SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS:
Math, logic, and geometry teach us that we can derive and construct all manner of proofs” for falsehoods and confusions, simply by beginning our interrelations with one false axiom. The result is that we end up with parallel yet asymmetric models, which we try to make as internally consistent as possible, but which stubbornly resist unification or reconciliation between themselves.
Example: If physics rests on a basis that is independently real, then is that basis consistent with a model or theory of continuous fields and waves, or is it consistent with a theory of discrete particles and quanta? Is space-time continuous or is it granular?
Well, we struggle to reconcile such notions because we presume physics is real. But what if the higher reality is that physics is dependent and derivative of a relation with Something that is beyond physical measure, but not necessarily beyond adducement to mathematical consistency and intuition?
In “ultimate reality,” I intuit that each of us does not really exist as a separate and independent identity. Rather, each of us is a perspective of One higher consciousness, which itself finds expression by interacting within a meta information field, which Something actively and sequentially synchronizes to avail algorithmically controlling parameters upon experiences of its own perspectives and degrees of freedom.
Nevertheless, each perspective among us defends his or her sense of autonomous identity and perspective to the last breath. Each of us constructs, interprets, and interacts with his or her perspective of the “physical universe,” AS IF it were true that we are separate identities and that physics is independently real.
In doing so, the price is that we entertain asymmetrically fluxing and parallel models, which continuously evolve and morph and “progress,” as we try to make such models as internally consistent as possible, even as they stubbornly resist unification or reconciliation. That is, each “progressive” step towards unification of our “as if” models simply opens up new vistas for wonderment.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
OF INTUITION
OF INTUITION:
What does it mean to be aware of one’s self? Is “self” purely a byproduct of physics? Does “self” participate via feedback in effecting choices within parameters of physics? Or is self’s participation purely epiphenomenal, and otherwise ineffectual? Are the patterns of forms chosen by God or Spirit entirely determined, or are they determined by some kind of mathematical function for generating randomness? To the extent events appear to signify in obedience to parameters that may be expressed mathematically, what is the “reason” for that?
Are choices derivative of some aspect or component of “will”? If there is an aspect of self or free or meta will, what, if anything, may it signify physically … or suggest spiritually? Is meta will determined not merely by accumulations of information of the past, but by purposes for the future, perhaps even teleological purposes which pull at such will, timelessly?
HOLONS:
What non-triviality may emotively, reasonably, or meaningfully be said of such “will” … or of holistic or meta-will versus particular or mortal-will?
WAYS OF KNOWING:
And is there any way, “objectively,” to “know” whether any other being is consciously aware of itself, as a “separate” perspective of consciousness, as opposed simply to being physically programmed to make appearances AS IF it were self conscious? What if it appears to store information, learn, adapt, respond consistently within expected parameters, and express rationalizations for choices?
But if a universe may appear to confer me with self consciousness, by what “test” may or should I reason that it appears likewise to confer self consciousness upon other perspectives of beingness? May other, particular perspectives of consciousness only “appear” to be separate, while “really” being of the same holistic perspective?
CHOICE OF CONCEPTUALIZATION SYSTEM:
I choose not to believe that awareness of self is purely derivative of physics. I choose to believe that all of physics that is accessible to mortals is derivative of a meta will or consciousness, interacting within a meta information field, which is set to obey algorithmically controlling parameters. Such controlling, unifying Algorithm may in some sense be accesssible to mortal, measurable derivation.
In other words, our best evidence for perspectives of “selfness” and “will” may be subjective, internal, empathetic, and/or INTUITIVE. But our best evidence of “reason” may be objective, external, empirical, and MATHEMATICAL.
However, I also believe “reason” is derivative of “selfness.” That is, our experiences of empirical “physics” are derivative of our various “selves” SIGN-ifying and de-SIGNing forms for sharing expressions of math, which would be dimensionless but for being shared and limited within a common defining Algorithm.
MATH BEYOND PHYSICS:
But Who has availed such Algorithm? Perhaps “God” or Holistic Consciousness, aka Meta God Particle interacting with Meta Information Field. If so, all dimensions and expressions of physics (space, time, matter and energy) are derivative of, and subordinate to, such “ongoing” meta interaction, which may as well be conducting its entire concert on the head of a dimensionless pinpoint (sort of analogous to a physical Big Bang out of a dimensionless point of virtual nothingness).
SCOFFING AT INTUTITON THAT IS BEYOND MEASURE:
Those tending most purely to be devoted to empiricism often scoff at notions of “intuition,” as if intuition should never form a basis for belief, as if the only belief worthwhile must be supported in respect of objectively measurable math. For them, I ask: apart from ongoing “intuition,” how do you form, unify, or COMPLETE any reasoned belief that any other perspective of self aware consciousness actually exists?
My point is this: There is a reasonable realm for measurable empiricism, but there is also a reasonable realm for moral intuition. I believe to think less is to follow only the poorer half of a philosophy.
ALIGNING OF HELL BENT DECONSTRUCTORS OF MORALITY:
Why is this of import? Well, “elite” campuses worldwide are hell bent to deconstruct all meta-thought about freedom,dignity, family, decency … in short, civilization.
NEW MORAL PRIESTHOOD:
In that regard, so-called hard-science “empiricists” have hardly covered themselves in glory with their half baked philosophies bent on denigrating and replacing spiritual intution in respect of a New Moral Priesthood … composed of scientists, bureaucrats, and (in the vein of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”) intolerant, fascistic, religious oppressors.
In short, many godless scientists, in presuming to replace religion, are perverting spirituality, becoming as bad or worse than any spiritual teacher they seek to replace. That is, many empiricists have become fervently “religious about science;” they have become neo-moral-fascists, bent on denigrating fundamental traditions and institutions requisite to decent civilization.
META-MEASURE:
I intuit that there exists an Information Field (Aether?). It is not composed of information, but of potential information. It is the interaction of such field with Some Essential Aspect (Mind or God Particle?) that generates (Genesis?) present information about experiential existence, i.e., Identity of Beingness (reactiveness for storing potential for the unfolding of information to consciousness, subconsciousness, consciousness, self consciousness, spiritual consciousness).
It is the interaction of such “Metas,” i.e., Potential and Mind, which expresses, as byproduct, a competitive, cooperative, evolutionary unfolding and flourishing of freedom to imagine, interpret, express, communicate, translate, allegor-ize, and share interpretations and de-signs within algorithmically prescribed parameters.
Thus, experiences of information become organized among various perspectives (varying points of view within shared frames of reference), which share overlaps, which are derivative both of heirarchical (superiors’ and inferiors’) and horizontal (peers’) interactions and communications.
LET’S PRETEND:
Each of us is a perspective of the Consciousness or Mind of God, interacting with a Field of Potential Information. To realize separateness of perspective, and to be able to communicate with similarly separate perspectives, we each assume (or are brought to assume) a role within our common Source’s (God’s) existential game of “let’s pretend.”
To play (“exist”) in any such game, we are required to accept its parameters and rules. Such parameters constitute a web of mathematical laws of nature, i.e., the Algorithm, which limits and defines all “physical tokens” (aka symbols, forms, models, and metaphors) for our interactions within the game. What we take to be our “physics” is what we must accept as conventional in order to participate, SIGN-ify, and communicate within the rules of the game.
THE SOURCE:
So who or what is The Source-Interactor (or Mind or Will of God) that interacts with the Information Field? Being “meta,” IT may better be called “spiritual” than “physical.” Being meta, IT is not any sort of measurable or physical particle, not even as an “ultimate” physical particle of matter (insofar as we are accustomed to thinking of what is measurable in physics). Nor is the meta Information Field any sort of ultimately measurable physical field of waves, particle packets, or quanta of energy.
TELEOLOGY:
Being meta, the “Information Field” and the “God Particle” are necessarily beyond quantifiable relation or measure in physics or science. They are to be subjectively experienced (in intuition of potentiality of perspective and imagination). They are not to be objectively reduced, converted, or harnessed to mathematical relations or measures, They are not that which is mathematically (or statistically) measured, but that which avails measures. That are not of the game, but that which avails the game … and that which sets the teleology of the game.
What does it mean to be aware of one’s self? Is “self” purely a byproduct of physics? Does “self” participate via feedback in effecting choices within parameters of physics? Or is self’s participation purely epiphenomenal, and otherwise ineffectual? Are the patterns of forms chosen by God or Spirit entirely determined, or are they determined by some kind of mathematical function for generating randomness? To the extent events appear to signify in obedience to parameters that may be expressed mathematically, what is the “reason” for that?
Are choices derivative of some aspect or component of “will”? If there is an aspect of self or free or meta will, what, if anything, may it signify physically … or suggest spiritually? Is meta will determined not merely by accumulations of information of the past, but by purposes for the future, perhaps even teleological purposes which pull at such will, timelessly?
HOLONS:
What non-triviality may emotively, reasonably, or meaningfully be said of such “will” … or of holistic or meta-will versus particular or mortal-will?
WAYS OF KNOWING:
And is there any way, “objectively,” to “know” whether any other being is consciously aware of itself, as a “separate” perspective of consciousness, as opposed simply to being physically programmed to make appearances AS IF it were self conscious? What if it appears to store information, learn, adapt, respond consistently within expected parameters, and express rationalizations for choices?
But if a universe may appear to confer me with self consciousness, by what “test” may or should I reason that it appears likewise to confer self consciousness upon other perspectives of beingness? May other, particular perspectives of consciousness only “appear” to be separate, while “really” being of the same holistic perspective?
CHOICE OF CONCEPTUALIZATION SYSTEM:
I choose not to believe that awareness of self is purely derivative of physics. I choose to believe that all of physics that is accessible to mortals is derivative of a meta will or consciousness, interacting within a meta information field, which is set to obey algorithmically controlling parameters. Such controlling, unifying Algorithm may in some sense be accesssible to mortal, measurable derivation.
In other words, our best evidence for perspectives of “selfness” and “will” may be subjective, internal, empathetic, and/or INTUITIVE. But our best evidence of “reason” may be objective, external, empirical, and MATHEMATICAL.
However, I also believe “reason” is derivative of “selfness.” That is, our experiences of empirical “physics” are derivative of our various “selves” SIGN-ifying and de-SIGNing forms for sharing expressions of math, which would be dimensionless but for being shared and limited within a common defining Algorithm.
MATH BEYOND PHYSICS:
But Who has availed such Algorithm? Perhaps “God” or Holistic Consciousness, aka Meta God Particle interacting with Meta Information Field. If so, all dimensions and expressions of physics (space, time, matter and energy) are derivative of, and subordinate to, such “ongoing” meta interaction, which may as well be conducting its entire concert on the head of a dimensionless pinpoint (sort of analogous to a physical Big Bang out of a dimensionless point of virtual nothingness).
SCOFFING AT INTUTITON THAT IS BEYOND MEASURE:
Those tending most purely to be devoted to empiricism often scoff at notions of “intuition,” as if intuition should never form a basis for belief, as if the only belief worthwhile must be supported in respect of objectively measurable math. For them, I ask: apart from ongoing “intuition,” how do you form, unify, or COMPLETE any reasoned belief that any other perspective of self aware consciousness actually exists?
My point is this: There is a reasonable realm for measurable empiricism, but there is also a reasonable realm for moral intuition. I believe to think less is to follow only the poorer half of a philosophy.
ALIGNING OF HELL BENT DECONSTRUCTORS OF MORALITY:
Why is this of import? Well, “elite” campuses worldwide are hell bent to deconstruct all meta-thought about freedom,dignity, family, decency … in short, civilization.
NEW MORAL PRIESTHOOD:
In that regard, so-called hard-science “empiricists” have hardly covered themselves in glory with their half baked philosophies bent on denigrating and replacing spiritual intution in respect of a New Moral Priesthood … composed of scientists, bureaucrats, and (in the vein of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”) intolerant, fascistic, religious oppressors.
In short, many godless scientists, in presuming to replace religion, are perverting spirituality, becoming as bad or worse than any spiritual teacher they seek to replace. That is, many empiricists have become fervently “religious about science;” they have become neo-moral-fascists, bent on denigrating fundamental traditions and institutions requisite to decent civilization.
META-MEASURE:
I intuit that there exists an Information Field (Aether?). It is not composed of information, but of potential information. It is the interaction of such field with Some Essential Aspect (Mind or God Particle?) that generates (Genesis?) present information about experiential existence, i.e., Identity of Beingness (reactiveness for storing potential for the unfolding of information to consciousness, subconsciousness, consciousness, self consciousness, spiritual consciousness).
It is the interaction of such “Metas,” i.e., Potential and Mind, which expresses, as byproduct, a competitive, cooperative, evolutionary unfolding and flourishing of freedom to imagine, interpret, express, communicate, translate, allegor-ize, and share interpretations and de-signs within algorithmically prescribed parameters.
Thus, experiences of information become organized among various perspectives (varying points of view within shared frames of reference), which share overlaps, which are derivative both of heirarchical (superiors’ and inferiors’) and horizontal (peers’) interactions and communications.
LET’S PRETEND:
Each of us is a perspective of the Consciousness or Mind of God, interacting with a Field of Potential Information. To realize separateness of perspective, and to be able to communicate with similarly separate perspectives, we each assume (or are brought to assume) a role within our common Source’s (God’s) existential game of “let’s pretend.”
To play (“exist”) in any such game, we are required to accept its parameters and rules. Such parameters constitute a web of mathematical laws of nature, i.e., the Algorithm, which limits and defines all “physical tokens” (aka symbols, forms, models, and metaphors) for our interactions within the game. What we take to be our “physics” is what we must accept as conventional in order to participate, SIGN-ify, and communicate within the rules of the game.
THE SOURCE:
So who or what is The Source-Interactor (or Mind or Will of God) that interacts with the Information Field? Being “meta,” IT may better be called “spiritual” than “physical.” Being meta, IT is not any sort of measurable or physical particle, not even as an “ultimate” physical particle of matter (insofar as we are accustomed to thinking of what is measurable in physics). Nor is the meta Information Field any sort of ultimately measurable physical field of waves, particle packets, or quanta of energy.
TELEOLOGY:
Being meta, the “Information Field” and the “God Particle” are necessarily beyond quantifiable relation or measure in physics or science. They are to be subjectively experienced (in intuition of potentiality of perspective and imagination). They are not to be objectively reduced, converted, or harnessed to mathematical relations or measures, They are not that which is mathematically (or statistically) measured, but that which avails measures. That are not of the game, but that which avails the game … and that which sets the teleology of the game.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Free Trade vs. Smart Trade
Free Trade vs. Smart Trade:
Can American style free enterprise compete with China? Can domestic small businesses compete against the productive economies or coordination of scale of large corporations?
For domestic national security, cultural assimilation, and wealth,the advantage of dividing labor among international competitors is offset by the cost and environmental damage that is attributable to shipping. Further, enriching unfriendly nations carries its own cultural frictions and costs.
So, to preserve American style individualism and culture, how may American governance be trusted to encourage Smart Trade and help small businesses remain competitive? How may government be trusted to increase incentives inclined towards encouraging more diversified ownership, vision, direction, and management, i.e., more democratic spreading of wealth and influence so that oligopolists and aristocrats do not simply buy up the politicians and regulators who define government?
Perhaps government, once made enlightened by an informed electorate, should:
Forbid corporate involvement in most politics or lawmaking;
Progressively tax individuals and managers based on engagement of lobbyists or lobbying;
Impose import and export taxes, designed to discriminate against corporations that try to leverage competive power based on foreign entanglements;
Adjust relative lengths of patent and copywright protections;
Regulate to increase minimum wages paid by corporations, but not by small businesses;
Make employee health insurance portable and competitive across state lines, so as to make small businesses and independent contractors more competitive;
Encourage privitization of various department and managerial functions and services;
Encourage more involvement in mid-level management by independent contractors;
In rare cases, split up corporations, vertically and laterally;
Better educate a civically responsible electorate.
Can American style free enterprise compete with China? Can domestic small businesses compete against the productive economies or coordination of scale of large corporations?
For domestic national security, cultural assimilation, and wealth,the advantage of dividing labor among international competitors is offset by the cost and environmental damage that is attributable to shipping. Further, enriching unfriendly nations carries its own cultural frictions and costs.
So, to preserve American style individualism and culture, how may American governance be trusted to encourage Smart Trade and help small businesses remain competitive? How may government be trusted to increase incentives inclined towards encouraging more diversified ownership, vision, direction, and management, i.e., more democratic spreading of wealth and influence so that oligopolists and aristocrats do not simply buy up the politicians and regulators who define government?
Perhaps government, once made enlightened by an informed electorate, should:
Forbid corporate involvement in most politics or lawmaking;
Progressively tax individuals and managers based on engagement of lobbyists or lobbying;
Impose import and export taxes, designed to discriminate against corporations that try to leverage competive power based on foreign entanglements;
Adjust relative lengths of patent and copywright protections;
Regulate to increase minimum wages paid by corporations, but not by small businesses;
Make employee health insurance portable and competitive across state lines, so as to make small businesses and independent contractors more competitive;
Encourage privitization of various department and managerial functions and services;
Encourage more involvement in mid-level management by independent contractors;
In rare cases, split up corporations, vertically and laterally;
Better educate a civically responsible electorate.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Eugenics
Anytime there is a discussion about population management or the effect of population on our carbon footprint, someone always trots out the epithet, "eugenicist," or "Nazi!"
Granted, the holocaust should have conditioned us to be wary of failing to accord due respect and humility when it comes to direct interventions inclined towards producing a superior race. So, we became rightly concerned about test tube babies, genetic manipulation, stem cell research, government financed/accorded abortion, and population management incentives.
Still, when it comes to deciding whether to procreate, to choose to trust to blind chance is itself a form of choosing. No one trusts purely to randomness when it comes to any other important function, such as driving, working, or even playing. To decline to make difficult moral choices is itself a form of choice -- often an irresponsible one.
It is past time to question some uncomfortable or unquestioned assumptions. In this day and age, to leave procreation entirely to quantum chance is not just silly -- it is socially irresponsible. Choosing to rely entirely on random chance is simply choosing to be irresponsible.
While often having hearts in the right places, Catholics' notions about sex and procreation too often stretch too far into absurdity. Simply put, God is too important to entrust entirely to fundies.
Regarding human reproduction, what should be the most significant factors for distinguishing between what is to be encouraged versus what is to be discouraged?
Factors To Be Receptive To: Specific affronts to present human dignity versus general incentives or disincentives to future reproduction; what is needed to sustain a decent and viable civilization; what is reasonably consistent with spiritual values, without being unnecessarily counterproductive to scientific quests; what forms of incentives would be least intrusive upon human freedom and dignity; manning and defending national borders.
No Choice Not To Practice Eugenics: We need not imagine that, absent our intentions, evolution somehow refrains from “practicing” eugenics. Rather, every interaction imparts a eugenic tendency or effect, even if only in present meme leading to eventual gene, whether of not directly intended to do so. So it hardly elevates us, morally, to pretend not to notice how the acting out of our intentions so obviously affects eguenics, regardless of whether or not a specific eugenic effect was intended.
Granted, the holocaust should have conditioned us to be wary of failing to accord due respect and humility when it comes to direct interventions inclined towards producing a superior race. So, we became rightly concerned about test tube babies, genetic manipulation, stem cell research, government financed/accorded abortion, and population management incentives.
Still, when it comes to deciding whether to procreate, to choose to trust to blind chance is itself a form of choosing. No one trusts purely to randomness when it comes to any other important function, such as driving, working, or even playing. To decline to make difficult moral choices is itself a form of choice -- often an irresponsible one.
It is past time to question some uncomfortable or unquestioned assumptions. In this day and age, to leave procreation entirely to quantum chance is not just silly -- it is socially irresponsible. Choosing to rely entirely on random chance is simply choosing to be irresponsible.
While often having hearts in the right places, Catholics' notions about sex and procreation too often stretch too far into absurdity. Simply put, God is too important to entrust entirely to fundies.
Regarding human reproduction, what should be the most significant factors for distinguishing between what is to be encouraged versus what is to be discouraged?
Factors To Be Receptive To: Specific affronts to present human dignity versus general incentives or disincentives to future reproduction; what is needed to sustain a decent and viable civilization; what is reasonably consistent with spiritual values, without being unnecessarily counterproductive to scientific quests; what forms of incentives would be least intrusive upon human freedom and dignity; manning and defending national borders.
No Choice Not To Practice Eugenics: We need not imagine that, absent our intentions, evolution somehow refrains from “practicing” eugenics. Rather, every interaction imparts a eugenic tendency or effect, even if only in present meme leading to eventual gene, whether of not directly intended to do so. So it hardly elevates us, morally, to pretend not to notice how the acting out of our intentions so obviously affects eguenics, regardless of whether or not a specific eugenic effect was intended.
Friday, November 6, 2009
CONSERVATION OF MIND
CONSERVATION OF MIND:
Suppose time, space and physical circumstance have no reality independent of Mind engaging in consciousness in "meta-nowness." Suppose all that we interpret as separate physical experiences are secondary to nothing more than mathematical tricks, derivative of capacity of One holistic consciousness to borrow virtual experientiality against meta-time?
Suppose that Oneness has capacity to split in sequential, virtual time, into mathematically offsetting (positive and negative) versions of itself. Further, so long as always conserving a balance of zero, suppose each such positive or negative version likewise has capacity itself to split into sub-positive and sub-negative versions of itself. And so on.
If so, what visions may such mind imagine, in derivation of such sequential splits? With what sort of non-body, out of body, or multiple body perspectives may such mind entertain itself, all subsisting simply as variations on one theme? What sort of trading on empathies, memories, or information may such Oneness perpetuate, either in lethal passion or in disinterested or circular autopilot?
Is not the “One” always the odd One out, forever precluding a complete annihilation into absolute nothingness (whatever that may “be”) as a result of any collision of all mirror positives with their mirror negatives? Indeed, byproducts of the One manifest in respect of indication of non-mirror parity (broken symmetry), such as in observations of muons that are only “right handed.”
It seems that our realm of mathematical possibilities is infinite, such that the possible forms of manifestations unto consciousness are nearly magical in responsiveness to mathematical investigations, so long as each particular mathematical investigation is not inconsistent with the math that is manifested in the physics that is secondary to the ruling synchronization of choices then and there being effectuated in respect of the interaction of all perspectives of beingness.
Among possible choices and experiences of information availed to each perspective, all require a subsuming synchronization in respect of the web that comprises each and every other perspective of being (as well as in respect of the holistic author of the common algorithmic ground that is shared by all more particular perspectives). Within the web we share for the communication of information, we live, die, and evolve, depending upon how our niche for receiving information strengthens, weakens, or even kills us. As information synchronizes before us, it, as in the case of lightning, can be immensely powerful or lethal to our developing interests. (Kill the mind and the body dies.) Often, a visionary being will be caught in a local web that may seem to be atavistic evil, yet may also serve as foil for progress along moral purposefulness.
****
EXISTENCE REQUIRES RELATION: Insofar as the quarks that comprise matter are never alone, are they “real,” or are they only Mathematical Constructs for conservational accounting? On one hand, quarks exhibit properties, such that they can be separately differentiated even though they can never be alone. On the other hand, they can never be differentiated except by means of relational reference (insofar as they act together in discretely measurable units, fractions, numbers, charges, or spin parity). While individual quarks that are bound (glued) together may be separated, such can only be experienced in quantum jumps, instantaneously (or “virtually,” by “borrowing against the future”), in such a way that conservation is always glued back together and restored for the here and now.
REALITY OF MASS: So, unless some “real” particle (Higgs?) can be shown to communicate “real mass,” then apart from function of mathematics, what “physical force” enforces such function of conservation, really? Must not all relationships be renormalized to each measurable perspective only as (and when taken as if) the locus of each such perspective is at the center of the here and now?
TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION: Regarding “spooky action at a distance” --- can information ever be “transmitted” through space-time at speeds exceeding the speed of light? Well, suppose such spooky action at a distance does not proceed “through” space time or “at speed.” Rather, suppose the information action simply appears, simultaneously and instantaneously, at two loci that appear to be separated in different parts of space-time. Suppose the apparent reality of the physics by which information is organized (i.e. the reality of particles, matter-energy, space-time, distance) is mere byproduct of a higher reality (i.e. consciousness communicating with itself in respect of a chosen algorithmic medium). If so, information that appears to be imparted simultaneously to two loci separated by a distance may in higher reality simply be information being experienced simultaneously by one and the same perspective of higher consciousness, albeit, in varying aspects.
THE CONSERVER: Intuitively, every sensible relationship measures consistent with a higher level unity of one, even though our local measures tend to be inaccurate, incomplete, or fuzzy. So Who is the Conserver of the Conservation of One? If no quark can exist alone, but always requires a relationship with a variation of itself and within a field, then the means by which it is required and directed in the relationship would reasonably seem to be the higher reality. That is, that which rules the relationship is that which rules the thing related. In other words, a higher reality exists, which is too high to be accessible to our mathematical measure.
THE UNITARY RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Mathematically, apart from its unit, each sub-unit of a unit can never be consistently imagined or perceived to exist for more than a discrete, quantum interval, without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Likewise, apart from its subunit, each subrelation to a subunit can never be perceived to exist for more than a discrete quantum interval without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Every unit, subunit, and subrelation is simply a different aspect of the one holistic unit.
THE PERCEIVING RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Each different aspect is induced by the imagination, will, choice, or imbued identification or perspective of a higher spirit or essence, beyond mere math. Each unit of perspective may combine with other units, to express, epiphenomenally, perspectives of consciousness. Each unit cannot contribute to the experience or lifeline of a path of consciousness except in respect of a higher, synchronizing, super unit. Apart from its super unit, no unit or perspective of consciousness can exist for more than its lifeline without restoring itself towards the completion of its super unit.
Suppose time, space and physical circumstance have no reality independent of Mind engaging in consciousness in "meta-nowness." Suppose all that we interpret as separate physical experiences are secondary to nothing more than mathematical tricks, derivative of capacity of One holistic consciousness to borrow virtual experientiality against meta-time?
Suppose that Oneness has capacity to split in sequential, virtual time, into mathematically offsetting (positive and negative) versions of itself. Further, so long as always conserving a balance of zero, suppose each such positive or negative version likewise has capacity itself to split into sub-positive and sub-negative versions of itself. And so on.
If so, what visions may such mind imagine, in derivation of such sequential splits? With what sort of non-body, out of body, or multiple body perspectives may such mind entertain itself, all subsisting simply as variations on one theme? What sort of trading on empathies, memories, or information may such Oneness perpetuate, either in lethal passion or in disinterested or circular autopilot?
Is not the “One” always the odd One out, forever precluding a complete annihilation into absolute nothingness (whatever that may “be”) as a result of any collision of all mirror positives with their mirror negatives? Indeed, byproducts of the One manifest in respect of indication of non-mirror parity (broken symmetry), such as in observations of muons that are only “right handed.”
It seems that our realm of mathematical possibilities is infinite, such that the possible forms of manifestations unto consciousness are nearly magical in responsiveness to mathematical investigations, so long as each particular mathematical investigation is not inconsistent with the math that is manifested in the physics that is secondary to the ruling synchronization of choices then and there being effectuated in respect of the interaction of all perspectives of beingness.
Among possible choices and experiences of information availed to each perspective, all require a subsuming synchronization in respect of the web that comprises each and every other perspective of being (as well as in respect of the holistic author of the common algorithmic ground that is shared by all more particular perspectives). Within the web we share for the communication of information, we live, die, and evolve, depending upon how our niche for receiving information strengthens, weakens, or even kills us. As information synchronizes before us, it, as in the case of lightning, can be immensely powerful or lethal to our developing interests. (Kill the mind and the body dies.) Often, a visionary being will be caught in a local web that may seem to be atavistic evil, yet may also serve as foil for progress along moral purposefulness.
****
EXISTENCE REQUIRES RELATION: Insofar as the quarks that comprise matter are never alone, are they “real,” or are they only Mathematical Constructs for conservational accounting? On one hand, quarks exhibit properties, such that they can be separately differentiated even though they can never be alone. On the other hand, they can never be differentiated except by means of relational reference (insofar as they act together in discretely measurable units, fractions, numbers, charges, or spin parity). While individual quarks that are bound (glued) together may be separated, such can only be experienced in quantum jumps, instantaneously (or “virtually,” by “borrowing against the future”), in such a way that conservation is always glued back together and restored for the here and now.
REALITY OF MASS: So, unless some “real” particle (Higgs?) can be shown to communicate “real mass,” then apart from function of mathematics, what “physical force” enforces such function of conservation, really? Must not all relationships be renormalized to each measurable perspective only as (and when taken as if) the locus of each such perspective is at the center of the here and now?
TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION: Regarding “spooky action at a distance” --- can information ever be “transmitted” through space-time at speeds exceeding the speed of light? Well, suppose such spooky action at a distance does not proceed “through” space time or “at speed.” Rather, suppose the information action simply appears, simultaneously and instantaneously, at two loci that appear to be separated in different parts of space-time. Suppose the apparent reality of the physics by which information is organized (i.e. the reality of particles, matter-energy, space-time, distance) is mere byproduct of a higher reality (i.e. consciousness communicating with itself in respect of a chosen algorithmic medium). If so, information that appears to be imparted simultaneously to two loci separated by a distance may in higher reality simply be information being experienced simultaneously by one and the same perspective of higher consciousness, albeit, in varying aspects.
THE CONSERVER: Intuitively, every sensible relationship measures consistent with a higher level unity of one, even though our local measures tend to be inaccurate, incomplete, or fuzzy. So Who is the Conserver of the Conservation of One? If no quark can exist alone, but always requires a relationship with a variation of itself and within a field, then the means by which it is required and directed in the relationship would reasonably seem to be the higher reality. That is, that which rules the relationship is that which rules the thing related. In other words, a higher reality exists, which is too high to be accessible to our mathematical measure.
THE UNITARY RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Mathematically, apart from its unit, each sub-unit of a unit can never be consistently imagined or perceived to exist for more than a discrete, quantum interval, without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Likewise, apart from its subunit, each subrelation to a subunit can never be perceived to exist for more than a discrete quantum interval without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Every unit, subunit, and subrelation is simply a different aspect of the one holistic unit.
THE PERCEIVING RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Each different aspect is induced by the imagination, will, choice, or imbued identification or perspective of a higher spirit or essence, beyond mere math. Each unit of perspective may combine with other units, to express, epiphenomenally, perspectives of consciousness. Each unit cannot contribute to the experience or lifeline of a path of consciousness except in respect of a higher, synchronizing, super unit. Apart from its super unit, no unit or perspective of consciousness can exist for more than its lifeline without restoring itself towards the completion of its super unit.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Active Ingredient of all Renormalizing
Active Ingredient of all Renormalizing:
RENORMALIZING: What I mean by "to Renormalize" is to experience a difference in feedback or perspective and then to translate and communicate ways to appreciate the difference to other perspectives, and sometimes for them to confirm the appreciation.
CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNICATION: How is that-which-is-manifested-into-existence made or renormalized out of that-which-is-of-a-virtual-vacuum?
There occurs for us a constant and continuous renormalizing of our experiences.
Were such not the case, I can conceive of no way for any two living, conscious beings to experience different perspectives and still be able to relate to one another regarding their states of being.
SUPERIOR LAW: For conceptualizing a law of nature, such Process Of Renormalization, in encompassing consciousness of experiences, appears to be superior even to what is commonly referred to as the law of conservation of matter and energy.
May a Law of Renormalization, when considered with derivative Law of Conservation, account for our experiencing or measuring of virtual particles or bundles of matter or energy?
Is not the borrowing of such virtual particles against the unfolding future (i.e., choices unfolding along our lifepaths) a form of renormalizing?
What sort of Mathematician of Pure Math could account for such renormalizing of experiences of consciousness?
FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF POTENTIAL: To coordinate the experiential effect of a generally quantifiable and measurable sequence and direction for each unfolding process of renormalization, it seems there must be prescribed and/or obeyed some sort of fundamental Unit of Mathematical Potential, which may be borrowed from in various of its secondary expressions, but which must always be balanced.
BORROWING AGAINST VIRTUAL REALITY: How else may one account for measurable borrowing of virtual particles against the future, or for the “twin paradox,” unless some perspectives of consciousness receive, interpret, alter, and/or choose aspects of information somewhat fuzzily, differently, and/or incompletely from others?
NORMALIZING THE ABNORMAL: In the proverbial case of the space-traveling twins, one will age more than the other, depending upon how much more quickly he experiences sequences of information during his life path and along his spatially changing and renormalizing frames of reference. During their lives, one twin will age faster and be crammed with a different quality of more information and, upon his turning back, even experience his own renormalizing loss of part of the stream of information that yet continues to be availed to his twin.
RENORMALIZATION OF EXPERIENCE OF INFORMATION: In other words, no particular particle, wave or field of light is renormalized.
Rather, what is renormalized is the conscious experience of the observer himself.
Physics does not, in itself, borrow against the future.
Rather, each conscious being, in approaching each situation while interacting with other perspectives, acts as a choice-inducing agent.
SYNCHRONIZER: And the sum of all such choices must be renormalized in obedience to a synchronizing Wielder of a higher Algorithm.
In other words, it is because virtual loans can be taken against the vacuum of the future that it is possible for us to experience ourselves as choice-effecting agents.
But for such process of renormalizing to perspectives of consciousness, whether particular or holistic, physics would not manifest, inasmuch as it makes no coherent sense to speak of “physics in itself.”
IMPLICATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS: For Physics to relate in any relevant way, Consciousness, at least in potentiality, is necessarily implicated.
Perspectives of physics, and storage and interpretation of information about physics, are renormalized not in respect merely of any physics-in-itself, but in respect of perspectives (or at least recorders of potential perspectives, i.e., measure-inducing observers).
PHYSICS AS A PLACEHOLDING CONVENTION FOR AVATARS: That which we call “physics” is artefactual of how consciousness stores (“placeholds”) its perspectives of information, after the fact of each renormalization.
That which we measure as “particles or waves of physics” is after-the-fact artefactual of something more fundamentally essential, i.e., renormalizing feedback from the interacting of our particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness or choices of imagination.
FEEDBACK WITH AVATARS: Each particular perspective appreciates each sequential novelty as feedback, a slight step later than it was prescribed by a holistic, synchronizing, Renormalizer of consciousness.
That which one takes to be one’s body serves only as Avatar of Something spiritually deeper, beyond physics.
I am unable meaningfully to conceive of any existent field-in-itself which would renormalize itself for the Purpose of renormalizing perspectives of consciousness.
Rather, I can conceive of a physical field only as a secondary placeholder, artefactual to a synchronizing perspective of consciousness.
GROUND OF BEING: I am unable Meaningfully to conceive of “dumb physics” or “dumb math” as providing the ground of being for the renormalizing of perspectives of consciousness, sans Physicist or Mathematician.
INTERACTIVE GOD: For us, no field exists as our “ground of being in itself,” but only artefactual of the synchronizing imaging of an Interacting Agent of renormalizing, i.e., “God” -- not a mere disinterested or uninvolved deity.
Every choice we experience is artefactual of feedback with a higher Renormalizer.
PARITY AND CRACKED SYMMETRY: Exact parity is not required for each and every perspective of being. Rather, the symmetry of experience is “cracked.” Were it otherwise, it would seem that communication between perspectives of being would not be possible, if there could be only one perspective.
Rather, different beings must experience different perspectives, but of the same underlying source of expression or ground of being.
The ground of being that we share as a frame of reference must be one and the same, yet it must avail us with non-parity in perspectives.
How?
Example: There is a conceptualized a particle called a (“righthanded”) muon. In some relations, it is measured as spinning clockwise on its axis of movement, but never counterclockwise. In other words, a muon can be experienced only by a measurer who is sympathetic with its direction of movement. No measurer can ever experience a (“lefthanded”) muon as spinning counterclockwise, because no measurer can ever approach it except in sympathy with clockwise spin about its direction of movement. This violates parity, and allows one who is in sympathy with a muon’s direction of movement to receive and interact with information about it that may not be available to one who otherwise would relate to the muon from a non-sympathetic perspective. In other words, the universe we share renormalizes available information about itself differently to one who is sympathetic to the frame of movement of a muon as opposed to one who is not. May other relations pertain, by which parity is violated?
FUZZ: If you and I are accessing different microscopes that are focused for observing the same bacteria, we will interact with the information differently from those in our lab who may be accessing microscopes focused only for observing the same atoms within the bacteria. Each observer’s information will be renormalized within shared parameters, subject to “fuzz,” insofar as no two observers will perceive exactly the same perspective. The more we share the same parameters for focusing, the less the fuzz that needs to be renormalized in our attempts to coordinate our notes. No non-trivial communication or sharing of information is exactly coordinate at all levels and layers of consideration.
PARAMETERS FOR NON-TRIVIAL COMMUNICATION: While we do not share independent stories, we do share differently renormalized stories on a theme. Depending on level of story precision, consensus can be reached about information that is within the same parameters or margins of statistical error. Insofar as physics does not exist in itself, but only artefactual to perspective, no level of precision will ever produce a clear or complete picture or description of any “particle (or any other thing) in itself.”
MORALITY: Materialism-consisting-only-in-itself is not an adequate model for discussing materialism. More importantly, absent conceptualization of an interacting Synchronizer of purposefulness, there is no coherent conception for inspiring moral cooperation. Attempts at moral inspiration would reduce to a hoax, or, as Vonnegut would say, a crock. Such is philosophy fit only for weed smoking Ivy profs, solipsistic totalitarian collectivists, and misled materialists.
RENORMALIZING LIGHT: Were our interpretations of light not limited to a constant, how could we experience chronology or any sensible interactions within space-time? How could we merge in identification with any sensible form or perspective of particular consciousness?
Every perspective receives information in chronological sequence from every source-direction. But suppose information from each of five sources could be transmitted at various speeds, without limitation to any renormalizing limit. If so, the observer could not renormalize to determine which incident being reported by the information occurred first or last.
For example, if the speed of information received from each different source depended upon the speed and direction of its projecting source, then the observer would have no reference by which to trust, make, or communicate sensible experience out of any chronology of incidents. That is, our experiences would be without reference to any sensible chronology. Time would neither impart meaning, nor respect memory.
It is only in respect that the speed of transmission of information has a limiting speed relative to each observer that we are able to renormalize our perceptions of events to communicate our sense of their sequential movements and relations.
But it is not the speed of light, per se, that is limited. Rather, what is limited is the renormalizing speed at which information is interpreted as being receivable to each perspective. Somehow, information “touches” each of us in sequences. What we call “light” is merely artefactual to our interpretation of how that happens. And information always “touches” us a step before we sense of react to it.
Whatever may constitute the process or renormalization to perspective, we ourselves – our bodies, brains, and experiences – are artifacts to it.
RENORMALIZING: What I mean by "to Renormalize" is to experience a difference in feedback or perspective and then to translate and communicate ways to appreciate the difference to other perspectives, and sometimes for them to confirm the appreciation.
CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNICATION: How is that-which-is-manifested-into-existence made or renormalized out of that-which-is-of-a-virtual-vacuum?
There occurs for us a constant and continuous renormalizing of our experiences.
Were such not the case, I can conceive of no way for any two living, conscious beings to experience different perspectives and still be able to relate to one another regarding their states of being.
SUPERIOR LAW: For conceptualizing a law of nature, such Process Of Renormalization, in encompassing consciousness of experiences, appears to be superior even to what is commonly referred to as the law of conservation of matter and energy.
May a Law of Renormalization, when considered with derivative Law of Conservation, account for our experiencing or measuring of virtual particles or bundles of matter or energy?
Is not the borrowing of such virtual particles against the unfolding future (i.e., choices unfolding along our lifepaths) a form of renormalizing?
What sort of Mathematician of Pure Math could account for such renormalizing of experiences of consciousness?
FUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF POTENTIAL: To coordinate the experiential effect of a generally quantifiable and measurable sequence and direction for each unfolding process of renormalization, it seems there must be prescribed and/or obeyed some sort of fundamental Unit of Mathematical Potential, which may be borrowed from in various of its secondary expressions, but which must always be balanced.
BORROWING AGAINST VIRTUAL REALITY: How else may one account for measurable borrowing of virtual particles against the future, or for the “twin paradox,” unless some perspectives of consciousness receive, interpret, alter, and/or choose aspects of information somewhat fuzzily, differently, and/or incompletely from others?
NORMALIZING THE ABNORMAL: In the proverbial case of the space-traveling twins, one will age more than the other, depending upon how much more quickly he experiences sequences of information during his life path and along his spatially changing and renormalizing frames of reference. During their lives, one twin will age faster and be crammed with a different quality of more information and, upon his turning back, even experience his own renormalizing loss of part of the stream of information that yet continues to be availed to his twin.
RENORMALIZATION OF EXPERIENCE OF INFORMATION: In other words, no particular particle, wave or field of light is renormalized.
Rather, what is renormalized is the conscious experience of the observer himself.
Physics does not, in itself, borrow against the future.
Rather, each conscious being, in approaching each situation while interacting with other perspectives, acts as a choice-inducing agent.
SYNCHRONIZER: And the sum of all such choices must be renormalized in obedience to a synchronizing Wielder of a higher Algorithm.
In other words, it is because virtual loans can be taken against the vacuum of the future that it is possible for us to experience ourselves as choice-effecting agents.
But for such process of renormalizing to perspectives of consciousness, whether particular or holistic, physics would not manifest, inasmuch as it makes no coherent sense to speak of “physics in itself.”
IMPLICATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS: For Physics to relate in any relevant way, Consciousness, at least in potentiality, is necessarily implicated.
Perspectives of physics, and storage and interpretation of information about physics, are renormalized not in respect merely of any physics-in-itself, but in respect of perspectives (or at least recorders of potential perspectives, i.e., measure-inducing observers).
PHYSICS AS A PLACEHOLDING CONVENTION FOR AVATARS: That which we call “physics” is artefactual of how consciousness stores (“placeholds”) its perspectives of information, after the fact of each renormalization.
That which we measure as “particles or waves of physics” is after-the-fact artefactual of something more fundamentally essential, i.e., renormalizing feedback from the interacting of our particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness or choices of imagination.
FEEDBACK WITH AVATARS: Each particular perspective appreciates each sequential novelty as feedback, a slight step later than it was prescribed by a holistic, synchronizing, Renormalizer of consciousness.
That which one takes to be one’s body serves only as Avatar of Something spiritually deeper, beyond physics.
I am unable meaningfully to conceive of any existent field-in-itself which would renormalize itself for the Purpose of renormalizing perspectives of consciousness.
Rather, I can conceive of a physical field only as a secondary placeholder, artefactual to a synchronizing perspective of consciousness.
GROUND OF BEING: I am unable Meaningfully to conceive of “dumb physics” or “dumb math” as providing the ground of being for the renormalizing of perspectives of consciousness, sans Physicist or Mathematician.
INTERACTIVE GOD: For us, no field exists as our “ground of being in itself,” but only artefactual of the synchronizing imaging of an Interacting Agent of renormalizing, i.e., “God” -- not a mere disinterested or uninvolved deity.
Every choice we experience is artefactual of feedback with a higher Renormalizer.
PARITY AND CRACKED SYMMETRY: Exact parity is not required for each and every perspective of being. Rather, the symmetry of experience is “cracked.” Were it otherwise, it would seem that communication between perspectives of being would not be possible, if there could be only one perspective.
Rather, different beings must experience different perspectives, but of the same underlying source of expression or ground of being.
The ground of being that we share as a frame of reference must be one and the same, yet it must avail us with non-parity in perspectives.
How?
Example: There is a conceptualized a particle called a (“righthanded”) muon. In some relations, it is measured as spinning clockwise on its axis of movement, but never counterclockwise. In other words, a muon can be experienced only by a measurer who is sympathetic with its direction of movement. No measurer can ever experience a (“lefthanded”) muon as spinning counterclockwise, because no measurer can ever approach it except in sympathy with clockwise spin about its direction of movement. This violates parity, and allows one who is in sympathy with a muon’s direction of movement to receive and interact with information about it that may not be available to one who otherwise would relate to the muon from a non-sympathetic perspective. In other words, the universe we share renormalizes available information about itself differently to one who is sympathetic to the frame of movement of a muon as opposed to one who is not. May other relations pertain, by which parity is violated?
FUZZ: If you and I are accessing different microscopes that are focused for observing the same bacteria, we will interact with the information differently from those in our lab who may be accessing microscopes focused only for observing the same atoms within the bacteria. Each observer’s information will be renormalized within shared parameters, subject to “fuzz,” insofar as no two observers will perceive exactly the same perspective. The more we share the same parameters for focusing, the less the fuzz that needs to be renormalized in our attempts to coordinate our notes. No non-trivial communication or sharing of information is exactly coordinate at all levels and layers of consideration.
PARAMETERS FOR NON-TRIVIAL COMMUNICATION: While we do not share independent stories, we do share differently renormalized stories on a theme. Depending on level of story precision, consensus can be reached about information that is within the same parameters or margins of statistical error. Insofar as physics does not exist in itself, but only artefactual to perspective, no level of precision will ever produce a clear or complete picture or description of any “particle (or any other thing) in itself.”
MORALITY: Materialism-consisting-only-in-itself is not an adequate model for discussing materialism. More importantly, absent conceptualization of an interacting Synchronizer of purposefulness, there is no coherent conception for inspiring moral cooperation. Attempts at moral inspiration would reduce to a hoax, or, as Vonnegut would say, a crock. Such is philosophy fit only for weed smoking Ivy profs, solipsistic totalitarian collectivists, and misled materialists.
RENORMALIZING LIGHT: Were our interpretations of light not limited to a constant, how could we experience chronology or any sensible interactions within space-time? How could we merge in identification with any sensible form or perspective of particular consciousness?
Every perspective receives information in chronological sequence from every source-direction. But suppose information from each of five sources could be transmitted at various speeds, without limitation to any renormalizing limit. If so, the observer could not renormalize to determine which incident being reported by the information occurred first or last.
For example, if the speed of information received from each different source depended upon the speed and direction of its projecting source, then the observer would have no reference by which to trust, make, or communicate sensible experience out of any chronology of incidents. That is, our experiences would be without reference to any sensible chronology. Time would neither impart meaning, nor respect memory.
It is only in respect that the speed of transmission of information has a limiting speed relative to each observer that we are able to renormalize our perceptions of events to communicate our sense of their sequential movements and relations.
But it is not the speed of light, per se, that is limited. Rather, what is limited is the renormalizing speed at which information is interpreted as being receivable to each perspective. Somehow, information “touches” each of us in sequences. What we call “light” is merely artefactual to our interpretation of how that happens. And information always “touches” us a step before we sense of react to it.
Whatever may constitute the process or renormalization to perspective, we ourselves – our bodies, brains, and experiences – are artifacts to it.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Judas Serves
Judas Serves:
Likely, what most bothers Spiritualists about Materialists’ usages of "evolution" is how jealously Materialists guard the notion, as if evolution-in-itself were their personal god. Perhaps this is revenge for all their lonely hours spent trying to reduce reality to their own deterministic math. But nothing about evolution is necessarily anti-spiritual, per se.
Consider: Survival of the "fittest to replicate" pertains to the evolution of living, conscious, and purpose-driven perspectives of being. Each local being cannot do aught but participate in contemporaneous, synchronous feedback with all others, to constantly, discretely, and continuously effect changes in the unfolding manifestation of system, planet, environment, and niche that helps to complete each of us. While the environment may reward what is "fittest," each being who is among the fittest determines which of its aspects it shall express or favor. And that feedback becomes part of the environment which rewards that which is fittest.
In other words, each of us participates in choices for the unfolding design of all that sustains us. Such unfolding of design choices would not occur but for feedback in the participation of beings who are, at some level, imbued with feedback of consciousness.
In other words, participation of purpose-driven consciousness is intimately and inextricably interwoven with the process whose effects we trivially label as "evolution." Surely, it is no sin against Materialists to term such aspect of the process as "spiritual" or "spiritually driven." Indeed, were it otherwise, why should Materialists care a whit whether Spiritualists "should" do anything, much less adopt a purely mechanistic view of our universe based on utter disregard for non-materialistic "shoulds"? After all, why should a Materialist, even one devoted to Marxist dialectic materialism, pretend to worry in any principled way about nuclear bombs, genocide, or distribution of opportunity or wealth?
Spiritualists tend to acknowledge the self-evidence that principled, purposeful design is at work. But what, if anything, is such designings’ encompassing or reconciling purpose? Is it even possible to be conscious and yet be utterly without some intuition or sense of purpose?
I believe a higher purpose relates to the unfolding of capacities for varying perspectives of being to communicate with one another in such civilized fashion as to entertain one another. If so, to advocate for submission of The Collective to mind slavery is to be foil for strengthening purpose by serving sin. After all, what else should foils be good for?
****
While free peoples have trustingly slept, a fundamentally evil and incoherent coalition has formed under an umbrella of faux "Liberal Progressivism." The coalition is comprised of various groups of dogmatically militant and impatient atheists, including: (1) scientific materialists, (2) economic (Marxist) dialectic materialists, and (3) pleasure-driven proponents of unlimited, immediate gratification. This unholy trinity has united to overturn essential civilizing traditions by abusing science, economics, and hedonism. It is now fired with nothing less than religious fervor to replace God with Big Government, asap. Further, because radical Islam is essentially the detailed rule of government under interpreters of what "god" deems to be good government, liberal-progressive rulers have united with Islamists in admiration of Big Gov for subjugating, by force and connivance, all Western expressions of individualism among those who are to be ruled. Worldwide, the freedom and dignity of ordinary people is more endangered now than it was in 1939.
"Government" has no more conscience by which to be "fair" than the Tooth Fairy. Government is only the armament of trust given to fallible rulers. But to entrust absolute power over one's liberty and industry to government is to surrender absolute power to fallible rulers, for whom absolute power invariably leads to their corruption, absolutely. We are in the midst of a time of madness, rushing to give government to drink from fire hoses, far more than government can decently swallow. In effect, we have turned our most important "fire departments" over to asylums for pyromaniacs, in a mad rush to reduce everything to the equality of ashes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
