The Meta Past:
.
MATH COMES PRECODED: If no measurable "thing" really exists, in itself, then every measurable sequence that has unfolded since a hypothetical "first thing" would seem also not "really" to exist. As to things measurable to mortals, it would seem that the Past does not exist, except as an ongoing rationalization of Mind, for which each particular perspective is easily duped into thinking it reliable. That is, Mind functions in association with Math in such a way that our memories, insofar as they go, cannot seem other than to be reliable. Math requires that each side of every equation be paired with, and offset against, a balance. In the logic of Math, every measure implicates a counterbalancing measure. Every expression of Math comes precoded and preloaded with capacity to direct the experiences of Observers to be conservationally and contextually reliable.
.
MEMORIES ARE TRICKS OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Thus, the appearance of memories of (the past of) Mind would seem to be an inherent "trick," that is, a necessary consequence of Mind experiencing expressiveness in correlation with Math. Math represents Information, and Information cannot be conserved other than in respect of Math, such that Information is forbidden of being other than reconciled with math-based representations of Mind's experience of the perpetual Present.
.
THE DEPENDENT REALITY OF MEASURABLE THINGS AND THEIR PAST: Mortals have no way of distinguishing between a "real past" versus a present, math-based "rationalized past." When our Cosmos flickers out, it may as well be as if our past never "really" existed. Thus, it would seem that the Holism (or System, or Reconciling Agency of Math) may be constrained, such that, regardless of how IT may correlate with any reconfiguration of the Present, the memories of IT's perspectives of their "pasts" will always seem supported, in math. For all we know, it may be that the Holism can in no way, other than in obedience to said "trick," avail particular Perspectives of Mind.
.
THE REAL CAUSE SEEMS AVAILABLE TO FAITH, BUT NOT MEASURABLY OR MATHEMATICALLY PROVABLE: So, if "measurable things" do not really exist in themselves, or function as real causes in themselves, then WHAT DOES REALLY EXIST and "really" function as a cause? Possible Answer (?): Math, unfolding in appreciative concert with a preset but immeasurable system (or reconciling Ruler) of rationalizations unto perspectives of Consciousness. In other words, the Agency of math that governs the math by which mortals measure seems to abide as a Qualitative that is Immeasurable to mortals. That is, we cannot Complete a way by which to measure the Quality of the meta-math that avails our sense of Information about the Past. Thus, we can neither prove that the Holism is predetermined, not prove that it is not. We cannot prove whether of not God can know whether God has "free will." However, our appreciation of "God" (IT) seems to be "enhanced" by taking it on a leap of faith that God is not pre-determined, i.e., that God receives, appreciates, guides, and reconciles our feedback. Thus, there abides at least one idea that can neither be proved nor disproved, which may be neither true not false, but simply "abiding."
.PURE REPRESENTATION IN MATH: Apparently, at least some atomic and subatomic particles are necessary to be conceptualized, to represent particles that can be massless, chargeless, and sizeless, constituting only a single dimension point on a vectored trajectory of spin, rotation, and orbit. Each such a particle would seem to be representable in nothing more than pure math. Hypothetically, if every particle can similarly be potentially stripped of mass, charge, and size, or constituted out of nothing but particles that can be stripped of mass, charge, and size, then it would seem that all of measurable substance is potentially representable in, and reducible to, pure math. This seems not surprising, because imagination does not conduce to any particle that could exist in itself and still be made to function in respect of a system of such particles. This is because the instant the particle's existentiality depends on its relation to a system, it becomes no longer a particle in itself. Thus, for particles to function in measurable respect of a system, it would seem that the system must, at bottom, reduce to an immaterial system, i.e., a system of pure math. Thus, it would seem that the notion that every action is entirely caused and explicated in terms of atoms must yield to a concept that every atom is entirely caused and explicated in terms of math. If so, then an explanatory system based purely on atoms or material particles, as in Lucretius' "The Nature of Things," cannot complete a system of explanation.
.
FREE CAUSAL AGENCY V. CORRELATIVE PARTICIPANT: This thought exercise is not to argue that each perspective-in-itself exercises freedom-to-choose-in-itself. Such would be self contradictory. This exercise is to argue that the particles that are often imagined as being of Nature are not themselves causal, either. That is, we (and matter) are more than billiard balls. The math that constrains billiard balls also constrains and synchronizes and reconciles and feeds back to the entire system of math, functioning in hierarchical, overlapping, and encompassing levels and layers. That is, the whole and the parts, at various levels of simultaneity, appreciate and feed back to one another. In that sense, the Holism "cares." The system of algorithms is not preset as to the future, but constantly and continuously "rewires itself" in appreciation of each present instant of feedback. The experience of each particular perspective is continuously absorbed and factored into that "collective unconscious."
.
EXISTENTIAL PLACEHOLDERS FOR MIND IMAGES APPREHENDED IN RESPECT OF FORMULAS OF FORMS: If atoms-in-themselves cannot exist as atoms-in-themselves, then they cannot in themselves be existential placeholders. Rather, some field-based signifier of significations of math values seems to abide --- for the setting, appreciating, and adjusting of a synchronizing dance of forms, which feedback to dance in respect of localized perspectives, contexts, and purposes. Some Immaterial Aspect that accounts for iterative representations of math seems to be implicated. In that case, Who or What is the power, potential, and character of the mathematician? How and why does it "cause" patterns of unfoldings?
.
TAKE, EAT: Thus, the role of participatory, perspectivistic Feedback seems vital to an appreciation of subsuming iterations of consciousness of reconciling aspects of Spirituality. When Jesus said,."Take, eat," what is being taken and eaten, at deepest level, is not any measurable-substance-in-itself. Rather, what is being qualitatively appreciated is the deeper substratum of quantitative (apparent) reality.
.
THE QUALITATIVE IMMATERIAL: Does Math Function, Without Material? Seemingly, yes, but not without accompaniment with the Qualitative Immaterial.
.
TIME AND SPACE: Time is Space, as it is being transformed into countable sequences. Space is Time, as it is being transformed into present experience. Time that is not counted, and Space that is not experienced, are of the Image-ination of the Holistic Tetragrammaton. That which is made countable has simultaneously been made appreciable. If capacity to appreciate it did not abide, it would not have been made countable.
.
FREE WILL: Does Free Will for mortals exist? No, but an aspect of moral participation does exist, to wit: Mortal adoptions of perspectives of apprehension participate to facilitate feedback that contemporaneously affects how the future is to unfold.
.
MATH SIGNIFIED AS MANIFEST SEEMS TO ABIDE AS THE MEASURABLE TERRITORY: Objections are often drawn to a notion that, ultimately, it is nothing more than math being signified to act on math that is the agency for projecting all that we observers sense as "measurable reality." An objection seems to be that math-in-itself cannot function as a billiard-ball-like entity that we often correlate with being a causal agent. This objection does not stand up to analysis. First, the idea of a series of material CAUSAL agents does not stand up well, as opposed to an idea that, at deepest level, all material causal agents seem to reduce to CORRELATES within and accompanying correlates, sort of like significations of the functioning of an ultimate, but unseen, Signifier. Second, separate or subordinate math equations, as correlated with separate or subordinate perspectives of observers, can be conceptualized as fluxing, functioning, interacting, and emiting sensible significations, simply by conceptualizing that such occurs, not as causes acting on causes, but as correlates emiting Information that is associated with an accompanying, associative, subsuming, mediating, correlating equation. That is, the "living" operation of one equation on another, so that both are recombined or subsumed, always occurs in correlation with a third (trivalent) equation. To detect the third (catalyzing, collapsing) equation is to detect the Information regarding the recombinatory interfunctioning of the other two equations. Thus, the math equations flux and recombine, not as their own causal agents, but as correlates that implicate a Signifier. Detection of the associative third equation is often implicated in respect of apparent proximity, as in the analogy of a billiard ball being seen to bounce off a billiard ball. But "the third equation" may also be implicated or detected in reliable respect of changes or vectors observed (detected or sensed) from a distance.
.
EMERGENT HOMUNCULUS: But how is a "picture" of the correlative equations and their interfunctioning changes taken, transmitted, received, and interpreted? How can an equation reliably "take a picture" of an equation, transmit it, download it, and interpret it? Especially if the very function of taking the picture necessarily changes the subject before it is "photographed"? How does Consciousness arise, coordinate and correlative with mere equations, to interpret the picture? May one reasonably conceptualize the interfunctioning equations (Substantive "billiard balls") as the first two equations, while conceptualizing the associative equation (Information accumulating "picture taker) as the third equation, and a Conscious interpreting observer as a fourth (implicated, unobserved, unmeasured) equation, i.e., a correlate of a correlate of a correlate of a correlate?
.
UNMEASURED MATH: Insofar as Consciousness correlates with the entailment of an unseen, unmeasured math function, such math function may grow, change, "rewire itself," and itself be recombined, much as a brain constantly and continuously wires itself. However, while such Consciousness is functioning as the perspective, rather than the measured thing or the measuring thing, IT will not be measuring itself or its own changes. For every Substantive interaction of math equations whose Information is stored in association with a correlative equation, there must abide (now or in potential) an unmeasured equation (Consciousness), which has capacity to interpret ("reconstruct") such sequence of equational interfunctioning. (What Equation correlates with a conserving, reconciling, synchronizing of all the otherwise Locally Unmeasured Equations?)
.
OF THE SINGULARITY: It is postulated that Information is being accumulated and organized to a "CLOUD," such that local perspectives can be availed to draw on the cloud, to be capacitated thereby with algorithmic powers for exploring and downloading all manner of accumulated abilities and Information. Such a Cloud would entail, on some level, that PRIVACY for individual perspectives would be lost. That is, some level of operation of the Cloud would have access to all Information about everyone. No life would have complete privacy in any detail from a potential for an all seeing, all recycling, all subsuming capacity to envision, reconstruct, adapt, and re-pursue. On such a spiritual level, the avatars for our lives would be stripped of privacy and continuously subject to re-booting, recycling, re-outfitting, and contextual re-judging. CONSIDER: May such a Cloud already be extant, but, at our level, we simply lack present verification? To survive, must such Cloud avail local power and freedom only to such extent as such can be simultaneously measured and constrained against potential for molesting the Cloud?
.
BIVALENT, TRIVALENT, QUAD-VALENT: Equations are bivalent, but are inter-function in respect of a mathematically correlative trivalency, which is conserved in respect of a holistic quad-valency. Equations function in opposing pairs, across equal signs, conceptualized against a field os space-time. That is, equations come in pairs, separated by equality significations, i.e., like the dots and dashes of Morse Code. Thus, Substance comes measurably manifest only in pre-digitized pre-codes, i.e., pairs. There is no measurable Substance of Yin that lacks a Yang against a context. Substance comes digitized to whatever level of accuracy may be called for in order to support any interpretation in respect of a local frame of reference (perspective, context, and purpose). In itself, each equation is a digitized bivalence, but can be seen to meaningfully function only in respect of a correlative field, i.e., a trivalency that is (at least potentially) subject to interpretation of a locally correlative perspective of Consciousness.
.
THE QUAD-VALENT LEVEL: Math can quite well be applied to signify the limits and range of the domain where one CAN go from point A in X amount of local time, but math cannot preciesly guarantee or prescribe where one WILL go. For that, one would need access to the 4th level, i.e., the quad-valent level or YHWH tetragrammaton, i.e., the level beyond local unmeasurable math, to the level of the Holistic unmeasured math. That is a level to which mortals have no path by which to complete.
.
TERRITORY OF THE QUALITATIVE: Geometry is a form of math. Space-time can be conceptualized in geometrical terms. As to particular expressions of matter and energy, it seems that at least some atomic or subatomic particles are necessary to be conceptualized as being massless, chargeless, and sizeless, constituting only a single dimension point on a vectored trajectory of spin, rotation, and orbit. Each such a particle would seem to be representable in nothing more than pure math. Hypothetically, if every particle can similarly be potentially stripped of mass, charge, and size, or constituted out of nothing but mixes of particles that can be stripped of mass, charge, and size, then it would seem that all of measurable substance is potentially representable in, and reducible to, pure math. This may not be so surprising, since imagination does not conduce to any particle that could exist-in-itself and still be made to function in respect of a system of such particles. Rather, the instant a particle's existentiality depends on its relation to a system, it becomes no longer a particle-in-itself. For particles to function in measurable respect of a system, it would seem that the system must, at bottom, reduce to an immaterial system, i.e., a system of pure math. Thus, it would seem that the notion that every action is entirely caused and explicated in terms of atoms must yield to a concept that every atom is caused and/or explicated in terms of math. If so, then an explanatory system based purely on atoms or material particles, as in Lucretius' "The Nature of Things," cannot, by itself, complete a system of explanation --- either of physics or of morality. It seems that everything that is measurable can be reduced to math, yet, math, in itself, cannot complete itself. Whatever the Immeasurable Qualitative that may complete math, IT seems to abide as something other or more than math. In itself, math is not the territory of the qualitative. It seems reasonably plausible or intuitive that Something Else abides, some Qualitative Immeasurable.
.
INHERENT DIGITALITY OF EQUATIONS: Every measurable thing that exists and unfolds in beingness comes measurable in respect of equations. (Unities, Equations, Sides, Parts.) For one side of an equation to exist in any meaningful respect is to implicate an associative and intuitive apprehension of the other side, i.e., a digitized 0 or yin balancing or re-normalizing a digitized 1 or yang. (Math, Ratio, Reason, Rationale.) These facts --- that equationally representable and quantifiable things and formations of information exist, and can be known, inferred, intuited, or qualitatively appreciated to exist, that ways exist by which to express the unfolding and changing beingness of such things, and that some metaphysical source seems to sponsor or cause or guide such facts --- seem to be part of an interconnecting holism that accounts for every aspect of philosophy: of the ontology of being, the epistemology of knowing truth, and the metaphysics of causes of consciousness and identity.
.
PHYSICALITY IS THE ILLUSORY PROJECTION OF MATH-BASED LOCALLY-ADOPTED PERSPECTIVES: All that is measurable seems to be made, perhaps by some meta quality, out of math, i.e., not out of any really physical thing. i.e., physicality is a derivative illusion, not really existing in itself, but being, in itself, a no-thing. Thus, all measureable things that be are given expression out of a non-measureable nothing, by some qualitative thing that itself is neither measurable nor really physical. Hence, measurable beingness ultimately reduces to physical nothingness. Beingness and Nothingness.
.
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, 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 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.
25 comments:
First, there needs to be a way to break up or limit the abuses of oligarchic wealth. Middle class decency is not bedeviled simply by poor masses. It is bedeviled by poor masses that are bribed by oligarchs in order to take control of the resources of the republic.
Second, it is morally bankrupt to buy into an argument that government cannot incent a fundamental institution of civilized society (marriage) unless it equally incents an opposing depravity (sodomites asserting a right to adopt and warp children). The reason such should not be done at the federal level is because the Constitution does not avail it. But there is no reason the States cannot, by their tax methods, incent traditional families (notwithstanding fatuous equal protection arguments that would make vaginas equal to anuses). There is no reason to require States or humanity to miswire themselves by financially incenting every miswired, unassimilated deviant to immigrate.
Third, the arguments of Libertarians are bogus. The families that raise the soldiers and workers who will defend our borders and fund our social security are in effect giving a free ride to all the Libertarian Dinks (double income/no kids).
Fourth, the Constitution applies to all citizens, not just Christians. Political arguments must be won on the political level. Spiritual values factor in what the people can be convinced to make into social law, but spiritual values by themselves are values, not law. The federal government ought not be incenting marriage via taxes, but the States should be able to do so. Unfortunately, the republic has tractored a long line of trailers down this no exit wrong way road. Neither the republic nor civilization can be preserved by requiring the federal government to go even further down this wrong back end by requiring it to give "equal" treatment to an institution ("homosexual marriage") that serves as a one way train for mocking and destroying our children and our republic.
When the cosmos is considered as consisting of that which is measurable together with that which is not, then moral arguments based in good faith on the materially measurable logos of the cosmos are, necessarily, not godless. Hume's problem of not being able to derive "ought" from "is" should better be stated as not being able to derive ought purely from measurable is. That is a problem for human secularists, not for spiritual believers. Concerning moral free will or spiritual apprehension at any level, human secularists have nothing on which to argue. While believers cannot prove their moral notions mathematically or empirically, they at least have a spiritual basis from which to intuit and debate. Once a believer in a spiritual source and guide ascertains he is arguing with a non-believer, further debate is mainly pointless. The non-believer will simply rationalize to justify the immediate gratifications of himself and perhaps those around him. As to vision to consider what may best sustain a republic that avails human freedom and dignity, a human secularist will have very little to offer. This is because, in his constricted heart of hearts, he believes the notion of moral purposefulness is only a humbug. This is why he can remorselessly raise a child to celebrate depravity, so long as it entertains him to parade about poking sticks in the eyes of believers.
When the cosmos is considered as consisting of that which is measurable together with that which is not, then moral arguments based in good faith on the materially measurable logos of the cosmos are, necessarily, not godless. Hume's problem of not being able to derive "ought" from "is" should better be stated as not being able to derive ought purely from measurable is. That is a problem for human secularists, not for spiritual believers. It would be mere superstition to take a single event as an omen, but it is the practice of good faith to give careful consideration to all the factors one can apprehend within one's moral niche.
Concerning moral free will or spiritual apprehension at any level, human secularists have nothing on which to argue. While believers cannot prove their moral notions mathematically or empirically, they at least have a spiritual basis from which to intuit and debate. Once one who believes in a spiritual source and guide ascertains that he is arguing with a non-believer, further debate becomes mostly pointless. The non-believer will simply rationalize to justify the immediate gratifications of himself (and perhaps some among those around him).
As to vision to consider what may best sustain a republic that avails human freedom and dignity, a human secularist will have very little to offer. This is because, in his constricted heart of hearts, he believes the notion of moral purposefulness is only a humbug. This is why he can remorselessly raise a child to celebrate depravity, so long as it entertains him to parade about poking sticks in the eyes of believers. This is why he can laugh at seeming hypocrisy of believing pilgrims, because it is impossible for him to be morally hypocritical ... because he does not believe in any moral basis in the first place.
There are all manner of sexual and nonsexual unions, cooperatives, partnerships, and collectives. They are regulated in what they can work with and how they work. A tax is a kind of regulation, and a mind bent to a purpose, a la Roberts, can interpret a regulation as a tax. I don't much care what adults consent to do in their bedrooms. However, I would NOT go so far as to deny a republican state a right to incent generations to replace the existing generation, nor would I wish to require that it must join such incentive with a requirement that it lay seeds for what it may perceive as its own destruction.
First, there needs to be a way to break up or limit the abuses of oligarchic wealth. Middle class decency is not bedeviled simply by poor masses. It is bedeviled by poor masses that are bribed by oligarchs in order to take control of the resources of the republic.
Second, it is morally bankrupt to buy into an argument that government cannot incent a fundamental institution of civilized society (marriage) unless it equally incents an opposing depravity (sodomites asserting a right to adopt and warp children). The reason such should not be done at the federal level is because the Constitution does not avail it. But there is no reason the States cannot, by their tax methods, incent traditional families (notwithstanding fatuous equal protection arguments that would make vaginas equal to anuses). There is no reason to require States or humanity to miswire themselves by financially incenting every miswired, unassimilated deviant to immigrate.
Third, the arguments of Libertarians are bogus. The families that raise the soldiers and workers who will defend our borders and fund our social security are in effect giving a free ride to all the Libertarian Dinks (double income/no kids).
Fourth, the Constitution applies to all citizens, not just Christians. Political arguments must be won on the political level. Spiritual values factor in what the people can be convinced to make into social law, but spiritual values by themselves are values, not law. The federal government ought not be incenting marriage via taxes, but the States should be able to do so. Unfortunately, the republic has tractored a long line of trailers down this no exit wrong way road. Neither the republic nor civilization can be preserved by requiring the federal government to go even further down this wrong back end by requiring it to give "equal" treatment to an institution ("homosexual marriage") that serves as a one way train for mocking and destroying our children and our republic.
We Conservatives hope all will eventually be redeemed by moral truth. The reason Conservatives often fall victim to such hope is because, in the case of Progs, such hope is mislaid. Progs are not into moral truth. When we project to believe Progs can be redeemed by truth, we deceive ourselves. Progs are moral zombies. The mustard seed in them is frozen dormant. That is, they are into feelings, power, and gratification. Simply put, the kind of article that is shown above cannot appear in a magazine that is owned and operated by Progs, unless to gratify some purpose other than truth.
A common factor in Islam and LGBT is never having to say you're sorry for failing to have grown up and learned to think for yourself, as a responsible adult. When I see homosexuals militantly twisting law to require that producers must be taxed to affirmatively support puerile, depraved deviancy, I see infant brains walking about in adult bodies, proudly wearing very droopy diapers. When I see sharia screamers, I see brains forced into permanent infancy, like young Chinese girls being forced to wear foot cramping shoes. There is no moral freedom without sensible law, nor are there any adult brains without adult parentage.
The problem with LGBT people is too much freedom under infantile parents. The problem with sharia screamers is too little freedom under brainless Big Taliban. The problem with both is culture that has substituted all intrusive government for assimilated familial decency. The key to decency and small government is assimilated respect for sensible family values. The Ivy lead notion that eliminating forums (God loving churches) for inspiring the assimilation of decent family values is the key to small government is incredibly ignorant and/or corruptly malevolent. You have to work very hard to keep your head in a dark place to get to be as "wise" as the Ivies and their Portlandian Droopy Dupeys. And what takes the prize? I give you Justice Kennedy.
Whoever is the next candidate for the Presidency needs to give a solemn oath: No more freaking Harvards or Ivies to the Supreme Court! Enough!!!
I assume you have backed up an 18 wheeler tractor-trailer. Imagine if the trailer were connected with a dozen others. Now try backing that rig up! Most of us have been passengers while Ainos have driven this sort of contraption into a tight dead end. The best we can do now is to dismantle what we can and hand it back to the States, to make of the parts to this contraption what they will. We need to defund and divest most of the federal government. However, without a third party (Freedom Party, Conserver of Liberty Party, and possibly a divorce from Blue States), that won't happen. Even among the States, any one of them that provides free lunches cannot survive if it cannot enforce its borders. That 2 plus 2 is NOT 5 is an equation Progs cannot comprehend. Neither can they understand that a people cannot have a State if they tax themselves to provide free benefits while at the same time they leave their borders open. It's sort of like trying to raise a garden while providing free feed for birds. Even if you move the garden, birds that are trained in that way will just follow you, and they will get angry with you (and even call you a tea bagger!) if you try to resist them.
Obama's enablers are so thick with him in corruption that they can hardly advocate against him now, without advocating against themselves. Sort of like Jake Spoon in Lonesome Dove, when he got caught up with the man burners and took too much of his time in leaving them. As Jake told Gus, just before the former Rangers were about to hang him, "I never seen no line."
Justice Kennedy hears the discontents of deviants and wants to soften the blow for the children they adopt. But where does he give thought beyond the immediate present and pleasure of deviants? Where does he consider how many adoptees may have been adopted into better homes, had deviants not asserted an equal right to take and mentor children into deviancy? Where does he consider whether those children may thus themselves be trained up to spread the pattern? This kind of catering to immediate discontents and discomforts destroyed black families. Now, Justice Kennedy has it that only hateful people wouid stand in the way of spreading similar destruction across America, generally. You have to work real hard to become so filled with corruption, so lacking in vision, and so devoid of respect for precedent. Law is built on precedent. A Justice so lacking in respect for such a long standing institution is patently disqualified. Fifty years ago, he would have been impeached for stupidity and/or corruption. Now, the dumas is hailed as a a Prog Hero,
I don't begrudge being taxed to reasonably fund the soldiers who defend our country. I don't begrudge being taxed to help support families that are raising the next generation, many of whom will become soldiers or help support social security. I do begrudge people who just want a free ride on my tax money based on an argument that my tax money cannot be applied to national defense or social security unless it is "equally" applied to finance the lifestyles of those whose only contribution is perversion
A "narrow dodge" (!wth?) ... that can be infinitely expanded to be "as narrow as it needs to be" in order to encompass anything you want to encompass. Roberts is so smart he gives expression to the full circle of idiocy. How does one get to be so smart as to be so stupid? Practice, practice, practice. We live in a dangerous perimeter. American Palin: Shoot when you see the whites of the bastards' eyes. Ivy Roberts: Hold off. After the battle, we'll tax them to death.
We need a literacy test that must be passed by every Congressperson and Federal official before he/she can assume office. Each such person must demonstrate knowledge that:
(1) 2 plus 2 is not 5.
(2) Heaven cannot be forced to rain manna merely because Congress "makes it a law."
(3) Unintelligible scribbling is not law, even if it goes in excess of hundreds of pages.
(4) Whitey is not an inexhaustible national resource.
(5) There is no such thing as a free lunch.
(6) Islam is not a religion of peace.
(7) Border burglary is not immigration.
(8) Dead people are not citizens eligible to vote.
(9) The IRS is not a private force for political thuggery.
The most significant profiling that is being done is being done on the middle class. It is being profiled for extinction. The middle class is the only body that is being conditioned not to profile. For everyone else, it's a field day. Profile this: We're being led to the slaughter.
People will prefer Medicare for all over what has been done. Problem is, where is the authority given to pass Medicare for all in the Constitution? If the people are ready for this, why not do it by Constitutional Amendment? Answer: Because, especially given the swamping of third world illiterates, elites do not trust Americans to know what is best for themselves or for their masters. From here to as far as the eye can see, you will be required to hand over your birthright to freedom and accept your status as chattel. Alas, Babylon.
Ex nihilio truth is not truth that is self-evident. It is "truth that is self-annihilating" ... into nothingness when it meets untruth. The form of man reduces to the finest particles of ash --- yet a Source of Consciousness remains. Truths that are not respected daily and reinforced in the public square fall into disuse and disrespect. Untruths that are given the advantage of the public square then prevail, until the public square is retaken by the Truth. Without inspired respect for the Source of Consciousness, the form of man is a hollow zombie, a no-thing. His only self evident truth then becomes his immediate glandular appetite. This kind of zombie appetite for truth cannot sustain the American Way. Rather, it looses the Obot dogs of Ovomit. Ovomit obots cannot sustain themselves. Without a host, they rot into nothingness.
Those who benefit from pulling the strings of Big Gov do not want any thinking adult to break loose from the strings. And they will use every pretext to impose more strings. The more we are trained to look to government to solve our problems, the more we are reduced to 40 year olds in butt-hanging-out children's jeans.
When government excludes churches from providing value charities in the public square, the responsibility falls to government to fill the gap ... with funds that are taxed, rather than given. And how are the taxes determined and allocated? Why, with cronies pulling strings of zombie voters, and using the zombie voters to pick the pockets and tax the labor of the middle class. The path to Big Government-run-amuck runs through the destruction of religious charity.
America has a close but wary relationship with religion. The Founders were undeniably aware of gross abuses to humanity that come with establishing religious monopolies. They were also aware of a need to discuss and inspire assimilating values in the public square. The IRS has forced obedient religions to forego such discussions in churches, so default has been made to the schools. Problem is, we now have a secular, un-American establishment, and it controls the values, such as they are, that are taught in our schools. The way to combat this obscene situation is not to eliminate spiritual value discussion in the public square. Except to put some needed brakes on rapid slides towards depravity (forced tax support for partial birth abortion and sodomite marriage), I don't see why, in this scientific day and age, religion should be such a bug bear.
The problem with modern religion is more one of "feel good," that is, offering up an idea of a God who loves, tolerates, and condones EVERYTHING. (As if we were the ones God is waiting for.) This is an undisciplined and childish recipe for inviting Big Islam and Big Fascism to overrun us. Those who may prefer to be Unitarians ought at least be inspired to give more thought to what a philosophy of God, or even of Epicurean Pleasure, ought not condone, and how such message can be inspired and disseminated into the public square. Otherwise, America will continue to be ravaged by those who buy zombie voters.
Ways need to be found and implemented for breaking and punishing the anti-American corporations that fund the lobbying and politicking that weakens borders, facilitates illegal voting, expands domestic regulatory powers, mal-indoctrinates America's youth, weakens institutions for assimilating traditional American values, and attempts to replace families with bureaucracies by defining deviancy down and rendering marriage meaningless. Primarily, these are corporations that pull strings across international borders. They need to be made to pay confiscatory taxes and penalties on all anti-American expenditures and activities that can be traced across borders. Ways need to be found to break or punish international corporatism among corporate CEO's and corporate unions that invests in buying and selling politicians, as opposed to free enterprise.
Sodomy is marriage, entitlements are payback, the Tea Party is evil, tribal hispanic immigration is healthy, Congressional subpoenas to the regime are only suggestions, short circuiting debates about Islam with hate speech codes is good, partial birth abortion is good, and on and on. If you want to predict Ocrumbo's position on anything, this is the test: What is the opposite of that which would keep government limited in order to preserve human freedom and dignity in America? Who could better enlist all the dregs of society than a crumb like Obama? If Obama had the face of a monster, he could not have been nearly as effective. No, he came as a smiling face for enlisting Dims and dupes, largely financed by Rinos. Are Obama's intentions treacherous? Is Texas chilli hot?
Well, government already does not preclude people from acting howsoever they wish in such regard. What I deny is that such people must have a claim for the same benefits as government may seek to bestow on traditional marriages, such as: a marital privilege among a sex club to privilege members to not be required to testify against one another in any respect; a right to claim 10 dependents because of being "married" to 10 other people; a right to sponsor 100 immigrants upon claiming them as part of one's harem; etc. To my lights, the concern for making the law make equal that which obviously is not equal has gone beyond absurd.
Re: "bereft of the absolute standard of a morally holy God, absent a transcendent first cause that give intrinsic meaning to all the later effects, the humanities are left foundering for something to take it's place"
Yes! Check "The Swerve," by Stephen Greenblatt. Greenblatt is oblivious that Hume's problem of not being able to derive "ought" from "is" should better be stated as not being able to derive ought purely from measurable is. The cosmos, to be considered from both a moral and an empirical standpoint, needs to be recognized as consisting both of that which is measurable and that which is not measurable. Upon recognizing that there abides An Immeasurable (God), then moral arguments can be based in good faith, and the materially measurable logos of the cosmos, when considered in sum and context, can be taken as significations ("biologos") of God's care.
Not being able to derive "ought" from "is" should better be stated as a problem for those human secularists who believe nothing (no quantity and no quality) can exist except that which is measurable. Concerning moral will or spiritual apprehension at any level, human secularists have nothing on which to argue. While believers cannot prove their moral notions mathematically or empirically, they at least have a spiritual basis and contextual experience from which to intuit and debate.
Once a believer in a spiritual source and guide ascertains he is arguing with a non-believer, further debate about morality tends to be pointless. The non-believer will simply rationalize to justify the immediate gratifications of himself and perhaps those around him. As to vision to consider what may best sustain a republic that avails human freedom and dignity, a human secularist will have very little to offer. This is because, in his constricted heart of hearts, he believes the notion of moral purposefulness is only a humbug. This is why he can remorselessly raise a child to celebrate depravity, so long as it entertains him to parade about poking sticks in the eyes of believers.
The bottom line is this: Academia is now owned by materialists who believe that nothing can exist unless it can be measured. Since God, by definition, is not measurable, God must not exist. This is the bootstrapping logic that is deployed to rationalize every immediately desired gratification. You will not find a book blessed by elitist academia that does not promote Justice Kennedy's view that anything less than full acceptance of "homosexual marriage" is benighted. This is why elitists are completely impotent to draw any lines to protect civilization (freedom to think) against that (such as Islam) which seeks to destroy it. They think so hard to titillate and tolerate everything that is tactile, and nothing that is purely qualitative, that they in effect annihilate themselves -- as would an ouroborus that was oblivious to anything beyond its appetites. This is why befuddled elitists posing as wise men tend to advocate that a productive society should leave its borders tolerably open and freely feed (from other people's resources) all who come to take.
Just Musing: Geometry is a form of math. Space-time can be conceptualized in geometrical terms. As to particular expressions of matter and energy, it seems that at least some atomic or subatomic particles are necessary to be conceptualized as being massless, chargeless, and sizeless, constituting only a single dimension point on a vectored trajectory of spin, rotation, and orbit. Each such a particle would seem to be representable in nothing more than pure math. Hypothetically, if every particle can similarly be potentially stripped of mass, charge, and size, or constituted out of nothing but mixes of particles that can be stripped of mass, charge, and size, then it would seem that all of measurable substance is potentially representable in, and reducible to, pure math. This may not be so surprising, since imagination does not conduce to any particle that could exist-in-itself and still be made to function in respect of a system of such particles. Rather, the instant a particle's existentiality depends on its relation to a system, it becomes no longer a particle-in-itself. For particles to function in measurable respect of a system, it would seem that the system must, at bottom, reduce to an immaterial system, i.e., a system of pure math. Thus, it would seem that the notion that every action is entirely caused and explicated in terms of atoms must yield to a concept that every atom is entirely caused and explicated in terms of math. If so, then an explanatory system based purely on atoms or material particles, as in Lucretius' "The Nature of Things," cannot, by itself, complete a system of explanation --- either of physics or of morality.
Epistemology: What can or should we know or reasonably intuit or believe? Does existence self prove that it exists? What is the character of the "self" that prove itself, or that is the "uncaused causer" or "changeless changer?" Intuitively, is IT that which actuates, guides, or appreciates forms and significations of translations of pure math? Are the rationales that are adopted by consciousness subsequent to the existence of something else, such as an unconscious capacity in the cosmos to give expression to fluxing forms out of "active math?" Is existence the unconscious capacity to communicate significance out of active math to emergent and iterative perspectives of consciousness, whose appreciative feedback factors with the flux of active math? In respect of any perspective's search for "knowledge" and for what is reasonable to believe about that which is other than trivial or changeless, is such search based on, or should such search be based on, "justified true belief," or upon Rationalized Identity Commitment? The field of equations that adopt a conscious identity, and that a conscious identity adopts, provides the yin, while the conscious identity provides the yang. The feedback fluxes as a dance. The essence of measurable substance is math. The essence of the existent that is not measurable is that which activates math (the Reconciler) and the perspectivistic, experiential quality (of that which is activated or caused or led to unfold into the signified manifest out of the placeholdment of the potential).
Post a Comment