Choice of Axiom for Dance of Conceptualization

Of quantum discretes that signify Quantities while availing continuous experiences of Qualities:

 

 

A moral Dance unfolds. It entails a process, or two-step dance, of quantifiably digitized feedback. The partners consist of a Field synchronizer (God?) dancing with Particular Perspectives of the synchronization (Human Consciousness). Each Perspective apprehends its point of view within the fuzzy parameters and possibilities availed to its fluxing and allotted context. Each Apprehension coordinates with Intention in respect of the preservation and flourishing of its sponsor's Identity. That Intention leads to a Synchronization of Consequences by the Synchronizer. Depending on discrete level and layer of analysis, that synchronization may be appreciated in various aspects of pre-set Default (deity-like inanimate substance, conceptualized as pre-set artifacts of meta-functioning levels of consciousness) interfunctioning in (god-like) Choice-making active engagement among levels of consciousness. The Consequences are particularly Appreciated. Each particular Appreciation leads to Apprehension-Intention in its Appreciator. That Intention leads to Consequences, which the Synchronizer synchronizes. Back and forth between the Field and its expression of particular perspectives goes the quantitiatively digitized expression of Feedback. However, the motive (or emotive) QUALITY of conscious Apprehension-Appreciation that is enjoyed (or feared) by each Perspective (perhaps enjoyed as well by the Synchronizer) is not itself subject to direct measurement. Thus, the shared Play of our Morality partakes both of the Intentional and the Consequential, the Quantitative and the Qualitative, in a discretely separated but sequential unfolding. Thus, Morality pertains in part both to State of Mind as well as to Responsibility for Results. To whine that such often seems "unfair" is mainly irrelevant.

It's when Perspectives of a Field of Consciousness begin to apprehend the Dance that things get metaphysically interesting. A body may be merely a derivative of pre-set signs, a bootstrapped vehicle for facilitating the Dance. The human body may tend to be more fitted to house a Perspective at a level that can apprehend an apprehension of metaphysics. However, what becomes of each such Perspective, once the substantive form of body that was leveraged by it decays? Is all the progress, learning, experience, and awareness of substantive possibilities that were theretofore affiliated with a now dead body then lost to the Field that underlies the universe? In withdrawing the conditions that theretofore sustained the body that housed a Perspective, does the encompassing Field therewith reclaim the Perspective to its embrace? If so, may the re-assimilated and absorbed Perspective then "remember" or receive enhanced metaphysical capacities in respect of its particular ventures into the quantifying universe?

Thus, when one's axiomatic system begins with a conception of a conscious Field interfunctioning with conscious Perspectives, one may conceptualize the non-discrete Continuity of space-time as epiphenomenal appearance, artefactually signified in respect of a dance of apprehension-appreciation that unfolds between a Synchronizer-field and its expressions of particular Perspectives. That is, the appearance of Continuity is derivative of interfunctioning of digitized Discretes. On the other hand, when one's axiomatic system begins with a conception of non-conscious, inanimate Space-Time (gravity), so that one tries to model everything else in respect of a concept of a non-conscious, "holistic thing" (purely substantive universe), one will eventually be led to try to reconcile and reduce everything, even the quality of consciousness, to purely quantifiable relationships. The fly in that ointment is this: One cannot objectively prove that which Ought to be done based only on that which is quantifiably measured to have been done. In other words, were one successfully to reduce Man to mere Quantities, one would have suicide-bombed, humbled, devalued, dehumanized, or zombie-fied Man. Conversations about that which we should do would become uninspired, meaningless, and absurd, untethered to any attracting assimilation.

 

***********

See http://anadder.com/cs-lewis-morality-intuition-as-a-scientific-tool

 

To my adducement (or intuition?), people begin a mistaken path when they expect to reconcile a true and correct unifying belief about "reality" that will be constant, consistent, and practical for all purposes, regardless of point of view, context (frame or model) of reference, and flux of purposes. I don't think we have access to map a unifying model for that kind of reality. Our bivalent logic runs up against the paradox of the class (or set) of one. I think it's enough that our different maps tend to be practical for different purposes. I suspect the Lewis people and the anti-Lewis people are both wrong if they expect, either via objective experimentation or rigorous logic, to adduce an all purpose unifying map. The basis for my suspicion is fuzzy, ineffable, interior, subjective experience. Because I bootstrap intuition to "prove" intuition, I can neither be proved right nor wrong. I am a Whitman blade of grass.

 

**********

 

From Walt Whitman --- Song of Myself:

The wild gander leads his flock through the cool night;

Ya-honk! he says, and sounds it down to me like an invitation

....

 Wandering, amazed at my own lightness and glee;

In the late afternoon choosing a safe spot to pass the night,

Kindling a fire and broiling the fresh-kill’d game;

Falling asleep on the gather’d leaves, with my dog and gun by my side.

....

I think I could turn and live with animals, they are so placid and self-contain’d;

I stand and look at them long and long.

They do not sweat and whine about their condition;

They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;

They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God;

....

 Why should I wish to see God better than this day?

I see something of God each hour of the twenty-four, and each moment then;

In the faces of men and women I see God, and in my own face in the glass;

I find letters from God dropt in the street—and every one is sign’d by God’s name,

....

 The spotted hawk swoops by and accuses me—he complains of my gab and my loitering.

I too am not a bit tamed—I too am untranslatable;

I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.

Yates, Faith, and Hope

From A.T. -- Re: "Obama was all hype and no substance. That realization has dawned on voters, resulting in horrendous polling. Richard Nixon was never liked, but he was at least thought competent. Obama was liked but never competent."

Well, Nixon was no Communist, but Obama is. (If he's not, pray tell where he'd voluntarily stop his collectivization, given opportunity to contrive enough crises?) Doesn't the description above sum up every Communist who has ever achieved power? That is, unless, by competence, you mean competence to deliver people to misery and then to make them, with fear or bribes, pretend it's great. Sort of like a human misery pyramid or Ponzi scheme: Get people to buy into a great sounding scheme and then, once you have them, show that their only way out is to recruit and stand on top of enough heads of idiots. Once you run out of new people to recruit, then, to allow the same cronies (excuse me, those-elites-who-know-best) to rule until they die or begin to drool, you contrive an emergency, freeze the situation, and call off elections. Putin. Chavez. Castro. Dear Leader. See a pattern? After you see enough black cats crossing the same deja vu path twice, you begin to think like Yates: "That twenty centuries of stony sleep / Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
/ And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

We now know, given enough exposure to high tech "education," that a majority of people can be brain washed, that modern advertising techniques have devised how, and that Advertising-Serves-The-Business-Of-Farming-Idiots-Just-As-Easily-As-It-Serves-Consumption-Driven-Capitalism. These techniques are everywhere --- on our computers, in our media, music, posters, schools, banks, courts, speech codes ... even in our fake religions (Black Liberation Theology). The wonder is that approximately half of the populaton (Tea Partiers) still are not so hollow as to have lost all wits to resist. Apart from faith-and-hope, the question you have to ask yourself, punk, is Do-you-have-good-reason-to-trust-either-Romney-or-Cain?

Science for the Communal Savage

Science for the Communal Savage: Most everyone aggresses to assess moral fault, perhaps assuming problems would generally be resolved if only the target were made responsible enough to accept blame. We seem to be animated to behave this way, even when we don't seek any coherent basis for morality that is higher than whatever passes for our immediate desires. Fault tends to be viewed as something that does not belong to oneself, but mainly to others. People generally consider situations reactively, rather than as subjects for systemic analysis.

What is THE FAULT for the movement among the jobless to mass in order to protest as occupiers? Should they mass only to call attention to an ever increasing social problem, or should they seek to lay blame? Should the blame be on (1) themselves, (2) the Democrat establishment, or (3) the Republican opposition to the establishment? Is blame being gamed and, if so, by whom? What is the motivation? First, did the people who are out of work cause their own problem by how they voted? Second, did the Socialists who were elected, because of that to which they are beholden, exacerbate the problem? Third, would problems be lessened if only opponents would not resist trends towards putting the world under socialism? Among those three choices, which most accurately defines the blame? Regardless, does assessing fault have anything much to do with inspiring people to devise and assimilate to more reasonable or moral responsibilities? Have we become too much conditioned to feel entitled to immediate solutions, when the only way forward is to accept the hard work that is entailed in gradual solutions?

Why does our society seem to have lost capacity or leaders to assimilate us to gradual, hard work solutions? We have come to an impasse that will continue to mock us until one side or the other gives way. Science can guide us, but it cannot prove which side, were it to prevail, would most likely best serve us. However, innate good sense suggests to most Conservatives that, if we want a best chance to enhance the freedom and dignity of each citizen, we must (1) defend the borders of our citizenry, (2) staunch the drain of our industry and resources, and (3) reverse and make better sense of the pace of bureaucratic entanglement.

Liberals generally claim not to rely on common sense or traditional religion, but mainly on some kind of syncretic and incoherent combination of natural altruism (philosophy of the noble savage?), yet to be guided only by science. The issue now before the world: Is empathetic regard for the dignity of our fellows best promoted by availing more individual FREEDOM and less governmental and bureaucratic intrusion, or is altrusim best promoted under the "charitable" force of a COLLECTIVE to be ruled by a governing elite? On that fundamental question, the world is at an impasse.

If Liberty Lovers are to prevail, they must inspire each member of the masses to believe in his own independent and spiritual dignity. At the same time, Liberty Lovers must work to remove blinders, so all can more plainly see the nature of the generally misguided and often corrupt purposes of those who seek (1) to collectivize us, (2) to rule us, and (3) to dissolve our nation with the acid of faux free trade with collectivizing gangsters. Has the middle class been at fault for having too long been asleep to the shenanigans and incoherency of the ignorant and the corrupt? It's past time for every decent American of whatever race or creed to take up the Tea Party Person's burden.

Wormwood Materialism

From A.T. --- Author, Re: "This "corporations run the government" meme has been around since the 1970s, and it's no more true now than it was then. As Rick Moran points out, if corporations really ran the government would we have an EPA, OSHA, SEC, the EEOC, the FHA, the Department of Labor, or any of the other number of state and federal agencies regulate corporate behavior?"

Oh please. Where did Obama get most of his campaign finance support? It's obvious corporatists don't RUN government efficiently (or like a corporation). But internationalists among them do milk, cannibalize, and RUIN governments. Indeed, who is calling, financing, and hedging with the Wall Street Occupiers and flash mobs? Isn't that precious ... look what our protesters have advocated: More regulations we can use to increase control and pull the ladder up.

What's RUINING us is not the corporate form or corporations, per se, but international crony corporatist speculators whose entire faith lies in materialism. So long as nothing checks them from cannibalizing the American middle class, they need not give a damn about preserving meaningful influence or freedom for ordinary strivers against a purely materialistic alliance of elite apologists and useful dupes. Forget ownership. Ask what small percentage of people CONTROL most of the world's politicians and productivity? What tends to be their political philosophy?

Re: "The problem isn't corporations, the problem is that we have a government that has its fingers in nearly every aspect of the economy." Agree. But what's the nature of the political alliance and materialistic philosophy that has fostered this? If the problem is middle class indolence rather than a philosophy of materialism run amuck, then ask what are the foundations and institutions that have fostered this indolence? What? The American middle class deserves to be impoverished for not bowing down to rotting internationalists? What kind of wormwood is this?

A Priori Truth and Morality

I believe or intuit a faith:  that I should work with others to establish, defend, and propagate a decent civilization for reasonably availing the freedom of expression and enterprise of its citizens.  Apart from direct intuition, or as an aspect of conscious faith, I cannot prove the validity of such a belief ---- not as a derivative of logic, nor as being necessarily consistent with empirical experience.  Rather, I take such belief as a priori given, an innate aspect of the condition of being human, a foundation upon which I base all philosophy.  That faith seems innate to my consciousness.  If it does not seem innate to yours, so be it.  I recognize that others may not share that faith, and they may even be antagonistic to it.  When they believe and behave antagonistic to it, I see little reason why I should tolerate them, beyond what may be convenient.  Some consider such faith  to be meaningless, irrelevant, or a hindrance to philosophical progress.  There are many who claim, incoherently, not to accept, act upon, or believe anything or any faith unless it can be demonstrated consistent with logic or material experience.  Insofar as faith cannot be demonstrated consistent with logic or material experience, such persons render themselves irrelevant to any moral pursuit that may be superior to logic or to material experience.  Insofar as moral "oughts" cannot be derived from material existence, such persons render their philosophies mainly meaningless, irrelevant, or of hindrance to moral progress.  Insofar as such persons (analytic positivists) disdain all that cannot be quantitatively considered, they necessarily concentrate on how the distribution of that which constitutes material goods can be measured, perhaps to ascertain what is the mean distribution or what would be necessary to effect more equal distribution, thus to compare their worth in respect of a material scale.  Such persons have no moral precept by which to advocate that government "should" in any way redistribute material wealth.  The foundation of their philosophy is directly antithetical to any notion of "should."  When such a person claims his philosophy is not antithetical to moral advocacy, he is either incoherent or seeking to profit by deploying deception.  How can he profit by advocating for governmental enforced redistribution of material wealth?  Well, at least two ways:  First, he can enlist the fascist force of numbers, by inculcating others to help his advocacy, as by conditioning them to believe they ought to be entitled to equal shares in whatever any other may produce.  Second, building on skill for living a lie, he can plan ways to backstab fellow fascists when they least expect it.  He can finance protesters to seek stimulus bills designed mainly to transfer fiat wealth to skilled sociopaths.  After all, nothing in his philosophy forbids it.  By living such a lie, he maximizes his opportunities to experience short term pleasure, survival, and replication of his genes and memes by mating with such persons as he is able to condition, hoodwink, or subjugate.  Living such a lie, he becomes ever more facile in rationalizing it among all whose thinking may be slowed by more deliberately seeking more worthwhile philosophy to devote themselves to.  As Chris Matthews may say, Life's a campaign.  There abides a clear choice among paths:  seek fulfillment by devoting oneself to a search for truth and higher morality; or devote oneself to maximizing skills for tricking all others out of short term pleasures.  Responsible minded Americans tend to devote themselves to the first path; entitlement minded people devote themselves to the second.  Neither truth nor morality can abide with the second.

Scales of Cultural Dogma

Every culture that tries to sustain itself eventually seeks to rationalize itself in respect of some vague, higher principle or deity. Finding such higher Principle to have conferred its blessings, each culture then rationalizes justification to defend against, exclude, subjugate, and/or enslave its neighbors. The more primitive the culture, the more it scales towards subjugation and enslavement. The more secure and enlightened the culture, the more it moves along the scale, from enslaving its neighbors to defending against them. When a culture moves beyond understanding or defending against neighboring cultures, to tolerating and conferring affirmative and special privileges to them, without first requiring their assimilation, it soon commits cultural suicide. What leads a secure, successful culture to tolerate its own destruction? Answer: Too much ingestion of the stupid pill. It becomes captive to a false sense of security, forgetting that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The sleep walking, suicidal culture is the one that equates active inculcation of dogma of stupidity with education. Indeed, we are taxing ourselves silly in order to pay teachers to evangelize the kind of stupidity that will kill us. And now, the zombies we have stupefied are massing, coming home to roost. By now, the Tea Party well knows sociopathic opportunists will not let this crisis go to waste. It's time to recognize that the godless enemy is not interested in fairness. It's "higher principle" reduces to this: subjugation and taking the spoils. There's absolutely no reason to tolerate, much less honor, the perps and their useful idiocracy.

Zombie Ceteris Paribus

Zombie Ceteris Paribus (all zombies remaining equal): Factors that seem to account for many complex systems, such as systems governing human civilizations, are so interconnected and fluxing that they defy analysis via customary techniques that use double blind experiments while varying only one factor at a time. In every complex regime, a despot and his party line toeing elitists will deceive the easily misled or bribed hoi polloi by claiming the blessings of "settled science." Apart from preference of myth or faith, there is no scientific basis to weigh whether a despotism or republic will tend to be "more moral." The apologist for every NWO despotism that is run by elite lackeys for international crony corporatists will claim to be guided not by receptivity to intuitive faith but by the superior blessings of science. His usefulness to the regime will be as as liar, idiot, or both. Only by reducing the masses to the maleducation of ignorance and to the divisive corruption of envy could a static heirarchy of bureaucrats serving a central despotism claim to be able to adjust in time to the myriad of factors that flux within a dynamic civilization. In other words, only by reducing the freedom and dignity of the citizenry, thus giving them the "equality" of moral zombies. If you desire to be or to serve the king of the zombie collective, that would be your "go-od." The MSM propagates it 24/7.