Scapegoating

***********

THE BIBLE:

I fully agree that God has solutions. And that coming together in receptivity to good faith can help us. What I don't agree with is any claim by yourself or any other mortal to be an error free mouthpiece for God.

The Bible, like other significations written and stored in Substance as Information, is a signification/representation of reality --- not reality-in-itself. Different people under different times and situations interpret it differently. However, if you think you have the absolute correct interpretation for all people and situations, then I am satisfied to let you rest safely and comfortably in your delusions.

***********

Empathy:

Well, I do NOT claim there is no basis for objective morality. I claim general empathy provides an innate basis for making decisions about social morals, ethics, values, purposes. I claim empathy among perspectives of consciousness is objectively innate (self evident). What I DO claim is that such empathy is subject to nurturing and that a subjective aspect for such issues cannot be eliminated. Certainly, not merely by defining a rug under which to try to sweep the subjective aspects.

I am less concerned with definitional contrivances than I am with how to sustain a decent, responsible citizenry for a representative republic. I do not think you addressed those concerns. I do not care so much about systems for definitions that do not relate to real world concerns beyond definitional contrivances. It is fine to contrive a definition of "physical health" (or even well being or welfare) to a system that avails measurables. But it is not so fine to pretend that a mere system for definitions or measurables can lead to resolution of real world concerns that such definitions do not address.

Weinberg made the inference to utilitarianism. For trying to prescribe an appearance of objective morality, one can substitute any word one may want. Utilitarianism, pleasure, happiness, greatest good for greatest number, well being, physical health, and so on. The problem will remain: How to apply an objective standard for one as a standard for all subjects. That is where nonsense tends to come in. I gave examples for that, which you seem not to have digested.

The nub is this: To what extent do we want responsible, competent, free thinking adults to participate in the assimilation of social morals, ethics, values, purposes, and to what extent do we want such responsibility to be surrendered to moral experts, for them to make decisions based on definitions contrived because they yield measurables? The "answer," I think, is CONTINGENT on what kind of society/republic we want and what kind of cultural competency the general citizenry has. Some societies are not especially competent or liberty literate, so rule under "moral experts" may be what most of them want (or deserve?).

Regarding sacred texts: I did not mean to imply that I take specific literalisms in any such texts to be sound for all societies in all places. Rather, I take them as guides for understanding historical ways of thought and as metaphors. I tried to point up how Jesus swept most of such literalisms under two general moral commandments. In modern parlance, I prefer Good Faith as a synopsis for the Great Commandment, and Good Will as a synopsis for the Golden Rule.

However, I subsume both under an innate tendency for being empathetic. The problem for a society is in how specifically to nurture and assimilate that empathy to particular and recurrent social applications. By no contrivance can any unfolding resolution of that problem be accomplished entirely free of either the objective (implicating innate empathy) or the subjective (implicating nurtured values). For such purpose, I think the objective and the subjective are inextricably linked. I think trying to untie that link is a snipe hunt.

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

Consciousness:

That which avails choices among possibilities within allowable parameters.

Consciousness can be conceptualized as building on different levels. Self awareness, awareness of surroundings, awareness of nutrients or sunlight, subconsciousness, organic stimulus response, determination among potential alternatives or choices, informing of potentialities of Consciousness, maybe even systemic regulation and reconciliation of events within and of parameters.

I do not see how mere substance could cumulate a storage of information (stored consciousness?), absent an expression of consciousness at some level. I do not say substance is consciousness, but I do not see how mere Substance could be expressed in ways that cumulate Information in the complete absence of Consciousness.

Holistic Consciousness:  Holistic Consciousness relates the math under which Simple Consciousness, Substance, and Information are activated and coordinated.

Simple Consciousness:  Simple Consciousness is a massless and qualitative capacity, from an otherwise dimension-less Point of relational Spin, to receive and transmit Information.

Consciousness of Consciousness:  Consciousness of Consciousness is Complex Consciousness that abides with an organized and adopted system of Matter.

Consciousness of Self:  Consciousness of Self is Complex Consciousness that appreciates and apprehends that it abides with an organized and adopted system of Matter.

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

Schrodinger's Cat:

By definition, a world of parallel expression of measurable manifestation would become manifestly measurable only if, when, and where it were to become measurable to some level of informational recordation (consciousness) to measure them.

Particulars of people and things do not exist as such, entirely apart from relational perspectives. The unfoldments of such relationships and perspectives are not entirely pre-defined. Rather, they are unfolding. "Your" true unfolding relationship is not with other mortal perspectives, but with the empathetic interests of the Reconciler, by which "you" and "they" may be unfolded and defined in potentially innumerable variations. "You,"in your connections, are legion.

IF Schrodinger's Cat exists in a different state in a different parallel world, it would only be because the Reconciler effects Consciousness with respect to such world.  OTOH, if the Reconciler functions only with respect to one world of manifestation, it would seem that all perspectives of Consciousness must therewith be "entangled"  -- so that no parallel world of a half dead Cat could manifest.

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

Schrödinger’s Cat:

During my daily shower, I got to contemplating Mark Twain (Did he really say (?), “For every durable piece of nonsense, there is an irrational frame of reference in which it is consistent”)?

Anyway, I looked up some wiki’isms at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_cat.....

A thought occurs that physicists may be failing to make a serious effort to integrate a role for conscious observers (i.e., “perspectives of consciousness,” or “sensors of collapsed uncertainties”). Perhaps they fail because they imagine no measurable or scientific way to proceed.

But, what if the meaning of “conscious observers” were understood to relate not just to perspectives of intellection, but also to capacities to sense, detect, and effect exclusions among patterns (i.e., that which we merely assume to be marked only by inanimate, “unconscious,” purely physical reactiveness)?

Suppose it is not material physics that is “entangled,” but perspectives of consciousness (which happen to be entangled in sharing a same algorithm for how they mark their relations)?

Suppose that which we take to be superimposed in a mix of indeterminacy is not potential states of “physical matter,” but potential choices to be synchronized among “perspectives of consciousness”?

If that which holistically synchronizes has capacity to collapse choices based on feedback summed from among particular perspectives, then not every possibility needs to be chosen or made to exist “in some world.”

IOW, the body of Schrodinger’s cat would not be required to exist in innumerable states spread among a multiverse of possibilities. This is because a body of physics has no independent existence apart from signifying for a state of synchronization among perspectives of consciousness.

IOW, insofar as the consciousness of the cat were entangled with the consciousness of its owner, there need be only one combined state, i.e, the owner would either be happy (cat alive and conscious) or sad (cat dead).

Issues:

(1) Does any test rule out such an approach?

(2) Could such an approach leverage means of quantifiable formulation (as by “lensing” among “primitive units of exclusion”)?

What would Mark Twain say?

****

Re --- Spooky action at distance among entangled particles:

If particles do not exist in themselves, but are only illusory byproducts and derivatively representative markers of entanglements of perspectives of consciousness, then what affects one person at a distance may have significant simultaneous effects on persons closely entangled with his perspective of consciousness.

Do scientists working on a same problem often share nearly simultaneous “aha” moments? If so, there may be some higher validity to transcendental meditation and prayer.

But, interpretation of statistical validity would inherently necessitate subjectivity and intuition, since consciousness itself, by definition, is subjective and not completely objective.

So, unless and until indirect means can be developed to leverage (or "lens") some method for more reliably correlative measurement, empiricists will obviously be disposed to remain bored by such a notion.

****

Dave,

Actually, I am suggesting no multiverse need exist. All states that collapse to the macroscopic detection or consciousness of observers may do so in just one universe, which synchronizes the experiences of perception.

The quantum fuzz of indeterminate possibilities may consist less in "actual matter" than in a sea of "immaterial choices."

If the consciousness of the Cat survives, there need not be any alternative state in any alternative universe where the cat does not survive. If so, it may be that it is not the material bodies of the owner and his cat but the entanglement of their consciousness that sequences forward within a single universe of conceptual experience.

There would be no alternative universe for the state of a dead-cat-body because neither physical matter nor the body of the cat exists independently of entanglement with consciousness.

The main difference in being hit by a train in an awake state versus a dream state is that, in an awake state, other perspectives of consciousness are entangled with your perception of the train. In aware state, your perspective of consciousness is killed as a correlate of the entanglement. In dream state, you may merely be startled awake.

****

Re: "In dream state, you may merely be startled awake."

I know.
You're thinking, "What if the dreamer is driving across a train track in his sleep."
Answer: He goes to train heaven.

**********

I have little doubt that you would love to make moral equivalence between the methods of Dems and Conservatives. But show me the Conservers of Liberty that are deploying the terror and mob tactics of the Left. And don't play the nonsense game of putting fascists anywhere but near the totalitarian, anti-liberty, anti-American Left. Your so-called antifian antifascists behave as fascists. Presumably, if Dems could make sense, they would. Instead, they rely on Kav'íng their opponents.

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

Yet, Dems, despite having infiltrated every institution on behalf of their funding controllers, cannot convince Americans by respectful dialogue. Rather, they find it necessary to resort to the kind of childish antics we have seen yet again in the Kavanaugh matter. Doxxing, shouting down, blocking traffic, calling everyone who disagrees a racist or misogynist, firing people who disagree, whining like little snowflakes Many are now advocating violence and taking to the streets. So how is it again that they differ from tools for Communists? To provide the kinds of economic supports you want, first get control of the border. Or do you think the U.S. can or should provide every person in the world with a base salary of, say, $45/hour? When I look at the inner cities run by Dems, i see the kind of demented society their demented policies produce. When I look at their antics, I see the kind of "educations""they have. I do not buy the snake oil.


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

CODE OF HAMMURABI:

You seem to believe ought can be objectively derived from is. However, consider: Has there ever been any long lasting civilization that did not value any meme for assimilating itself unless such meme could be proven valid in logic or science?

I share in righteous animosity against some organized, literalist, religious belief systems. I am not a literalist defender of such systems. (I do value aspects of some of them for metaphorical, inspirational, and social-gluing purposes.)

The Code of Hammurabi was a legal code handed down somewhat arbitrarily by ruling elitists, not necessarily a moral code, per se. When someone obeys such secular law out of fear rather than virtue, I don't think that qualifies as behaving morally, per se. Moreover, when such law is arbitrarily handed down by elitists, I think it qualifies less as "learned" than as indoctrinated or forced.

Regardless, that Code was not entirely divorced from religious ideas about gods. Law #127: "If any one "point the finger" at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair)."

Nor was that Code one of general equality or fairness. Law # 129: "If the wife of a man has been caught lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the waters. If the owner of the wife would save his wife then in turn the king could save his servant."

Regardless, I think you are correct, that a lot of modern sheeple do WANT to be ruled by secular laws of elitists in all things, and not otherwise be tasked to think responsibly about morality.

However, I do not believe most Americans would want to live under the Code of Hammurabi, which included trial by ordeal and provided for penalties that varied according to the status of the offenders. IAE, I do not think using elitist prescribed law to force or tax followers is very illustrative of either morality or charity.

I am unclear why you brought superstition into the debate. I am concerned with practicality, i.e., what works to sustain decent civilization for free thinkers. If a person happens to adopt certain values, pursuits, principles, and they are based in practical experience, I do not ascribe that to superstition. Otherwise, what human endeavor would not be chalked up to superstition? I am not a biblical literalist. I am a human metaphorist. I look for metaphorical values going forward to decent, free thinking society.

I suspect recalcitrance against the idea of a reconciling principle among innate empathies of consciousness may be a consequence of so many people having tried to divorce substantive empiricism (quantitatives) from general beingness (qualitatives). However, I suspect Consciousness at various levels and perspectives is much more inextricably intertwined with Substance and Information than most people suppose.

Perhaps such recalcitrance was more to be expected in times when most scientists thought every event was determined, pre-determined, or "caused" by a chain of previous events. Since then, many scientists tend more to conceptualize that each situation contains the seeds for perhaps innumerable possible outcomes or choices. They do not have, in science or logic, a way to predict which from among many possible outcomes will actually become measurably manifest. (That is not to say that they cannot by artifice filter among possibilities to achieve astonishingly significant levels of control.)

I do not think morality is tied to superstition. I think morality is an unfolding contingency that is tied to a feedback process of reconciliation among variously interfunctioning perspectives of consciousness. Few people talk about behaving morally purely in respect of a body that does not appear in itself to function as a perspective of consciousness.

Each mortal perspective subjectively participates, but none objectively rules the determination. A society that wants to establish and preserve decent respect for human freedom and dignity will tend contingently to establish and sustain a representative republic. If its members are smart and competent, and if that is what they want, then they will find means to inspire and preserve it. If they want to use a meme other than one named "God" to help inspire that, and if such meme can be effective for such purpose, then I have no objection in principle. But I do not think that purpose is fairly called "superstitious." Nor do I think there has ever been a viable civilization that did not value memes for assimilating itself unless such memes could be proven valid in logic or science.


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

JUST MUSING: People seem often to argue about whether morality is purely objective (logical?) or subjective (arbitrary or intuitive?). I do not think matters of morality are purely either.

MORALITY IS NOT PURELY A SUBJECTIVE MATTER: To advocate that standards for morality must be purely subjective is oxymoronic nonsense, because it contradicts the idea of meaningful standards.

MORALITY IS NOT PURELY AN OBJECTIVE MATTER: To advocate that morality can be purely derived via scientific empiricism is the other side of the coin of oxymoronic nonsense. There is no objectively scientific reason why Nature should or must prefer or favor any value, person, culture, nation, or world over any other. Wannabe objective moral scientisimists are quite deluded.

MORALITY IS A DANCE OF CONTINGENCY: If morality has meaning, it must be in connection with a subjective-objective dance of participatory feedback with a Reconciler Principle.

CSI:

Substance, as manifested, is objectively measurable. However, each manifestation that happens to unfold is only one from among many possibilities within allowable parameters. So what determines each choice of manifestation that actually unfolds?

So far as we can determine, nothing objectively knowable effects such determinations. In that respect, The Determiner may be said to be subjective (not objective). IOW, manifested Substance is in part objectively measurable, but choice of manifestation is not.

Appreciating the unfoldment of reality and moral purposefulness is objective to manifestation, but subjective to choice. Judgment about whether a previously sought moral purpose has been achieved is in part objective. Judgment about what to do with it is in part subjective.

If "God" (Reconciling Principler) expresses Consciousness, and God takes a consciously subjective interest in reconciling the affairs of mortals, then each mortal, in consciously attempting to receive moral guidance from God, is exercising his subjective judgment with regard to whatever may be intuited to be the moral standards of God.

Suppose a person (pagan?) preferred to call Nature an entity that writes moral rules to be interpreted by moral scientists. Even then, such a Nature would in main be INDISTINGUISHABLE from a Deity or God.

MORAL PURPOSEFULNESS ENTAILS A DANCE OF CONTINGENT OBJECTIVITY-SUBJECTIVITY: The problem for a representative republic pertains to how to inspire managerial participation for this dance of assimilating and interpreting "objective-subjective moral purposefulness" in a way that will preserve human freedom and dignity.

AGENTS OF SUB-HUMANIZING MEMES: Such participatory management may be perverted when moral anarchists and liberty illiterates are imported and when people farming despots are created faster than they can be civilized to the republic.


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

Do you think it possible for a human being to act only on beliefs that can be proven correct or valid in logic? If you concede there are concerns a human being will need to act on that are beyond logic, how would you resolve them? Do you consider what is self evident, intuitive, or empathetic wholly outside logic, and therefore not to be acted on?

Perhaps deductive logic is good for examining properties about parts of a system in which the properties are implicated by the system. Inductive logic would seem to relate more to presuming a property and then testing it for consistency, coherence and completeness.

Unfortunately, completeness seems to elude us, except for trivial systems. So we often muddle through based on what seems practical to our present purposes. After all, we cannot very well subject our cosmos to a double blind experiment with another cosmos where all pertinent factors are held constant except for the factor being tested.

As a practical matter, I am not aware of any human culture in history that lasted very long without devising any meme for assimilating sustaining values. Even if the meme were based more in intuition than in logic.

I do not seek a perfectly consistent, coherent, complete system of moral or spiritual philosophy. I only seek a system that is as internally consistent, coherent, and complete as seems reasonably possible and practical.

I do employ a contingent, practical, inductive/empirical logic. I presume human freedom and dignity under a decent representative republic is worthwhile and desirable. Then I apply historical experience as best I can understand it to try to fathom what choices and policies are best in our present situation to pursue that end. But this implicates interpretation and experiential bias. I see no way that "moral logic" can preclude that.

***********

Next time before any prof, lawyer, judge is being considered for hire, publicize it and invite everyone with any grievance to come forward with accusations. Be sure to alert the Soros Open Society, mob charging virtue signalers, and SJW people. Then, if the applicant can't prove his innocence or if he gets angry, disqualify him. Use this procedure every time for every applicant. That way, we can ensure we get the Socialist Paradise we deserve.

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

In that, I tend to agree. Unfortunately. And therein lies the rub. And I fear humanity is not presently skilled or ready to address that rub. Here is what I fear:
Lots of people feel our system of checks and balances has become too cumbersome, and that decisive authority for farming the masses must be placed somewhere --- either in a despot (president) or an oligarchy (deep state). To force that end, they keep dividing the populace to make it otherwise ungovernable. Soon, the Establishment will call it hate speech to suggest that a nation should seek values assimilation more so than divisive diversity.

Since the Presidency is for a limited term, the true and long term central power will default to an Oligarchy, which will, with judicial abuses, pay minimal lip service to the Constitution and to the ideal of human freedom and dignity under a representative republic.

Bottom line: Worldwide political power is defaulting to an evolving corporatist Establishment. Everything but the sheeple plantation is becoming kabuki. Strum and drang --- like the Kavanaugh hearings. Nothing will stop this trend, unless ways are found to better limit or curtail the rampant and centralizing oligarchic political power to bribe, fund, control, indoctrinate, and intimidate politicians, the citizenry, and the general population. To such end, every institution has been infiltrated and infested. Both organized Academia and the Church have become sad laughingstocks.

Meantime, the Judiciary will be the back door for boofing the Constitution and the Republic. For the purpose of centralizing big fascist gov power, will the Judiciary forward more central power to the President, the Oligarchy, or to itself? IAE, so long as power is not reclaimed under the common sense of the people, they will continue to be divided and farmed. In that case, say good bye to freedom of thought, expression, enterprise, and association. Say hello to de-humanizing PC, group think, virtue signaling, incompetent codependence, pinkie-wagging, gender war, and mob sacrifices.

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

Does anything in that say a judge should meekly submit to an obvious kangaroo court that has infested the highest levels in the land? How many of these profs have been indoctrinated by an educational system that has become largely the trash tool for anti-Americans? Did you see where the President of the ABA usurped the authority of the Standing Committee? The nation has been polarized between militant, codependent, virtue-signaling tools for globalist oligarchs v. free thinking Americans. Expect interesting times.

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

Just trying to connect the dots. Trump likely knows the real reasons the Dems are resisting Kavanaugh. I hope Trump wants a strict constructionist on the Court that will help preserve the Constitution and the Republic. I suspect he believes the social-fantasy Dems are doing all they can to undermine that effort. If so, what Trump is doing is to try to save the Kavanaugh nomination so the next Justice is not chosen by a Socialist Wing that wants to replace the Constitution and the Republic with some kind of utopian globalism --- ultimately to be ruled by people such as Soros.

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

If Blasey Ford is trustworthy concerning her motivation, then why did she confabulate concerning fear of flying, genesis of second front door, being a psychologist, and lacking knowledge about polygraphs?  What else did she confabulate and to what purpose?

????????????
Lied about fear of flying -- to delay vote.
Lied about genesis of second door -- to provide fake corroboration for fake fear of Kavanaugh.
Lied about being a Psychologist -- to fake expertise (online scrubbing)
Lied about experience or knowledge concerning polygraph -- to play up innocence
Probably lied about extent of trauma
Probably lied about certainty of identity of boys and experiences
Omitted background as party girl  (online scrubbing)
Omitted background as thief from boyfriend's account.
Omitted factors leading to marriage counseling
Omitted background of radical politics (?????????).
May have pretended not to know about offers by Congress to interview her in California
Affected fake demeanor in hearing
CONSEQUENCE:  She should be prohibited from teaching students in college (?????????).


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

As I conceptualize the possibility of an existent God, I do not see how a mortal could define or limit God. So, yes, the idea that such a God would be beyond our proof (outside conceptual intuition and empathy) is contained within the conceptualization.

Perhaps the best I can do is to reason as follows:

I am conscious. Consciousness exists. A is A.

My native empathy and intuition suggest/evidence that Consciousness exists and is expressed among perspectives apart from the perspective that seems to attach with my body.

As I conceptualize Consciousness, it is not restricted to bodily self awareness. Rather, it relates to the expression of a qualitative capacity to sense, record, or appreciate representations of quantifiable Substance.

Such capacity to sense and record Information seems to be inextricably common throughout the universe. I am unable to imagine in any non-contradictory or unambiguous way how any representation of Substance could collapse to measurable manifestation in the complete absence of any entailment with a measuring Consciousness, at some level or layer of presence or potentiality.

Bodies that harbor Consciousness are composed of Substance, but Substance is not by itself conscious. Rather, Substance offers perspectives with which Consciousness of Information can be experienced and accumulated.

Although Consciousness can be experienced from subjectively different perspectives, bodies, and senses, it always relates to capacity to sense, record, or appreciate representations of quantifiable Substance.

If unfolding events are not entirely objectively pre-determined, then Something or some subjective principle participates in accounting for how they are chosen. I doubt that principle is purely random.

Patterns of order somehow arise out of chaos. To come in after the fact to say such patterns must have been "most fit" is simply to engage not in explanation but in after-the-fact labeling. Why are they most fit? I conceptualize that they were most appreciated by a Reconciling aspect of Consciousness.

I would agree that it is likely impossible for a mortal to prove whether the Reconciling Principler is itself Conscious or merely some kind of meta-algorithm of algorithms. Consciousness, Substance, and Information may abide as fluxing ways that such meta-algorithm finds expression.

Still, I do not think it is possible for either Substance or Information to find expression in the complete absence of Consciousness at some level or layer. I think that condition connects all perspectives. To conceptualize that condition as implicating "God" CAN (not must) help avail the assimilation of "consciously subjective-substantively objective" standards for decent civilization for pursuing moral purposefulness among free-thinking citizens of a representative republic.

The alternative seems to be moral babel and sub-humanization. Which is what seems to be unraveling now.

Bottom line: I do not care whether a person wants to call a connecting aspect of Consciousness "God." What I care about is whether a person respects a need to participate in helping to assimilate meaningful standards for civilizing moral purposefulness.

To advocate that standards for morality must be purely subjective is oxymoronic nonsense, because it contradicts the idea of meaningful standards.

Moreover, to advocate that morality can be purely derived via scientific empiricism is the other side of the coin of oxymoronic nonsense. There is no objectively scientific reason why Nature should or must prefer or favor any value, person, culture, nation, or world over any other. If morality has meaning, I think it is in connection with a subjective-objective dance of participatory feedback with the Reconciler Principle.

Substance, as manifested, is objectively measurable.  However, each manifestation that happens to unfold is only one from among many possibilities within allowable parameters.  So what determines each unfolding choice of manifestation?  

So far as we can determine, nothing objectively knowable.  Whatever determines the choice, it is not objectively determinable.  In that respect, it may be said to be subjective.  IOW, manifested Substance is in part objectively measurable, but choice of manifestation is subjective.  Appreciating the unfoldment of reality and moral purposefulness is objective to manifestation, but subjective to choice.  Judgment about whether a previously sought moral purpose has been achieved is in part objective.  Judgment about what to do with it is in part subjective.  

Moreover, if God is conscious, and God takes a subjective interest in reconciling the affairs of mortals, then each mortal, in consciously attempting to receive moral guidance from God, is exercising his subjective judgment with regard to whatever may be intuited to be the moral standards of God.

Suppose a person (pagan?) preferred to call Nature an entity that writes moral rules to be interpreted by moral scientists.  Even then, such a Nature would in main be indistinguishable from a Deity or God.

Thus, the problem for a representative republic pertains to how to manage this dance for assimilating and interpreting objective-subjective moral purposefulness in a way that will preserve human freedom and dignity. Such management is defeated when moral anarchists and liberty illiterates are imported and when people farming despots are created faster than they can be civilized to the republic.

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

It is obvious that many militant gays want to convince people that the true standards for what is normal or moral are entirely subjective. IOW, not really standards. They do not grok that "subjective standards" is an oxymoron. They sometimes represent as if every behavior is both normal and moral. They want other people to believe they are so tolerant!

So tolerant that many want to force businesses to provide unisex bathrooms. So tolerant that many want to force parents and taxpayers to provide pre-teens with trans-sex operations on demand. So tolerant that many want to force schools to groom students to view as normal all the fine arts of esoteric sexual pleasuring. So tolerant they want the general citizenry to be required to accommodate, even celebrate, every kind of deviance imaginable --- provided only that the "gay community" approves of it. So tolerant they want to prescribe how every citizen must be required in fine PC detail to marry the government --- provided it is a government that is approved by the gay community. So tolerant they want to destroy values relating to traditional marriage and families, national patriotism, and forums for assimilating sustainable values.

Why? Because, in their demented minds, this is the path to a moral socialistic paradise. Except even the most cursory review of history shows it is anything but.

You do not really mean that all moral truth is subjective. What you really mean is that all moral truth should be as the militantly gay or atheistic community wants to prescribe it.

Are these words and ideas too hard for you? They are pretty simple for people that use their brains.

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

Your analysis is blighted by blinders. I suspect your carnality is blinding your spirituality.

Religion is not God. So I agree morality does not come from religion. I conceptualize that it comes from empathy between perspectives of Consciousness, reconciled under connectivity of Consciousness.

Morality does not come strictly from science. There is no derivation of qualitative ought strictly from quantitative is.

Much of moral empathy comes as a consequence of qualities that, in their mix, are beyond reliable measure. What is empathy? Is it natural only to pure empirical, measurable science? Or is it innate to beingness beyond measure? I think there is innate empathy, because every perspective is a limited view from the same Consciousness. Consciousness is Consciousness. A is A.

IAE, if morality is more than a nothing, what is it? That calls for a consideration of the nature and character of Consciousness. And not just the perspective of any one individual. That brings in Something Beyond self justifying blinders or carnal self promotion over everything else. In that respect, I think virtue signaling, blue-pill gays tend to be a blight against decent sense. I have little patience with their narrowly focused self righteousness.

***********

When people are too inbred to stupidity to be able to debate with any good sense, they resort to lalalala or banning you. They need to protect their sheeple from hearing any contrary views that might trouble their indoctrination. If pressed, they will claim you offended their sensibilities. Pinkie-waggers.

***********

Every sensation is an experience for perspective of Consciousness. Every perceivable that has collapsed into measurable manifestation is an expression being stored for experience of Consciousness, often at multiple, overlapping, or fluxing levels and layers.

Regarding dissipation: Talk to a physicist to see what he thinks about whether Information is stored and preserved.

I do not subscribe to any stupidly constrained system of thought. I seek only a system of thought that is as consistent, coherent, and complete as reasonably possible. I find that much of what I see in religion and philosophy is juvey-stupid. The product of constipated brains, reasoning in circles to rationalized conclusions.

I am especially amused by the political/moral contrivances of pagan, gay, blue-pill, virtue signalers. I suspect most of their moral philosophy consists in apologetics for their carnal urges.

***********

Mutual respect for a Source of decent moral guidance and empathy can help people come together in good faith and good will to assimilate sustainable values. In considerable part, that process applied to the development of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. To claim that played no role is the height of stubborn ignorance. Likewise with regard to any claim of ability to derive morality purely from godless science.

***********

Why should God worry about convincing any human being? Or any human? Do you think I care whether you are convinced? I do not. What I care about is how to assimilate sustainable values and preserve decent civilization. In that, I do care when I uncover drags against that. I do not think ordinary atheists are drags. But militant, knowitall atheists surely are.

***********

Why was Swetnik going to parties with minor men? Who are these women (and femimen?) that seem to want a gender war? Women already live longer than men. What more PC regulations do they want? What new laws and presumptions of male guilt do they want? Do they know? At what point does all this virtue-signaling and power-giving to big gov become counterproductive --- to human security, human dignity, and representative republicanism? Is this really appealing to the best of society?

Who are the women and femimen that want a gender war? Women already live longer than men. Probably because they usually lead less stressful lives. But they want to be pampered more. They want to be sexually worshiped, but they also want men to lay down and enforce ever more laws to pamper them ever more. At what point does all this virtue-signaling and power-giving to big gov become counterproductive, both to human security and to human dignity?


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

How slow are you? If a Boeing aircraft were to assemble out of air, what physicist would take that as evidence of God instead of alien intervention? Inject some special Exlax to free your brain.

Evidenced, if you consider your perspective of consciousness to be evidence of a complete and reconciling source of consciousness.

If you have empirical proof that God does or does not exist, then show it. Submit it for review. If convincing, it may get you a Nobel Prize. Otherwise, go yell at some walls.

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

Every sensation is an experience for perspective of Consciousness. Every perceivable that has collapsed into measurable manifestation is an expression being stored for experience of Consciousness, often at multiple, overlapping, or fluxing levels and layers.

Regarding dissipation: Talk to a physicist to see what he thinks about whether Information is stored and preserved.

I do not subscribe to any stupidly constrained system of thought. I seek only a system of thought that is as consistent, coherent, and complete as reasonably possible. I find that much of what I see in religion and philosophy is juvey-stupid. The product of constipated brains, reasoning in circles to rationalized conclusions. I am especially amused by the political/moral contrivances of pagan gay virtue signalers.


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

Concerning what they take to be progress (PC Gulag?), if there is a line of decency that is respected among self-righteous, mob-charging, limp-wristed, blue-pill, virtue signalers, where is it?

***********

Mob charging by limp-wristed virtue signalers is hell.

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

WHAT IS THE SUBSTRATE:

The only things we sensibly experience to exist are representable sensations. Sensations to a recording or receiving Consciousness. Without a sensate or recording consciousness, such sensations --- which are all that we measurably experience --- would not exist. We do not directly sense a substrate to sensation. So, if there is a Substrate, what is its character/nature? Possible Answer: Trinitarian.

If Reality were limited to what in potentiality can be sensed, then no such Reality would exist, but for at least the potentiality of Consciousness. Thus, the existentiality of (1) measurable Substance, (2) cumulating Information about substance, and (3) Consciousness concerning substance and information, seems to be inextricably linked as one trinitarian existent.

Our imperfections and incompletions avail the Trinity (God) to conduct and reconcile work in progress. They can both endear us to God and avail God to do the work of God --- continuously to polish us. Not so much to save us from original sin, but to save us as perpetual children of God. Perhaps Jesus availed us to be saved, not so much from sin, but from despair. To polish and build up treasures for the hereafter. (Does the Past ever really or completely cease?)

Notwithstanding much confusion among virtue signalers, Jesus did NOT tell us that we must condone, fund, or celebrate that which poisons what we value as decent human dignity.

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

What is the SJW Agenda? Why so afraid of Kavanaugh? Is it fear he won't support open borders, pushing the Constitution into irrelevance, and training people to be codependent sheep, ready for the plantation? Is it because he isn't a limp wristed virtue signaler?

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

Think about whether an idea of a closed system, cut off from exterior influence, can make consistent sense. Define what you mean by God. Define what you mean by morality and decent values. Consider how you derive, assimilate, reconcile, and adjust such morality and decent values, if you claim to do so strictly based on empiricism and science. Explain how science can definitively answer whether any species or world "should" continue to abide, cooperate, form interests and purposes, propagate, decline, or be replaced. Explain why any attempt to derive or propagate a "science of morality" should not be considered a religious or spiritual quest. Explain how a free-thinking society that does not seek or find ways to assimilate shared moral values can reasonably expect to sustain itself.

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

Lots of people feel our system of checks and balances has become too cumbersome, and that decisive authority for farming the masses must be placed somewhere --- either in a despot (president) or an oligarchy (deep state). To force that end, they keep dividing the populace to make it otherwise ungovernable. Soon, the Establishment will call it hate speech to suggest that a nation should seek values assimilation more so than divisive diversity.

Since the Presidency is for a limited term, the true and long term power will default to an Oligarchy, which will, with judicial abuses, pay minimal lip service to the Constitution and to the ideal of human freedom and dignity under a representative republic.

Bottom line: Worldwide political power is defaulting to an evolving corporatist Establishment. Everything but the sheeple plantation is becoming kabuki. Nothing will stop this trend, unless ways are found to better limit or curtail the rampant and centralizing oligarchic political power to bribe, fund, control, indoctrinate, and intimidate politicians, the citizenry, and the general population. To such end, every institution has been infiltrated and infested.

Meantime, the Judiciary will be the back door for boofing the Constitution and the Republic. For the purpose of centralizing big fascist gov power, will the Judiciary forward more central power to the President, the Oligarchy, or to itself? IAE, so long as power is not reclaimed by the people, they will continue to be divided and farmed. In that case, say good bye to freedom of thought, expression, enterprise, and association. Say hello to de-humanizing PC, group think, virtue signaling, incompetent codependence, pinkie-wagging, gender war, and mob sacrifices.

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

I suspect the kids in High School that found it easiest to keep their records clean tended to be the kids that had the least capacity for leadership, talent, charisma, or energy. While I do not condone bad behavior, neither do I incline to hold common teen age behavior against adults in perpetuity, especially after 35 or more years. Now, as to adults that falsely claim heroism in Viet Nam, or that take advantage of interns, or that drug women's drinks, or that prostitute criminal accusation procedures for political purposes, they are of a different category. They have no defense of juvenile prefrontal lobes or anything like that,

***********

Soros Agenda:  Open borders, pushing Constitution into irrelevance, and training people to be codependent sheep. A recipe for worldwide serfdom under oligarchs presuming to be benefactors of equality and social justice. Sub-humanizing madness.

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

Rinos and Dinos seem to be funded in common by anti-Americans. Per the Prog Agenda, every kind of debasement and character assassination against Kavanaugh is justified, but Blasey Ford must be handled with kid gloves.

The same seems now to apply to politics generally. Every benefit of the doubt must be given to mob-charging virtue signalers, while those that want to preserve a representative republic for free thinkers are presumed to be racist and misogynistic white supremacists.

While fantasizing about socialism (because it is fantasy), people farmers are finding and hiring professionals to destroy everything that could make decency possible. Evidently, to make schools and bathrooms safe for grooming the next generation for gender madness. Mad New World.

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

Disgust is the right word. A lot of people satisfy their need to feel virtuous by spouting their good intentions to save everyone --- financially, culturally, mentally, spiritually. As long as it's on someone else's dime. A lot of them are completely ineffectual for defending or providing for anyone other than themselves. But they imagine their good intentions make them good people. They see hunger and pain in the world and imagine everyone in the USA should be required, because they say so, to support open borders to save the world. Never mind that much of the world defies being saved or wanting the values of the USA. They imagine there would be heaven on earth is only everyone would adopt their good intentions.

The reality is, their good intentions, if followed, always lead to catastrophe. Wanting to save everyone, they tend to make themselves ineffectual for saving anyone. They indeed are disgusting people, and they proliferate by raising and training people to become disgusting. Unaware. Even depraved. Yucky.

***********

To be fair minded, an observer needs to compare the credibility of Ford v. Kavanaugh. An Op at News Views (from which I am banned) takes Kavanaugh to task for his exhibition of privileged white entitlementism. The denizens there seem unable to fathom how an innocent person who has been accused of the scurrilous things Kavanaugh has been accused of, regardless of race, may incline to take high offense. Especially when done in a way that amounted to laying behind a log and then shooting from behind.

If that were done to me, regardless of my color, I think I would indeed exhibit anger! And, unlike the mob anger of co-dependent wussie-whiners of the Dem persuasion, it would be righteous.

Otoh, if I were playing an imavictim card, I might affect pretty poses and arrange my throat to mimic mucous production to elicit sympathy so no one would dare question me too harshly. I am so tired of feminazis and femimen bent on the destruction of the Constitutional Republic!

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

Curious: Was Ford a party girl? Did she know what went on at such parties? What do her student yearbooks say? Are there other "grinders" that she chooses not to complain against, on account of political sympathies? As to having been afraid Kavanaugh might have inadvertently killed her, is she embellishing for political gain? How big a role does co-dependent, collectivist politics play in her life? What are her psychological drivers? Did the alleged offender, whomever he may have been, really do much more than to feel her up? Should teen age groping really be grounds for shaming people 36 years later? How much of Ford's trauma and need for counseling should be attributed to other of her activities, proclivities, and life choices? How much of her blame on teen age fondling is hype for political purposes? Is she a Deep State, open-border, living-Constitution, nation-undermining operative or sympathizer? How skilled or coached is she at psychological manipulation?

Given Ford's psychological expertise, is she prepared to say that an alleged episode of teen age groping should be considered as a reliable indicator of a person's character or capacity for public service 36 years later? Does she advocate that all 17 year olds should be tried as adults? See https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tina-freiburger/age-17-adult-or-juvenile-_b_8185018.html. Would any Maryland prosecutor have filed attempted rape charges based on the evidence so far produced? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/can-allegation-against-kavanaugh-lead-to-criminal-charges/2018/09/18/1b5298ea-bb73-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e0ab83998905.

What was the primary motivation for Ford to come forward? Was it desire for revenge, concern about Kavanaugh's judicial temperament, or concern about Kavanaugh's political leanings?

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

Too often, common sense is buried under tons of crap labeled as education. Schools tend to be less about teaching people how to think for themselves than about training them to believe crap. Critical Crap Studies among whiny codependent wussies, destined to be used as cr-eeple for oligarchs promising socialistic utopia.

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

Too often, common sense is buried under tons of crap labeled as education. Schools tend to be less about teaching people how to think for themselves than about training them to believe crap.


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

How can a *polygraph examiner get any kind of reliable baseline for comparison purposes by asking only two questions?

Ford was not credible in the least. Rather, what was evident was a planned political agenda. Our nation has become a house divided between responsible competent adults and people who get their kicks being irresponsible codependent whiners. Too many people have been trained to behave as if the only measure of virtue were good intentions, regardless of how devoid of good applications.

Something in Ford's training and conditioning seems to have twisted her into an end-justifies-means human bomb bent on paving a path to hell with the phony good intentions of an infant. No doubt, she is a martyr in her own mind. I think that's a big part of her payoff. It is horrifying that she is credentialed and entrusted to train college students.

*Would Ford, as a psychologist, know how to defeat a polygraph by biting the side of her tongue, tightly curling her toes, counting backwards from 10 to 1, or flexing her anal sphincter? During her hearing, it appeared she knew how to position her mouth and throat to elicit sympathy by mimicking effects of producing mucous.

What was the real cause of her need for previous counseling? Was it trauma caused by Kavanaugh, or was it an accumulation of failed coping tactics throughout her life? Is that common for psychologists?

*********

That is why coming together, to reason in good faith and good will, is essential. We don't achieve moral perfection. For moral meaningfulness, we only pursue a moral path. It is not for us to dictate to the Reconciler whether or for how long human evolution should be favored over ants, or whether or for how long the Earth should exist. But by our attitudes of empathy, we can find a kind of moral meaningfulness.

**********

Nope. Mortal men and women have capacity only for imperfect and limited perspectives. To imagine you have capacity to replace the Reconciler (I don't care what name you call Him/Her/It) is the beginning of hubris that likely leads to a quick fall. Mortals need to encourage willingness to come together, to reason in good faith in respect of the Reconciler. That is the function of a decent church. (Recognizing that many churches nowadays have become handmaidens for corruption.) Mere Science of Nature cannot meet that need or perform that function. Wannabe Moral Scientisimists are dangerously deluded.

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

Facts are secondary. What is really driving the polarization is a fundamental divide in moral philosophy. The divide is between fair minded but individually competent adults that want to preserve individual freedom and dignity, versus group minded codependent types that want security and free stuff (so long as they aren't specifically tasked to provide it). IOW, the divide is between socially responsible adults and socially whining, perpetual, infant wannabes.

Oligarchs have learned how to farm the infant wannabes by making cheap promises, as they lead them into a new worldwide serfdom. Infant wannabes have been trained from pre-K to believe in the fair-ie story of Socialized Utopia. Oligarchs are content to use that training to farm infantilized liberty-illiterates and to condition them for mob riots that are useful for replacing republics with despotisms.

**********

Money from anti-American oligarchs has long infested our politics, both among Dinos and Rinos. Ordinary Americans tend more to be represented in lip service and cynical promises, but not in anything resembling good faith. This is a systemic curse for which there is no easy cure. Certainly, there has not been much support for anything like a progressive tax on outlays for buying political influence. Nor have effective ways been found or pushed to reduce the problem. In large part, I think the problem is associated with a loss of meaningful faith and a failure to find any viable replacement. I think the notion that a replacement can be assimilated around "natural moral science" is a terribly misguided delusion. Meanwhile, people-farmers will continue to profit and rule the sheeple by tempting and pushing them to divide into separately contending tribes. I fully expect they will soon be claiming that advocacy for assimilating a colorblind society is "hate speech." Sad.

********

How could there abide an objective standard for moral behavior, unless it were subjectively appreciable?

I doubt there could abide any objectively measurable Substance or Information without at least the potentiality of subjective Consciousness to appreciate it. I do not appreciate how either Objectivity or Subjectivity could abide without the other. But that does not mean that moral standards are not reasonably assimilable. It is because Consciousness is Consciousness, that we mortals are all simply different or imperfect perspectives of such Consciousness, that we each can enjoy capacity, under feedback with a Reconciler function, for empathy-based assimilation of unfolding moral pursuits. But to try to make morality either entirely objective or subjective seems to me to be a fool's errand.

**********

The debate is ridiculously posed. Substance and Consciousness are two sides of one coin that vortexes about to unfold presentations of Information in space-time. But for Consciousness being Informed, Substance would not present.

To idealize that either Substance of Consciousness must be the sole author of the other, and not merely the correlate, is on its face absurd.

The idea that Evolution can proceed apart from necessary and dynamic feedback with Consciousness is silly. The idea that Consciousness can likewise unfold without parameters of Substance is likewise silly. To unfold in Informational meaningfulness, both Math and Mathematician need one another, as co-producing correlates. C, S and I are merely differently fluxing presentations of one reconciling thing: Beingness, i.e., the Godhead.

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

Money from anti-American oligarchs has long infested our politics, both among Dinos and Rinos. Ordinary Americans tend more to be represented in lip service and cynical promises, but not in anything resembling good faith. This is a systemic curse for which there is no easy cure. Certainly, there has not been much support for anything like a progressive tax on outlays for buying political influence. Nor have effective ways been found or pushed to reduce the problem. In large part, I think the problem is associated with a loss of meaningful faith and a failure to find any viable replacement. I think the notion that a replacement can be assimilated around "natural moral science" is a terribly misguided delusion. Meanwhile, people-farmers will continue to profit and rule the sheeple by tempting and pushing them to divide into separately contending tribes. I fully expect they will soon be claiming that advocacy for assimilating a colorblind society is "hate speech." Sad.

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

I am not sure if a previous commenter has actually been to a Harley Dealer Bike Nite. The ones I have been to are indeed diverse. Regardless, to reduce everyone to an agent for or against his skin color, gender, or ethnicity is in potentiality to pit every possible group against every other possible group. It is to make oneself putty for people farmers that learn to rule by divide and rule tactics.

I suspect people of little spiritual faith seek to substitute a "science of morality." However, if they believe Nature avails scientific answers to "correct morality," as if it were a problem of math, then I think they are deluded.

But, if one makes a leap of faith, such as to value human freedom and dignity over forced collective security, then one may "test various waters."

I recognize Maslow's pyramid. That said, the ideal for "progress" should seem to relate to individual autonomy. IAE, that tends to be my lodestar.

I think the co-dependently inclined people that want to save everyone --- financially, medically, culturally --- tend too often to become unable to save anyone. By making the perfect the enemy of the good, they tend to destroy the good. In my book, that is neither wise nor virtuous.

If we want to preserve government of, by, and for the people, so it does not perish from the Earth, then we need to think beyond opening borders to everyone, or making the Constitution out to be some organism that "lives" (mainly for the benefit of oligarchs able to fund judges, politicians, and journalists that will pursue their personal goals). Not everyone is acculturated to desire or defend a Constitution or a representative republic. To flood a nation of liberty-literate citizens with non-liberty-literates is to unreasonably risk the representative republic. In my book, that is neither admirable nor virtuous.

Trump wants to secure our borders and our republic. When people are in opposition to that, then I am in opposition to them. Now, if busybodies want to donate their own resources and time to saving the world, I say let them go at it. Just don't draft me, because I prefer to volunteer my resources and time to save what seems good to my appreciation that I can save.

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

Fascist Recipe: Alienate people from one another. End traditional families. Divide the people, the better to farm them. Divide them by skin color, gender, orientation, origin. Divide and alienate them in as many ways as you can contrive. That way you can end Constitutional republics. Sow discord and distrust. Turn it into fear and loathing. Smother empathy with political indoctrination, to train people to value personal gratification and make believe causes above everything else. Walla! The Great Sheeple Farm!

***********

I do not think it is possible to grow up in the filthy culture of the USA (or any part of the world) and not, as a teenager, be spattered. Records are now kept on your very keystrokes, from pre-K to death. Any prog shill for a people-farming oligarch can always find, invent, or embellish something bad about anyone's character. If this is the procedure for vetting public officials, then the only public officials that will be acceptable will be those that are so corrupt or so stupid that they can be pulled around by their noses by their oligarchic controllers. Who will no doubt promise all kinds of free stuff and reparations to their easily bribed and controlled sheeple-snowflakes. Kavanaugh stands for smaller government and stricter Constitutional interpretation against central governmental agglomeration of power. Collectivists that actually believe in the fair-ie tale of forced communalism can't stand that.

**********

So long as the Establishment runs Dinos and Rinos and keeps Americans divided and ruled, how much does it really care about any of this?

***********

Perhaps, like the Left, too many Jews tend to have too much concern for perfection via legalistic legerdemain and not enough for individual freedom and dignity. Look at all the biblical rules for diets, etc. Some seem to think there is a science for dictating the "best" manners, diets, fashions. Once that science has been perfected, it can be injected into the very dna and programming of every person and government.

This seems to be the idea of Jewish/Leftist heaven on Earth. For others, it turns people into bot inhabitants of hell. It was not Jews or Femis that drafted the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. But they did draft the Communist Manifesto. And they do tend to turn the poem on the Statute of Liberty into some kind of phony religion. Which is turning the Constitutional Republic into some kind of open-bordered world-plantation for people-farming corporatists. Using the best "science of fairness," of course. S/

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

If she were not a raving lib lunatic, likely benefiting from pretending victimhood, this crap would never see the light of day. So sick of feminazis out to destroy the republic in some terribly misguided notion of marrying the big lib gov. She needs to grow the hell up.

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

The Obama legacy is not done. Obama was the figurehead. Because of indoctrination and importation of liberty illiterate stoolies, the majority of our electorate may already consist of easily farmed, useful idiots. Useful to an Establishment bent on replacing every representative republic with people farming elitists. If you have no principles and want power, money, and security, the easiest path is by priming idiots so they can be farmed. Once the idiots are coaxed into the farm, it becomes hard to say they did not deserve it. Oligarchs say, If I did not farm them, someone else would. So where have all the spiritual and moral leaders gone, to reverse this process, instead of to grease it? Organized and funded philosophy and religion have been turned into handmaidens for "educating" humanity into sub-humanization. To believe oligarchs devoid of higher minded spirituality put the needs of the world above their self interest is to be an idiot. If decent Americans want their republic back, they will have to wake up.

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

Conservers of Liberty have to contend against the Deep State Establishment of self-godded and gratification-addled Oligarchic Corporatists and their Stoolies, which has infested everything and consists of both Dinos and Rinos. The Republican Party is not excluded from the corruption. Many of its members, of which McCain was emblematic, have, in effect, been anti-representative-republicans.

That said, Trump needs the Republicans, because the Dems are surely intent on the utter replacement of the republic with an Oligarchic Despotism disguised as Santa Claus.

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

Libs, even though they tend not to believe in Christianity, try to use Christianity as both a sword and a shield. This is because they do not worship God, but rather deem themselves to be God.

However, it is not higher minded to deem oneself qualified to function as God unless one is God.

Humble consideration for competent, free-thinking others is the path for a reasonable and decent republic. Not desire to power, farm, lord over, or take from all others.

Fake Lib morality needs to be broken down and exposed for what it is: Anti-decency. Of the sort one finds in uncivilized little barbaric toddlers.

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

It is human nature, especially when un-tempered by higher mindedness, that gives us the iron Law of Oligarchy: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html; https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy.

Notions about socialism, democracy, and even representative republicanism tend to be mere decorations. Lies for idiots. Socialism and Democracy, being ideas for useful idiots, have the least chance of meeting promises.

Representative Republicanism can have some effect, PROVIDED the electorate remains alert and involved and fights to prevent the oligarchy from dumbing down the general citizenry.

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

The Obama legacy is not done. Obama was the figurehead. Because of indoctrination and importation of liberty illiterate stoolies, the majority of our electorate may already consist of easily farmed, useful idiots. Useful to an Establishment bent on replacing every representative republic with people farming elitists.

If you have no principles and want power, money, and security, the easiest path is by priming idiots so they can be farmed. Once the idiots are coaxed into the farm, it becomes hard to say they did not deserve it. Oligarchs say, If I did not farm them, someone else would.

So where have all the spiritual and moral leaders gone, to reverse this process, instead of to grease it? Organized and funded philosophy and religion have been turned into handmaidens for "educating" humanity into sub-humanization. To believe oligarchs devoid of higher minded spirituality put the needs of the world above their self interest is to be an idiot. If decent Americans want their republic back, they will have to wake up. 

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

Orwell's 1984: "Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” 

********************** 

You could post that on every door and shout it from every roof top, and Libs, trained from the womb on, would still never ever comprehend it.

They would still BELIEVE in the fundamental goodness of government, provided only that it produces more and more useful idiots (incompetent, irresponsible, pinkie-wagging fems).

Why? Because that is the only religion they know. They have never learned how to think further or to think for themselves. It's all about the Gov-Womb. Once you have trained a wuss, you can call him a wuss ever thereafter, and he will always think you meant it as a compliment.


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

The fem attack on masculinity is really an attack on individual competence and responsibility. The purpose is to push people to run into the arms of lying or incompetent opportunists pretending to be good governors, providing free hugs, health care, welfare, education, and entertainment.

How long have feminazis and femimen been in charge of the agglomerating nonsense of education K-12? Yet they claim males are responsible for all the agglomerating evil? That does not compute.

We are seeing the revenge of the fem-nerds, which amounts to the destruction of the republic. More people than ever have become incompetent in terms of self control and individual responsibility. Instead, these fragile Dinos and Rinos believe in control and rule by Big Gov. Controllers and Controllees.

They have no higher mindedness. In terms of responsibility among individuals. They have no way to derive ought from is. They do not believe in God. Certainly not in any God that presumes against any immediate cuddles or pleasures. Apart from wanting to use Gov to rule or be ruled in all things, they simply have no individual sense of responsible higher mindedness.

Their credo, to tolerate everything, reduces to absurdity and ashes. Socially, they are the most incompetent of the incompetent. Yet, they and their stoolies have somehow, while Americans slept, infested every power base and institution.

The Pinkie-Wagging Diversity Coalition is far less about opposing White Supremacism than it is about rendering impotent all attempts to assimilate sustainable values of human decency, dignity, and liberty. It imagines that volunteering for servitude under phony promising Elites will produce group security that is better than individual responsibility. It is greasing the world for mass enserfment under the most contemptible of goose-stepping, mincing rulers.

The Mueller witch hunt is a product of the Deep State. The Deep State is a product of mass gender dysphoria and male fem-inization.

Many people think males are the cause of wars and misery. They think turning control over to fems and femimen is the solution. But males have been educated K-12 primarily by women since at least the start of WWII.

"Security First" contributes to police becoming more prone to shoot children waving BB guns or toy guns. "Safe Spaces" notions prolong the time needed for children to grow up to become functioning, competent, free- thinking adults. That keeps them malleable under oligarchs promising free lunches. That keeps Antifa easily riled to promote violence and riots.

But for mass feminization and "nasty women" wanting to marry the gov, our overlording people-farmers could not possibly keep all the hate against Trump and individual responsibility to such a fever pitch.

A nation over-balanced by fems simply cannot raise up the men required to preserve and defend a decent republic. I hope the election of Obama was the high water mark for such nonsense.


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

Swamping diversity renders suspect every attempt at voluntary assimilation of values. It greases us to allow the rappers, academics, and leaders among us to keep us divided, so the most corrupt among us can divide and rule us.

Leftists believe their rappers, academics, and leaders have marshaled "secular moral science" to devise the best political system for dictating correct thoughts, values, pleasures, hobbies, diets, fashions, and relationships. So the lowest common sub-humanizing denominator prevails: Rampant hedonism, depravity, and child grooming.

So there is no excuse for not conforming to hedonism, depravity, and child grooming. Anyone who does not conform gets stalked, shouted down, shushed, sullied, silenced, suspended.

The only freedom you need is the freedom to embrace the depravity. They made this system to secure for you the blessings of hedonism, depravity, and child grooming, so the least you could do is say thank you. Prison is freedom! S/

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

I suspect most people tend to rationalize their beliefs less around a search for truth than around what they apprehend to be in their self interest, especially their financial interest. Central power agglomerates to those most inclined to rationalize in the service of their finances. Cue the Deep State.

Grabbers will always be easy tools for people farming corrupti. Suppose someone like Trump actually were to seek to check the Deep State in order to rebalance the representative republic. Would it not be astonishing if numerous Deep State operatives did not resist and seek to undermine Trump's efforts?

At stake is nothing less than the heart of America. This will be a hard fight that good Americans simply cannot afford to lose.

&&&&&&&&&&

Oligarchical socialism is people farming by baiting useful idiots. And man are they useful. And idiotic.

If the USA does not put brakes on the oligarchy's training, funding, indoctrination, and importation of useful idiots, then say goodbye to human decency, freedom, and dignity.

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

If we want to preserve a decent society for all citizens, then we need to get past tribal favoritism and scapegoating. "Corrupt" does not have an absolute meaning in itself. Hardly any thing or idea does. But "corrupt" does have meaning in respect of relationships. If you value representative republicanism that accords freedom and dignity to its citizens, then promotion of tribal favoritism most certainly is often corrupting of such a republic. The incapacity of hedonistic, godless, navel-gazers to understand that amazes me.

"Evolution" is not a magic word talisman to explain much of anything. It is more like a tautology that circles back to pretend to "explain" how what went before must have been the "cause" (rather than correlate) of what came after. More mature thinkers do not pretend to know that everything is causally determined. Some, to run from spiritual implications, punt to multiverses and notions that everything that is possible must in some world or universe be inevitable. However, that kind of fanciful faith hardly qualifies as an explanation. It is more like a religious belief.

Among all possible sequences after a given situation is presented, no one has an adequate explanation for what determines each possibility that actually comes to present itself in sequentially measurable manifestation. To come in after the fact and posit that what occurred must have been what was "most fit" to the situation does not answer much, especially with regard to values or morals. Nor does it answer how we evolve to design our further evolution. Nor does it help inspire people to assimilate to any kind of society.

IOW, as a moral concept (rather than as a prop for wannabe knowitalls), it is crap. It does not help much at all to guide us with regard to where we should seek to take society or humanity. But it does seem to offer solace for every imaginable mindset that functions to undermine the kinds of faith, family, and fidelity that seem to be essential to decent and sustainable society.

Regarding indecency: Sooner or later, godless or godforsaken hedonism gets around to the grooming and abusing of children. Which is where we are now.

Q: Do moral evolutionists imagine they are "higher minded"? If not, why do they care? If for no real reason, then they could get a bot-board and just fling random stuff out there. It would make as much moral sense.


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

The truth should be spoken aloud: McCain served the interests of open-border advocates (oligarchs and corporatists), and then worked himself into a self-righteous lather to fool himself into believing that was in the best interest of Americans and the Republic.

McCain was a corrupt sell out who convinced himself he was doing patriotic work, even as he was undermining the republic. He was like an alternating current, alternating between corruption and ignorance. Ungood.

If we cannot call blatant republic-destroying evil what it is, if we cannot call anti-Americanism what it is, if we go along with celebrating evil, then we will not be able to summon the will to resist or reverse the evil.

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

The Mueller witch hunt is a product of the Deep State. Is the Deep State a product of mass gender dysphoria and male fem-inization?

Many people think males are the cause of wars and misery. They think turning control over to fems and femimen is the solution. But males have been educated K-12 primarily by women since at least the start of WWII. And some of the Nazis had exotic goose stepping proclivities.

So maybe the cause of all the warlike activity since 1945 has been the feminization of males?

Maybe "security first" contributes to police becoming more prone to shoot children waving BB guns or toy guns? Maybe "safe spaces" notions prolong the time needed for children to grow up to become functioning, competent, free- thinking adults? Maybe that helps keep them malleable under oligarchs promising free lunches? Maybe that keeps Antifa easily riled to promote violence and riots. But for "nasty women" wanting to marry the gov and mass feminization, how could our overlording people-farmers possibly keep all the hate against Trump and individual responsibility to such a fever pitch?

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

The FISA Court is a decoration. Bling to distract people, so they can believe the power given to the DOJ/FBI/IRS as agents for the Deep State to intimidate and farm people is "reasonable."

So why do so many useful idiots believe giving the Deep State power to redistribute free stuff in order to pursue social justice would be a good thing? Giving stoolies for the Deep State the power to determine what is fair and just is guaranteed to lead to despotic people-farming, not to the socialist utopia imagined by useful idiots.

Fairness and Equality under Socialism meted out by Benign Rulers is a tale for fairiies that greases the path to worldwide, open-bordered, nation-destroyed enserfment. A gross dream for despots, a fairie delusion for useful idiots, but actualized hell on Earth.

If we don't revivify the representative republic and stop importing and indoctrinating liberty-illiterates, Hell will come reaping. Who hates Trump? All the agents for sub-humanizing the world.

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

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

Some disagree that Lincoln could have bought the States.

"One idea that will not die is the notion that Lincoln could have purchased the slaves freedom and thus avoided the Civil War. This argument ignores many factors. Among them: the fact that slavemasters actually liked being slavemasters and believe their system to be a "positive good." The fact that slavery was a social institution that granted benefits beyond hard cash. The fact that Lincoln tried compensated emancipation in Delaware and was rebuffed. The fact that no state was eager to have a large portion of black free people within its borders. But more than anything the argument ignores the fact that compensated emancipation was not economically possible. At all." -- https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/no-lincoln-could-not-have-bought-the-slaves/277073/

Think about how easy it is today to arouse racist feelings and grievance groups. Look at all the screams of white privilege and the hatred against Trump. Could Trump satisfy all these screamers just by promising to strive for a colorblind society? No, obviously, he could not. There are simply too many corrupt and ignorant people. Liberty-illiterate people. Nasty parasites. A lot of parasites do not want a color blind society. They WANT to enserf and suck from other people. Forever.

To me, trying to lay all the blame against Lincoln for what is an obvious and commonplace deficiency in human character is simply a non-starter. We need to look at humanity with all its warts if we are to retain any chance to revivify a representative republic.

I want a representative republic. But I refuse to be blind to the gross deficiencies in character among so very many people. People who are so easily manipulated by corrupt and devious people-farming oligarchs. We have to look at the real problem. As Pogo said, we have met the enemy, and he is us. If we want a representative republic, we need to be much more selective about immigration. We need to stop importing liberty-illiterates faster than we can assimilate them. But the people-farming Establishment will resist that all the way. To make excuses for parasites, such as by placing all the blame on Lincoln, is to keep oneself blind to the problem. Imo.

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

I wonder how many children who were victims of abuse by trusted adults went on to seek to abuse power in much the same way it was abused against them? For whatever reason, this practice of silently condoning the abuse and grooming of children lies behind the rampant promotion of the worst of the worst in every institution. Everyone who condones this is complicit in the destruction of decent society. Who are the decent and good exemplars for children of today?

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

McCain welcomed Palin's help when he stood for reelection to the Senate. Now, he and/or his family show their classless ingratitude.

McCain was a tool for open border oligarchs. What kind of person can believe you can allow open borders and keep a republic? So how can anyone like McCain, Mueller, or Romney call themselves Republicans? Only by lying. McCain was a tool; not a Republican. He and the ilk he worked for were always Rinos. A step below dog poop, because at least dog poop does not pretend to be something that it is not.

They try to excuse the inexcusable. Every sentient person can readily see how the political (as opposed to racial) demographic is shifting to a socialist/sheeple demographic that believes in and votes for insane free-stuff political promises. The faster we indoctrinate and import non-assimilating people from socialist cultures, the faster the electorate flips into easily farmable idiocy.

How many California's, Mexico's, Argentina's, and Venezuela's does the world need, before it can figure this out? Too much of the hagiography of McCain is coming from cynical, corrupt, people-farmers and their useful idiots. The truth is, except to use McCain to dump on Trump, Dems would have no use for him.

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

As an institution, the Catholic Church has a severe problem, but it is a problem now facing nearly every institution of significant persuasive influence. Including many Protestant denominations, academia, media, banking, the judiciary, Congress, Hollywood. Many of our institutional leaders seem to have been selected for promotion precisely because they are the worst of the worst.

Useful idiots everywhere have been made soft in the head, so they are now tolerant of nearly every kind of perversion and depravity imaginable. Of course, this anti-civilizing and indecent lunacy was bound to lead to the grooming of children for abuse. And from there to the destruction of republics. And from there to the farming of the masses, as if they were of no more value than sexed up sheeple.

IOW, too many ignoranti and corrupti exchanged their decency and brains for their immediate gratifications. So now we reap this. In every institution. Even to the destruction of our borders and our republic. Among many people, good sense has simply been sucked right out their nether regions into the vortex. There will not be a nice way to come back from this rampant evil.

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

What you guess sounds reasonable and it may be true. However, to me, it remains a guess. At the time in question, I am not satisfied that it would have been possible to buy out the slaves and the slavery institution --- at any price. In any event, I say again: Lincoln did not cause the southern states to secede. Their attachment to the institution of slavery did. Once they seceded, Lincoln contended with that situation.

Now, whether Lincoln should have allowed the Confederacy to go peacefully on its way is a different question. But the secession itself was the act of the leaders of the South. And, again I say, the people who chose secession because they wanted to keep their slaves cannot on that account reasonably be said to be virtuous.

Which is my point: The ilk that need slaves and inferiors and racism are the ilk of the Dino/Rino Uniparty of ignoranti and corrupti. And they are the SAME KIND OF ILK THAT ARE TODAY RUNNING THE DEM PARTY OF RACE BAITING RACISTS. Diversionary debate about Lincoln's virtue or lack of it has nothing to do with that. IOW, when it comes to sustaining a representative republic, race baiters, whether they be Dinos or Rinos, suck.

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

I like Reagan's take. There is Right and there is Wrong. Human freedom and dignity versus despotic people-farming that pretends to be pursuing social justice and fairness. Free Thinkers v. Safe Twinkers.

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

It's as if we are all riding along, circling our own drain vortex, while all the drains are likewise circling some vortex --- that ultimately defies our observation. Ghost Riders of the Vortex, and there ain't no easy way out. Enjoy the ride.

Vortextual gravitational sinks obey fundamental algorithmic properties of math, not physical properties of space-in-itself.

The appearance of expanding space is derivative of the math basis for the apparent expansion of out cosmos. Not a derivative of space in itself.

Gravitational sinks are a correlate expression of the system of algorithms that establish our cosmos; they are not in themselves ultimately causal.

The appearance of every vortex is fundamental to the way all appearances seem to be organized.

But vortexes are not physical existents in themselves.

In essence, they are more mathical than physical.

There are no real expansions of space. Rather, there are apparent expansions in space, derivative of mathicality.

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

When the "watchdog" press acts like circus seals, trained to do tricks for media owners and agitation-funders.

When caring isn't caring. How many institutions have now been corrupted to groom and abuse children under pretext of caring for them?

When a pedophile gets political power, what moral code could he possibly have that would protect the public? Answer: None whatsoever. So, how many pedophiles are now being selected by our various institutions, such as the priesthood, academia, Scouts, Hollywood, media, higher levels of corporations, Congress, and so on? Where does the trans-perv agenda stop? When do people wake up and realize that our central institutions have been taken over by some of the worst of the worst? So why should such perverted femimen and feminazis be trusted, when they fund political agitation, open borders, and mass grooming of school children? When do ordinary, decent citizens begin to fight back? When we elect Pocahontas? S/

The Wussy Left has become so tolerant of every depravity that it has lost all credibility to claim a right to be indignant about anything.

I much doubt the southern states would have seceded or formed a confederacy except to defend the institution of slavery. True, Lincoln's main purpose was to preserve the union. However, he would not have deemed his efforts necessary had the South not seceded on account of its leaders' desire to preserve the institution of slavery. I do not appreciate why any apologist for slavery should guise himself as virtuous by skipping over slavery in order to divert blame on Lincoln for wanting to preserve the union and, in a larger sense, for wanting to preserve republican institutions that, at their core, demand respect for the freedom and dignity of all citizens.

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

No moral code is without some arbitrary subjectivity.
Most modern institutions of education, indoctrination, and information tend to be somewhat godless.
As I survey the condition of the USA, I do not sense much hope that it will be able to continue to abide as a representative republic or to be able to resist the machinations of oligarchic people farmers.
I do not sense such farmers to be benign, nor do I get why so many useful idiots actually believe there is any effective intention to usher in a new age of globally socialistic free stuff.
Whatever the "scientific" or "progressive" bent of modern educators, it seems more likely to promote human degradation and collective enserfment than it does enlightenment, dignity, freedom, or even humanity.
Most ideas about God tend to imagine a benign Reconciler that is interested in humanity. That aspect is neither entirely subjective nor entirely objective. Rather, it shares aspects of both.
Similarly, Consciousness objectively abides, but it functions subjectively.
The idea of God tends to be of a Conscious aspect or entity. Which entails subjectivity.
Many god believers take traditional religious stories to be metaphors. Like stories with morals. For moral guidance.
No responsible parent would raise a child to be without moral guidance.
The goal is to produce a responsible, free-thinking, caring child.
Without that, no representative republic can be sustained.
Militant atheists worry too much about literalism that most thinkers do not literally believe in.
Why else would we see so many child abusers, pervs, and deviants celebrated and promoted to positions of power, everywhere? Nowadays, responsible parents can hardly trust priests, teachers, journalists, politicians, and certainly not lying people-farming oligarchs that want to destroy the republic by opening wide its borders.
IOW, militant atheists tilt at windmills, while their republic is stolen beneath their feet.

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

Militant Legalistas (femimen and social justice "warriors") want legalism out the wazoo to replace individual competence, dignity, and freedom. Their program translates into people farming by Big Brotha Sista. (There ought be a law for everything; there oughta be a scientific explanation for everything.) In their own countries, this fetish for legalism / elitism turns into fascism or totalitarianism. So they migrate to representative republics, where they spread their sickness --- too blind to see how sick it is, or too corrupt to forego its opportunities. Nasty parasites.

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

Glad to.
E PLURIBUS UNUM:

Preserving a nation depends on preserving an assimilating culture. But to encourage permanent minority enclaves would be to encourage permanent division. To encourage multiple permanent varieties of such enclaves would be to encourage multiple permanent divisions. People acculturated to such enclaves would tend to become biased in favor of them and sometimes biased against those outside them. No doubt, many such enclaves persist year after year. (I rode to Harlingen several days ago and got trapped in traffic after an accident ahead at about 1:30 am. People were standing outside their vehicles, and I could find no one who could speak English.) Yet, the very people encouraging such permanent divisions seem often to blame others for dividing Americans. To me, this makes little sense.

A key to cultural attitudes about assimilation may be in how children are named. Here is an article that shows some insights (even though I think much of it is squishy political correctness): See https://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/news/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants.

Regarding how likely a group of immigrants is to remain an alien presence inside America's borders long after settling here: "[F]or immigrants who arrived in the 1900s and 1910s, the more time they spent in the U.S., the less likely they were to give their children foreign-sounding names."
"By 1930, more than two-thirds of immigrants had applied for citizenship and almost all reported they could speak some English."

Compare http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-immigrants-0515-md-20170515-story.html: "Right-wing nativists believe Mexicans won't assimilate, and the far-left multiculturalists think they shouldn't." "It's no surprise then that overall assimilation rates for Mexican-Americans do not match those of other immigrant groups...."

So, what happens as each enclave sees others claiming special entitlement to reparations or special favors? Well, human nature is that, soon enough, all begin to claim entitlement to special favors. After all, if they don't whine first and loudest, some other group will. (Kurt Vonnegut's short story about Harrison Bergeron may be of interest in this regard.)

However, entitlement-minded groups seeking special favors need a common scapegoat to unite them. It tends not to be effective to make the oligarchs that own the media and most of our politicians and institutional leaders the scapegoats, because they have the money and means to punish and deflect. So, the scapegoat to which deflection is made needs to be a softer target. Such as a demographic that has been trained to naively project its good faith and good will to assume those values are held by everyone.

The demographic most obviously targeted by opinion-shaping oligarchs nowadays consists of white Christian males with responsible jobs. They are expected to accept that unjust attitudes of extreme privilege and supremacism must be in their skin color and genes. But, of course, not in any others. So, white Christian males with responsible jobs must be made to atone to everyone else.

Problem is, good faith and good will do not necessarily apply to practiced whiners, narcissists, sociopaths, or wannabe people-farmers. Rather, many able-bodied "minorities" are taught to believe social justice entitles them to special favors in perpetuity --- not because of the content of their character or the merit of their talent or work, but almost solely because of the color of their skin, the "fluidity" of their gender, or the ancestry of their national origin. There seems to be no statue of limitations on such claims. The expectations are not for a one-time adjustment, but for special favors in perpetuity. So how can such a mindset consider itself in any way to be decent or principled?

How helpful are affirmative-action special-favors? Has welfare as promoted by our rulers really helped Black families? 77% of black births are now to single moms, 49% for Hispanic immigrants. What is causing this? Not enough welfare or socialism? Too much coddling of entitlement-mindedness? Or something else?

MUSING: I think America needs more control over immigration, more assimilation and a better means-tested safety net, socialism that does not impede the work ethic, less entitlement-mindedness, more respect for individual competence and responsibility. Much less focus on race and ethnicity.


It's not that I do not see the plight of poor people or people of broken homes. It's that I think such people should be fairly treated --- REGARDLESS of skin color. But what do I see? Special pleading by Blacks (BLM), Hispanics (La Raza), Gays (men in women's bathrooms; school children being groomed).


This is based on a culture of Division, based on scapegoating. But who is being scapegoated? Not the real culprits. Not the oligarchs that want to destroy the borders and the republic. No, the scapegoat chosen by the oligarchs to deflect attention away from their divisive hate agitation consists of white Christian males with responsible jobs (now called "White Supremacists").


Yes, there is divisive hate being stirred! But for goodness sake, get the right culprit!

Op-- Fascist Moral Scientism

*********

Empathy:

Well, I do NOT claim there is no basis for objective morality. I claim general empathy provides an innate basis for making decisions about social morals, ethics, values, purposes. I claim empathy among perspectives of consciousness is objectively innate (self evident). What I DO claim is that such empathy is subject to nurturing and that a subjective aspect for such issues cannot be eliminated. Certainly, not merely by defining a rug under which to try to sweep the subjective aspects.

I am less concerned with definitional contrivances than I am with how to sustain a decent, responsible citizenry for a representative republic. I do not think you addressed those concerns. I do not care so much about systems for definitions that do not relate to real world concerns beyond definitional contrivances. It is fine to contrive a definition of "physical health" (or even well being or welfare) to a system that avails measurables. But it is not so fine to pretend that a mere system for definitions or measurables can lead to resolution of real world concerns that such definitions do not address.

Weinberg made the inference to utilitarianism. For trying to prescribe an appearance of objective morality, one can substitute any word one may want. Utilitarianism, pleasure, happiness, greatest good for greatest number, well being, physical health, and so on. The problem will remain: How to apply an objective standard for one as a standard for all subjects. That is where nonsense tends to come in. I gave examples for that, which you seem not to have digested.

The nub is this: To what extent do we want responsible, competent, free thinking adults to participate in the assimilation of social morals, ethics, values, purposes, and to what extent do we want such responsibility to be surrendered to moral experts, for them to make decisions based on definitions contrived because they yield measurables? The "answer," I think, is CONTINGENT on what kind of society/republic we want and what kind of cultural competency the general citizenry has. Some societies are not especially competent or liberty literate, so rule under "moral experts" may be what most of them want (or deserve?).

Regarding sacred texts: I did not mean to imply that I take specific literalisms in any such texts to be sound for all societies in all places. Rather, I take them as guides for understanding historical ways of thought and as metaphors. I tried to point up how Jesus swept most of such literalisms under two general moral commandments. In modern parlance, I prefer Good Faith as a synopsis for the Great Commandment, and Good Will as a synopsis for the Golden Rule.

However, I subsume both under an innate tendency for being empathetic. The problem for a society is in how specifically to nurture and assimilate that empathy to particular and recurrent social applications. By no contrivance can any unfolding resolution of that problem be accomplished entirely free of either the objective (implicating innate empathy) or the subjective (implicating nurtured values). For such purpose, I think the objective and the subjective are inextricably linked. I think trying to untie that link is a snipe hunt.

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

Well, what does "physical health" mean? Does it encompass the health of dangerous individuals, societies, or national rulers? Does it prefer mental prowess, emotional stability, or cultural purposefulness? How should it encompass goals for genetic and cyber engineering, and for which individuals? Or fitness to an assigned job? To be assigned or determined by whom? Does physical health favor conditioning for speed, or endurance, or strength, or disease resistance?

Is it objectively moral to improve the health of a despotic psychopath able to put his finger on the button? Should every person receive medical treatment to maximize "physical health," even if it leads to reduction of effectiveness of inoculations or susceptibility to pandemic because of lack of genetic or health diversity?

Nonsense, Per Steven Weinberg: "Now, Sam Harris is aware of this kind of counter argument [to utilitarianism], and says it's not happiness, it's human welfare. Well, as you make things VAGUER and vaguer, of course, it becomes harder and harder to say it doesn't fit your own moral feelings, but it also becomes less and less useful as a means of making moral judgements. You could take that to the extreme and make up some nonsense word and say that's the important thing and no-one could refute it but it wouldn't be very helpful. I regard human welfare and the way Sam Harris refers to it as sort of halfway in that direction to absolute nonsense."

IAE, what would maximizing the physical health for the greatest number entail? Whose health would be sacrificed so the health of the greatest number could be maximized? Who would decide? Some healthy people stay that way because they decline to live in antiseptic environments. That way, they harden their immune systems. Can any moral scientisimist say who should thus harden himself and who should not?

What resources should be sacrificed to pursue the greatest physical health for the greatest number? Should resources be sacrificed for developing technologies to defend nations or the world against artificial or natural asteroid attacks? What objective moral science based on physical health or well being can or should objectively answer such questions? Should the masses have no say against the "moral experts"?

NOTE: I do not oppose scientific research to find cures or to improve health. I think populations should seek to assimilate values for pursuing such aims. But to call such assimilations of values "objectively good" in the sense of being purely determinable by expert moral scientists is a reach too far. I agree with the idea of contingent morality. I agree that an idea of mutual empathy is both contingently and objectively valid. However, because such idea of empathy necessitates reference to subjectivity, I think moral issues, like existentiality generally, entangles both with objectivity and subjectivity. To me, that seems obvious.

To me, a notion that morality is entirely subjective is nonsense. And an idea that morality can be reduced to pure objectivity is likewise nonsense. Rather, the idea of morality is entangled both with innate empathy and with particular subjectivity. As Jesus said: Good Faith (Great Commandment), and Good Will (Golden Rule). If (CONTINGENTLY) we want a decent republic of free thinking and responsible adults, we need to stop teaching children that morality is entirely subjective (or does not exist), and we need to stop teaching children to believe, irresponsibly, that morality is entirely objective (what fake moral scientisimists say it is). And we need to stop ridiculing or reviling wisdom just because it may be found in ancient texts.

Btw, I suspect some neuroscientists believe they can objectively quantify pleasure. Problem: Do we really want a world of pleasure addicts? Maybe we can put everyone on the Cloud/Matrix after we divine algorithms to control AI to service our pleasures. Lol.

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

Every sentient person can readily see how the political (as opposed to racial) demographic is shifting to a socialist/sheeple demographic that believes in and votes for insane free-stuff political promises. The faster we indoctrinate and import non-assimilating people from socialist cultures, the faster the electorate flips into idiocy. How many California's, Mexico's, Argentina's, and Venezuela's does the world need, before it can figure this out?

What kind of person can believe you can allow open borders and keep a republic? So how can anyone like Mueller call himself a Republican? Only by lying. He is not a Republican. He and the ilk he works for are Rinos. A step below dog poop. At least dog poop does not pretend to be something that it is not.

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

As an institution, the Catholic Church has a severe problem, but it is a problem now facing nearly every institution of significant persuasive influence. Including many Protestant denominations, academia, media, banking, the judiciary, Congress, Hollywood. Many of our institutional leaders seem to have been selected for promotion precisely because they are the worst of the worst.

Useful idiots everywhere have been made soft in the head, so they are now tolerant of nearly every kind of perversion and depravity imaginable. Of course, this anti-civilizing and indecent lunacy was bound to lead to the grooming of children for abuse. And from there to the destruction of republics. And from there to the farming of the masses, as if they were of no more value than sexed up sheeple.

IOW, too many ignoranti and corrupti exchanged their decency and brains for their immediate gratifications. So now we reap this. In every institution. Even to the destruction of our borders and our republic. Among many people, good sense has simply been sucked right out their nether regions into the vortex. There will not be a nice way to come back from this rampant evil.

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

When a pedophile gets political power, what moral code could he possibly have that would protect the public? Answer: None whatsoever. So, how many pedophiles are now being selected by our various institutions, such as the priesthood, academia, Scouts, Hollywood, media, higher levels of corporations, Congress, and so on? Where does the trans-perv agenda stop? When do people wake up and realize that our central institutions have been taken over by some of the worst of the worst? So why should such perverted femimen and feminazis be trusted, when they fund political agitation, open borders, and mass grooming of school children? When do ordinary, decent citizens begin to fight back? When we elect Pocahontas? S/

The Wussy Left has become so tolerant of every depravity that it has lost all credibility to claim a right to be indignant about anything.

*********

Far more abusive to children and nations are the useful idiots that believe they should help the "benign" oligarchs that want to open their borders and replace their republics.

Where is the evidence that any open-border adcocating oligarch ever had the best interests of the people at heart? Yet, Progs prefer to place their trust not in theirselves or an ideal of a higher Mind, but in oligarchs systematically selected for their people-farming proclivities.

So, who is the biggest abuser?

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

No moral code is without some arbitrary subjectivity.
Most modern institutions of education, indoctrination, and information tend to be somewhat godless.
As I survey the condition of the USA, I do not sense much hope that it will be able to continue to abide as a representative republic or to be able to resist the machinations of oligarchic people farmers.
I do not sense such farmers to be benign, nor do I get why so many useful idiots actually believe there is any effective intention to usher in a new age of globally socialistic free stuff.
Whatever the "scientific" or "progressive" bent of modern educators, it seems more likely to promote human degradation and collective enserfment than it does enlightenment, dignity, freedom, or even humanity.
Most ideas about God tend to imagine a benign Reconciler that is interested in humanity. That aspect is neither entirely subjective nor entirely objective. Rather, it shares aspects of both.
Similarly, Consciousness objectively abides, but it functions subjectively.
The idea of God tends to be of a Conscious aspect or entity. Which entails subjectivity.
Many god believers take traditional religious stories to be metaphors. Like stories with morals. For moral guidance.
No responsible parent would raise a child to be without moral guidance.
The goal is to produce a responsible, free-thinking, caring child.
Without that, no representative republic can be sustained.
Militant atheists worry too much about literalism that most thinkers do not literally believe in.
Why else would we see so many child abusers, pervs, and deviants celebrated and promoted to positions of power, everywhere? Nowadays, responsible parents can hardly trust priests, teachers, journalists, politicians, and certainly not lying people-farming oligarchs that want to destroy the republic by opening wide its borders.
IOW, militant atheists tilt at windmills, while their republic is stolen beneath their feet.

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

Militant Legalistas (femimen and social justice "warriors") want legalism out the wazoo to replace individual competence, dignity, and freedom. Their program translates into people farming by Big Brotha Sista. (There ought be a law for everything; there oughta be a scientific explanation for everything.) In their own countries, this fetish for legalism / elitism turns into fascism or totalitarianism. So they migrate to representative republics, where they spread their sickness --- too blind to see how sick it is, or too corrupt to forego its opportunities. Nasty parasites.

***********

E PLURIBUS UNUM:

Preserving a nation depends on preserving an assimilating culture. But to encourage permanent minority enclaves would be to encourage permanent division. To encourage multiple permanent varieties of such enclaves would be to encourage multiple permanent divisions. People acculturated to such enclaves would tend to become biased in favor of them and sometimes biased against those outside them. No doubt, many such enclaves persist year after year. (I rode to Harlingen several days ago and got trapped in traffic after an accident ahead at about 1:30 am. People were standing outside their vehicles, and I could find no one who could speak English.) Yet, the very people encouraging such permanent divisions seem often to blame others for dividing Americans. To me, this makes little sense.

A key to cultural attitudes about assimilation may be in how children are named. Here is an article that shows some insights (even though I think much of it is squishy political correctness): See https://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/news/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants.

Regarding how likely a group of immigrants is to remain an alien presence inside America's borders long after settling here: "[F]or immigrants who arrived in the 1900s and 1910s, the more time they spent in the U.S., the less likely they were to give their children foreign-sounding names."
"By 1930, more than two-thirds of immigrants had applied for citizenship and almost all reported they could speak some English."

Compare http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-immigrants-0515-md-20170515-story.html: "Right-wing nativists believe Mexicans won't assimilate, and the far-left multiculturalists think they shouldn't." "It's no surprise then that overall assimilation rates for Mexican-Americans do not match those of other immigrant groups...."

So, what happens as each enclave sees others claiming special entitlement to reparations or special favors? Well, human nature is that, soon enough, all begin to claim entitlement to special favors. After all, if they don't whine first and loudest, some other group will. (Kurt Vonnegut's short story about Harrison Bergeron may be of interest in this regard.)

However, entitlement-minded groups seeking special favors need a common scapegoat to unite them. It tends not to be effective to make the oligarchs that own the media and most of our politicians and institutional leaders the scapegoats, because they have the money and means to punish and deflect. So, the scapegoat to which deflection is made needs to be a softer target. Such as a demographic that has been trained to naively project its good faith and good will to assume those values are held by everyone.

The demographic most obviously targeted by opinion-shaping oligarchs nowadays consists of white Christian males with responsible jobs. They are expected to accept that unjust attitudes of extreme privilege and supremacism must be in their skin color and genes. But, of course, not in any others. So, white Christian males with responsible jobs must be made to atone to everyone else.

Problem is, good faith and good will do not necessarily apply to practiced whiners, narcissists, sociopaths, or wannabe people-farmers. Rather, many able-bodied "minorities" are taught to believe social justice entitles them to special favors in perpetuity --- not because of the content of their character or the merit of their talent or work, but almost solely because of the color of their skin, the "fluidity" of their gender, or the ancestry of their national origin. There seems to be no statue of limitations on such claims. The expectations are not for a one-time adjustment, but for special favors in perpetuity. So how can such a mindset consider itself in any way to be decent or principled?

How helpful are affirmative-action special-favors? Has welfare as promoted by our rulers really helped Black families? 77% of black births are now to single moms, 49% for Hispanic immigrants. What is causing this? Not enough welfare or socialism? Too much coddling of entitlement-mindedness? Or something else?

MUSING: I think America needs more control over immigration, more assimilation and a better means-tested safety net, socialism that does not impede the work ethic, less entitlement-mindedness, more respect for individual competence and responsibility. Much less focus on race and ethnicity.


It's not that I do not see the plight of poor people or people of broken homes. It's that I think such people should be fairly treated --- REGARDLESS of skin color. But what do I see? Special pleading by Blacks (BLM), Hispanics (La Raza), Gays (men in women's bathrooms; school children being groomed).


This is based on a culture of Division, based on scapegoating. But who is being scapegoated? Not the real culprits. Not the oligarchs that want to destroy the borders and the republic. No, the scapegoat chosen by the oligarchs to deflect attention away from their divisive hate agitation consists of white Christian males with responsible jobs (now called "White Supremacists").


Yes, there is divisive hate being stirred! But for goodness sake, get the right culprit!


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

SMART ATHEISTS: Well, I've been around awhile. So I think the density among militant atheists has more to do with self-selection. I doubt *smart atheists tend to be so militant. I suspect what drives militant atheists is often some weird sexual and drug proclivity. But that's just a suspicion.

*Actually, I suspect smart atheists tend to believe in an idea of "higher mindedness" (they often respect moral codes), but they have somehow become conditioned so that the word "God," laden as it is, leads them to shrink from the light.

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

I am saying I don't think people that hate the idea of an assimilating culture and instead prefer a salad bowl of contending groups of imavictim types are equipped to preserve a Constitutional Republic. Dems tend to defend the permanent salad-bowl-divided-status of various minority communities. So it's a bit nervy for them to blame such divisiveness on Repubs.

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

Sadly, like every other corruptible institution, a lot of organized churches have been enticed to put their dogma in the service of encouraging exploitation and destroying representative republics. It did not have to be this way. They could have actually stood for something.

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

Too many naive people project their good faith, as if it were shared among everyone else. However, there is definitely a class of narcissists, sociopaths, and self-godding people-farmers that sees nothing wrong in using every contrivance to seek personal gain. Such people have distinct advantages in finding ways to promote one another to higher levels of social and political influence. I think they have put the republic to risk perhaps greater than ever before. If we ever had a citizenry capable of preserving government of, by, and for the people, I am by no means confident that is still the case. I think every institution has been corrupted against the Constitutional Republic. Including academia, media, the civil service, the Church, and certainly the political parties. They are all infested with fiends or stoolies for oligarchic people-farmers utterly lacking in human decency, empathy, or good faith.

I am not a Republican. I loathe both Rinos and Dinos. I consider myself a Conserver of Liberty. I think anyone who does not see the need to defend the borders from being flooded with liberty-illiterates is seriously duped. Of course, a lot of such people probably think it would be just fine to eliminate borders and republics and just trust to the "fine, noble, olgarchs" funding most of this division. I don't.

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

It is impossible for any society to tolerate, fund, and promote every thing. I do not care in the least what you do with a consenting adult in your bedroom. I do care when you want to force me to fund the grooming of my children to your lifestyle, as if it were normal. Forcing children to celebrate transgenderism and anal sex is not normal to a representative republic of limited government. However, it is normal to a goose stepping society that wants to replace individual freedom and dignity with a system of gov totalitarianism as ruled by demented deviants. If that is what you want, take yourself to one of those nations. Caligula would have been proud.

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

My evidence is Qualitative. By my sense of being, I sense my conscious identity. I sense my identity is dependent on a feedback system. I sense that system consists of an immeasurable quality or aspect of Consciousness, a measurable aspect of Substance (matter and energy), and a cumulation of Information about previous sequences that is stored with presently manifesting Substance.

I am unable to conceptualize how any of the three (Consciousness, Substance, Information) could abide without the other two. If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) carries any truth value, then the aspects of Substance and Information could conceptually be collapsed into a math-based algorithm. That would still beg the question: Out of all possibilities within algorithmic parameters, how does any one sequence happen to become manifestly vectored? (Some people may pose the question as what collapses the wave function? Or, as Hawking mused, what breathes fire into the laws of Nature?)

So I would conceptualize the Godhead as consisting of three different faces for one reconciling reality: Consciousness/Substance/Information. None of those fluxing aspects or faces can exist by itself.

A mere appeal to chance is not very satisfactory. Nor a notion that all possibilities are made manifest in some algorithmic universe. That does not answer why mere math should ever "math itself." Moreover, it is perhaps even less parsimonious than a notion that Goddidit.

But even if math does somehow on some meta level factor itself (or undergo factoring by a Mathematician), that would seem to be a rather spiritual kind of math. IAE, IT is apparent that the system as a holism is one of dynamically fluxing feedback. IOW, what we think and do is factored by IT.

Of course, this is not a concept that can be empirically tested by going outside the cosmic system. We do not have access or power to conduct a double blind experiment on an alternative cosmos that is in all other respects kept the same. Rather, it is only a concept that seeks to be as consistent, coherent, and complete as reasonably possible. That facilitates ideas of empathetic connection, reconciliation, good faith, good will, and individual responsibility. All needed to facilitate a decent civilization that respects human freedom and dignified purposefulness. In that regard, the Bible is seen as a commonizing source of inspiring metaphors that connect us to sacred stories and ideas unfolding from the past.

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

FORCE? Where? People have social preferences. Everyone does.

For example, I prefer a representative republic that avails decent freedom and dignity for its citizens. That entails respect for borders, less centralized bureaucracy, more respect for traditional families, tolerance for tolerant faiths, less tolerance for anti-American creeds, education for competent free-thinking responsible adults, assimilation to American ideals, wariness of egg sucking able-bodied haters of America.

Problem is, what we now have is a crush of pinkie waggers, to wit: Entitlement-minded wussies, legalism out-the-wazoo knowitalls, self-godding people-farmers, college partiers molded to be useful idiots, and sex deviated maniacs that have no higher-minded faith bent on FORCING everyone else to recognize them as "objectively normal."

IOW, pinkie waggers that do not believe in any objective standards, even as they want to force society to recognize them as being objectively normal. These people are completely incapable of standing up to defend against real fascism. They are the grease for rotting us into totalitarian enserfment. Now, that would be FORCE.

*************
The War is between people raised to have a semblance of good faith, who know they are not perfect little godlings, versus people twisted to have no faith, who want to be their own gods.

In pursuit of whatever happens to gratify the people of no good faith, there tends to be no line that they will not cross and no outrage that they will not perpetrate.

Until experience teaches otherwise, people of good faith tend to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt and presume they also are of good faith. But experience eventually teaches that such is not the case. There are many incorrigibles, narcissists, sociopaths, and non-empaths whose only raison d'être is to pleasure themselves. Unfortunately, freshly minted graduates can do much harm before they finally wake up and walk away from the evil.

Stand for something or fall for everything. Being unable to stand for anything may have something to do with the War Against Masculinity. Or individual competence and responsibility. This is The War that has been going on since time immemorial.

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

Libs love America so much they can't wait to tear down the borders so the land can be flooded with ever more entitlement-minded liberty-illiterates. The better to produce a worldwide neo-plantation. To be governed, of course, by elite socialists that have only our best interests at heart. Gag!

In reply to Lincoln, asking whether a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are equal can avoid perishing from the earth, Libs say, "Here. Let me help it perish."

**********

TRUTH V. CONCEPTUALIZATION:

Except for trivial things, like things that are tautologies or true by definition, or perhaps reliably tested laws of nature, I doubt there are many "truths" that can be known as such with regard to human values and purposes.

Rather, there seems to be a good deal of self-fulfillment regarding such matters, which seems to differ among persons depending on many circumstances in their genetics, history, culture, and situational opportunities.

I doubt any accurate method for assigning numerical values to all such factors can determine the "truth" about what any person should most value for his life's purposes. Often, a person will have made a choice at a subjective level before his conscious self is even aware of it. In such cases, his conscious self may rationalize a reason after the fact. But that rationalized reason will be less a truth than a conceptualization.

So, to argue that one should base his life's choices solely on truths seems silly.

**********

Maybe you are using the words "cost-benefit analysis" in some kind of business actuarial way. If so, you're the only one that seems to be thinking in those terms. When I decide whether to take a vacation, I think about the cost, but I also think about intangible benefits. You know, like fun. Was the expense too much for the fun. Was the risk too much for the excitement. And so on. You seem to be making this harder than it is.

I'm not concerned with intellectual prowess. I was just correcting you concerning Pascal's Wager. Nor do I think you rebutted Dan. Certainly, not with any analogy based on Pascal's Wager.

Concise enough for you?

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

UNPRINCIPLED ANTI-AMERICANS:  If Obama and the people-farmers that fund him had any principles, they would be encouraging people to value one another based on the content of their character as individuals, rather than as pawns for a collectivist movement for creating a worldwide plantation under the boot of neo-elitist-fascists.

Let's face it, all these people-farmers and group-identity mongers may as well be contending factions of the KKK. None are any better than the KKK, but all accuse the others of being like the KKK. So now we have numerous collectivist-groups (blacks, hispanics, feminazis, femimen, gays, pagans, jihadis, indoctrinated students, incompetent entitlement-minded malcontents, etc.) all uniting against one group goat: White male straight Christians with responsible jobs, i.e., "White Privilegeds." Whiteys.

Those so-called Whiteys are presently too bewildered to fight back, such as by punishing the people-farmers that fund this, or by working to inspire people to return to decent principles, or even by resisting the trends for bestowing a crazy quilt of new political and economic benefits and entitlements on every conceivable kind of group that can cry-bully for victim status.

If people of all colors, genders, and orientations do not return to good sense, then Lincoln's test, whether this nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, will indeed be failed, and government of, by, and for the people will indeed perish from the earth.

There are forces at work trying to entice the nation to civil war. To try to ruin the nation conceived in liberty in order to replace it with a world conceived, divided, and ruled by greed, lust, profanity, perversion, and inhumanity. Goons, thugs, and sub-humans are heating the situation to dangerous temperatures, far beyond the remotest comprehension of the usefully idiotic, history-illiterate, special snowflake, tools of the Neo-Fascist People-Farrners.

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

Re: "My comments about the Wager was clearly tongue-in-cheek"

Aha! I see. You were sharing a private joke, even though it did not pertain to the Op.

IAE, I don't think you understand Pascal's Wager as well as you think. Pascal argues that a rational person should LIVE AS THOUGH God exists and seek to believe in God. I capitalized to help you focus. IOW, it had to do both with belief and with living a moral life under God. That would be a life of rectitude. Rectitude -- definition: Rightness of principle or conduct; moral virtue. So, you see, you're wrong again. Rectitude did enter his moral equation.

I suspect you wanted to share a laugh at Pascal's expense. Which is easy with regard to the irrationality of his Wager. But how was that Wager pertinent, except to take a cheap shot at Pascal?

Regarding heavenly salvation: That was the whole basis for Pascal's wager. And you were the one that brought it up. But I agree with you: Pascal's wager had nothing to do with the Op.

Regarding fun: Was not Dan talking in part about a cost-benefit (rewards and detriments) analysis for one's life in taking risks? "Fun" was just my tongue-in-cheek way to summarize that analysis.

I suspect you probably have some ideas worth sharing. However, I think you should take more care before assuming that someone's else's viewpoint has no bearing. Or before presuming to know something you clearly did not.

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

IRRATIONAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS ABOUT GOD:

I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Too many people define a word, like omniscient, and then assume it must apply to God. IOW, they try to prove an assumption by assuming it. "Proofs by definition" tend to be circular in that way. But what if, instead of knowing all that will be or can be, the Godhead "only" knows all that is? What if, instead of being able to perform impossibilities, the Godhead is "only" able to do all that is possible?

What if God inhabits math to pull zeros apart to put equations on each side, to facilitate and inhabit algorithms that define and limit our universe and the cosmos of possibilities? What if a Godhead of Mathematician and Math avails the system wherewith all our experiences as human consciousness, measurable substance, and accumulating information are facilitated?

Given such a *system of algorithmic feedback, why suppose any conscious aspect of the Godhead could not be surprised on account of feedback within the system?

When matter and antimatter are put together, should anyone suppose there abides anything more than the possibilities of math, as it is actively sequenced with a mathematician? Among all possible algorithmic expressions, why, but for interest in feedback, would ours be selected?

Atheists imagine they have an answer: That all possibilities must be expressed somewhere sometime in some universe. But they still have no answer to this: Why should mere math be or become activated to express transposing sequences of algorithms? Why should fire be breathed into mere math, to inhabit it?


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

*The range of algorithmic systems may be open, but the parameters availed within a particular algorithm may impose finitude within such system. This would impose conservational discipline, i.e, equations that have to balance, i.e., laws of nature. Still, whatever could possibly unfold within such parameters would be allowed, if by some means selected. So what is IT that selects each actual manifestation from within an entire array of possibilities? By my conceptualization, IT is a meta-mathematician operating in appreciation of feedback with a selected algorithmic system. But I do not imagine that must be anything more than a conceptualization.


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

GOD'S INTEREST:  I suspect God would be pretty bored if He were the lonely end all be all, with no capacity to entertain or appreciate perspectives apart from Himself. Sin seems an overly laden term for being interesting to God.

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

1) You are wrong about Pascal. See "Blaise Pascal", Columbia History of Western Philosophy, page 353: Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

2) An is-ought argument in the context of here and now goal seeking does not necessarily pertain to seeking heavenly salvation.

3) You did give an example. Here: "We see that all the time in politics where the need is a validation of a worldview and the "truth" is anything that meets that need."

4) True, you did not use the word fun. Perhaps because your world is limited to fact and truth seeking? I took that to be your idea of fun. But perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps there is no fun in your world.

I ignore your analysis, because it begins with such a patently false understanding of Pascal's Wager.

The problem with Pascal's Wager does not have to do with everyday choices for their own sake. It has to do with irrationality of seeking eternal salvation based on choice of what kind of God to believe in. Which does not define the topic of the Op.

See https://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/:

"According to the many-gods objection, Pascal’s wager begs the question and hence is irrational. It assumes that if God exists then God must take a rather specific form, which few open-minded agnostics would accept. Pascalians reply by invoking the notion of a genuine option (which is not defined), by devising run-off decision theory (which is not justified), by claiming that Pascal was understandably unaware of other cultures (which is not true), and by appealing to generic theism (which does not solve the problem)."

*********

FASCIST INEFFICIENCIES:  Fascist inefficiencies need to be fed. They may begin by feeding and cannibalizing on targeted citizens at home. Such as Jews. Now Whites. When that fuel is exhausted, fascism often elicits kickbacks through corrupt deals abroad. Clinton cash. When that is exhausted, fascism looks to cannibalize or replace weak neighbors. This may continue until the world reverts to mass serfdom. Because equality and fairness. S/

Lysenko tried to force science. But science often depends on bursts of insight and chance. It tends to resist blunt force. Maybe Musk is too much a blunt force kind of guy.

***********

PURPOSE OF UNIVERSE: To entertain possibilities to infinity.

PASCAL'S WAGER:  Did not Pascal's Wager pertain to trading earthly rectitude for possible eternal heavenly salvation, no matter how improbable? However, the Op does not pertain to heavenly salvation, but to how we go about trying to get the most out of everyday life.

For that, I don't think you are avoiding the Wager. In the example given, you seem to be making your own wager: That the potential fun of not cowering at home would be worth the risk of uncertain dangers. I also do that, often, when I ride my motorcycle at night.

My calculation is, I did not do that when I was responsible for two young daughters. But now that I am retired and my wife has a pension, the fun I get from riding seems worth it. But that is not a calculation I make by trying to put math values on facts or pluses and minuses.

Bottom line: We have no choice but to make choices, and the most important or enjoyable choices seem often to have to do with much more than calculable facts or truths. Concerning such everyday choices. invoking or denigrating Pascal's Wager seems generally pointless.

FACT ROBOTICISM:  If all we sought were facts, we would be little more than data crunching machines. Or memory recycling machines, watching the same movie over and over. We seek to appreciate life. To enjoy music, art, literature, experience, travel, friends, adventure, stimulation. What we appreciate changes when the old and familiar grows stale. When new experiences beckon us to even newer adventures.

That seems to be inherent with an feedback system that is finite but unbounded. Is it true that even God can be surprised? We can't know, but the truth is I hope so. Otherwise, what a pointless, boring chap.

The truth seems to be that we are bound to a system where antimatter matches matter and sums to zero, it it were all brought together and summed. Yet, math, in itself, would seem a lifeless thing. Something seems to break it into variously experience-able sequences of transitioning equations and algorithms, perhaps of infinite potentiality. It is for our conscious imaginations to revel in experiencing and appreciating those. Beyond the mere fact that they ultimately, by themselves, would sum to zero.

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

JEWISH TRIBALISM:  I would not agree that it's expected or ok to act tribally with regard to corporate, governmental, or academic opportunities. I especially would not agree that it's ok for Jews to act in that way while claiming that other Whites should not! Educated and decent Americans ought to strive to behave better than that. This is the road for replacing representative republics with socialistic banana republics and it needs to be stopped. It is a very poor excuse for identity politics (salad bowl reasoning against e pluribus unum).

I would agree with this: The mix and number of new immigrants allowed should be carefully monitored to ensure they adopt and assimilate to the values as described in the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately, it may now be too late for that. Our population is now too swamped with people that want to play identity politics, provided they exclude one targeted scapegoat group: White Christian straight males with productive jobs. That group is branded so as to be disallowed from playing the identity politics game. Except to hang its collective head and accept blame and recrimination.

The norm is not something the best society should strive for. That's why Civics should not have been sacrificed as a course of study. Now, it may be too late. Unfortunately, salad-bowl people think it's time to replace the Constitution and the founding ideals. They want to call it the product of dead white men, while failing to appreciate how experienced and well read those men were.

I think Jordan Peterson detests identity politics. Whether or not that's the case, I do. I think identity politics is a tactic the most corrupt among us use to divide and rule us. We condemn Hitler for it. I think we are right to do so.

But you may be right. It may be too late to restore decent assimilating values. We may be unable to avoid circling the drain all the way down to the banana republic. Because of our new "enlightened" salad bowl people.

*************
But for idealizing a reconciling Consciousness, I seem unable to imagine how there could abide an objective center for any abiding physicality, or even a subjective center for any perspective of packages of information.   Were there no way to idealize, imagine, or project an appearance or experience of a center, how can any physicality be idealized to be real-in-itself?

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

ENTANGLEMENT OF DIALECTICAL IDEALISM AND MATERIALISM:

Regarding the "science" (dialectical materialism) of socialism: Writing and studying history, philosophy, and literature can be more honest approaches for seeking a moral worldview than cherry-picking science. The more a study intertwines with subjective human consciousness, the less amenable it becomes to the methods of objective science.

Unless, perhaps, the people are fitted, like rats, to a long series of scientism as propaganda, until a culture can be fashioned for which the scientism seems for awhile to fit. Then a despot can train hordes of true-believing profs, students, and agitators. At least, until the world page turns.

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

FITTING PEOPLE TO THEORY INSTEAD OF THEORY TO PEOPLE:

Global Warming is people-farming in search of scientism. Its proponents will change the "theory" until, by dividing and diversifying and pressure cooking enough people, they can select a people that will adopt the scientism religion.

This technique is a favorite of people farming fascists. That's why diversity and multi-culturalism are propagandized as strengths in themselves. When you throw a lot of diverse cultures together, and throw various schools of scientism at them, they can be more easily kept off balance while they are farmed and their republics and assimilating traditions are destroyed. Meantime, the points of scientism can be adjusted as needed, like a chef adding seasoning as he taste tests his stew.

Fascism:

1. Everything in the government.
2. Nothing outside the government.
3. Nothing against the government.

4. I would add: The government consists of bureaucrats obedient to a fluxing hierarchy (legalized mafia) of corporate profiteers, that profit by printing money to fund the government, that tax the outlays back from the people to run the government, that exact favors and fees to enrich and empower themselves.

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

What about Man Caused Climate Change Theory, Anarchist Theory, Divide-And-Rule Theory, Might Makes Right Theory, Critical Race Theory, White Privilege Theory, Victim Reparations Theory, Fair Distribution Theory, Righting Past Injustices Theory, No Justice---No Peace Theory, Open Borders Theory, Diversity Enrichment Theory, Political Agitation and Mind Manipulation Theory, Man-Splaining and Man-Spreading Theory, Well-Being Utilitarian Morality Theory, Big Lie Theory?

Are you agreeing that there is little or no lasting science entailed in any of that?

If a professor for a college course attempts to brand any such course with an honorific of "science" (or of the science being settled), should that be sanctionable as fraud against the republic and its citizenry?

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

Well, have you not noticed the urge by fascist corporatists to open our borders in order to swamp the votes of competent free-thinking Americans and make them irrelevant? That seems pretty fascist to me.

When they intimate that their program is consistent with science-based morality, instead of simple greed and lust for power, that is what I mean by fascist moral scientism.

A fascist may use corporate power to influence gov to dictate how people are allowed to live their lives. He may claim he has access to the best empirical information and the best experts trained to apply it. Based on his experts' scientific studies, he may claim that everyone else that has access only to their personal experiences and judgment should therefore, in respect of "science," defer to him --- even concerning political and social issues. This would in effect substitute rule by elites for representative governance.

Elites intimating that they have expertise in moral science will tend to argue that a citizenry, for its own best good, should, based on science (as perhaps told to us over and over again by corporate owned media), put aside their reservations and accept what the experts have scientifically determined. If parts of the citizenry balk, the fascist hierarchy can say, well, the science is settled. Or, our opinions are based on science, while yours are based only on personal experience and judgment.

The intimation appears to be that, because of elite determinations based in science, the general citizenry (flyover people) should just trust:

That open borders will lead to better economic results worldwide and more peace and stability.
That the more the multi-culti diversity, the stronger and better the society.
That eventually forced conversion to electrical cars will lessen the polluting emissions to our environment.
That gov-imposed speech codes are a good idea.
That society would be improved by replacing traditional families with gov supervision to ensure every child is availed the right to determine his or her own gender.
That it is good to import and indoctrinate people from third-world countries, because they will appreciate the benefits that scientifically run central gov can provide, and therefore make irrelevant the votes of people-that-think-for-themselves (science deniers).
That anyone who disagrees with the science as announced by corporatists running the gov is a deplorable, phobic, racist, bigoted, misogynistic, chauvenistic, science-denier.
And so on.

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

Well, you first had to make an assumption about oughts: That a society that avails freedom of thought, expression, association, and enterprise ought to be considered to be a "better" society than one that finds it necessary in its circumstances to suppress such freedoms in order to provide better security for deserving people.

I happen to agree with your assumption. If that assumption is taken on faith to be true, then recommendations for how to pursue it seem to follow readily. Even so, I think you only "derived" what we ought to do based on an assumption about what would be "better." Not every society has produced members that tend to be competent or desirous of being responsible to think or do for themselves. Some have to contend with fascist religious practices and ingrained habits that preclude much room for individual freedom or responsibility. When a society lacks literacy and competence, the primary concern for its members will tend to relate to security for getting water, food, shelter, medicine, rather than freedom.

Musing: Why do corporatists want to import so many desperate people? Well, they know such people will skew in their attitudes to prefer security over freedom. They are easier to farm. So long as the corporatists do not allow them to improve their situations so they feel less desperate about their security. IOW, to preserve their farm, corporatists will promise, but never actually deliver, such people out of desperation. Ask: What Dem run city has actually improved the lives of minorities?

Moreover, there are unforeseeable consequences to every kind of worldview. A free thinking society that decentralizes technological competence to most of its citizenry has to contend with this problem: What happens when an individual with access to WMD or AI technology goes bull goose looney and decides he needs to subjugate everyone else before they subjugate him? IOW, as technological power increases, how can it be distributed without risking mass destruction because an irate madman got access to it? To survive, will we have to lose our privacy? If everyone is made privy to the thoughts or actions of everyone else, then could anyone still claim to be a free-thinker? 

Regardless, yes, I share your faith that human freedom is "better." But I don't think that ultimate faith that freedom is better is based in ultimate fact or science. I think it is based in an assumption, that is based in good faith and good will. To me, to have a human brain and not be allowed to think for oneself would be to be sub-humanized.


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

Op -- Fascist Moral Scientism

A good primer is here: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_scientism.html. However, it may require several approaches to get the link to work. It provides a conceptualization about scientism.

SCIENTISM: Scientism can be conceptualized as the broad-based belief that the assumptions and methods of research that are used for the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines --- including theosophy, philosophy, humanities, and social sciences. It is based on faith that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, so that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical (or other) inquiry.

Proponents of Scientism often assert that the boundaries of science could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science. In most extreme form, Scientism consists in faith that science has no boundaries, so that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavour will be dealt with and solved by science alone

SELF-ANNIHILATING: Scientism, in a sense, is self-annihilating because it takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful --- which is not itself a scientific claim. Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless.

MY COMMENTS:

OBJECTIVE SCIENCE: Generally, a field of science tends to be most objectively subject to investigation when the field is one in which the factors of significance can be readily identified, precisely measured, and subjected to double-blind experiments for which all factors except those being tested can be kept the same. Even then, various concerns may impede the investigation, such as if the act of observation in itself affects the result being measured, or a sufficient number of confirmation tests cannot readily be done. Bearing that in mind, studies of physics and chemistry seem usually most conducive to reliable science.

SUBJECTIVE FEEDBACK: For other fields, such as where subjective elements are unavoidable, complete reliance on science or supposed scientific experts, as opposed to experienced judgment, may often lead astray. For example, the practice of medicine is often thought to require both science and art. Same with politics. Other fields may also depend on tinkering with the imposition of various artificial and filtering parameters.

To study what empirically follows after an imposition of artificial parameters is not necessarily to shed light on what should be expected but for or beyond those parameters. For example, to study how a medicine may help a chimp may not reliably indicate how it may help a human. Or even subgroups among humans. To study how a governmental device or regulation may affect one kind of personality, habit of conformity, culture, or state is not necessarily to shed light on how it may affect another.

So, for fields of biology, sociology, psychology, education, advertising, journalism, and politics, the results of some scientific investigations can tend to be considerably less reliable. Or reliable only because, like Captain Picard, someone was instructed to "make it so." Sometimes, the results may tend to confirm reasoning in circles to predisposed biases.

In any event, such results will not shed light on the kinds of life purposes to which a society or person should aspire. In other words, they cannot, based on what objectively is, instruct us concerning what we subjectively ought. They may shed conditional light, given a chosen ought, on how practicably to go about tinkering to achieve it.

NO OUGHT FROM IS: Moral issues inherently entail subjective consciousness that will bedevil attempts at objectification. The more the entailment and feedback of consciousness (subjectivity), the less the entailment or reliability of the methods of science. The more the subject person being studied suspects about the purpose and methods of the study, the more he may fudge in his responses. (Political polls, anyone?)

As the feedback effect from subjective entailment becomes more significant to a study, it may become less appropriate to confer the honorific of "science" --- except sometimes to short circuit further thought in order to farm the minds and politics of weak or compromised thinkers. And that is the technique now favored among wannabe people-farmers: To convince ordinary people that they should subordinate their common sense and personal dignity to the phony superior "science" of fascists that want to live their lives for them. Indeed, many people have probably become conditioned to prefer to leave the driving of their minds to someone else. Problem is, with importation and indoctrination, they seem to be becoming the new majority.

SURRENDER TO FASCIST OUGHT: If Americans do not want to surrender their personal freedom, dignity, responsibility, autonomy, and judgment to fake fascist elitists, they need to wake up to the fact that much that is being offered by compromised academia, media, political agitators, and moral scientisimists has little to do with science, but much to do with nudging the free-thinking republic under the boot of divide-and-rule fascists.

COMMON SENSE: Common sense indicates areas that are beyond scientific kin, and perhaps more appropriate to the methods of philosophy and individual conceptualization. Such as for determining or measuring precisely what existed "before" the "beginning" of our measurable universe. Or for speculating that our universe could arise or be sustained out of nothing more than math, without the qualitative involvement of any Activator. Or for prescribing what is ultimately good or bad in purely scientific terms. Or for prescribing the best form of government for a particular society or culture. Or for prescribing or even defining equality of economic results among all people of the world. Or for deciding which groups should be "scientifically/morally entitled" based on superficial traits (such as color or recent status of invasive-"immigration") to gang up politically to take the stuff of other people. Or for pretending to make spiritual concepts irrelevant merely by imagining an infinity of untestable parallel universes or bubbles.

For those areas, good faith philosophical conceptualization with models and metaphors may provide at least as good an approach as over-greedy scientism and anti-theistic scientisimists. For such areas, much depends on choice of worldview.

Not every political philosophy is necessarily appropriate to every society or culture. If I were from a failed culture or nation, I may be tempted to imagine I was victimized, so that natural justice gives me some kind of "natural right" to invade a neighbor to "ëqualize" his stuff. However, I don't think that kind of philosophy is suitable for sustaining the modern world. Nor do I expect it inclines to raise economies. Rather, I suspect it tends more towards equalizing poverty and misery. People fixated on righting their victimhood by taking from others tend to waste time that could be better spent finding ways to be productive. Focusing on victimhood may even drain opportunities for real science from being deployed to repel that asteroid that has Earth's name on its trajectory.

But I do not base that judgment on science. I base it on my judgment and experience concerning human relations and history. By experiencing much and reading much. I do NOT call that judgment "science." In some cases, I may call it coming together to reason in good faith and good will.

For example, I happen to value a Constitution-based representative republic. Which I do not think can be sustained by importing or indoctrinating a flood of liberty-illiterates that can be easily bribed (and not to their long term good) by nefarious, godless, self-godded, people-farmers.

MORAL CONCEPTUALIZATION: Moral conceptualism (theosophy?) can help on conditional bases. For example, if I decide to identify with the idea of a representative republic, then I can make conditional recommendations. Such as, don't swamp the nation with a majority of imported voters that value instead electing politicians that promise free stuff, often elevated based on gang identifiers (such as race, etc.)

However, if I decide I just want to suck off the work of others, then I may prefer a gang, culture, or nation where the rulers have specialized in that sort of thing. And once they have sucked their own nation dry, I may want to emigrate with them to "spread my love" to another nation, to bless it with my "special sense of fairness."

It's not for nothing that many liberty-illiterates want to emigrate to the West.


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


Not a study of empirical, replicable, scientific, precise, cause-effect --- in which all other pertinent factors remain the same or are known in the mix to be insignificant.

More like a fishing for, and manipulation of, correlates --- bent towards farming the people.

Pb:  Does NOT and cannot account for all pertinent and significant factors, and often cannot do  double blind or ceteris paribus experimentation, because we do not have at our disposal any alternative universe/state/city/or even person  in which all untested factors remain the same.

IOW, we need to take responsibility to develop capacity to appreciate and apply judgment, to think for ourselves about what we really want to cumulate, do, or pursue.  Based on innate intellect, insight, intuition, experience, self-knowledge, and history.  Unless we are content to be used as farmees.

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

***************
CORRELATES: &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

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

SELF FACTORING INFINITY:

Is there some self-factoring infinity, to factor ordered algorithms out of infinite capacities of chaos? If so, is that self-factoring infinity itself a mere algorithm, a mere chaos, or some innate entanglement of consciousness with the possibilities of mathematical structures? Who can say? All that seems to lead to too much reasoning in a circle, trying to prove assumptions by assuming them. Why not simply begin with direct experience of subjective consciousness?

If God encompasses capacity to express consciousness, to be meaningfully conscious and receptive to feedback, then some aspect of the Godhead can be consciously (subjectively) surprised. If God can be subjectively surprised, then a subjective aspect must permeate and be entangled with all apprehensions of moral right and wrong. Subjective Consciousness must be entangled with every presentation of objectively measurable Substance and Information.

In that light, the Godhead is a source of appreciative feedback and guidance, not a pre-determining or robotic judge of any objective math of moral right and wrong. In that case, we have a feedback system of good faith and good will in respect of which to come to reason together. A Worthy to consult and, in calm meditation and good faith and good will, to seek reason in respect of. Not a precise or robotic instruction manual for the best response to every situation. Not a dead how-to book for objectively measuring poetry.

For a subjective appreciator to expect to quantify objective values for the quality of his experience makes little sense.

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

Even those that claim not to believe in a higher source of purposefulness tend religiously to find their purpose in something. Otherwise, it would be hard to lead a sapient life.

FACTORING PROBABILITIES AMONG PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:

Bayes’s theorem describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of measurable conditions that might be related to the event. For example, if cancer is related to age, then, using Bayes’ theorem, the measure of a person’s age can be used to more accurately assess the probability that they have cancer, compared to the assessment of the probability of cancer made without knowledge of the person's age. With the Bayesian probability interpretation the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of measurably related evidence. Bayesian inference is fundamental to Bayesian statistics.

Subjective Consciousness functions as if measurable events of the past should be a guide. This is how "if-then" reasoning proceeds, as it filters to select for the most reliably measurable factors to guide subsequently desired results.  This can help Consciousness more in the "how" to achieve a desired result, but not so much in the "why" to desire a particular result.

The combined effect of various perspectives of Consciousness (subconsciously functioning as if commonly confirmed perceptions concerning the past should be assumed to be a "how to" guide) seems to function towards making such assumption self-fulfillingly consistent.

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

For example, the speed of light is not fixed as a thing-in-itself, but as a constant relationship to every perspective.  To whatever the extent needed to preserve that constant, every perspective will have a differently "curved" (or reconciled or renormalized) experience of its space-time frame of reference.

Apart from co-dependent flux of relationships, there are not things-in-themselves, there never has been any such things, and there never will be any such things.  Every relationship that we experience, sense, measure, appreciate, or communicate concerns Information about fluxing relationships --- not any "things" in themselves.

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

THEOSOPHY:

Regarding the link I provided, the online source apparently does not support its direct use. I have encountered that kind of difficulty before. When I'm really interested, I simply search the first clause of the first quotation from the link. Which I provided, along with other salient quotations.

Regarding scientism, I don't think it is honest to suggest I have used the term to condemn all scientific endeavor. Rather, I have specifically advocated that the method of philosophical conceptualization not be used if it impairs science.

Otoh, I think common sense indicates areas that are beyond scientific kin. Such as for determining or measuring precisely what existed "before" the "beginning" of our measurable universe. Or for speculating that our universe could arise or be sustained out of nothing more than math, without the qualitative involvement of any activator. Or for prescribing what is ultimately good or bad in purely scientific terms. Or for prescribing the best form of government for a particular society or culture. Or for prescribing or even defining equality of economic results among all people of the world. Or for deciding which groups should be "scientifically/morally entitled" based on superficial traits (such as color or recent status of invasive-"immigration") to gang up politically to take the stuff of other people. Or for pretending to make spiritual concepts irrelevant merely by imagining an infinity of untestable parallel universes or bubbles.

For those areas, I think philosophical conceptualization can provide at least as good an approach as over-greedy scientism and anti-theistic scientisimists. For such areas, much depends on choice of worldview. Not every political philosophy is necessarily appropriate to every society or culture.

Now, if I were from a failed culture or nation, I may be tempted to imagine I have some kind of "natural right" to invade a neighbor to "ëqualize" his stuff. However, I don't think that kind of philosophy is suitable for sustaining the modern world. I do not believe it would raise economies. Rather, I suspect it would tend more towards equalizing poverty and misery. It may even impair real science from being deployed to repel that asteroid that may have Earth's name on its trajectory.

But I do not base that on science. I base it on my judgment and experience concerning human relations and history. I do NOT call that judgment "science." In some cases, I may call it coming together to reason in good faith and good will.

For example, I happen to value a Constitution-based representative republic. Which I do not think can be sustained by importing or indoctrinating a flood of liberty-illiterates that can be easily bribed (and not to their long term good) by nefarious, godless, self-godded, people-farmers.

I do not believe you have thought through any point about "theosophism" or non-scientism "insights." I hope you do not believe that conceptual assimilations concerning social values are devoid of insight merely because their truth values cannot be proved in ultimate logic or science, outside of self-fulfilling experience. I hope you do not believe that nothing is of value unless it can be utterly reduced to 1's and 0's.

Moral conceptualism (theosophy?) can help on conditional bases. For example, if I decide to identify with the idea of a representative republic, then I can make conditional recommendations. Such as, don't swamp the nation with a majority of imported voters that value instead electing politicians that promise free stuff, often elevated based on gang identifiers (such as race, etc.)

Now, if I decide I just want to suck off the work of others, then I may prefer a gang, culture, or nation where the rulers have specialized in that sort of thing. And once they have sucked their own nation dry, I may want to emigrate with them to plague another nation with my "special sense of fairness." It's not for nothing that many liberty-illiterates want to emigrate to the West.

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

SCIENTISM:

I am surprised that, for someone so apparently dedicated to science, you seem unfamiliar with the now common term of scientism.

A good primer is here: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_scientism.html:

Scientism is the broad-based belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences. It is based on the belief that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, and that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical (or other) inquiry.
....

Proponents of Scientism often assert that the boundaries of science could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science. In its most extreme form, Scientism can be seen as a faith that science has no boundaries, and that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavour will be dealt and solved by science alone
....

It has been argued that Scientism, in the strong sense, is self-annihilating in that it takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not itself a scientific claim. Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless.

Certainly, it requires the almost complete abandonment of any metaphysical or religious discussion, (and arguably also any ethical discussion), on the grounds that these cannot be apprehended by the scientific method, which is very limiting for a supposedy all-encompassing doctrine. Some would say that proponents of Scientism merely avoid actually engaging with many important arguments.

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

Since you seem unfamiliar with the concept, you probably have not thought much about tendencies loosed when corrupt or fake elites indoctrinate a citizenry into radical scientism. A society so indoctrinated will be trained to defer to so called scientific experts in every field, including morality, art, and politics. This is what I consider to be very dangerous to any citizenry that values and wants to preserve itself as comprising a representative republic. If you refuse to appreciate that, then I agree, we have very little to discuss.


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

THE RUB:

Does potential for manifestation that is not presently manifested "exist"? If so conceptualized, then perhaps we should imagine the Universe at its simplest as a superposition of presently appreciated manifestation and potentiality of non-presently appreciated manifestation.

I agree that given an infinite number of yes and no answers, 1s and 0s (yin and yang?), such would carry potentiality for simulating an infinite number of realities. Question: Would that implicate an activating and involved Simulator? Would that Simulator retain capacity to intervene (or remain involved) in guiding the unfolding simulation?

The rub: What turns math into a functioning Algorithm? What can use mere math to avail interpretations or appearances of measurable sensations? I do not think science can provide or test for such an answer. I think whatever IT ultimately is, IT is beyond the reach of mortal science, but perhaps not beyond the reach of mortal appreciation.

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

Everything Mueller does is calculated to please and collude with all the people that want to destroy the borders of the USA. Mueller is only a pimple on mountains of ooze that want to destroy the nation and the key ideals under which it was founded: Self reliance, individual responsibility, dignity of work ethic, resistance against gangster tribalism, equality of opportunity (not outcomes), color blind assimilation, family values, resistance against elitist despots, individual freedom of thought and expression. Mueller is O'Brien, working his way towards pushing Trump to Room 101. And all the while expecting that we should all love him for it. We have seen the face of collusion against the republic. It's face is Mueller's.

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