Existence
by smith on May 15, 2011
In an unlimited state ideas would correspond to reality and not contain contradictions. The perception of matter and time or motion appears to exist within an entities’ mind…or a materialist would not be able to show that matter existed, because its mind would not know anything.
To maintain a view that only matter exists is contrary to scientific evidence: matter is assumed to be largely empty space, though modern physics now concludes that space is never empty on a level conveniently at the limit of being detected. The unknown is always at the limit of being detected.
Recently, holes have been found in mathematical theory illustrating how it is still a construction with limits…and no jurisdiction of anything outside those limits. It appears that most mathematical theory is unproveable.
If enough people spend centuries building a structure that has integrity within itself (or appears to by its own self referential definition of integrity) it may be assumed the structures rules are universal.
The nature of existence would be best known in terms of what things are, not what they appear to be. The amount of scientifically unknown data in the universe could be infinite, calling into question any results based on what is said to be known by science.
Self referential systems may seem to function, but they only function because of something absolute or universal that allows finite error generating systems to function.
The particles and fields that matter is supposedly made of are an appearance superimposed on something that connects them and allows communication or connection between them..otherwise particles could not interact since they would be unaware of each others existence.
A materialist would hold that the mind is made of matter, tethered to a brain. This view if investigated gives rise to a more complete notion akin to non-materiality. Matter is essentially non-material…every part of matter is connected to every other part of what is known. The appearance is of the nature of communication. That is how it appears to an observing mind..that all is connected…that is materiality…the mind is connected and feels that it has a sensory impression of the world around it. For things to be unknown then a boundary would appear to exist between the observer and what is known
To know the postion of a particle would require the particle to be part of the mind percieving it. There is a limit to how far mathematics can predict the state of a complex system, so the knowledge of a particle or anything can only be known if it is part of the mind conceiving it.
A simplified theory is not the same as the real thing. The theory will appear to have a provisional reality, but a true theory will explain the exact identity of the relationship between the observer and the observed so that artifacts generated by errors in the theory are known.
The theory of knowing..awareness…consciousness..would contain the knowing of all other theories including the unknown.
The Dawkins Delusion
by smith on May 14, 2011
Re: the pro Dawkins thing- logic and rationality are constructs existing within consciousness. When scientists describe their view of reality or try to represent the universe with “laws” based on “observations” it is only going to come up with a narrow-band provisional set of rules that appear to be true. These rules may appear universal or rational, but they are actually an expression of how an ego thinks that it is aware of enough of the universe to generalise about it..and to prove its own relevance and therefore existence: ” I think I am Dawkins, therefore I am”. Infinity is always going to be unobservable, because it contains the observer and its means of observing. True philosophy/religion is the highest science..devising unlimited awareness through identifying the nature of things.
http://minusthirteenstreet.blog.com/2011/05/14/the-dawkins-delusion/
A reply to Michael Deacon’s UK Daily Telegraph blog re: Rage Against the Machine. This reply was censored (deleted ) from the telegraph site.
by smith on May 5, 2011
This post- apart from one or two grammatical changes-was originally sent as a reply to the Michael Deacon blog linked to below (part of the UK Daily Telegraph online) . The Telegraph appeared to have locked the blog so that few challenges to it could be made, and the response below could not be posted. A version of it was successfully reposted as a comment to another Telegraph online article a few days later…but was removed soon after. The Michael Deacon blog remains (at the original time of writing in 2011).
Start of reply to Michael Deacon’s blog:
Re: Article at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/100020188/rage-against-the-machine-v-the-x-factor-tragic-isnt-it/ posted on the Daily Telegraph (UK) website 17.12.2009
The standards of the UK Daily Telegraph now seem to not only centre around self-centred British middle-class non-values but also conveniently dip into the slime-pool of sub-tabloidese anti-freedom propaganda in the form of light-entertainment-in-disguise cultural assassination and blog-based disposible junk, as in the toxic drug.
It seems to view the mass of humanity from across its English country lawns and gentrified town houses with contempt while its writers as exemplified by Deacon embody a spiteful, macho, thuggish mentality in keeping with the current political climate..when insulting buyers of “Killing in the Name.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_Against_the_Machine#Political_views_and_activism ] and [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_Against_the_Machine#Saturday_Night_Live ]
Rage Against the Machine represent what many people feel far more than Michael Deacon and the rest of the establishment press do. The Telegraph’s writers and financial backers may think the politics espoused by Rage Against the Machine a threat (if they got as far as looking into them) or passe…the real threat to social stability and civility is the pseudo-educated hooliganism of writers like Deacon and politicians who use the influence they have to similarly put forward selfish, cynical and ignorant non-views designed to denigrate anything that may puncture the walled-off ghetto of consumerism they live in. They constantly put forward the view that if everyone did as they did then everyone would be as well off as they are.
That is not true.
The media and politics industry can be shown by its products to be populated by a large majority of scam-artists who do nothing useful for the world and absorb a large proportion per head of its riches, and promote themselves unceasingly to maintain that position. The world can only support so many self- aggrandising media pundits who give nothing real or useful. Musicians by their nature bring people together in a social folk-art form. The compassion and inherent lack of ego it takes to make music always has some value.
Rage Against the Machine are singing about innocent people being murdered in the name of whatever expedient cause Deacon et al choose to overlook in favour of pilloriing people who purchase the record to give RATM a platform.
Their song is just as relevant now as when it was first released. It can be read as a comment on the dead bodies piling up in Afghanistan and Iraq and how people oppose the policies that cause such things…while the Deacons of this world are write their largely irrelevant popular entertainment reviews.
Integrity and sincerity deserves respect not mockery. If there is an argument against RATM’s politics critics should clearly state it. Resorting to insults and condescension embodies the ignorant stupidity that such critics hypocritically observe in others.
As for the “snowballing horde of simpletons”, a group of people who speak out against war, help oppressed communities and reject destructive social norms may get to present their views from the top of the charts. A lot of people are effectively voting for some of the views that Rage Against the Machine express…given that the mainstream media have so few if any writers that havent sold out..or even know what that means.
The metallic heavy aspects of the music may indeed mirror the emotional shock of the violent events they describe.
Michael Deacon:
“Rage Against the Machine are ultimately owned by his [Simon Cowell’s] record company. (Rage Against the Machine style themselves as anti-capitalists, which is no doubt why they signed a contract with Sony.)”
RATM use Sony to put out their music. They are not “owned”. Mr Deacon has already shown that he is oblivious to any ideas or value that RATM have and therefore the benefits of widely distributing their work will be lost on him too. It can be a complex world…simplifying someones ethical situation in order to lambast them is not as useful as educating them on how to overcome the apparent dilemma. It just shows that the article is either insidious propaganda or throw-away junk.
Michael Deacon:
“this dunderheaded pseudo-protest will do nothing to harm Cowell”
and
” But that’s not the sole reason the RATM-backers are daft”
and
“that crew of washed-up rent-a-rockers. ‘ Well, at least RATM write their own songs.’ Yes, but they’re catastrophically awful songs”
and
“Some sweet, well-meaning saps have even been dopey enough to download the RATM song on the grounds that some of the proceeds will go to the homeless charity Shelter.It presumably hasn’t occurred to them to donate directly to the charity itself. Doing the latter means that not only will Shelter get a larger slice of your money, you won’t be left with an abomination against music on your MP3 player.”
Deacon puts forward the view that he is more intelligent than people who like RATM. Presumably he assumes there is some public benefit in distributing negative views about them…the same benefit that selfish, middle-class right-wingers think they bestow while either deliberately or through stupidity misunderstanding the broader culture that their privileged nest parasitically resides within.
The concept of flippant, thoughtless criticism of others’ taste does not display intelligence but self-referential ignorance and fascist thought processes.
Rage Against the Machine playing Killing in the Name on BBC Radio 5 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfZGUdcBBLc
End of reply to Michael Deacon’s blog.
Free Bradley Manning
by smith on May 5, 2011
People talk about the real value of something. A things value in an absolute sense is purely what it is..ie silver is a piece of metal that has useful properties for industry and so on. Its good for what it does. If it becomes a currency that is traded and hoarded in order to ramp up its value then doesn’t that lead to the same kind of abuses that paper money does? ie..notional values that can be corrupted by whoever controls the money supply? Sure, you can’t just print more precious metal…but as soon as people control a reservoir of it then doesn’t that put them in a similar position of power?
When a currencies value varies due to the supply being turned on or off then that makes people richer or poorer through no fault of their own doesn’t it? Apart from letting it happen that is.
For money to represent something real that cannot be corrupted does that mean that its value should be fixed to something that cannot change? So that the pay you get for the work you do is not stolen from your pocket by the guy who decides that its worth less than it was?
There are a few potentially complex issues there, but the truth makes them simple. Complexity is used to con people.
Truth is incorruptable, and that is the only currency. Witholding information or knowledge is a form of violence that damns people to ignorance for the appearance of short term gain. Benefiting from others suffering is a form of trading that buys the illusion of wealth, but buries the trader in material ignorance.
It depends what your values are, but there is someone in a US jail now being tortured for sharing an uncomfortable truth that threatens only those who maintain ignorance…and you could at least show support for him.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/bradley_manning
Link to this post: http://minusthirteenstreet.blog.com/?p=4
