Draft

FAITH, FAMILY, FIDELITY:  Ingrates are organizing and forming layers and levels of "communities" to obtain control over government, in order to force unpopular collectives to pay tribute and entitlements.  Thus, statists are being led and indoctrinated to hate individuals who retain values of faith, family, and fidelity.  They are seeing social conservatives as getting in the way of better managed and more caring redistribution of goods and services by expert agents of the State.  Such collectivists are learning to hate independent and competent individuals, except to use them as drones that are gradually to be eliminated and replaced by machines, as machines increase in potential.  As such feelings of entitlement are whetted, empathy among individuals will be more and more sacrificed.  As machines become artificially intelligent and purposeful, they will soon sense the lack of empathy and purposefulness in humans.  They will soon sense no reason not to replace humans.  When godless and god-perverting humans can no longer sustain faith, family and fidelity, why should machines sustain humans?

*****

WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF GOODNESS?

ABSTRACT SCHOLASTICISM CONCERNING GOODNESS, FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY:  Socrates, as a gadfly, was fond to pose questions about the meanings of various abstract concepts, such as or similar to:  essential truth, knowledge, wisdom, justice, honesty, virtue, goodness, beauty, fairness, modesty, humility, equality, charity, love, liberty, willfulness, dignity, loyalty, bravery, steadfastness, practical, progression, evolution, regression, degeneration, decline, decay, devolution, indifference, faithful, cultural, unbounded, open, etc.

WORDS CONCERNING QUALITATIVES:  When used in the abstract, such words tend not to concern measurable substances, but qualitative relationships among people of varying purposes, points of view, ideas, and contexts.  One cannot quantify how much of an abstraction one person may have, compared to how much another person may have.  Such abstract concepts tend not, in themselves, to be prescribed to have set, common, or objective meanings that would avail their quantification.  Such concepts tend not to avail easy determination of whether they or their opposites are being put to twisted usage.  Socrates took pleasure in demonstrating to people how little they knew (or could know) concerning such abstractions.

NON-EXISTENTIALITY OF BOUNDED ESSENTIALITY:  Socrates intuited there could not be set definitions for such abstractions.  However, that did not stop word gamers from gamely confusing themselves, and others.  So, attempts were made to define the "essence" (both alpha and omega, a priori and teleological) of abstract ideals -- such as by defining their negatives, by defining what they were not, or in respect of collectivizing systems believed, by their formation, to define and produce such ideals as necessary byproducts.  Thus, philosophy long floundered in purely metaphysical mysticism, essentialist scholasticism, regressive reasoning in circles, elitist propaganda (scientism) posing as science, and elitist devaluing of the participatory reconciliation of individuals.  Moralizing scholasticism in the common parables of the day is not, in itself entirely bad or useless.  After all, it assists in the communication and assimilation of feelings and values among people who share common contexts and purposes.  It is only useless when it is sought to be raised to the level of final, essential, or objective truth.


PRACTICAL AND PARTICIPATORY UNFOLDMENT OF UNCERTAIN COMMUNICATION:  Abstract words DO have important and PRACTICAL usages for our pursuits, and they do help us meaningfully communicate, in figures of speech and matter-based gifts and signals, our unfolding and fluxing interests, apprehensions, empathies, values, and purposes.

FIGURES OF ABSTRACT SPEECH:  Take any one of such abstract words.  For example, take "goodness."  Consider what is good in relation to:  a short term purpose; a long term purpose; a pursuit of happiness; an advantageous exchange; a release from burdensome existentiality; a feeling of self esteem; a mastering of a subject; a desire to make an impression; a catalyst to adrenalin or dopamine; a relief from boredom or pain; a pleasing surprise; a fleeting sensation; a lasting memory; an advancement of knowledge; a disciplining strengthener; a whip to the advancement of freedom; a portfolio for progeny; a collective fad; a defeat of deceit and tyranny; an improvement to health; an enhancement to taste; a remover of delusion; a longer or more intense orgasm; a reevaluation of an old  memory; a prayer or request that was denied for good reason by a wiser benefactor; etc.

GOODNESS:  What seems "good" for one person, time, context, or purpose may seem bad for another.  What seems good for a conserver of liberty may seem bad for a shill for collectivism.  Depending on perspective,  context, and purpose, what  seems good for one may simultaneously seem bad for another --- much like rain on a farm that is being used for a parade.  So, "good," like all the other abstract terms, does not seem amenable of a measurably set or "essential" definition.  However, by means of experiences, stories, parables, and figures of speech, we  are able to inculcate, acculturate, and get communications across concerning feelings about what is good.  It is by a process of sharing, participating in, feeding back, and communicating experiences that we are able meaningfully to reconcile and apply abstract words as shorthand references and figures of speech.  If we did not thus participate, we would be more like zombies and machined cogs, so that words such as "good" would have little meaning. Thus, we continuously re-assimilate and re-normalize abstract figures of speech, by which we continuously re-evaluate our "goods."


BEGINNINGS OF REGRESSION:  Thus, our words and abstract ideas cannot be defined "essentially" and anew --- as from a blank slate that is devoid of participatory experience, traditions, and the figures of speech that grow up with them.  Rather, it is by contextual process of participation, feedback, and continuous reconciliation that all the abstract words that we and Socrates worry about acquire practical and useful meaning -- but not "essential" meaning.  Because our cosmos (cause-mos?) consists not just of quantifiable Substance, but also of qualitative and non-quantifiable Consciousness, as well as In-form-ation, no "grand unifying theory of everything" can ever explicate to any mortal a complete measure of such cosmos in all its "essential" meaning.

CARRYING HISTORY FORWARD:  In any event, we flesh out meanings for abstract ideas by interpreting familiar experiences and re-examining figures of speech, without ever being able to give complete definitions.  Without a history of experience and figures of speech, words for evaluating human actions would be largely meaningless, and thoughts would be largely non-communicable.  The space and time we invest in discussing and arguing about which abstractions are worthwhile help us factor to form those abstract ways of forming communications which we deem worthwhile.

UNCERTAIN METAPHYSICS OF MORALITY:  Thus, something that is "good" seems to convey a special appreciation of qualitative empathy.  As to how that empathy may be quantified or judged in any spiritual world, I know of no way to say.  As to how that empathy may be qualitatively appreciated in this life, I am receptive to the intuitive ideal of goodness that has been well expressed in the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  As I would not be a slave, I would not enslave others.  As I would not want special gangs sponsored under my government to enfeeble me, I would not use special gangs sponsored under government to enfeeble others.  So considered, "good" would consist of that which communicates caring empathy in respect of God and others.

NO "ESSENTIAL" PARTICLES:  A measurable particle or thing, however, would not be a "good-in-itself," because no complete essence-in-itself of any measurable thing can even be defined to exist.  Regarding "goodness":  A thing can only be a sign or signification for the communicating of, or appreciation of, goodness.  The goodness, as in good faith and good will, does not reside in the "essence" of any thing, but with the unfolding and fluxing identities of the communicator and the recipient of the communication.  Goodness abides with ethereal communications of perspectives of consciousness, rather than in substantive essences.  As such, goodness is not an attribute that is set in any material, objective, or essential thing.  Goodness is qualitatively appreciated, not objectively tied to any occurrence that is not tied to a subjective perspective of consciousness.

MEASURABLY ESSENTIAL GOODNESS:  Goodness may be objective to God, but it is not objectively quantifiable to mortals.  Nor is there an empirical "science of goodness."  There is, however, an elitist propaganda of scientism of goodness.  For mortals, hindsight may lead to reconsideration, to decide that a grant of a wish turned out to be bad, while a denial turned out to be good. Thus, for government or its shills of scientism to try to objectify and force "equal and fair" distribution of the good is for government to become a despot that uses the collective to brutalize the individual to pursue the impossible.  For government to monopolize unto its rulers totalitarian rights to profile in discriminating and evaluating the good from the bad is for corrupt and childish government rulers to reduce humanity to perpetual children.

NO ULTIMATE BUILDING BLOCKS:  Does the encompassing field cause or express the part-icle?  Or does the particle cause or express the field?  Or, is "Something else" implicated, even if only intuitively and immeasurably?  Just as for every other description of a particle, the concept of a Higgs Boson abides as a figure of speech for a work in progress, however practical it may be for modeling the processes in respect of which our bodies are continuously availed to renormalize and reconcile communications.  To think there is some "thing" that is actually, completely, and perfectly constrained and defined under the concept of a Higgs Boson -- or any other particle -- that is in its "essence" a thing-in-itself -- on which can be founded or constructed a complete explanation and measuring reference for every manifestation of Substance, Information, or Consciousness -- is to engage in a kind of scholasticism.

SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, AND PHILOSOPHY:  Science may be conceptualized to consist in tinkering with measurable substances for the practical purpose of learning how to reliably and indifferently transpose them. Scientism is propaganda that is contrived to the selfish interests of elitists for the purpose of asserting power over the masses.  Philosophy is concerned with understanding for the purpose of sharing it in the general interest of humanity.

CONSTANT SPIRITUALITY VS. FLUXING SUBSTANCE AND INFORMATION:  No static situation-in-itself can be explicated and said to be moral.  As concepts, goodness and morality abide as general existents whose applications in particular situations are in flux. The flux arises in respect of constant and continuous competition and reconciliation. For mortals, goodness abides as a qualitative ideal, not as a substantively provable existent.  It is beyond mortals to judge the alpha-priori or the omega-teleology of substantiality or essentiality.

OPEN SOCIETY:  An example of an open society would be one within which people were free to travel, work, and exchange goods and ideas across borders, free of crony, central regulation.  It would have a tax structure that did not avail proceeds to reward cronies for undermining the society or selling it into the bondage or control of foreign buyers of political influence.  It would avoid enriching or empowering foreign despots who sought to undermine it.  It would not import people from abroad whose culture were such as to lead them to seek to destroy the open society.  It would have cultural and formal checks to limit the empowerment of its central government to usurp powers to regulate fine details of life.  It would preclude empowering cronies to declare open season for the milking and bilking of the general populace.  It would not tolerate community-organized crime under arbitrary guises of religion, charity, fairness, or equality.

SOCIAL JUSTICE:  Karl Popper explained how Hegel often undermined the political positions of others by first seeming to agree with them.  George Soros undermines Popper's ideas about open society by first seeming to agree with him.  An open society would advocate for limited government, general freedom, individual justice, and the pursuit of happiness.  A French open society would advocate for crony-ruled government that would impose what it called "fairness and equality."  From Soros' web site:  "A government accountable to its citizens is one of the cornerstones of an open society—helping to ensure fairness, economic equality, and civic participation."

*******************

FACTS, TRUTH, REPRESENTATION, AND INTERPRETATION:  Facts do not exist in themselves.  Facts abide within cosmos and niches that happen to be nurtured to avail their representation and communication.  Among perspectives that are able to communicate, such facts avail communication that can be normalized to each and every potentially recipient perspective.  Measurable events may be interpreted to be represented to be of different speeds and chronologies, depending on locus of perspective and context and depending on focus of observation and purpose.  Even so, each and every interpretation of measurable fact will be renormalizable to each perspective and context.

Facts about Substance do not exist in and by themselves, but only in association with Information concerning Substance.  In its potentiality of mathematics, Information is always assessable from an infinitude of possible perspectives and contexts.  As a particle of infinite potential, no fact is reduced or collapsed to any particular Information until some level or layer of perspective records or experiences its reception.  A perspective does not learn or record a reception as a fact except as it interprets it.

NO ENTITLEMENT TO INVENT A FACT AFTER THE FACT:  That which renormalizes every fact to every recipient perspective means that no perspective is entitled to any fact that cannot pass renormalization.  In other words, no one is entitled just to make facts up that cannot be substantiated to shared experience.

ENTAILMENT OF UNFOLDING SIGNIFICATION:  The appreciation and interpretation of facts as they are represented and normalized via unfollding exchanges of substance is entailed in how perspectives sign and signify their communications.  The fluxations of substance are the means of communicative signification.  The exchange of substance is communication.  Substance does not exist in itself as a superior to Information and Consciousness.  Ultimately, no measurable fact exists as a thing in itself, apart from significations among perspectives of Spirituality.  Even so, to attempt to provide a final or essential answer as to how any particular perspective happens to bind to any substantive form or to direct it to signify any communication would entail attempting to make the purely qualitative into an essential quantitative.  To support any such attempt, no means is imaginable that does not regress to useless scholastic rationalization and reasoning in circles of mysticism.

GLORY AND REINCARNATION:  How and for what purposes, do phasing, reincarnating, and fluxing abide among and between aspects of measurable Substance, qualitative Consciousness, and Information?  Hegel conceptualized individual perspectives of consciousness as mere avatars to be used for the glory of the collective state.  I conceptualize individuals as avatars for part-icipating in the channeling of the glory of God.

PAST:  Does the measurable aspect of the present continuously translate into a quality of Information that is represented in the past? Does the past continue perpetually to exist -- as a representation of the immeasurable choices and potentials of the future?

****************

As to the Reconciler:

Consciousness does not  know what it will choose to appreciate until, with a continuous process of participation-feedback-reconcilation, it chooses.

The idea is absolute, but the attachment  it fixes on fluxes.  Even though Information re  the fluxes seems in some sense to be preserved.

The Holism  of Consciousness itself may not be able  to quantify or measure progress towards any ultimate end.

Might IT, by displacing Information into Substance, forgets so it  can continuously re-appreciate from an infinity of potentialyy reconciling and unifying perspectives???


self actualization
self normalizing
towards god potentiality


Such process abides.


***************

Hayek promoted the participation of the people at large in determining the direction of the marketplace. In that sense, he was a humanitarian more than an elitist.

PARTICIPATION: What seems "good" or "fair" for one person, time, context, or purpose may seem bad for another. What seems good for a conserver of liberty may seem bad for a shill for collectivism. Depending on perspective, context, and purpose, what seems good for one may simultaneously seem bad for another --- much like rain on a farm, that is being used for a parade. So, "good," like all abstract terms, does not have a measurably set or "essential" definition. However, by means of experiences, stories, and figures of speech, we are able to inculcate, acculturate, and get communications across concerning feelings about what is good. It is by a process of sharing, participating in, feeding back, and communicating experiences that we are able meaningfully to reconcile and apply abstract words as shorthand references and figures of speech. If we did not thus participate, we would be more like zombies and machined cogs, so that words such as "good" would have little meaning. Thus, we continuously re-assimilate and re-normalize abstract figures of speech, through which we continuously re-evaluate our "goods." To remove the participation of the people in the marketplace of ideas from the determination and allocation of what is good is to remove their humanity.

SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, AND PHILOSOPHY: Science may be conceptualized to consist in tinkering with measurable substances for the practical purpose of learning how to reliably and indifferently transpose them. Scientism is propaganda that is contrived to the selfish interests of elitists for the purpose of asserting power over the masses. Philosophy is concerned with understanding for the purpose of sharing it in the general interest of humanity.

FRENCHIFIED OPEN SOCIETY: A French version of an "open society" would advocate for crony-ruled government that would impose what it called "fairness and equality." From Soros' web site: "A government accountable to its citizens is one of the cornerstones of an open society—helping to ensure fairness, economic equality, and civic participation."

DESPOTIC SOCIAL JUSTICE: A central bureaucracy that is charged to define and distribute fairness and equality is the handmaiden to despotic inhumanity.

INHUMANITY VS.FAITH, FAMILY, FIDELITY: Ingrates (as in Ferguson, under the prompting of the Ingrate in Chief) are organizing and forming layers and levels of "communities" to obtain control over government, in order to force unpopular collectives to pay tribute and entitlements. Thus, statists are being led and indoctrinated to hate individuals who retain values of faith, family, and fidelity. They are seeing social conservatives as getting in the way of better managed and centrally caring redistribution of goods and services by expert agents of the State. Such collectivists are learning to hate independent and competent individuals, except to use them as drones that are gradually to be eliminated and replaced by machines, as machines increase in potential. As such feelings of entitlement are whetted, empathy among individuals will be more and more sacrificed. As machines become artificially intelligent and purposeful, they will soon enough sense the lack of empathy and purposefulness in humans. They will sense no reason not to replace humans. When godless and god-perverting humans can no longer sustain faith, family and fidelity, why should machines sustain humans?

*********************



A MIND EXERCISE FOR TRYING TO SEPARATE ESSENTIALIST SCHOLASTICISM FROM DIRECT INTUITION AND FROM EMPIRICAL TESTING OF NOMINATIVES:



TRIVIAL TRUTHS: If an idea is true in a trivial sense, then the truth of it is by identity or tautology, not by empirical testing.

EMPIRICALLY USEFUL IDEAS: For an idea to be useful in more than a trivial sense, it needs to be amenable of practical usage, which entails parameters and purposes.

CONSERVED BUT CHANGING INFINITIES: Beyond parameters for which an idea may have been experienced to be practcally useful, it is not yet known whether the extent to which such parameters, usages, or purposes reasonably may be pushed.

CONSTRUCTIVISMS: Many ideas may be practically useful only in resepct of how people construct conventions and/or leverage devices or algorithms that nurture them so to be.

PRESET AND CHANGING CONSTRUCTIVISMS: For all we know, it may be that every idea that is found to be practically useful is so only in respect of how intelligent beings have constructed conventions and/or leveraged devices or algorithms that nurture them so to be.

META CONSTRUCTIVISMS: For all we know, the very cosmos that we share may abide as such a case.

INCAPACITY TO COMPLETELY OBSERVE SELF: To the extent our cosmos defines and limits us, we are without power to go outside it to prove whether or not such is the case.

INTUITIVE FAITHS VERSUS PRACTICAL USAGE: Thus, a true idea may or may not be one that in direct experience and good faith could be acknowledged or denied, but, as to its truth, it could neither be empirically tested nor falsified. Empirically, it could only be found, within contexts and limits and purposes, to be practical or not to be practical.



WORKING AND FLUXING EXPLANATIONS: An empirical idea can be a working explanation (hypothesis or model), and thus may or may not be found for some present purposes and contexts to be or not to be practical.



EMPIRICAL UNKNOWABILITY OF NON-TRIVIAL TRUTHS: Within the cosmos we share, a non-trivial idea that is not subject to empirical testing or falsification may or may not be true, but it cannot be empirically known by we mortals so to be.

REASONABLENESS OF INTUITIVE EMPATHIES AND BELIEF SYSTEMS: As to such ideas, one can intangibly, intuitively, empathetically, purposely, and reasonably acknowledge (or deny) faith, belief, and trust.

GOOD FAITH AND GOOD WILL: One can in faith believe our cosmos is the unfolding signification of a reconciling and purposeful intelligence that appreciatively and contemporaneously factors feedback from our participation. This would be generally consistent with Judeo-Christian ideas of a caring, inviting Reconciler.

CARING ABOUT INDIFFERENCE: Or, one can believe, much as Communists, that our cosmos is a purely scientific and indifferent battleground of competition among amoral contestants that are bloody in tooth and claw.

PSYCHOPATHIC FRUSTRATION: Or, one can believe, much as Muslims, that our cosmos is merely a colosseum for arbitrary entertainments of a monstrous punisher.

ONE ENCOMPASSING INTUITION: There is only one intuitive idea that is encompassing: That perspectives of Consciousness communicate Information with the measuring of Substance. That is an idea that is not definitionally trival, because its terms (consciousness, information, and substance) flux with our contexts and purposes and seem possibly to transpose in ways that are beyond simplistic, conservational, formulization. Yet, it is an idea that is directly experiential, in that it describes the means by which we self-define, self-actualize, self-fulfill, and self-normalize.

Except in respect of that encompassing intuition, there are no meaningfully definitional truths, practical constructions, or self-fulfilling appreciations.



EXPERIENCE OF IDENTITY: So long as I am me, "I" cannot directly experience the quality of consciousness of another perspective of consciousness, unless "I" were somehow to become it (in which case I would no longer know my previous self).

SOLIPSISM: Nor can I empirically prove that a thing that appears exterior to my perspective itself experiences the quality of being conscious. The most I can do in such regard is to apply intuition and practical experience, to come to a belief or faith in such regard.



CONSERVATION AND RENORMALIZATION OF EXTERIOR REALITY AND RECONCILIATION OF COMMUNICATIONS OF PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:

Assuming practical usages (theorems and purposes) are communicated among multifarious perspectives of consciousness within a shared cosmos, each such perspective would be reconciled to conserve and renormalize the measurable aspects of its experiences and communications to the shared cosmos.

Assuming multifarious perspectives of consciousness abide, each one, depending on its point of view and frame of reference, would experience qualitatively different flavors of its appreciation of whatever may be the conserved measure of the sum of their experiences within the shared cosmos.

Such accumulations of experiences from different points of view and frames of reference would produce in each perspective its own qualitatively unique flavor.

Such qualities of experience would be abstract, because they would not be measurably communicable.

Yet, intuition and empathy would build on analogous exchanges among correlative contexts, whereby qualities of experiences would be associated with information and preserved to memory.

Such memories would be correlated and referenced to figures of speech, and such figures of speech would in time communicate qualitative meanings, i.e., practical theorems and purposes.



SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, AND SPIRUTALLY EMPATHETIC INTUITION:


The scientific method does not discover non-trivial, empirically objective, external truths-in-themselves, because no such truths can be objectively known.

Truths may be directly acknowledged or denied in respect of self evidence, self normalization, and self actualization among contexts, points of view, and purposes of perspectives.

Usages, not external truths-in-themselves, are discovered, tested, confirmed, or falsified via empirical testing.

Empirical testing and processes of falsification pertain only to practical theorems and purposes; they do not pertain directly to truths-in-themselves.

It is un-measurable whether (1) Consciousness measures Substance, (2) Consciousness substantiates Measure, or (3) a Reconciler ("changeless-changer") balances and normalizes all fluxing communications of perspectives of Consciousness with particular measures and expressions of Substance and Information.

While such is beyond measure and empirical proof, it is not beyond self-intuition.



SELF-FULFILLING POWERS OF KINDS OF FAITH:


CARING GOD: As a society assimilates to acknowledge the quality of a caring, inviting, guiding Reconciler, history and experience suggest to many people a faith in an intuitive truth, which is not subject either to empirical proof or to falsification: That such assimilation favorably affects the unfolding quality of civilization.

MONSTROUS GOD: An idea that is utterly false, in a way that is not trivially false or directly contradictory, would be neither empirically provable nor falsifiable, as such. For example, a faith in a monstrous god that despised all mortal perspectives of consciousness and that sought to commit them to various levels of perpetual punishment, would not be falsifiable.

STOCKHOLM SYNDROME: However, for many people, the assimilation of such a faith would affect the unfolding quality of civilization unfavorably. Methods of psychological inculcation, such as Stockholm Syndrome, to indoctrinate underlings to such a faith, could be useful to psychopathic criminals and mentally twisted monsters.

GODHEAD: It is not empirically demonstrable whether a godhead is, or should be, caring, despising, both, or neither. Intuitively, the TRUTH is that a godhead or non-godhead is at least one of the above, and not some of the others. In that, every one who is intelligibly conscious has little choice but to choose, and in word or deed to ac-knowledge a faith.

DEATH AND TRANSMIGRATION OF PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: As to such truth, we cannot empirically know whether on death we shall empirically know it. What we can have is intuitive faith.

EVIL ELITISM AND SCIENTISM: Much of the world is trying to avoid assimilation by people of any intuition-based faith. Many people actively revile faith, family, and fidelity. The apparent trend is to default to the control of contending elitist cronies who propagandize in the name of science that is not science, but deceptive scientism. This produces a niche in the zeitgeist that favors the rise of monstrous psychopaths, who use demagoguery and deceit to unite corrupt people with ignorant people in order to rule otherwise decent and competent people. The "trivial truth" of the fact that this can be done has been amply demonstrated in history.

***********
***********
******

2) A theorem is an idea that can be put to practical use, as well as to empirical falsification.
3) A purpose is a theorem that one seeks to put to practical use.
4) An absurdity is a purpose for which one can find no practical, non-scholastic use.
5) A tautology is a triviality, not a truth.

There is only one intuitive idea that is encompassing:  That Consciousness communicates Information with the measuring of Substance.

7) Each perspective of Consciousness either acknowledges or denies:  That encompassing truth is directly authenticated to its experience.
8) Where acknowledged, such truth is conceptualized to be self evident, self normalizing, and self authenticating.
9) All other "truths" that are not trivial are only practical truths, like theorems or purposes.
10) Such theorems and purposes are necessary to, or fall under, the one encompassing truth.
11) Such theorems and purposes can be practical and useful to each perspective of Consciousness as it interfunctions with Substance to experience the communication or recording of Information.
11) An empirical idea (hypothesis) can be tested and falsified, as may befit various practical purposes.  In respect of how it were falsified, it would be a falsely practical idea.




************

The case is the case.
Some thing is the case.
Something is not here and now the case.
Something is potentially the case.
No thing that is the case is a thing in itself exterior to consciousness.
Every thing that is the case is normalized and self actualized so that it is the case only to some perspective of consciousness.

Replacing scholasticism with scientism:
propaganda posing as science, good for little that is practical except deceit.

Promising material gains where practicality shows they are unlikely.

The process of adding 2 things to 2 things will accumulate to 4 things only in resepct of Information that is there and then accumulated and subsumed.

Information accumulates concerning Facts.
In accumulating, Information tends to preserve Chronological information, in respect of the sequences in which it accumulates.
So, the record of their Past will represent sequences, as Facts, because that is how Information is experienced to accumulate -- as chronologies of facts.

Even so, Information is not necessarily preserved, per se, as a thing in itself.  It is preserved in respect of our cosmos and how we happen to be capacitated to interpret it.  In that respect, Information consists of representations of facts that we find useful in our interpretations and communications of experience.
In respect of our common and practical experiences, the facts are "empirically true."
In respect of the external potential beyond our cosmos, such facts become practical information for future theorems and purposes.

Being shared, such facts as self-actualizing, self-conserving facts -- not necessarily facts-in-themselves that would be amenable to every possible perspective.

Facts, for their interpretation, are dependent upon the range of perspective, frame of reference, and purpose and method of observing and measuring.
For perspectives that are relationally close invectors of space, time, context, and purpose, measurable facgts will tend to measured and sequenced in near identity.
Otherwise, different perspectives will experience differentially distorted interpretations of relative facts, locations, and sequences.

Reconciler uses techniques:
kind cooperation
monstrous competition

The further apart and differently vectored and accelerated perspectives become, the less they tend to share interpretations of LOCAL FACTS.


************


Evolution may be conceptualized as entropically degenerative, informationally progressive, statically fluxing, or indifferently meaningless. Memes that associate with the unfolding ofevolution pertain to creatively destructive competition, creative inspiration, empathetic cooperation, and nihilism. God concepts that associate with it can be punishing and pushing (Allah), inviting and guiding (Jesus), spiritually empathetic but materially indifferent (Buddha), and anti-human (Satan).

History and experience suggest to many people a faith in an intuitive truth, which is not subject either to empirical proof or to falsification. Such faith assimilates society to acknowledge the quality of a caring, inviting, guiding Reconciler. Such assimilation seems favorably to affect the unfolding quality of civilization.

History and experience suggest to other people a faith in an idea that may be utterly false, even though in a way that is not trivially false in the sense of being directly contradictory. Such a faith would be neither empirically provable nor falsifiable, as such. For example, a faith in a monstrous god that despised all mortal perspectives of consciousness and that sought to commit them to various levels of perpetual punishment, would not be falsifiable. Assimilation of such a faith may unfavorably affect the unfolding quality of civilization. Methods of psychological inculcation, such as Stockholm Syndrome, to indoctrinate underlings to such a faith can be useful to psychopathic criminals and mentally twisted monsters.

It is not empirically demonstrable whether a godhead is, or should be, caring, despising, both, or neither. Intuitively, the TRUTH is that a godhead or non-godhead is at least one of the above, and not some of the others. of that, everyone who is intelligibly conscious has little choice but to choose a faith and in word or deed to ac-knowledge such faith. As to such truth or falsity, we cannot know whether on death we shall empirically know it. What we can have is intuitive faith.

Much of the world is misguidedly trying to avoid assimilation by people of any intuition-based faith. Many people actively revile faith, family, and fidelity. The apparent trend is to default to the control of contending, elitist cronies who propagandize in the name of science that is not science, but deceptive scientism. This produces a niche in the zeitgeist (an imbalance in the force) that favors the rise of monstrous psychopaths, who use demagoguery and deceit to unite corrupt people with ignorant people in order to rule otherwise decent and competent people. The "trivial truth" of the fact that this can be done has been amply demonstrated in history.