Disqus

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

VEIL OF IGNORANCE / RULE OF THE VEIL:


What do Sheeple-Farming Dems want? Equality in outcomes. Marxism. Identity Politics. Why is this stupid? (As if this should require an explanation to anyone with a mental age above 10.)

Much of Marxism and Identity Politics may be rationalized under Rawl's Veil of Ignorance (sometimes called the Rule of the Veil). The central idea is that a moral person should imagine the kind of world he should want if he were in some kind of conscious proto-state before he could be born. However, the Rule of the Veil is a silly and poor substitute for the Great Commandment (Good Faith) and the Golden Rule (Good Will) -- for a number of reasons.

Most fundamentally, to presume the "objectively" best society would be a lowest-common-denominator system of equalized socialism is to be oblivious of the need for an upper class to rule the socialism (to be "more equal" than others). So, do proponents of the rule of the veil wish to incarnate as members of the Sheeple, or of the Sheeple-Farmers?

The so-called rule-of-the-veil is fundamentally self-contradictory and flawed because it presumes an objective best choice exists --- but it does not avail one.

Some people suppose, from proto perspective, everyone should wish equality in outcomes among all living creatures. However, the ways of conservation and evolution make that silly. Life abides among systems, such that death, destruction, replacement, recycling, conservation, competition, flux, and change cannot be avoided. Organisms use and feed on one another. Many must be cultivated or bred to the use of others. A sufficient test or idea for inspiring a moral system cannot reasonably be supposed in an idea of equality-of-outcome for everyone or every form of being.

In The Republic, Plato proposed a test from the perspective of a system of government. Under his Noble Lie, Plato divided social classes into three categories, whereby every citizen of the Republic is born with a metallic property. Bronze is the Producers (farmers, miners, industrial workers, etc). Silver is the Auxiliaries (military). Gold is the Guardians (rulers of the state, philosophers).

However, Plato's system would amount to elitist diktat to run the details of everyone's life. It would demote the quest for self-actualization, which is highest on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

So, neither a moral philosophy based on individuality (the Veil of Ignorance) or on group collectives (Plato's Republic) would seem in itself to offer a consistent, coherent, or decent way forward. Which puts us back to Wittgenstein: "Ethics, if it is anything, is supernatural ...."

However, the kind of world Lefties seem to want is the kind where young people (indeed, everyone) are forbidden to think beyond PC. Once Lefties flood our societies with incorrigible proponents of such insanity, then the only viable form of gov will be the worldwide Sheeple Farm -- for everyone to be sheared by their Weknowbest Masters. There will be little incentive to work beyond pretense, make-work, or the whip -- because work would not improve your own situation.

How do Kabuki Masters strangle free-thinking? By telling everyone that their basic security, their lives, indeed the very survival of the planet, depend on their abject submission and subjugation to the knowbetterism of elites. Even to surrender to the sub-humanizing values of Islam.

The result: Back to the misery of serfdom under the whip. Because Dems "care." Is this reason to be pissed? I think it is

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

IDENTITY POLITICS:

Global Gov needs to do an exhaustive study to list all social outrages throughout the past 2000 years. Find out which tribes and DNA types outraged which victims. Assign objective weights of blameworthiness and innocence to each component of DNA.

Then overrule all privacy concerns and globally collect and analyze everyone's DNA. From that, calculate each person's net debit or credit with regard to DNA blameworthiness and innocence.

Then do a detailed study of each person/phenotype. Ascertain his/her/zes actual skin hue, sans Sun effect. And personal/familial participation in the Struggle.

Appoint a Board of Reconciling Experts to assign objective weights by which to calculate each person's adjusted blameworthiness or innocence. Then chip each person with zes assigned weight/social value. Thenceforth, every transaction involving such person must be adjusted in respect of zes social worth.

Each year, appoint/elect new members of the Board of Reconciliation. Continue to apply the assigned social values, in perpetuity. Because such Moral Science is the only reasonable way to replace the unfairness of the marketplace.

But be sure to protect the Overseers that fund, legitimize, nominate, agitate, and select for determinations of Board membership behind impenetrable doors.

And don't forget to adjust for involvement in nationalistic/colonialistic outrages. Possibly with another Board.

Bottom Line:  A 10 year old child of average intelligence could readily explain to addled adults why Identity Politics are STUPID.


***********

When men are scarce, women will prefer to marry the gov. As will femimen. Problem is, a gov with no men cannot sustain itself. Not even its borders. So nothing is safe. Not within women's restrooms. And certainly not within borders.

In a land without "toxic" men, new rulers will rise. They will not be feminists, femimen, or other pinkie-waggers They will be foreign and tribal gangers, thugs, killers, subjugators, and corrupt sheeple farmers.

Green New Deal Pansexual Feelers tend not to think about the unintended consequences of lala rainbow feelings.

Pinkie Wagging femimen cannot sustain a decent nation.

Rude Libs do not think the values of Conservers of Liberty with regard to faith, family, and fidelity should be welcome on any good campus. Presumably, because such values and ideas, unlike those of PC Libs, have been discredited and falsified by consensus and objective history and science.

So, such Libs should be invited to write or identify a peer-reviewed paper that objectively and scientifically establishes or proves their point. They should show their work. That may help show whether any creditable scientific journal would publish them or laugh at them.

If you have no moral compass, no reliable principles, no devotion to God or Country, no capacity for embarrassment, ganger loyalty, a talent for repeating talking points, a big mouth, and a willingness to serve your hedge-dividing owners, then you are a potential Congressperson. Brains are entirely optional.

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


We need to avoid conflating apples and oranges. We can discuss apples (social functions) or oranges (socialistic government). But if we conflate the regulation of social functions with the socialistic takeover of a government of all means of production, then we can get nowhere.

Detailed regulation of businesses under a capitalistic system in order to avail generous social benefits is not what I would understand to be Socialism. Capitalism with benefits is what Sweden has. That may be appropriate for some societies, such as where the citizenry has not been excessively divided by the promotion of multiculturalism over patriotism.

I would agree that the effects of Capitalism with generous benefits can be compared with Socialism. Especially when the system is really one of Crony Capitalism with generous political influence for oligarchs. In that case, the oligarchs become comparable with the centrally empowered elitists that tend to run socialistic systems. However, in both such cases, the power and effective responsibility of the general citizenry is diminished. That is probably why oligarchs are happy to offer globalism --- as poison to representative republicanism.

If the ideal is to enhance responsible human freedom and dignity, then the problem is how to rein in the power mongering of elitists --- even when they think they know best. However, if the ideal is to build a perfect dollhouse for pleasure-addled dolls to live in, then the liberty and responsibility of the inhabitants become irrelevant. Most of the U.S. Americans I know will never tolerate that.

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

Your solution to corruption among bureaucrats under Socialism is to add levels of bureaucrats?

From what I see, Socialists tend to disarm and neuter the citizenry, divide it by celebrating multiculturalism over patriotism, de-define traditional roles for family in order to replace them with gov control, and raise immediate gratification to a replacement religion. Moreover, they tend to be easily agitated by simplistic talking points coordinated through the oligarchy-owned media.

There are still Commies that never learn and argue, Well, it just needs to be done right. Meanwhile, all the centrally effective political influence is wielded by its buyers. That is where the problem is. And that problem is not well treated by prescribing and empowering more levels of bureaucrats while raising citizens to become irresponsible, co-dependent, entitlement-minded, race-on-the-brain whiners.

People in need of a cause need to find a better cause.

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

I don't see taking responsibility and power away from the people to give it to bureaucrats as holding anyone accountable. How can neutered and brainwashed people without power or responsibility hold anyone accountable or responsible? Does not compute.

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

What do school boards have to do with Socialism? Socialism is where gov takes over the means of production. The more the central gov were to take over how school boards are run, the more the local boards would be made mere functionaries. Is it admirable for school boards to want kids to be taught to think that would be a good thing? I appreciate why more and more parents are homeschooling.

Your idealism may be leading you to ignore the root problem: How our politics is owned by influence buyers, while responsible representation of the people is pretense -- if even that. Since when are radical socialists responsive or responsible to ordinary citizens? So long as they truly believe they know best, when do they submit to the people? My answer: Only as a last resort. Americans want their borders enforced. It is knowitall socialists funded by globalists that are being unresponsive to that responsible request. Fairy believers think Socialism can be a dreamland. I see It as a 1984 style nightmare.

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


I generally agree regarding school boards. However, the big issue now in question pertains to Socialism. There is no necessary relationship between school boards and Socialism. So I think a trees-to-forest analogy is inapt.

Moreover, defending borders does not make a nation socialistic. it does, however, help preserve its identity as a nation. An exercise of eminent domain by a representative republic does not make it a socialistic nation. Regulating to preserve a nation is not reasonably comparable with gov taking over all means of production. If it did, then the word socialism would have little meaning, because every nation that has effective borders would then be called socialistic.

It is when you give gov power to control all aspects of production in order to impose arbitrary central whims --- such as to equalize wealth and health or to detail what speech is permissible and what is not --- that you are well down the road of socialism/fascism. And reducing each citizen's capacity to function as an individual, responsible adult, by subjugating his/her power and autonomy to the central power of a gov that is, for the most part, run for the whims of weknowbest elitists.


***********
GLOBAL WARMING:

Does science say global warming or climate change? Does it suggest an effective way to reduce warming or change? At what incremental costs? How to take effective measures that would not, because of unforeseen consequences, actually increase costs or adverse environmental effects? Is there any consensus about what can reasonably be done at reasonable costs to reasonably reduce the adverse effects? If the goal is not simply to trick sheeple into being reduced to a sheeple farm, then why is no consideration given simply to incentivizing reductions in population? Why has no Leftie politician addressed such concerns? Is it because of lack of brain power, or because of not being paid to look at solutions that do not entail so much subjugation of human liberty? Which among our national politicians does not appear to be grossly stupid, bought, corrupt, or blinded by excessive self-esteem? If Congress were run as a whorehouse, would we be better and more effectively served?


***********

CORRUPT UNIPARTY:  But for the despicable Rinos, I suspect the America-hating Left and its media would not have been able to generate the mouth-foaming ignorance that is bedeviling Trump.

**********

CORRUPT AND IGNORANT CONGRESS:  If you have no moral compass, no reliable principles, no devotion to God or Country, no capacity for embarrassment, ganger loyalty, a talent for repeating talking points, a big mouth, and a willingness to serve your hedge-dividing owners, then you are a potential Congressperson. Brains are entirely optional.


*********

DOLL HOUSERS:  Socialists that despise work for themselves and that pretend to care for you (as a kept doll to be defended under their expertise from your poor decisions) will provide a heavenly doll house for you. To be paid for by the labor of humans reduced to Sheeple. And Marx looked down on this con-trap-tion and said, it is good.

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

PINKIE-WAGGING HALF-WITS SHOWING OFF THEIR CERTIFICATIONS:  Our culture loathed men that whined, sat on their asses, felt entitled, or blamed scapegoats. Now, the Left champions such mindsets --- provided they are of politically aligned groups and led by radical scapegoaters that find it convenient to deem their self-indulgent demands moral or just. If you are "privileged" to be of the scapegoat class, you don't get to play. Unless you join the gang banging agitation or pretend 1/1024 membership.

***********

The only people free or willing to push back against PC Proglish, regardless of how evil or insane it becomes, seem to be those that have experienced a lifetime of actual work and are now retired. Most other people are unable to risk online free speech that might make some of their workmates or connections uncomfortable. That could get them shunned, demoted, fired, or doxxed.

The consequence is that the only acceptable political exposure that is taught or communicated among the idle rich, young students, and working stiffs is PC Proglish.

Why else would so much mass insanity be so common, acceptable, and unchallenged? Every citizen should read and think broadly and then, in intellectual honesty, consider why they and their friends are so immersed in such a short-sighted, one-sighted, emotional, anti-American mindset. Are you being farmed?

However, if you value your economic position and connections, you have to be very careful online. This may be why so many young people and unchallenged, idle rich are so politically adolescent.

*********

To heck with definitions of fairyland. What are the effects in the real world? In the real world, Socialism is where oligarchs farm the people by owning the gov that owns the means of production.

Crony capitalism is where oligarchs own the politicians that regulate the agencies that rule the gov and the means of production.

Socialism and Crony Capitalism are euphemisms for oligarchs farming the people.

Democratic Socialism is where oligarchs neuter the people by taking their guns, then use media to sell steaming piles of manure to a lowest common electorate that is dumbed down by training it to believe itself superior --- based on no evidence at all. (Test: Take the most corrupt, ignorant, impractical, and anti-Christian elements of any society. Then determine their political affiliation. In the Left, you will find a mix of people-farmers and people-that-want-to-be-farmed-to-be-equal by ganging up to take other people's stuff.)

Free enterprise is where the people keep their guns, and oligarchs are not entirely allowed to own the politicians or the gov.

Sweden does not have Socialism. It has capitalism regulated to provide generous social welfare benefits. This is only possible until Sweden allows its relatively homogenous population to be tipped by incorrigible immigrants into unraveling multiculturalism.

To preserve human decency and free enterprise, skin color is irrelevant. However, it is necessary to keep a well informed and well-armed citizenry of free thinkers that accord decent respect for faith, family, and fidelity. And that vigilantly precludes, punishes, or taxes all oligarchic attempts to buy and mooch via political influence.

However, a decent republic is a rare flower. When it dies, the default is to return to the people-farm. Other ideas about socialism are describing unicorn-land --- where fantasies fly, the people go hungry, corruption and ignorance rule, human decency dies, and Big Brother dictates.

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

WWJD:

See https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/who-is-jesus/the-politics-of-jesus/. Then cite to where I am wrong.

Virtue and charity presume a free mind doing a responsible thing. Merely doing what gov forces qualifies more as being sheeple-farmed than as virtue or charity. Joining a gang based on superficial difference, such as skin hue, to take from the rest of society has little to do with morality, virtue, charity, or justice. It has more to do with riot-booty, self-justifying superficiality, and fascism run amuck.

There are times when evil needs to be fought with evil, such as labor unions in the early days of the industrial revolution. However, the main evil the U.S. now faces has more to do with corporate welfare and oligarchic perversion of the Republic. You do not fight such evil by falling for its divide-and-rule tricks. Nor by de-defining families, reviling decent spirituality, or reviling the flag of the founders and militias that fought to give the nation a chance for freedom and dignity.

A lot of the people from whom Dems want to take reparations happen to be progeny of those that already gave much or all.

It can be entertaining, however, to watch as abortion-mad Dems, anxious to ban God from the public square, are often prone to make arguments based on what they suppose Jesus would do. I would chalk that up to misguided use of Alinsky Rule No. 4.

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

People are being designed, trained, and divided so most are suitable only for the plantation. Breaking free is becoming nearly impossible, and plantation owners want it that way. The intention is to make attempts to restore the representative republic futile. A representative republic cannot be sustained with a divided and race-baited citizenry, few of whom know which end is up or how to raise decent children.

The way back would entail more respect for faith, family, fidelity (Trump?) --- with less dependence on elitist-ruled gov. But mass opinion now deems that toxic. It prefers constant class war, pitting group against group, based on superficial distinctions.

Elites use identity politics to divide and bind the masses, while deceiving the masses into believing what is binding them offers their only hope for freedom. They are hopelessly trained to love the ties that bind them.


The system runs by enticing a lot of people into debt servitude their entire lives. As jobs become more mechanized, they will be replaced by AI. A few complex jobs will remain, but most people, because of limitations in ability or training, will not be able to do them. This is not a good time to be importing a lot of unskilled labor. Nor is it a good time to be encouraging population overflows. Problem is, the idea of economic rationality does not seem to have much to do with reality. Anger and resentment are afoot. Ride while you can.


This is not about justice. It is about the Oligarchy brazenly poisoning the republic by poisoning its last champion, Trump. Thugs, masquerading as virtuous. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance against plantation masters.


I see no one else working for the Republic or against the system of oligarchs. You do not seem to notice how the class warriors are being farmed by the very people they claim to despise. That seems a bit strange to me.


Jesus did not advocate to be led around by resentment-farming oligarchs. Nor to use gov to gang up with scurrilous people to take the stuff of other people. Nor to invite foreign nations and cultures to overrun your home or your own culture. He did not advocate for importing more pagan Romans to undermine local religious sentiments all the faster. Not seeing your point.


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


The solution to bad opinions is in more speech, not in fake elites empowered to ban non-PC speech. Such banning leads to people-farming echo chambers. If you want to filter to good info, you must be willing to read and think broadly. Not simply to rely on a particular school of especially biased elites to filter your information before it reaches you.


Disqus sponsors rowdy opinions and info from all directions. I prefer wading through that to getting my News pre-filtered. Caveat: But only if willing to test and wade broadly. Otoh, if you aren't competent to do that, why did you go to College?


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


Jim, See https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/democrats-support-border-wall/: “The contexts, I think, were different,” Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, told us via email. “Today’s discussion involves fencing off the entire 2,000-mile border while the earlier debate focused on adding significant (700 miles) but still limited miles of fencing at locations designated by DHS as necessary.”


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


My take: I think Trump is open to calling the "wall" by whatever name Dems want. Fence, physical barrier, whatever. And he has said it is needed at key points. Not an entire 2000 miles. So the environmental blocking and other concerns seem not well taken. He has also recognized the need for tech integration. So it is not clear why Dems are opposed. Except to deny Trump. What am I missing? Trump wants to secure the border. Dems seem to think that is not important or not an emergency.


They are complaining Trump should first hire more border patrol agents. I think he is trying, but that is not so easy. The problem is to find qualified people, with skills, willing to do dangerous work, who can pass background checks, who are willing to take the training and stay on the job instead of quickly seeking to join other, higher paying, law enforcement agencies.


A fact check asserts "to claim that those measures are the same as what Trump is proposing is a stretch." However, did Trump really claim the measures are the same? If not, that assertion is a strawman. Regardless, Dems did propose and fund similar measures, and at one time they recognized a need to do so. So I wonder what has changed? Have they already secured the border?






**********




People are being misled to believe there abides some fairness unicorn that should be consulted, to redistribute to each of us according to the metaphysical balance of our privileges. Of course, this necessitates unicorn intermediaries (Dem experts) to remind us when we need to check our privileges. China is presently perfecting this by using citizenship grading. A nation of snowflakes cannot sustain a representative republic. These people need to be re-cribbed.




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




HUMAN FORM:





Why do fundies insist that present forms of humanity are distinctly sacrosanct from spirituality that is also expressed with all other perspectives of consciousness? What we need is civilizing instruction relating to the enhancement of innate empathy. Not artificial constructs for pretending the human form is some kind of spiritual apex among all possible species.




The question is not does change in forms occur over time in correlation with changes in the environment. The question is what reconciles the flux among those correlates of change.




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






DRIVING EVOLUTION:




What is the nature or character of the feedback factors that are reconciled to drive evolution? Or the evolution of evolution, via fads and technologies "most fit" to replicate and spread out? How innate is pattern competition/cooperation/empathy and its unfolding enhancement of order out of otherwise chaos? Is the meaning of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule built into the system? Are the gospels a temporal metaphor for the eternal Godhead, of great value for availing a point of reference for inspiring us to come together, to assimilate civilizing values in good faith and good will?




Can Alinsky style Human Secularists compete in any way that would not necessarily debase humanity? Where is the evidence that they can? Is it in their grooming or abortion of children? Their de-defining of gender and family? Their destruction of representative republics? Their gifts of commie despots? Their PC stifling of human liberty? Hmmm.




Good faith (Great Commandment) and goodwill (Golden Rule). Look it up. Btw, I said empathy is innate. It is the enhancement of it and turning it to promote decent civilization, that necessitates the work. That is why coming to reason together in respect of the Source of such good faith and good will tends to be helpful.







STRAWMAN ADDICTIVES:




Note whatever you want. I am not interested in conversing with indoctrinated people whose main skill seems to be in deploying bs strawmen to "justify" their emotional wannas.




When I see something more than twisted logic or shallow b.s., I respond. Otherwise, I am not interested. Partly because I think you would listen better if you practice thinking for yourself, with some intellectual honesty.




When I sense that is missing, I am simply not interested.










KNOWING, LEARNING, INSPIRING:




Beyond general good faith and good will, we don't know. We intuit and empathize. We come together in good faith and good will to avail assimilation and expression of various empathies. The stories provide a kind of language for facilitating that. Is this hard for you?




How do human secularists "know" what is right or wrong? All we innately know is good faith and good will, as Jesus said. Or denial thereof. Which is self-defeating for any attempt to sustain a decent civilization.







**********




INNATENESS OF EMPATHY:




Good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule). Look it up. Btw, I said empathy is innate. It is the enhancement of it and turning it to promote decent civilization, that necessitates the work. That is why coming to reason together in respect of the Source of such good faith and good will tends to be helpful.










Beyond general good faith and good will, we don't know. We intuit and empathize. We come together in good faith and good will to avail assimilation and expression of various empathies. The stories provide a kind of language for facilitating that. Is this hard for you?




How do human secularists "know" what is right or wrong? All we innately know is good faith and good will, as Jesus said. Or denial thereof. Which is self-defeating for any attempt to sustain a decent civilization.







I am not a literalist. You are conflating stories and interpretations by humans about God with God. I am uninterested in trails for rabbits that seek to make literal justifications based only on metaphors.







*******




A lot of godless people are very morally confused. Many act as if they should espouse that morality is not part of reality. They are dumb to the immediate contradiction: Why should one espouse that there are no shoulds?




They believe God is discredited because beyond the physical measurement, control, prediction, or replication of mortals. They make themselves blind to the immediate contradiction: A being subject to control by mortals would not be God.




Instead of a Golden Calf, they seek to enshrine Gov Fairness. They are blind to what lies behind Gov: Very fallible and corrupt cronies, only pretending to serve fairness (which is as immeasurable as God).




If we desire a decent, sustainable republic that avails freedom and dignity for its citizens, then history and empirical experience can guide how we ought to act to pursue that.




But to think effectually that we ought to aspire to human freedom and dignity necessitates enhancement of innate faith. Call that faith spirituality, godliness, or goodliness - it matters comparatively little so long as that faith abides. Rather than the confusion, cronyism, and corruption of so many people whose faith seems to be that faith must be reviled, stomped out, and replaced by subservience to elite knowbetters.







**********




I don't see the logic. I don't see where the Constitution affects the wording of the oath one way or the other. Especially for States and especially if case law has already established that oath takers have a right to opt out of the God part. I see this as one more push to pander to militant secularists and cultural Marxists. Inch by inch. Where possible, mile by mile. I think it has gone far beyond being obvious.




*****




I think the agenda of Dino-Rinos is obvious: Revile faith, de-define family and citizenship, destroy the representative republic. Replace with despots pretending to know best. Right down to what speech is permitted and what is not. Right down to making "misgendering" a jail-able offense. No thanks.




*********




Just one more push on the militant anti-American agenda. I stated my reasons. This is my opinion based on wide and extensive reading. Over the past 25 years, there have been numerous attempts to remove Christian values and symbols from public discourse. Anyone can go online and.search that out. I think the program to drive Christian values out of public life and to stir division is obvious. We disagree on who or what is most responsible for that constant push for divisiveness. Meanwhile, far more serious concerns go unaddressed.




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




There is a big difference between originalist ideas apart from the Constitution versus originalist ideas in respect of the Constitution. Not many people argue we should still live in caves just because original homo sapiens may have. The Constitution, however, was ratified as a check against tyranny. Changing it requires Amendment. Not an activist judge deciding his new values should trump the checks set forth in the Constitution. As to the militant agenda against Christians, see https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/10/christianity_under_attack_in_america.html; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731879/posts.. Btw, Jefferson and Madison worshipped regularly, using the Capitol as a forum for church services. The Capitol building continued to be used for Sunday Church Services until well after the Civil War. https://kingsjester.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/jefferson-madison-and-church-in-the-capitol-building/.




***********




It would be nice to get some candidates that seek to serve freedom and dignity for themselves and their fellow citizens, as opposed to self-gratifying ignorance and corruption. Do we really need a candidate that slept her way up and that is beholden to corrupt monied interests? As near as I can tell, Kamala's education and understanding are shallow and her virtue and values are up for bid.




**********




I would prefer that an oath taker be able to choose for himself or herself whether to say the words "so help me God." I doubt legislative action was necessary to allow that option. I think saying those words should be an option. I think the self-righteous movement among secularists to force the removal of all vestiges and references to religious faith and values from all public schools, offices, and facilities is ill-advised. As I understand the word "God," it implicates no necessary distinction between various religious traditions. For that matter, I think secular atheists, notwithstanding howls to the contrary, tend to be religious and "blinded by the light" in their own way. I think the underlying but unstated militant or religious like goal of secular Leftists is to replace regard for God with forced supervision under Gov, as ruled by hubristic and often silly, corrupt, or dangerous elitists.




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




You're just playing games with definitions, trying to wall off artificial boundaries. Like you did trying to wall physics away from biology/evolution.




Btw, your six-sigma notion for supporting scientific rigor does not appear to be well supported in the current Wikipedia article.on the subject. Nor does it conflict with what I said.




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




EDIT: The fundamental concern relates to how to account for how our world is reconciled to follow one path out of the many that are possible. How is new Information cumulated ("cognified"?) to tip one particular manifestation out of many that may be possible? That is akin to a three body (or three aspect) problem, the solution of which cannot be accounted for with purely quantitative measures.




We cannot answer the quantitative how. Which is why I respect the qualitative aspect. Something qualitative is going on in determining how each wave function is made to collapse into a particular manifestation, that is beyond a precise solution or perfect prediction in science.




That qualitative effect of in-form-ation is what I term an expression of CONSCIOUSNESS (sometimes termed observer effect).




IAE, innate, empathetic respect for shared conscious interests provides a basis for inspiring a community to come together to relate to the Reconciliation of Consciousness in a civilizing way. In intuitive good faith (Great Commandment) and empathetic good will (Golden Rule).




Empathy abides. The strength, but not the fundamental existentiality, of conscious feelings of empathy, may be affected by a number of factors, such as relating to similarity of form, behavior, proximity, cost, and personal risk.




Otoh, learning to deny innate empathy tends to function as cover for predatory, selfish, anti-social, un-civilizing activities. And as fake justification for elite "moral scientists" to take over and rule the details of everyone else's lives. Evidence: The atrocities of godless Bolsheviks "blinded by the light" of forced collectivism.







***********






REGARDING PSYCHO-SCIENTIST-HISTORIANS:




Signal chronology may be preserved in some re-normalizing fashion. However, subjective interpretation of a signal will vary in appreciation, certainty, ambiguity, clarity, or ongoing analysis and second-guessing among various layers and levels of conscious reception.




Yet each recipient will factor its interpretation. Even though an interpretation will deviate from the underlying fact, the ongoing flux of interpretation will become a continuous part of the situation as it determines further unfoldment.




Thus, a psycho-historian will not be able to work back through all the pertinent factors merely by examining the available objective facts. The flux of subjective information, dependent as it is on the flux of its environment, will never be amenable of exact measurement or factoring by any conscious evaluator or scientist. Each person or perspective employing a subjective analysis may be constantly teetering on changing it. Such a potentiality is hardly factor-able in any precise scientific fashion.






So the sum of every situation will be continuously reconciled, qualitatively --- perpetually beyond the exact measuring or quantification-efforts of scientists.




Nor will a psycho-historian be able to determine or predict exactly what will unfold along each step towards the future. Nor what should be done at each step along the way to ensure a contingently desired mix of sustainable results.




Thus, even if Information concerning measurables is continuously cumulated and not lost, any reverse engineering to assess the determining factors or.correlates for any present situation will never be exact or complete. This seems related to Godel's idea about incompleteness. So it is unlikely, perhaps impossible, that any mortal.could ever exactly know or duplicate everything pertinent about a past situation. Perhaps not even God. IOW, cumulating Information, with regard to potentiality of interpretations, is subject to transposition (being "spread out").







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




The "knowledge" you claim to have is outside consciousness? Are you postulating some kind of Collective Unconscious" as a store for this "knowledge"? Is that a scientific stance?




***********




You're just playing games with definitions, trying to wall off artificial boundaries. Like you did trying to wall physics away from biology/evolution.




Btw, your six-sigma notion for supporting scientific rigor does not appear to be well supported in the current Wikipedia article.on the subject. Nor does it conflict with what I said.




***********




I will just ignore that nonsense. Here is a new play toy: IS THE ATTEMPTED SYLLOGISM SOUND?




- By definition, a conscious idea that can be falsified cannot be entirely true.




- By definition, a conscious idea that is entirely true cannot be falsified.




- Science deals with improving ideas that can be falsified.




- An idea that cannot be falsified is not an idea that science can improve.




- Whatever conscious idea is entirely true will have to be internally consistent and coherent, but will not be further subject to scientific methods of falsification.




- Testing it would have to be, in part, by conscious judgment, self-evidence, intuition, practical application, and/or internal logic.




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




It must disturb you when I farrrt in your general direction. But you keep inviting it with your bad jokes! Physics has nothing to do with evolution? Wowsa!




"Morality really does not matter at all." So, you have nothing to say about how cultures, groups, nations should organize themselves? Or whether an expenditure of time, resources, or blood is worthwhile? Yet you think it is part of "education." The mind boggles with your spinning.




Arrogant? Because I recognize nonsense pretending to be science?




Btw, work on your grammar. Else I will call out my Shakespeare Insult Bot, Thou beslubbering half-faced bugbear!




**********




I think you are quibbling. Measurable Substance is used as shorthand for matter and energy. Energy is measurable, also. Matter and Energy are interchangeable. E = MC squared. As Substance, they flux.




You may be conflating Energy and Information. Information connotes that something is being informed (or that there is prepping for the dissemination of Information). Taken together, matter and energy, as measurable Substance, function as storehouses for Information, to avail the storage, collection, and transmission of Information. Substance is cumulating Information.




Quantifiable Substance and cumulating Information are related, in flux. Example: A tree, with its trunk rings, stores Information.




Consciousness is what appreciates the flux, qualitatively.




Out of the flux of CSI and all possible paths, only one universal path is selected for unfoldment. That implicates a qualitative aspect, that is not entirely, quantifiably predictable. (Filtering processes can be used to make technology more reliable and practical, but not to the point of perpetual perfection.)




Each aspect of CSI is factoring (participating) to play a role in how the flux proceeds along a single path of unfolding manifestation. There abides one thing, but it presents in three aspects (or faces), that flux.




Consciousness is expressed and may be enhanced to various levels and layers. But it is always a participant with the flux.




***********




Under your notion for a TOE, are you absolutely sure in instructing that there does not exist any absolute guide for moral purposefulness?




So what impels you to believe you Ought to continue with such instruction? Some fruitless quest to be objectively right about concerns of conscious subjectivity?




**********




You don't see evidence that Substance exists, Information is represented, and Consciousness interprets? Have you devised supernatural blinders?




**********




EMPATHY: When we discern another person's needs or purposes, we tend to help him fulfill them to the extent we identify ourselves with him. A number of factors relating to similarity of form, behavior, proximity, cost, risk, and capacity affect the strength of feelings of empathy.







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






An idea that.is internally consistent and.coherent and that can generally guide human cooperation towards fulfilling.purposes is useful for civilizing purposes.




A conscious idea that can be falsified, by definition, cannot.be entirely true.

A conscious idea that is entirely true cannot be falsified.

Science deals with improving ideas.that can be.falsified.

An idea that cannot.be falsified is not an idea that science can improve.




?????????????Whatever conscious idea is entirely true will have to be internally consistent.and coherent, but not subject to or testable (refine-able?) by the scientific method.

Testing.it would have to be by conscious self-evidence and intuition.

An idea that.is internally consistent and.coherent and that can generally guide human cooperation towards fulfilling.purposes is useful for civilizing purposes.






Are there math based laws that are absolutely reliable and testable, yet not falsifiable because they are true?






For a theory to be based in science, it must be falsifiable ... unless it is reliably useful and true.






Is my conceptualization (theory?) regarding morality valid for any non-trivial purpose? Do I simply take what occurs and then call it, for the time and place it occurred, the moral upshot from the Godhead? May an upshot be moral for some and immoral for others, yet be holistically moral for God? If God cannot be immoral, then what can holistic morality possibly mean?









In general respect, such an idea would have truth value.




Such an idea may inspire numerous particular and specific.interpretations and.applications




The more particular and specific the idea, the less its internal consistency for all applications.




Competition among.specifically cooperative ideas is inevitable, but tends towards assimilative acceptance, even if forced.







A general.idea about goodness can produce.cooperative.and.competing.civilizations. but.is not an idea that will.produce the same values and.purposes.among.all.subjective perspectives.




Goodness functions towards reconciling values over the long term.




It is in constant flux, as feedback alters apprehensions.




An idea about subjective goodness necessitates assignment of moral responsibility to individuals.




This necessitates ordered.liberty among individuals.




Without recognizing.liberty to participate as a responsible individual, the ideas of morality or virtue would tend towards.meaninglessness.







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




It has become as easy for an oligarch to use cheap treats to train Dems as it is for a master to train his dog




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







I have some thoughts on the subject, having to do with how information is formed, expressed, transmitted, received, interpreted, selected to be acted on, and reconciled.




IAE, I do not see any body, substance, brain, person, animal, or cyborg as itself BEING conscious. Rather, I see it as being a form for facilitating a locally defined EXPRESSION of consciousness. Are "you" your body, or the unfolding chain of ideas, perceptions, and expressions that your body facilitates?




I conceptualize that all that appears as measurable Substance does so only in respect of a fluxing relationship with Information and Consciousness --- at some level of involvement and reconciliation.




I do not think you are ready or receptive for this topic. So this is an area you may or may not want to mull over for yourself --- if you are really interested. Maybe try out Asimov s book series about The Foundation.




However, I think your main interest and conditioning is to try to convince everyone else to take a purely mechanistic (robotic) view of the cosmos. Why you think you "ought" so to convince yourself and everyone else quite escapes me. Perhaps you imagine you know "the truth"?







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




So you do ascribe to some constructive interpretations that tend to be internally consistent but not falsifiable, so long as they remain irrelevant to any philosophy of morality? Why ought you to do that?




Do oughts exist? Can or do they exist in the complete absence of consciousness?




Can you describe any substance that exists in itself, other than as cumulation of appearance to a measurer or recorder for eventual presentation to some level of conscious observer? Without entailing a conscious observer, how do you get any appearance of any relevant cosmos?




Btw, if you think consciousness of self is not self evident, then no wonder your attempts to communicate sense remain so nonsensical.




********




No doubt, bots should keep clicking out bot strokes to deny what is self-evident to every person not in denial. Keep printing that our universe does not express a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Keep spitting nonsense that everything worthwhile can be completely represented in a purely math-based TOE. Put together dozens of monkeys at keyboards. You're bound someday to type out that scientific explanation of everything.




*********




To me, it seems self-evident and intuitive that empathy at some level is innately shared among perspectives of consciousness that occupy and sense similar and proximate planes of existence. Perhaps you have overdeveloped an interest in science, while neglecting appreciation of things beyond science, thus stunting your understanding of limitations of science.




Not all of us are like that. Some of us have both math skills and verbal skills; science skills and philosophy skills. Work on it.




***********




Yes, it is a conceptualization, not a theory. That should have been obvious. It is based on what is self-evident and intuitive. That things change, and measurable things change consistent with mathematical bases for measurement. That is why math based laws can be discovered using empirical methods for collecting math based measurements.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Much of Marxism and Identity Politics seems to be rooted in Rawl's Veil of Ignorance (sometimes called the Rule of the Veil).  The central idea is that a moral person should imagine the kind of world he should want if he were in some kind of proto state before he were born.  However, this is a silly and poor substitute for the Great Commandment (Good Faith) and the Golden Rule (Good Will) -- for a number of reasons.

Most fundamentally, to presume the "objectively" best society would be a lowest-common-denominator system of equalized socialism is to be oblivious of the need for an upper class to rule the socialism (to be "more equal" than others).   So, do proponents of the rule of the veil wish to incarnate as members of the Sheeple, or of the Sheeple-Farmers?  IOW, the so-called rule is fundamentally self-contradictory and flawed because it presumes an objective best choice exists, but it does not avail one.

Some people suppose, from proto perspective, everyone should wish equality in outcomes among all living creatures. However, the ways of conservation and evolution make that silly. Life abides among systems, such that death, destruction, replacement, recycling, conservation, competition, flux, and change cannot be avoided. Organisms use and feed on one another. Many must be cultivated or bred to the use of others. A sufficient test for a moral system cannot reasonably be supposed in an idea of equality of outcome for everyone or every form of being.

In his The Republic, Plato proposed a test from the perspective of a system of government. Under his Noble Lie, Plato divided social classes into three categories, whereby every citizen of the Republic is born with a metallic property. Bronze are the Producers (farmers, miners, industrial workers, etc). Silver are the Auxiliaries (military). Gold are the Guardians (rulers of the state, philosophers).

However, Plato's system would amount to elitist diktat to run the details of everyone's life. It would demote the quest for self-actualization, which is highest on Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

So, neither a moral philosophy based on individuality (the Veil of Ignorance) or on group collectives (Plato's Republic) would seem in itself to offer a consistent, coherent, or decent way forward. Which puts us back to Wittgenstein: "Ethics, if it is anything, is supernatural ...."

However, the kind of world Lefties seem to want is the kind where young people (indeed, everyone) are forbidden to think beyond PC. Once Lefties flood our societies with such insanity, then the only viable form of gov will be the worldwide Sheeple Farm, for everyone to be sheared by their Weknowbest Masters.  There will be little incentive to work beyond pretense, make-work, or the whip -- because work would not improve your own situation.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


However, not everything that exists is a measurable, predictable, or controllable thing. Examples: There is no smallest building block particle-in-itself. A number, by itself, does not take up space or time. What may lie beyond the laws that limit and define our universe. How each additional bit of information that is added to a system may be absorbed to influence the system as a whole. How a person will qualitatively feel about or adjust to a new bit of information that he had not anticipated. How random events at quantum levels may affect macro levels. Butterfly effect. Qualitative dispositions of other perspectives outside a rigorously controlled lab. Incapacity of a part of a system to take a perspective entirely outside the system. Incapacity to conduct a double-blind experiment on the world. Incompleteness problems that preclude a TOE. Flux in the system as a whole. Derivation of oughts, which most thinkers appreciate cannot be done from what is, except upon first making contingent (not entirely objective) choices concerning value preferences. And so on.


The Rule of the Veil is a poor substitute for the Great Commandment (Good Faith) and the Golden Rule (Good Will) for a number of reasons. Most fundamentally, to presume the "objectively" best society would be a lowest common denominator system of socialism is to be oblivious of the need for an upper class to rule the socialism (to be "more equal" than others).   So, does the proponent of the rule of the veil wish to incarnate as a member of the Sheeple, or of the Sheeple Farmers? IOW, the so-called rule is fundamentally self contradictory and flawed because it does not avail one best objective choice.

RESPONSIBILITY TO THINK FOR SELF:

The kind of world Lefties seem to want is the kind where young people are forbidden to think beyond PC. Once Lefties flood our societies with such insanity, then the only viable form of gov will be the worldwide Sheeple Farm, for everyone to be sheared by their Weknowbest Masters. But it will be great, because all the Sheeple will be sheared equally, and have no chance to escape The Fairness deserved for Wussies. LA writ large. Hip hip.


So we have to deal with many issues that do not have one correct objective answer. In that way, they are beyond resolution purely with science or logic.

Problem regarding Veil of Ignorance: Some people suppose, from proto perspective, everyone should wish equality in outcomes among all living creatures. However, the way of conservation and evolution make that silly. Life abides among systems, such that death, destruction, replacement, recycling, conservation, competition, flux, and change cannot be avoided. Organisms use and feed on one another. Many must be cultivated or bred to the use of others. A sufficient test for a moral system cannot reasonably be supposed in an idea of equality of outcome for everyone or every form of being.

In his The Republic, Plato proposed a test from the perspective of a system of government. Under his Noble Lie, Plato divided social classes into three categories, whereby every citizen of the Republic is born with a metallic property. Bronze are the Producers (farmers, miners, industrial workers, etc). Silver are the Auxiliaries (military). Gold are the Guardians (rulers of the state, philosophers).

However, Plato's system would amount to elitist diktat to run the details of everyone's life. It would demote the quest for self-actualization, which is highest on Maslow's heirarchy of needs. So, neither a moral philosophy based on individuality (the Veil of Ignorance) or on group collectives (Plato's Republic) would seem in itself to offer a consistent, coherent, or decent way forward. Which puts us back to Wittgenstein: "Ethics, if it is anything, is supernatural ...." However, Wittgenstein also indicated he would never denigrate ethics.



As a moral or spiritual (beyond empiricism) guide, the rule of the veil is silly, for reasons I have explained several times before. So the only path that seems to remain for trying to assimilate consistent moral principles and civilizing values seems to be pretty much as Jesus described: Great Commandment (good faith) and Golden Rule (good will). Perhaps combined in respect of empathy among conscious perspectives. Be empathetic.




However, those are general guides, not specific or objective guides. They carry innately subjective aspects, implicating innately empathetic consciousness. Iow, Consciousness is fundamental -- perhaps for science, but especially for moral philosophy.




If you want to use science, empiricism, or logic to falsify my point that ought cannot otherwise be derived, you need only demonstrate to peer review how to derive ought from nothing more than measurable is. Be sure to show your work.




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




Good grief. You don't understand the difference between an attempt at a falsifiable theory v. an attempt at an internally consistent conceptualization. Work on it.




And you seem not to be aware that our existentiality is filled with Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Wow. Not sure you pass the Turing Test.




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







A perspective that is conscious of an approaching strike that has capacity to react to or change it will be involved with a moral choice. Different perspectives may have different kinds or degrees of capacities, reactions, and apprehensions. Whatever the reconciliation, it will entail some level of flux among CSI (Consciousness, Substance, Information).




Evidently, you think you ought somehow to disprove any role for consciousness other than as an emergent. I see no good reason for why you would think you ought so to attempt. Nor do I see a scientific path for making such an attempt. Nor does it seem likely that science can rule out a fundamental role for a conscious observer effect. Nor can any individual, while alive, simply opt out of participating in the making of choices based on developing values and interests.




Whatever any particular functioning perspective is, it is a perspective of consciousness. Perspectives change, but Consciousness is (abides). Consciousness is Consciousness. Information from a perspective may be transposed or cumulated, but no particular perspective is statically preserved.




I would agree that there is no unchanging particular core or soul for any perspective. if soul has meaning, I would attribute it to the fundamental character of Consciousness, as it is expressed in a trinitarian flux with Substance and Information. Ultimately, the unfolding for each of our particular perspectives is expressed from, and absorbed by, that unfolding trinitarian flux.




This is not falsifiable science or theory. It is simply a conceptualization that seems most self-evident and intuitive to any attempt I make to appreciate a most consistent and coherent way of thinking about moral choices in a way that does not invade any proper role for science. Science, to be science, does not invade concepts that are not falsifiable. Nor does science suggest that concepts that seem self-evident or intuitive but beyond scientific falsification are necessarily without value or outside reason.




Now, if you expect to derive a best moral code from science that would pass muster for scientific peer review, I think you are deluding yourself. And if you think you can or "should" simply opt out of participating in the determining of moral choices, then, again, I think you are deluding yourself.




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




Logic suggests we can seek measurable evidence to more closely understand or manipulate measurables and technology.




Logic does not suggest we should require artistic expression to conform to rigorous logic. Is each random mutation, as it avails evolution to unfold, a purely logical determination? Is determining the course of art or reason to which you wish to devote your life a concern only for logic? Should a board of best scientists assign you your course of life devotion? Do you think logic, if pursued with enough skill, can best determine how you should live your life in all particulars?







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







What is irrational is to suppose that oughts can be derived solely from objective rationality about what is.




Do you think mere measurable Substantive IS determines moral oughts? Maybe a head banana? Or pet rock?




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




What if the only way for a perspective of consciousness to learn how to appreciate a qualitative experience is to experience it? What if the only way for God to appreciate our perspectives is through us? Why should God have to know everything that will ever measure out to happen in advance?




If the Godhead is Trinitarian, consisting of a flux of immeasurable Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating and transposing Information, then why should it not be enough for the conscious aspect at any given sequence simply to know all that it is availed to know?




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




Nope. I have carefully considered the alternatives and gone with the only one that seems to approach consistency and coherence.




If you think an idea of multiverse and world evolving without necessary reference to consciousness makes coherent sense as a testable or falsifiable "theory of science" or of social morality, then I think you are overreaching, deluded, or less than intellectually honest.







Hmm. You do not believe there abides a basis for oughts, other than that you believe you ought to spread the word that there are no oughts. Yet other people are the ones that are confused or Intellectually dishonest? Lol.




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







You are playing with words, substituting advantage for fitness. Are you able to say which gene pool or range thereof will be most fit or most advantageous, without rigorous foreknowledge concerning the challenges its phenotypes will face at any given era? You are still simply naming a result after the fact.




Moreover, even if you were to create a precise simulation under your control, then you would have permeated the system with the influence of your consciousness. So the system or simulation, solely under its own credit, would only be a correlate, not a cause.




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




Not exactly, because the curvature of space-time is continuously in flux. Can you even prove that the speed of light or the gravitational constant must forever remain as they now seem?




You can calculate to orders of probability based on assumptions that the system will continue to support your calculations and assignments of probabilities.




By feedback of trial and error, you can set up useful and astonishing machinery. As you do so, you will be contributing conscious input.




***********




If by evolution you only mean things change, then you cannot be wrong. If being trivial is your idea of an answer, then that is an answer.




Things change. That is entirely consistent with what I said.




Within a rigorously defined or limited system, we can filter to affect or focus orders of probability. That is how we make reliable precision instruments. In effect, we construct a system so it will almost always produce a desired result. For example, we can set up an array of dominoes so that they will, by the way we define the setup, produce a specified result upon a specified trigger.




What we cannot do is predict whether an earthquake, stray meteorite or stray gamma burst may upset the timing or the effect.




In your example, any number of alternatives could have served as the transitional species. I can say human beings will transition. Take a hundred people, we can each guess when and how that transition will be staged. Whether one or more of us guesses right does not evidence whether the actual eventuality was really the most fit or simply the most lucky.




If you want to say evolution selects for the most fit, then you need to set up a rigorous testing protocol whereby you rigorously define "most fit," so your so-called theory can be falsified. But if you persist in calling whatever results the "most fit," then you have only set forth a trivial naming convention. That is silliness, not science.




When you make a precision Instrument to produce a pre-defined and pre-specified product, do you call that product a most fit proof of "evolution," free of conscious input?










Evolution is not an answer. It does not predict. As a name for a result, it takes whatever happens and presumes it must have been most fit. Think about correlation v. causation.







Look up the Three Body Problem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...







Before any event is made manifest, numerous alternatives were possible. Yet only one path was selected for actual, measurable manifestation. Its selection entailed reconciliation of various factors of systemic feedback.




No single part or person was or is determinative. The moral will we express is not entirely free, but it is participatory. We do not by ourselves express moral will, but feedback concerning the apprehensions and appreciations that are experienced through us are factors that participate with each determined manifestation. To participate in the effectuation of an appreciable choice or selection is to be morally involved.




So, yes, every unfolding manifestation is on some level a product of a reconciliation among perspectives of competing and cooperating moral interests.




The system of possible expressions is limited in respect of math based parameters, even though possible alternatives within such parameters may be numerous. Each moral choice is subject to reconciliatory constraints and math. Otherwise, no system would be definable.




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







Morality pertains to what a conscious agent should do. Most fundamentally, a conscious agent should seek what it finds to be appealing. That is contingent on feedback, identity investment, and innate empathy among perspectives that happen to have adopted common or overlapping interests.




How should a painter decide on his subject? Via a process of feedback and creative destruction. What is meaningful to one may be less so than to another. But that is not to say that any unfolding situation is entirely without unfolding meaning to some perspective of reconciliation.




Moreover, information concerning every measurable change is preserved in the ever-unfolding changes of presently manifesting Substance. Every part of a puzzle is essential to its ongoing reconciliation as a system. Even the parts that want only to be immediately eclipsed and transposed.




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




Re: ""if a new candle is lit from a dying candle, does the flame die?"




If a perspective of consciousness participates to light another perspective, does that which they are perspectives of die?




***********




To number in any meaningful way is to number something apart from numbers. So what is being numbered, if not forms that are representative, derivative, or limiting of that which breathes meaning into the numbers?







I don't think the either-or true-false logic available to mortals works for this topic. Is no measurable thing some immeasurable thing? When you say "nothing is," are you saying nothing exists?




If at some cosmic non-time and non-place no measurable thing existed, from which all measurable time and space arose, then can it make mathematical or logical sense to suppose that all that now exists must have arisen out of a previously immeasurable condition of existence of non-measurability?




Does it make logical sense to apply measurements to "prove" that no immeasurable thing existed or exists?




Did rules of logic and equational balancing precede any re-presentation of the measurable.cosmos? Would the existence of such rules really amount to a condition of the existence of no-thing at all?




But for any such mathematics to be in any way meaningful, forms would be needed to appreciate them. If equational math necessitates perpetual unfoldment or balancing, what is "breathing fire" to activate the math?




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




If the plane of conscious ideas is on one level, on what level is the plane of consciousness itself? Can any of these planes exist as a plane-in-itself?




It is not dangerous to suppose that correlates mark newly branching patterns of unfolding change in forms. It may be dangerous to suppose that such correlates are in themselves causes, independent of any systemic feedback-cause or reconciling source of consciousness. It is dangerous to a civilization for its leaders to presume or to claim to know that there is no worthwhile, moral purpose or meaning for the existential unfolding.




***********




How does it help instill moral rectitude, initiative, civic responsibility, or a sense of earned accomplishment for group-gangers to teach their children they should feel entitled on account of superficial characteristics to claim a right to demand special gov funding and treatment?




Where does the Constitution authorize the Fed Gov to use taxpayer money to punish, rectify or "reparate" members of groups based on superficial appearances?




Where does science avail any fair or objective way to measure or "reparate" such damages? How could it be fair or lawful for gov policy to monetarily favor a high functioning and well-connected person with a darker skin hue over a lower functioning and less well-connected person with a lighter skin hue? How can the gov be expected to foresee which abilities of which group will tend to find more success in future markets, or tend to need special group-based favors, or in what amount or for how long?




Once those that run gov are given such power, how can persons that have acquired that power be fairly prevented from abusing it? How can gov force, once authorized for arbitrary deployment to favor one cherry-picked group over another, ever stop the cycle of cherry-picking recrimination and entitlement minded whining and historical revisionism?




The problem with Progs ganging up based on superficial markers to demand reparations is that they never incline to agree that there have been enough reparations. So they replace the unprincipled bigotry of one superficial group for that of another. This is what comes of conflating materialistic jealousies with moral principles: Cycles of angry divisiveness and unraveling of the republic.




A gov-forced cure tends to be worse than the disease. A better course would be for adults to grow up, encourage Christian empathy (as opposed to fake gov charity), and stop denigrating it.




Read Kurt Vonnegut's short story about Harrison Bergeron. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBnwqmJdrsU




Now, as to seeking ways to better check against oligarchic purchases of gov influence, I am on board.




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





How does it help instill moral rectitude, initiative, civic responsibility, or a sense of earned accomplishment for group-gangers to teach their children they should feel entitled on account of superficial characteristics to claim a right to demand special gov funding and treatment?






Where does the Constitution authorize the Fed Gov to use taxpayer money to punish, rectify or "reparate" members of groups based on superficial appearances?




Where does science avail any fair or objective way to measure or "reparate" such damages? How could it be fair or lawful for gov policy to monetarily favor a high functioning and well-connected person with a darker skin hue over a lower functioning and less well-connected person with a lighter skin hue?




Once those that run gov are given such power, how can persons that have acquired that power be fairly prevented from abusing it? How can gov force, once authorized for arbitrary deployment to favor one cherry-picked group over another, ever stop the cycle of cherry-picking recrimination and entitlement minded whining and historical revisionism?




The problem with Progs ganging up based on superficial markers to demand reparations is that they never incline to agree that there have been enough reparations. So they replace the unprincipled bigotry of one superficial group for that of another. This is what comes of conflating materialistic jealousies with moral principles.




The gov-forced cure is worse than the disease. A better course would be to encourage Christian empathy and to stop denigrating it.




Read Kurt Vonnegut's short story about Harrison Bergeron.







***********




If you import bombers, you get bombings.




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




FAKE EQUALITY: Affirmative action has placed whites, especially white males, at the back of the line even when they are more qualified for positions. The government is not here to provide equal stuff. It is here to ensure equal opportunity to get that stuff for yourself. You are owed nothing because of things that happened in the past to people you don't know merely because you have the same skin color.




FAKE PRIVILEGE: The people who make such a fuss about so-called privilege for whites in the USA will say nothing at all about privilege for browns in Southern Texas or Mexico, yellow privilege in China, or black privilege in Nigeria.




FAKE FAIRNESS: Should prog moral science-of-fairness take human priv to task, to "reparate" all the injustice humans have meted out to all other organisms? Should moral historians channel God, as special counsel to agglomerate all evidence of past injustice in the historical record of humankind, to deliver it to a board of rectification? Who should say who God wants on that board? Once installed, should that board judge and rectify God, for having allowed all that history of injustice? Madness. Mouth foaming prog madness.




FAKE SCIENCE: Should it be the task of moral scientist-historians for such a board, out of "natural fairness," to reduce all organisms to a lowest common denominator cell of abject powerlessness? Does some "veil of ignorance" prescribe that we should all handicap ourselves to a lowest form of equality?




FAKE CONSTITUTIONALITY: Where does the Constitution authorize the Fed Gov to use taxpayer money to punish, rectify or "reparate" members of groups based on superficial appearances?




HYPOCRISY: Where does science avail any fair or objective way to measure or "reparate" such damages? How could it be fair or lawful for gov policy to monetarily favor a high functioning and well-connected person with a darker skin hue over a lower functioning and less well-connected person with a lighter skin hue?




INDIVIDUAL IRRESPONSIBILITY: How can group incited entitlement mindedness promote decent civic responsibility or a sense of earned self.esteem among individual citizens?




INSTITUTIONALIZED CORRUPTION OF POWER: Once those that run gov are given such power, how can persons that have acquired power be fairly prevented from abusing it? How can gov force, once authorized for arbitrary deployment to favor one cherry-picked group over another, ever stop the cycle of cherry-picking recrimination and entitlement minded whining?




PERPETUITY OF IDIOCRACY: The problem with Progs ganging up based on superficial markers to demand reparations is that they never incline to agree that there have been enough reparations. So they replace the unprincipled bigotry of one superficial group for that of another. This is what comes of conflating materialistic jealousies with moral principles.




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




It is obvious that Dems, Dinos, and Rinos want illegals to vote. They want anchor baby citizenship. They want to require intake of masses of invaders without effective means to expel them. They want health, food, and shelter benefits for illegals. They want easily bribed and manipulated voters. They want a massive plantation of gov dependent citizens. They want corrupt elitist rule to replace representative republics, worldwide. They want a strong signal that resistance to the Deep State Swamp is futile.




It is obvious that Dems do not want any kind of physical barrier that would impede any future Dem Prez from continuing to invite liberty illiterates to come and turn the nation socialist Blue. Which really means turning the masses into codependent cattle, without any hope of self governance, personal responsibility, or human dignity.




If the border is not physically and effectively blocked, then the nation, as a representative republic for competent citizens, is done.




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




For any such mathematics to be in any way meaningful, forms would be needed to appreciate them. If equational math necessitates perpetual unfoldment or balancing, what is "breathing fire" to activate the math?




If the plane of conscious ideas is on one level, on what level is the plane of consciousness itself? Can any of these planes exist as a plane-in-itself?




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







For enhancing quality of life, the obvious social solution would be to incentive and avail a reduction in the human population. Simply stop encouraging people without means to have children, stop encouraging large families, stop making contraception out to be a sin, stop availing conquer-by-breeding cultures to offload their excess. This would entail a gradual reduction in worldwide production from artificial economics. Could a reducing GNP sustain a modern nation without widespread suffering?







To spoil a child is not to benefit a child. To teach people of a society to deem themselves entitled without adding any skill or work is to sabotage the society. To give a child everything he asks is not to love the child. To leave your home or your country unlocked and unguarded is to nurture an overabundance of predators. To habituate yourself and your friends to taking without earning is to ruin your character and your friends' characters. To always take the dregs from another country is to habituate that country to practices that produce overflows of dregs.










Silly article indicative of a silly mindset. The Deep State was operative during the time of Bush and his predecessors. The difference is that it did a better job of masking itself. When it got big and bad enough, it thought it could take the velvet glove off the iron fist. It thought the Sheeple would line up and obey. It did not count on DJT calling it out for what it is.




Now we have silly sheeple looking back in nostalgia, telling us it is wrong to fight back. I do have some nostalgia. For a time when people at least knew the difference between men and women and between Americans and globalist twits.







Most people loyal to Trump are loyal only because they sense that only he is inclined and situated to preserve the American Ideal of the Representative Republic against the depredations and diktat of amoral people farmers and their stoolies. If wanting to preserve the republic makes me a cultist, then sign me up.







There is a growing mindset that prefers a system of social nursing and regulation under ruling elites to having a nation, republic, border, freedom, responsibility, or self-actualization.




This mindset wants to impose that system on everyone. It has found it convenient to believe this is just and that anyone who stands in the way should be eliminated by any means necessary.




After all, it believes in the beneficial rule of elites rather than the rule of law. It hates Trump for seeking to preserve the nation and the rule of law under a responsible citizenry.







To care about your child is to care about availing him opportunities for self-actualization--- to develop and pursue his own interests and talents. Those interests and talents will unfold depending on his unique abilities and circumstances. Likewise for societies, cultures, geographies, local resources, traditions, accumulated histories. For any person to think he knows best how all such persons, cultures, and nations should be governed under one worldwide system of borderless laws and expectations of citizenry would be a remarkable expression of hubristic stupidity and corruption. Yet Libs, though usually wrong, remain rarely in doubt.







Can a society that evidences no standards for behavior credibly tell anyone what they should or should not do or tolerate? Many sheeple wait to be told by their supplier, funder, or pimp. Sheeple lose capacity to identify wrongdoing as well as capacity to punish, redirect, or stop it.




Suppose a wrongdoer said he wanted to acquire nukes and become a professional nihilist. A society of sheeple could not summon the moral courage to stop him. So how could it be evil for a nihilistic regime to rid the world of people who have and represent no standards?




Sheeple often do not even know what sex they are, much less do they know what to do with themselves. So they helplessly consume course after course of pointless mass media . Thinking themselves worthless, they become worthless. Being indoctrinated that they are privileged or entitled, they become impotent. Or they break and lash out.







Dems are conditioned to be perpetually irresponsible children, united by love of entitlementism, soma, dopamine, nihilism, codependence, incompetence, and hatred of individual responsibility and what is essential to preserve it (faith, family, fidelity). And they call this "love."







Stop raising perpetual children to believe they are entitled to take from the gov and to violently act out when denied.







Colluding oligarchs: Would you rather they be of the Russian variety or of the homegrown treasonous variety? Dinos and Rinos selling out the republic to Aino oligarchs --- how great is that? S/




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




The idea that there is no god IN the (climate change) machine tends to ignore the conceptualization of God as an aspect of reality that abides outside of measurable machines. God works with math, but is not controlled by math. What is controlled so that it must be consistent with math is everything that is measurably expressed by the Godhead. That could be called "Substance."




We notice trends and correlations in patterns. We notice that tinkering with correlations can often drive a trend in a desired way. Or, we tinker, alter the trend, and then rationalize that the alteration is desirable. But we never know whether the entire context or matrix that supports and drives the patterns we want to share may phase shift at any moment.




Yet, in faith, we tinker. We notice statistical correlations. But what accounts for the odds-predicting-reliability of statistics (or Bayes' Theorem)? Whatever IT is that accounts for statistics-based reliabilities seems ITSELF to abide beyond empirical measure, statistical analysis, or scientific control. It is as if, whatever the character of the Godhead that gives measurable expression, that which it measurably expresses must conform to measuring maths. That Character, itself, abides beyond math. What IT expresses appears to mortal observers to be consistent with math. Yet, aspects of IT remain beyond math. As if some unaccounted for aspect were always "carried forward," as in an uneven problem of subtraction or division.




If so, feedback and communication with that Character is less a matter of measurable science than a concern for innately intuitive and empathetic good faith and good will. It is a concern for the sovereign dignity of each individual perspective. Thus, the American Founders took care, in the First Amendment, to recognize the dignity of each individual with respect to his freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.




As "evidence" to reason, even so-called atheists cannot keep body or soul together without respecting some kind of moral code. In that moral code, they have faith -- regardless of how much they may howl to the contrary.




This is consistent with the cosmos not being "closed." Neither is science or any empirically-measurable system entirely closed. Rigorous methods may be employed to make particular test controls so likely valid as to be beyond dispute within our bubble. Yet, in the span of eternity and infinity, all are subject to phase shifts. And, the larger the encompassment and the number of factors, the more difficult the finding or developing of controlling algorithms. (Climate "science"?) Moreover, the algorithms themselves, in dependence on who applies them and his purposes, seem amenable of evolving -- to stay always ahead of one another's perfect factoring or control. Perpetually receding.




This seems consistent with so-called moral-scientists not having any real science by which to assert any nature-given or superior right to rule over (or to legislate to) others. And why there is not "real moral progress" (or "forward evolution") that is measurable to any mortal.




Why is this important? One reason is that it explodes pretenses of those who presume, on account of their "elitism or chosen nature," to be called or entitled to rule over all others. And to kill the representative republic in order to replace it with a New Despotism under Beneficent Superior Elites. It explodes pretenses by those who presume they are, "scientifically," of some superior tribe, to which the republic should be subjugated.




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




Most Americans want the border enforced. But their corruptly funded Representatives do not. So Dems trot out every kind of silly counter-argument imaginable. But most are baldly ignorant or lying when they say they want the border enforced ("secured"). It is obvious they would like little better than to turn the nation socialistic blue asap, by indoctrinating and importing as many incorrigible, entitlement-minded socialists as they can. After that, our knowbetter rulers will surely be respectful of such an electorate's political desires. Just as they are now, in Mexico. Not!





I marvel that femimen and feminists seem to think it good or wise to make common cause with caravans of invaders (and with Sharia Law), as if that should produce a better society, rather than a reversion to plantation status. But hey, I'm sure they have a chain of reasoning to rationalize it. Just not well based on history, science, or defensible principles.






Has any society filled mainly with femimen unwilling to defend their borders and feminists denigrating male toxicity ever long survived? I could be wrong. But I am not aware of such a society.








***********





Well, I think you are playing games with words to try to have your cake and eat it too. There is no democracy in Socialism. The Gov owns the means to production and the elites that own the Gov rule the people. There is Kabuki in that, but no democracy. So Democratic Socialists are really just shills and stooges (brownshirts) for their elite knowbetters (banana masters).




Socialism is a political system, even if based on deceit, manipulation, and raw brutality. Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron, posing as a political philosophy. A mask to hide corruption and historical ignorance.







Apparently, Democratic Socialist, American Style, means to import and indoctrinate enough people to make a permanent majority that will be easily led to vote or demonstrate for whatever the oligarchic farmers and agitators want. And then to call that being smart or educated. But I do not see any moral science, principle, or smartness about that.






I see a lot of rationalizing, with skilled rationalizers able to fill mush minds to rationalize every kind of behavior imaginable (Ten year old boys performing as trannies for adults -- really?). After all, when you have only adjectives (toxic, mean, racist, privileged), but no first or even contingent principles, what cannot be rationalized (or blamed)? All leading to a default condition: Consolidated, collectivized enserfment under aholes that think they know best how to divide and rule (fortify with hate) all the other people's lives.




The Wall is a good example. Most Americans want the border enforced. But their corruptly funded Representatives do not. So they trot out every kind of silly counter-argument imaginable. But they are baldly lying when they say they want the border enforced ("secured"). It is obvious they would like little better than to turn the nation socialistic blue asap, by indoctrinating and importing as many incorrigible, entitlement-minded socialists as they can. After that, our knowbetter rulers will surely be respectful of such an electorate's political desires. Just as they are now, in Mexico. Not!




My guide is contingent: IF the USA wants to preserve a representative republic, then various factors follow. But IF the new "virtue" is to be omni-tolerant and entitlement minded, then madness quickly follows.






I marvel that femimen and feminists seem to think it good or wise to make common cause with caravans of invaders and with Sharia Law, as if that should produce a better society, rather than a reversion to plantation status. But hey, I'm sure they have a chain of reasoning to rationalize it. Just not well based on history, science, or defensible principles.






Has any society filled mainly with femimen unwilling to defend their borders and feminists denigrating male toxicity ever long survived? I could be wrong. But I am not aware of such a society.




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




Ah, the new and improved Democratic Socialism.




See https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#2742d24674ad. I have no doubt there is all manner of political philosophies in Scandinavia. Same regarding the USA. But the government own the means of production? The Forbes article would refer to them as examples of Compassionate Capitalism. Which is easier to do when you do not share a porous border with Mexico and do not try to police the world. As I have said, I do not oppose social health insurance, subject to constitutional provisos. A wealthy nation can afford to indulge in compassionate capitalism when it is not beset by widespread political division, hysteria, and kabuki.




"The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism."




"[T]he Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality, the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs."




Btw, the average Swede does better economically in the USA than in Sweden.




I would agree with an observation I have seen, that




"Liberalism is where big business owns government.

Socialism is a direct reaction to liberalism; it is where government owns big business.

Communism was the most extreme form of socialism in which government owns literally everything, including the lives of its subjects.

Fascism was the state venerating its own citizens and at war with foreigners and minorities.

Liberalism is the state at war with its own citizens and the veneration of foreigners and minorities."







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





Dunnyveg:




Liberalism is where big business owns government. Socialism is a direct reaction to liberalism; it is where government owns big business. Communism was the most extreme form of socialism in which government owns literally everything, including the lives of its subjects.




Conservatism is about wishing to conserve a particular people and their culture in a particular time and place. In the case of Western countries, conservatism is now small "r" republicanism. Republicanism is where We The People are the acknowledged owners of our own countries, and as such we have the legal and moral right to be governed in our own interests, starting with acknowledgment of the fact that our countries belong to us, and NOBODY else has the right to be here. Liberalism is government of the people, by billionaires, for billionaires. This makes all non-billionaire liberals nothing more than tools of the rich, or what Lenin used to call useful idiots.




Fascism was the state venerating its own citizens and at war with foreigners and minorities. Liberalism is the state at war with its own citizens and the veneration of foreigners and minorities. As such, liberalism is exponentially worse than fascism. Only dying rabid dogs and liberals turn on their own kind and foul their own nests. Since only liberals exult in their sickness, they are the lowest form of life on earth.




Again, you can prove me wrong about liberalism by naming even one good thing liberalism has done that is good for the native American middle and working classes. All you've managed to come up with so far is that liberals have turned us into welfare cows to be milked for all we're worth to buy Democrats a constituency.




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




Are they deceptions or metaphors --- all struggling with perspective and illusion, feedback and purpose? Look at the various metaphors and models being deployed by our saving scientists:




What breathes fire into the world-math? https://youtu.be/zORUUqJd81M




Speculation: How could we communicate a shared illusion of Physical-World-In-Itself, absent means for mathematically re-normalizing the illusion? Especially since the Universe seems from every perspective to be expanding at much the same rate --- in a way that cannot be completely physically modeled, by reference either to the surface or to the interior, of an expanding balloon.




Those means happen to consist with our sharing of such math-based fluxing-constants as the vacuum speed of EMR, the Gravitational Constant, the Planck Constant, the equivalence of Energy and Mass, and so on.




IOW, the illusion of physics appears to be math-based. Which begs a question: Is a Conscious Perspective essential to the present-ation of the World Illusion? If so, what should be the morally reconciling responsibility or purpose for that function of Consciousness? How is or should that sense be assimilated?