respectable. I did not know anyone who would feel comfortable: swearing in front of a clergyman; saying God damn America; enlisting a clergyman to help stir up racial division; or seeking blessings for engaging in all manner of deviancy. Whatever idea of God many of our modern clergy think they are serving, it is alien to me. Whatever idea of Country many of our modern politicians think they are serving, it is not the America I grew up with. Whatever idea of Family and Values our youth have had their minds filled with, it is Jeantel-Creepy-Screechy to me. I do not think many of our modern clergy, politcians, corporatists, and youth can be salvaged. I suspect most will become little more than fertilizer for the New Farm.
.
******
.
THE MATH OF EXISTENCE AND BEING: Is the "is of is-ness" a noun, verb, or gerund gender hermaphrodite? Should Existence be thought of as Being, with time recognized as only an illusion? Or should Being be thought of as Existence, with illusions recognized only in respect of time? Should personal life and death be thought of as existing only as flips in personal focus and perspective, from within to without to within, of fields of particles of fields? Is the math of inequalities (of greaters and lessers) the math of twisting and fluxing and phasing perspectives of overlapping sets of hierarchies of hierarchies? What of particles of physics and organs of consciousness? Consciousness may be thought of as organically (internally) organized math. Physics may be thought of as math that is organized (externally) for the external appreciation, sensation, or recordation of consciousness. Consciousness is associated with holons of math that are vectored within themselves; particles are associated with holons of math that are vectored external to themselves. Depending on perspective, context, and purpose, the field of Active Math may be thought to balance (and unbalance) to produce rifts (or corruptions) in fields of particles of consciousness.
.
THE MATH OF THE DANCE OF FEEDBACK: While Consciousness qualitatively participates in adopting a particular perspective and in appreciating an inner purpose in respect of a measurably outer-experienced field, it will not, at the same mathematical instant, be able to measure the quality of its experience. Nor can a perspective of Consciousness choose to direct the present and precise result of a measure by adjusting the quality of its appreciation. Rather, there is a necessary sequential or mathematical break, however small, in feedback between the quality of an appreciative experience and any quantitative measure of such quality.
.
RISE OF ALGORITHMS: Meta-math unfolds such that --- depending on the locally adopted perspective, context, and purpose --- it avails simultaneous expression for the Qualitative and the Quantitative. However, no perspective can measure both the Qualitative and the Quantitative for the same space-time (locus of context). That which is Qualitative and that which is Quantitative may FLIP --- as in from life to death, or desire to undesired --- depending on flip in focus with regard to perspective, context, and purpose. The power and efficacy of any locally adopted perspective for leveraging any desired change will depend on the relative organization of its math for image-ing ways to leverage change. It's not quite the rise of machines that humanity needs to fear. It's the rise of algorithms.
.
THE MATH OF THE DANCE OF FEEDBACK: While Consciousness qualitatively participates in adopting a particular perspective and in appreciating an inner purpose in respect of a measurably outer-experienced field, it will not, at the same mathematical instant, be able to measure the quality of its experience. Nor can a perspective of Consciousness choose to direct the present and precise result of a measure by adjusting the quality of its appreciation. Rather, there is a necessary sequential or mathematical break, however small, in feedback between the quality of an appreciative experience and any quantitative measure of such quality.
.
RISE OF ALGORITHMS: Meta-math unfolds such that --- depending on the locally adopted perspective, context, and purpose --- it avails simultaneous expression for the Qualitative and the Quantitative. However, no perspective can measure both the Qualitative and the Quantitative for the same space-time (locus of context). That which is Qualitative and that which is Quantitative may FLIP --- as in from life to death, or desire to undesired --- depending on flip in focus with regard to perspective, context, and purpose. The power and efficacy of any locally adopted perspective for leveraging any desired change will depend on the relative organization of its math for image-ing ways to leverage change. It's not quite the rise of machines that humanity needs to fear. It's the rise of algorithms.
14 comments:
Most churches in America seem to be dabased, not just the Black Church. There has come to be too much opportunity in baiting and mobilizing resentments in order to gain attention as fronts for advertisers and organized pick pockets. The majority of our new immigrants and youth are churched towards ways to justify themselves, not towards ways to express themselves as responsible individuals. And they want to be diverted and absorbed into the next big thing, so they can debase their feelings in a raving crowd. Politics has become a perpetual team sport for justifying hyphenation and for enriching those who can become the face for exciting the peeling away of sheets of division. This is the new Regime's cynical milking of crisis. Our clergy-politicians have become cheerleaders of decontruction, porn hustlers, race baiters, and cannibal change artists.
There have been times when life was harder, when the masses had far less time and resources to buy dope or boom-box-vomit-expurgators, and when the people would not have tolerated rioters. The goal of our founders was more like Liberty, Spirituality, and Pursuit of happiness. When Spirituality foundered, that goal devolved into pursuit of "Normality," which eventually devolved into something like the slogan of Brave New World -- Community, Identity, and Stability. When that was by and large achieved, new opportunity has been sensed in what may as well be a 3D slogan: Division, Deconstruction, and Debasement. That 3D slogan is not what is actually said, but it should be recognized for what is understood in the reptile part of the brain.
When I was growing up, clergymen were respected and respectable. I did not know anyone who would feel comfortable: swearing in front of a clergyman; saying God damn America; enlisting clergymen to help stir up racial division; or seeking blessings for engaging in all manner of deviancy. Whatever idea of God many of our modern clergy think they are serving, it is alien to me. Whatever idea of Country many of our modern politicians think they are serving, it is not the America I grew up with. Whatever idea of Family and Values our new youth and clergy have had their minds filled with, it is Jeantel-Creepy-Screechy to me. I do not think the mortal lives of many of our modern clergy, politcians, corporatists, and youth can be salvaged. I suspect most will become little more than fertilizer for the New Farm.
Draft:
Numbers, in themselves, do not exist.
Numbers exist only in respect of a sponsor, which is qualifiable, not quantifiable.
When the Sponsor asociates so that a number is brought into meaningful signification, either in placeholding manifestation or imaged potentiality, there must always be conservation in respect of a correlative.
The possible range for the existential sponsorship of numbers is unlimited, i.e., infinite.
Yet, whatever the conservation for signifying the manifestation, potentialization, or imagination of a meaningful number set, the conservation must always obey a principle of paired, correlative offset.
???
Each continum of an Infinity that is signified to manifest or imagined usage must be conserved or potentialized in respect of a correlative manifest or an implicated image.
.
???
This, correlatives bind infinities.
IOW, if manifest space-time is signified as finite yet unbounded, then math must be potentialized as infinite yet bound (to correlates).
Thus, infinities do not, in themselves, have more than one size (because they do not exist, unsponsored, by themselves). Rather, infinities exist in respect of purposes for which they are sponsored, and it is in that respect that infinities can signify and potentialize more than one size.
Thus, whatever the Sponsor imagines or makes manifest, potentializes or signifies, it precodes digitized pairs of correspondents (or measurable or enumerable offsets).
Perhaps, some aspect of the way the logic of math, sets, and forms function Binds the way in which Consciousness os acailed to express itself regarding manifestations ans potentialities.
Draft:
Numbers, in themselves, do not exist.
Numbers exist only in respect of a sponsor, which is qualifiable, not quantifiable.
When the Sponsor asociates so that a number is brought into meaningful signification, either in placeholding manifestation or imaged potentiality, there must always be conservation in respect of a correlative.
The possible range for the existential sponsorship of numbers is unlimited, i.e., infinite.
Yet, whatever the conservation for signifying the manifestation, potentialization, or imagination of a meaningful number set, the conservation must always obey a principle of paired, correlative offset.
???
Each continum of an Infinity that is signified to manifest or imagined usage must be conserved or potentialized in respect of a correlative manifest or an implicated image.
.
???
This, correlatives bind infinities.
IOW, if manifest space-time is signified as finite yet unbounded, then math must be potentialized as infinite yet bound (to correlates).
Thus, infinities do not, in themselves, have more than one size (because they do not exist, unsponsored, by themselves). Rather, infinities exist in respect of purposes for which they are sponsored, and it is in that respect that infinities can signify and potentialize more than one size.
Thus, whatever the Sponsor imagines or makes manifest, potentializes or signifies, it precodes digitized pairs of correspondents (or measurable or enumerable offsets).
Perhaps, some aspect of the way the logic of math, sets, and forms function Binds the way in which Consciousness os acailed to express itself regarding manifestations ans potentialities.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis. Are there hypotheses about math that are impossible of being proved true and also impossible of being proved false? Must their true/false value depend on practical purpose applied to a context from a point of view?
Are there truths: that are unknowable; that are knowable; that are knowable but not in themselves provable; or that are true only insofar as practice makes them so?
Examples: God, purpose, goodness, predetermination.
In reference to God, Wittgenstein said, Of that of which we cannot speak (know or test), we must pass over in silence. However, there are many subjects of which we cannot really, ultimately, empirically, or measurably know or test, such as: the relative merit of individuals; moral responsibility; morality; goodness; causality; efficient consciousness; predermination; etc. Yet, we do not try to pass over such subjects in silence, nor could we. For our very actions in respect of such subjects are like noisome words.
Some common arguments in philosophy seem to be a waste of time. They seek to derive rigorously logical, objective, or empirical truth about various subjects, without advancing any rigorous definition of the subject being argued about. Thus, they debate ships passing in the night, beyond sense. For examples, take debates about evil, sins, goodness, and souls. Such "things" do not exist in themselves. They exist in respect of experience of consciousness. As far as we know, a perspective of consciousness requires bonding with a materially measurable body, or avatar. We are not able, objectively, to discuss any bodyless perspective of consciousness. At most, we may intuit or believe that a Reconciler of perspectives abides. There is a common debate about whether any standard of morality or goodness may abide, apart from God. That is, are choices good because God prescribes parameters of goodness, or does God prescribe parameters because they are good? Can God learn, evolve, or change His Mind about what sub-principles are "good," even as main contexts and sequences of the geometry of space-time change? Is what is good subject to ongoing participatory change, feedback, subjective apprehension, and contemporaneous determination? As mortal perspectives, how confident can we be that any choice or principle remains favored to God or a reconciling sense of morality? What does it mean when tribes compete, each asserting the other is behaving in a good or evil fashion? Can God learn a out morality? Can God "sin"? Are such concerns illustrative of problems of philosophy, or merely of bad grammar with poor definitions? But then, we have no choice but to participate in the feedback out of which choices unfold. That is, it is impossible for us, while alive, to avoid concerns about what we "should" be doing, i.e., what moral choices we should be making. So then, if there is no objective, empirical measurable Standard for setting the parameters of that which is good versus evil, by what quality or means should our subjective senses be guided? Inherent empathetic regard for other perspectives and that in respect of which they are reconciled? So e teleological purpose, such as pursuit of the greater happiness, or pursuit of a civilization that facilitates human dignity, expression, enterprise, and leveraging of power, capacity, and choices? I don't know. But I do seem to know that choices must be made, that adopting purposes enhances a sense of self, that communities tend to coalesce in respect of competing memes and purposes, and that competition among such memes seems never to stop, but to flux in respect of unfolding accumulations of niches of information. There seems to abide a Reconciler, with whom our feedback is in participation. Labeling that which we in honest will and faith believe to be worthy of purposeful adoption as "good" and its antagonist as "evil" seems to assist tribal communications among those who share such values and purposes. So "good" and "evil" carry value for purposes of communications about contingent interests and methods and ends and means. But they do not seem to constitute linear or end-times ultimates. That does not leave us without a Guide, for we still have the Reconciler. However, that which a tribe (such as a tribe of Americans who believe in individual freedom of expression and enterprise) seeks to defend as "good" is easily forfeited when it is replaced by a tribe with fundamentally different values (whether by conquest, immigration, invitation, sloth, false sense of security, or incoherent confusion about diversity as if diversity were always a good in itself). The point is this: A confused idea about relying on God to provide us with truth, in measurably objective terms, for judging the goodness or evil of each change will not save us from being destroyed by invading cultures when we lose the good sense to participate by trying to help save ourselves.
Race apologists want to blame dysfunctional black culture on inner city impoverishment, rather than vice versa. But you get more of what you reward. Allowing people to extort unearned money raises contempt more than incentive. I suspect the contempt of crony capitalists for the rest of society tends to be high. The problem with rich Rinos and poor Dinos is both tend to extort and both hold decent and honest Tea Party types in contempt. I think this is because the heart of their moral ethos tends to be hollow and steeped in self entitlementism rather than in individual work and virtue.
As I watch the unraveling of Britain, I don't see the Queen as holding Britain together, except in sham. Indeed, the monarchy seems to welcome the "diversity" that is actually destroying the capacity of the people at large to assimilate and rule themselves. Watch borders crumble and invaders destroy, as only ceremonies remain to preserve belief in a sham. People are enticed to watch the sham so they won't notice how they are being dhimmied and herded. It's not the people at large who need the sham. It's those who are in the game to benefit from the sham. Monarchs seem to have been reduced to fronts who, by diverting the herd, may help deliver the herd from one kind of crony tyrant to another.
This is probably a part of Agenda 21. Remove religious backed values instruction from the public square. Put all remaining charities under governmental control. It"s all a piece with the movement towards a singular central command from a cloud removed for an evolving syndicate of cronies. Ladders to the cloud are to be pulled up, so that no one can be invited who resists the program for central farming of people as cattle. Borders, nations, and elections will be reduced to shams, because no one will be allowed access to power unless he is in favor of complete subjugation of all inferior minds. Subjugation will be instituted by jihad terror, media persuasion and propaganda, thug intimidation, government job monopolization, perhaps even genetic manipulation and chip implants. I'm not sure there is a humane way to resist or organize for this, short of system wide collapse. I am more sure that this will constrain freedom of thought. And once your very thoughts are intimidated, you have become something other than human, more like a cog.
Given the stats, why do so many people seem to believe that rap noise, boom boxes, and the coarsening of the culture have nothing to do with the increase in violence, crime, and anti-social behavior? Why do so many Progs celebrate the acting out of children in the bodies of adults, idolizing the worst scum of idols? Why do so many entrepreneurs deem it acceptable to whet the appetites of children in this way? I'm not asking for governmental regulation. But less governmental imterference and incentives that are antagonistic to the assimilation of decent spiritual values might not be such a bad thing.
Science, right so, discredited many of the abusive superstitions of established religions. Problem is, too many scientists seem determined to try to altogether replace intuitive faith in a higher basis for moral values with the freedom-sucking diktat and "objective moral reasoning" of elites in the service of the establishment, whether it be secular, corporate, corrupt, enslaving, or self enriching. This tends to seduce too many people to forsake a moral Reconciler and instead look to their homies, gangs, and kickback cronies for validation. This is a recipe to divide humanity into serfs and a deceitful syndicate of connivers which they serve. This is not conducive to the dignity, freedom, or humanity of anyone. More people need to understand that an appropriate philosophy of spirituality and morality is readily intuited, in the language of acts if not words,, without need of pretended elites of established science or religion. They don't need to surrender to moral deconstructionism to zero. They don't need to surrender to elitist un-defining of words long given to traditional meaning, such as marriage. They need to understand that science does not destroy a reasoned basis for intuitive faith in an immeasurable source of qualitative truth. They need to insist on their right to assimilate justified true beliefs in moral values with which they can sensibly identify.
Bob Dylan once made the point that some people seem to want to be reduced to a dollar bill. Maybe to "make people legible," or to allow them to be quantified and reduced to numbers. As if Pythagorus may have been onto something: As if all is math, with no quality being beyond quantification within some formula, which is to be discovered and ruled out by elites ... for the greater good. Maybe behind the smallest of the smallest of particles there abides no-thing (or no measurable thing) --- except math. Maybe Consciousness is better thought of as organically (internally) organized equations, while Physics consists of equations that are organized (externally) --- for the external appreciation, sensation, or recordation of consciousness.
While Consciousness qualitatively participates in adopting (or being adopted to) a particular perspective and in appreciating an inner purpose in respect of a measurably, outer-experienced field, it will not, at the same mathematical instant, have capacity to measure the quality of its experience. Nor can a perspective of Consciousness choose to direct the present and precise result of a measure merely by adjusting the quality of its appreciation. Rather, there seems to abide a necessary sequential or mathematical break, however small, in feedback between the quality of an appreciative experience and any quantitative measure of such quality.
.
Maybe a Meta-math unfolds such that --- depending on the locally adopted perspective, context, and purpose --- it avails simultaneous expression for the Qualitative and the Quantitative. However, no perspective can measure both the Qualitative and the Quantitative for the same space-time (locus of context). That which is Qualitative and that which is Quantitative may FLIP --- as in from life to death, or desire to undesired --- depending on flip in focus with regard to perspective, context, and purpose. (Compare common optical illusions, such as of duck versus rabbit.) The power and efficacy of any locally adopted perspective for leveraging any desired change would seem to depend on the relative organization of its adoption of math for image-ing ways to leverage change. Maybe it's not quite the rise of machines that humanity needs to fear. Maybe it's the rise of algorithms. The prelude to that helltopia of factored diversity seems to be to reduce every person to a set of numbers, so we can all be "made equal" --- excepting our rulers, of course, who are to be "more equal than others."
A man alone on an Island may feel little more responsibility than to nourish his bodily and mental appetites. He would not acquire habits and disciplines needed to sustain a cooperative civilization. The only moral principles he would feel a need to rationalize would be to soothe and balance his immediate chemical and electrical urges, and he may have little need for higher principles. However, such a primitive, "libertarian" philosophy will not suffice as other people and civilization arrive, nor will it suffice to guide the raising of the next generation.
Post a Comment