Kinder and Gentler Materialism

.
KINDER AND GENTLER EUGENICS:

.

It’s an evil lie to deny the Quickening NWO, whereby fewer and fewer are centralizing controls over more and more. This quickening occurs under shell-games of good cop-bad cop, capitalist-socialist, individualist-collectivist. Civilization is a complex system, and complex systems of heads and bodies will change and evolve. The more complex, the more varied the functions that must be delegated, subject always to moderating feedback. When either the head or the body becomes too independent, the system falls. Like it or not, evolution and eugenics occur, indirectly or guided. As human civilization becomes more complex, ways will be found to delegate and moderate functions within hierarchical systems. Every measurable system of conservation avails unfolding expression of hierarchical, complex, trivalent patterns of positive attraction, negative repulsion, and neutral indifference. Such systems will be representative (enlightened), despotic (elite), or tumultuous (dangerously random and unstable). If despotic, precursors will be established for dividing humanity not just between castes, but between super and sub species, one to receive genetic therapies, the other not. Once enough Subs are conditioned to believe Supers (either under masks of political power or economic wealth) know best and deserve to rule, then the system is well on its way to hardened differentiation of species, i.e., slavery or Fed-sponsored, indentured servitude of the masses. The only distinction is one that makes little significant difference: the idiotic among the masses believe their crony governors actually mean to be fair; the merely dumb believe those who own the cronies will listen to representatives rather than fetch after red herrings. Caesar was careful to preserve the apparent form of a republic.

.

There is an alternative to the eugenics of class separation and the devaluing of humanity of the lower castes. Eugenics need not be given to establish Super species under cover of denials. Eugenics need not be applied in Nazi fashion. Instead, eugenics could be applied to serve complex civilization by availing indirect incentives to the population of a society or nation generally, as a whole. Indirect incentives could be established so that less competent populations would tend not to produce more offspring than the system could absorb. Thinking people could be treated as adults. Myths could be recognized for their myth values, as opposed to scientific values. Condoms could be encouraged for families already unable to support their existing children. Machines could displace repetitive movement jobs. Within limits, tax incentives could favor the basic unit for propagating civilization (the traditional family), without unduly increasing central regulation. Environmental concerns could be addressed mainly by incentives to reduce populations. Societies that over-produce would not be availed relief valves calculated to cause them either to continue or to undermine neighboring cultures. Despotism would not be facilitated cover under guise of religion. Government would address genetic drag humanely, by providing only such safety nets as would not entice irresponsible subcultures of bums. Most concerns about empathetic fairness could be left to charitable foundations and churches.

.

The alternative to bringing along the population generally is to promote Supers for the purpose of reducing Subs to a lowest common mass.   Casting epithets — such as bigot, racist, unfair, mean, benighted, Nazi, fascist — against a vision for bringing along the population generally is to play into the hands of quickening Supers. Supers stand trained and ready to use the Fed to print the fiat money for leading the masses to sell themselves into indentured servitude to cannibal cronies, worldwide. Wide open capitalists mean to turn governance into a for-sale commodity. Technology is centrally quickening the human culture. This quickening must be addressed. The choice seems to be either (1) to foment differentiation into Super and Sub species or (2) to apply general incentives to foster a society of enlightened citizens (a City on a Hill).

.

The measurably substantive wealth of Earth cannot exceed the substance that is availed to Earthlings by the Cosmos. This fundamental law of conservation cannot be denied except by posing ridiculous. No particular thing can relate except within limits imposed by a conserving context. No particular thing can substantively exist unless governed and conserved by a whole. Although aspects can be abstractly imagined, mythologized, and even counted, like fairies on the head of a pin, they can exceed zero-sum parameters of conservation only insofar as they relate to non-substantive abstractions (such as freedom, governmental “bigness,” gross national “happiness,” or general fairness or merit). Abstractions such as freedom, pursuit of happiness, and fairness are qualitatively important, but not directly measurable. Still, one knows happiness and fairness when one sees it. Vision tends to be most fulfilling when exercised most locally. The tendency of a sustainable, complex system is to cycle through stages of centralization. Such tendency is dangerous to a culture of human freedom and dignity unless balanced with institutionalized checks. At present, the worldwide quickening towards rule of the masses under a separate class of Supers is hardly checked, but is enormously facilitated by ever consolidating control over Groupthink and central printing of Fed-sponsored fiat money for buying and selling the trust, faith, and credit of the masses. The tipping point for “Gaia to decide” whether or not to impose worldwide financial servitude over the masses is at hand. It’s time for the thinking and empathetic middle class to take a Tebow, and then to rise, demand, take, and institutionalize a right to recall crony politicians from pretending to represent the people at large, as opposed to serving cronies who mean to rule.

.

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

. 

KINDER AND GENTLER VULTURE CAPITALISM:

. 

Why are some Americans, in the name of free enterprise or free trade, so cavalier with allowing people to position themselves to sell out technology and infrastructure to unfriendly regimes and to replace jobs for Americans with jobs for foreigners?  Why aren't the rules for American capitalism moderated to preserve liberty for Americans, or at least for Western Civilization?  What's so great about being incentived to apply financial and political advantages of scale in order to put small operators out of business and force Americans to compete with serf labor?  What's so great about monopolizing the market by accomplishing economies of scale by driving out small operators, reducing the number of concerns that compete for American labor, and buying congressional influence to write regulations that make upstarts prohibitive?  Were Congress to restrict itself to less power grabbing, why should Congress need to centralize so much regulation or need so much help from lobbyists to write regulations for concerns that pay the lobbyists?  Merely to slogan "Free trade!" or "Economic liberty!" leaves me cold.  I want American laws for American trade that is governed to America's interests, and I want liberty that does not sell out my country.  It's a fraud and an insult to shout Free trade! while getting Congress to grease your way, recruit third world partners to promise cheap labor, rewrite immigration rules to import cheap labor, use the savings to buy American business, replace American workers with foreign workers, use the profits to buy American resources in order to cannibalize more of the same, and then somehow say you EARNED it!  These are not benign economies of scale, but economies for cannibalizing America, and by cannibalizing America, to undermine human freedom.

. 

The gall of linear "I earned it!" thinkers can be astonishing!  The substantive cosmos can never disobey the law of conservation of matter and energy.  If you push any substance too far in a linear direction, conservation eventually pulls it back into balance or converts it to something else.  Both communists and marketeers push materialism too far when they use it to push towards the reduction to impotent serfdom of the masses and entire middle class.  Either form of unmoderated materialism soon sacrifices the liberty of the masses.  To operate a nation as a going concern for availing human freedom and dignity, factors have to be checked and balanced --- including "entitlements" to buy or monopolize laws in exchange for intimated kickbacks.  America needs to be moderated against the world.  Against non-loyal crony and vulture capitalists, an array of devices should be given careful consideration:  tariffs, death taxes, local property taxes, local regulations, forbidding of corporate lobbying or campaign contributions, local recall of corrupt politicians, treating individual political contributions as a form of taxable consumption.

. 

Neo-Slavery

As Scotty would tell Kirk, you can't rev an engine beyond its operating limits for very long, or else she'll blow. If you want to stay operational, you have to govern a complex system within its limits. You can't keep centralizing wealth and power forever and still call your system an engine of capitalism, or liberty, or anything other than a worldwide fiefdom. When you go too far beyond operating limits, whatever else you may have, it will not be a sustainable system built on free exchange of goods and labor within a marketplace. If you want capitalism within a representative republic, you need checks and balances to restrain the system with decent respect for operational limits. This is not rocket science. It amazes me that so many apologists for wide open capitalism seem blind to it. The quickening to a few owners leads to a republic in name only, where the governance is owned and only pretends to be representative. The unmoderated worm turns and eats itself. Dirty Harry would teach us that a man and a country, to survive, need to have some sense of their operating limits. You can't resist the NWO while leaving its accumulators unchecked. Cronyism is the use of wealth and influence to buy government. Unregulated, it becomes an indirect form of enslavement, or forced debt servitude. Why is this so hard, that crony capitalism is not a good thing for a representative republic?

Entitlement to Government Supported Sex Relationships

Regarding Sawyer's question: "what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say...we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships?"

.
Fine example of a typically sophomoric, leftist question! Camouflaging b.s. is all in the framing. Why is this a b.s. question? Because it's a trick question. It asks a question for which there is no objectively right or wrong answer, yet it sophistically implies that there should be! Although there is no objectively correct answer to such a question, there are morally subjective answers. A subjective answer has to do with respect for values that happen to be culturally shared or inculcated. You don't assimilate culturally-shared, subjective values by dividing a society or by assuming there abide objectively correct answers to be discovered by elites and then dictated to instruct masses how their lives should be lived. Indeed, suppose a community DID decide that contraceptives should not be allowed: do elitists somehow KNOW, to a certainty, that it would be best for federales to step in and "protect" such a community from itself, notwithstanding circumstances probably better known to that community?

.
In most cases, there's little reason to presume it the proper job of elites to seek by force of law to require that locals must accommodate themselves to every expression preferred by elitists, as if it merited funding by taxpayers. The way values are assimilated is to allow stakeholders to assimilate that which they value, at lowest appropriate level. It's not by having the ACLU invite elites to dictate, either yea or nay. Properly challenged, the issue is not: which of many is an objectively best answer or culture? The issue is: at what level should a decision regarding a choice or opportunity be made? Should local communities decide whether their schools may or should teach children to appreciate or even experiment with sophomoric philosophies, strange religions, risks, violence, drugs, sex, gay sex, or group sex? Should local communities be divested of responsibility for making, and living with, such decisions --- instead to be instructed what is to be done, or not done, by their so-called elite betters? Well now, the candidates aren't running for local positions!

.
Sawyer implies that force of nationwide law should entitle gay people to tax revenue financing to encourage and sustain "loving, committed, long-term relationships." If it's a committed long-term relationship, why does it need nationwide approval or funding? The touchy-feely aspect in what Sawyer really meant was: Won't you agree that national laws and resources should be committed to encourage and entitle gay communes to adopt children and to require that all children be inculcated that such entitlement is right? However, she could not pose it that honestly, because then the framing mask would be off. When properly framed, differently acculturated societies will more likely assimilate different answers to such questions. The assimilation will depend on: connivance, ignorance, and greed of elites; access to institutions of mass persuasion or force; traditional conditioning of populace; spoilage of younger generations; faux-wisdom of crony cannibals; and enlightenment and energy of citizenry.

.
One who judges the foundation of America to favor a city on a hill will tend to view Americans as enlightened proprietors, inclined to demand opportunity and dignity --- instead of equal droppings from elites. Such Americans will generally trust that most decisions ought NOT be made at any central or federalized level. Rather, the ONLY decisions appropriate to federales should pertain to: (1) defending the nation from real dangers; (2) supporting standards for currency, roads, and such protection of children as experience shows to be essential to the general health and welfare of the society (if not otherwise amenable to competent local administration); (3) providing social insurance for the most needy and unfortunate (without financing the able or already insured, and without giving incentives to large numbers to live as bums). An enlightened society, allowed to become practiced in accepting responsibility for its opportunities and mistakes, is hardly likely to outlaw contraception or to succumb to bygone hobgoblins that still haunt leftist fantasies.

.
Americans tend to favor defense against territorial invaders and against the undermining of American culture and the undermining of the independence, responsibility, and economy of the citizenry. Presently, open-society, NWO, faux-elite federales are utterly FAILING in the only things they should be doing, while VOMITING a plethora of things they should not be doing. Bottom line: I have no objective opinion about what gays should do (nor, frankly, do I much care!). I do have a subjective opinion about what I, and, hopefully, my local community, should tolerate. Federales should NOT promote federal, financial, or tax incentives for gay unions as being on par with traditional families. This has to do with common-sense, national defense (i.e., propagation of the next generation of defenders). Why should a candidate for federal office be asked questions that deal with issues that should be decided by locals!? Although I am not running for local office, my local community should NOT tolerate the extortion of tax money to be used to condition children to experiment in areas that are best guided by parents. A local community should NOT be seeking, as by by force or violence, to dictate to other local communities. While the fluxing terrain entails competing interests and values, the assimilating competition among such values, so long as peaceable, should best remain with local populations, which are best suited to know their interests and to own and learn from their own mistakes. My urging to intrusive, elite dictators can be summarized as follows: Let people live their lives and stop with the childish, pseudo questions.

Kinder and Gentler Materialism

.
Freedom entails free will. Mill did not believe in free will. Rather, he believed everything is mechanistically, materially determined, such as by conditioning. In that respect, Mill was as much a materialist as Marx. Indeed, the new Marxism is a kinder and gentler form of faux-fool-you-communism. It's hard to get a handle on "freedom-to-be-conditioned" by elites, especially once means of mass conditioning are monopolized. Then, "slavery becomes freedom," per Orwell. There's no such thing as freedom-in-itself. There are so-called degrees of freedom availed within conserving parameters. It's a rabbit hole to try to analyze the issue in terms of individual freedom versus big government. The concern closer to human dignity relates to the centralization or decentralization of power to effect choices. Choices are always going to be conserved to a controlling context. Dignity relates to how each perspective and each family should be entertained to perceive itself as exercising power to participate in effecting choices. Regardless of whether centralizing Federales grab power to direct that lower levels of government shall do certain things or shall not do certain things, Federales are about centralizing power. Better is to provide that decisions shall be made at the lowest appropriate level. Problem is, that is not subject to mathematical analysis. But it is subject to broad checks and balances. Federales cannot very well GIVE power to subordinates to effect their own decisions unless and until subordinates show the WILL to TAKE such power. A way to take such power is to demand and institutionalize power to recall federal officials.

Reducing Familes Does Not Reduce Government

.Once an electorate is ruined, mere rule from on high will not cure. Government is law, made by lawmakers, to regulate common situations. Everytime one person asserts power to regulate speech or behavior of another, government is entailed. Everytime the ACLU sues to allow a Fed judge to establish a new entitlement, law is entailed. Everytime a jury judges whether facts rise to support legal action, law is entailed. Like air, government fills living space. When considering how social values should be regulated, ACLU libs are not in business to foster less intrusive government. They are in business to establish more national precedents, to increase centralization of governmental power.
.
The only real counter to central agglomerizing of power is an electorate enlightened enough to inculcate de-centralizing mores through the generations. This enlightenment is not sought by centralizers. Centralizers are in competition to siphon power away from local levels, by "educating" children, parents, local institutions, and lower levels of government to seek central rule. To justify centralization, crisis and divisions are sewn, to entice dependence on centralizing rule. This displaces the experience of local authorities. Being displaced, local authorities become incompetent and non-responsible. Power over routine issues for raising children siphons to central authorities. Parents become so incompetent it becomes impossible to think of restoring their authority. The more power is centralized, the less responsive it becomes to local concerns, and the more it justfies itself by arbitrary rule --- for which it monopolizes significant means of propaganda and persuasion.
.
The more Libs reduce traditional families, the more they ensure absolute, despotic rule of Big Brother. A society that loses means to incentive an assimilated, enlightened electorate of responsible families has no hope by any quick fix of preserving a representative republic, much less small government. Who are Libs who believe government and law should be so intrusive, to decree that their notions of entitlements should be ENFORCED from on high? What is their experience in raising responsible children or sustaining enlightened electorates? Who are these Libs, so confident they know so much?
.

New Zion

.
By all means, let's keep enriching the faux-Arab-Spring.  (Sarc.) America will remain immune from the rolling thunder of hate only so long as decent, religious, spiritually-empathetic folk remain vigilant and not too disheartened to avail principled moderation. Americans are used to being wooed, not forced. It would seem fundamentally mistaken to suggest this is not attributable to Christian founding and maturation. As Americans' fidelity to traditional symbols of spiritual empathy is eroded by know-it-all change-artists and secular militants, more and more people will succumb to the rolling force of hate over principle.

.

Most Americans are conditioned to fall for the smiling, competently-likeable, go-along-get-along guy. That will change as our society becomes more tribally divided. Thanks a lot, salad bowl people! Much danger will lie in opportunity availed of crisis. As wedges define and bind antagonists based on hatred of persons and tribes more so than ideas, the adrenalin-driven hatred that can be stirred by a 1 percent cadre of true believers who pretend to represent the remaining 99 percent will become awesome! Given a spoil-financed and dedicated cadre, the worm of hubristic tyranny can turn anywhere at any time. Narmer,Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Sargon, Thutmose, Ramesses, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Helu, Critias, Alexander, Maurya, Caeser, Constantine, Atilla, Clovis, Justinian, Muhammad, Devapala, Charlemagne, Ivar the Boneless, Yoritomo, Khan, Vlad, Richard III, Isabella, Moctezuma, Elizabeth, Ivan, Nader, Robespierre, Napoleon, Jackson, T. Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim, Castro, Amin, Pol Pot, Chavez.

.

In festering stew, competition tends to favor the most sociopathic. At some point, sociopathy will not be resisted with mere smiles. To survive, Christians will need to become principled defenders of a Zion of human freedom and dignity. This is not isolationism. It's decent common sense.

.

Logic of the Cosmos

See http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/a_provisional_anatomy_of_truth_comments.html#disqus_thread.
.

BIVALENT MATH INFERIOR TO TRIVALENTLY SHARED CONSCIOUSNESS:  Consciousness of Bivalent Truth and Falsity (math-based logic) abides only in respect of a Trivalent cosmic logic-of-consciousness that is based on complex patterns of iterations of omnipresent digital expressions of Attraction (Y-yes), Denial (N-no), and Neutrality (I-indifference). (Aka, "YSDI," or digitally entangled bits of Yes-Deny-Indifferent.) At their most fundamental level, these expressions are metaphysical, in that they are not directly amenable of any dimensional measurement. It is pointless to talk of their quantitative size as opposed to their qualitative beingness. Rather, the variety of patterns they share in entanglements among themselves is what avails the dimensional contexts within which all that constitute particular perspectives of consciousness can quantitatively measure, record, relate, signify, identify with, empathize about, and communicate.

.
In bivalent derivation from the trivalent logic of the cosmos, either reconciling values abide relative to consciousness, or they don't. If reconciling values do not abide, one cannot very well complain of sociopaths ... which, of course, is consistent with what sociopaths believe. If values tending towards empathetic reconciliation do abide, then most of religion consists in analogizing the Source of such values as something human-like, or empathetically conscious. It's sort of like conceptionalizing that the aboriginal Source of unfolding evolutionary purposefulness is not "the selfish gene," but iterations of A fulfillment-pursuing and empathetically-charged Consciousness, expressing itself in meta-logic of trivalent (Y-N-I) avatars for synchronously signifying fluxing cones for selecting, experiencing, and recording attractions (Yes), dis-attractions (No), and indifference (I) (aka, YSDI --- not gene-in-itself (an absurdity), but particular Iteration in dance of reconciliation with expressing Field).
.
The logic of evolution of charged spins and double helix DNA isn't "best" conceptualized as bivalent, true-false, natural selection of "the fittest" (trivial-tautological-feedback). After all, indifferent bivalent-logic is hardly amenable of supporting moral judgments about what is "best." Rather, the logic-of-evolution is best conceptualized as abiding in the temporal-unfoldment of complex interactions among variously organized systems for expressing levels of trivalently charged Like (attraction), Dislike (repulsion), and Neutrality (indifference). The logic of the cosmos is not ruled by an indifferent void, but by an organizing, choice-manifesting Source of Principle.
.
RECEPTIVITY TO GOD:  To what other principle could one appeal, if one believes in principle higher than his own immediate, sociopathic gratification? There are empathetically civilized beings, and there are trained, conditioned, and genetically shaped sociopaths. One may not have sought a consistent philosophy of purposeful morality and yet still live as an empathetically civilized being. In that case, one is simply being ruled by a philosophy that remains beyond his capacity to articulate, yet, is still a philosophy (or higher, religious-like belief). Civilization needs little more than that to begin assimilating towards more fulfillment and less divisive sociopathy. Indeed, to go much further, to pretend to be a direct terrestrial link to God, with divine license to dictate minutiae of obeisance, is to try to turn faith in empathy into terrestrial license to scourge against decency and mutual respect. That's the road to inquisitions and fatwas.
.
TRIVALENCE:  Wilfully chosen and determined (Yes); Naturally not chosen but determined (No); Randomly determined (objectively Indifferent).  Thus, evolution is guided, based on a synchronizing dance of feedback and appreciation.  Particular perspectives of Consciousness are reconciled.  Events are determined, either by upshot of competing and reconciling iterations of Will (CHOICE), randomly charged "natural" Indifference (CHANCE of evolution out of chaos), or superior, predetermining Source of Laws (CERTAINTY of fate).  Choice, Chance, or Certainty.  How one conceptualizes or categorizes "to explain" an event will then and there depend on one's cone, i.e., one's perspective, context, and purpose.
.
BIVALENT SUBSERVIENCE TO TRIVALENCE:  It is neither true nor false to say whether light-in-itself is a wave or a particle or whether a particle-in-itself is charged to be positive, negative, or neutral.   It is simply meaningless (unless as noise or music).  This is because there is no such a substantive, measurable thing as light-in-itself or particle-in-itself. What light is, and what a particle is, is nothing that is identifiable in itself, but is dependent on:  focus of view, frame of contextual reference, and state of mindful will or potential or purposeful consciousness.  It is not objectively meaningful to say that it is objectively true or false that some substance-in-itself is truly or falsely one thing or another. Absent relation to perspective, context, and potential purpose, mortals have no directly identifiable basis for taking the measure of any thing. That is, whether a relative thing is measured as being charged positive, negative, or neutral depends on relations that are shared and entangled to its measure. There is no interpretation or recordation of truth about substance-in-itself, but only relative truth, which is as subject to flux as there is flux in the perspective, context, and purpose. Even information that is recorded is qualified by the perspective, context, and purpose of whomever may later happen to cross or come to interpret it.
.
SHARED TRUTHS ARE RELIABLY SHARED:  That is not to say that relative truth is unimportant, for there are some truths that rule our universe in common with every inhabitant who happens to share it ...  and on down to the lowliest turtle. However, it is to say that precise notions of some measured truths, and especially many moral truths, become fuzzy as the cones of experience that happen to come upon them vary in what they share in respect of perspective, context, and purpose. Relative sequence, location, age, attraction, repulsion, and indifference may flux, rather than remain fixed as seeming either one thing-in-itself or another. The point is that information, interpretation, potential, substance, and experience are digital in a Trivalent sense of being relatively charged (positive or negative or neutral), but are only Bivalent (black or white, or true or false) in an inferior sense, with regard to how they happen to be processed within unfolding, fluxing, entangled, trivalent cones of: perspective, context, and eventually related purpose. The logic of the cosmos is primarily charged Trivalent; only its measure under such charge is subject to being related and analyzed in Bivalent terms. Once two or more people happen to adopt, identify with, and share a cone of perspective, context, and purpose, then they can communicate in confidence about that which happens to be measurable within that cone.
.
EVOLUTION GUIDED BY RECONCILIATION TO DANCE OF ITERATIONS OF A UNIFYING SOURCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS:  The trivalence of the cosmos is what avails its unfoldment and evolution to be GUIDED and normalized, so that consciousness is an effector, not a mere byproduct of bivalent equations. It is not true to say that light is a wave, particle, or even wavicle. What light is is dependent on what happens to abide as its unfolding and potential relation to consciousness.  Same with whole, part, or holon. Or holistic perspective of consciousness, particular perspective of consciousness, or encompassing holistic-particularistic consciousness. Or identity, avatar-iteration, infinity.  Perspectives that happen to become closely enough entangled within a shared cone will experience, measure, and normalize the same RELATIVE FACTS.  But that does not change this:  that those "facts" will NOT likely be interpreted or experienced in the same way by another perspective that is part of another cone of experience that merely crosses or overlaps, without becoming so entangled as to perceive or interpret selected "facts"in the same way.
.
ENTANGLEMENT:  "How" may different cones of perspective cross without altogether entangling, so that inhabitants of each may measure relative things and events differently?  The "more" one perspective identifies with, empathizes with, and communicates with another, the more the two become entangled, bringing their cones of experience into entanglement.  However, this "more-ness" is qualitative, not measurable unless indirectly or at some meta level that is beyond mortal kin.  To the extent they merely skate by or across one another, without become measurably involved with one another, they remain unentangled.  To the extent perspectives of consciousness remain measurably uninvolved (unentangled) even in indirect sense, their substantive experiences remain beyond one another's measure in any direct sense.  Problem is, mere mortals will not likely ascertain "the extent" to which perspectives of consciousness may remain measurably uninvolved even in indirect sense.  In other words, "degrees of entanglement" among perspectives of consciousness may not be very well calculated at the human level.  Even though such entanglements, attractions, repulsions, and indifference among layers and levels of perspectives and expressions of consciousness are the very "qualitative building blocks" upon which all of quantitatively measurable physics is derived.  The territory out of which the building blocks of physics are found is entirely qualitative, not quantitative or substantively "physical."  Ultimately, apart from perspective, context, and purpose, there is no physical Higgs boson, nor any other ultimate particle or particle-in-itself.
.

A muse may communicate appreciable music merely by tickling piano keys, only as there happens concert among perspective, context and purpose. Unless guided and reconciled, purposeful consciousness would not arise merely from random mixing among charge potentials --- unless the charge potentials themselves were expressive of conscious apprehensions of charges, i.e., positive likes, negative dislikes, and mutual indifference. As there abide the conserving, reconciling, guiding holism, with conscious apprehensions of particular charges, so does experience of consciousness unfold, like music being tickled off piano keys.  The piano player is itchy.

.
See http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/a_provisional_anatomy_of_truth_comments.html#disqus_thread.
.
TRIVALENCE:  Relator (consciously charged observer); Relatee (thing charged for being focused upon in order to be observed); Medium of Relation (dimensional field of contextually indifferent space-time-matter-energy) -- Positive Apprehender (father); Attracted or Repelled Apprehendee (son); Indifferent Field of Apprehension (holy ghost); --- ONENESS: Reconciliation with unfolding Reality of Eternal Present.
.