One must have the intellectual courage to, once and for all; admit that there are no histories, that all history is merely a subjective and partial account. That even if we had a vast sensory array capable of sensing the entire planet in real time down to the molecular scale, that if we could pass that data into a relational system where it could be digested by software and rationalized by human users, even then we would have merely a More Accurate Historical Account and not, as we should very much like to have, a real History!

This is intellectual conscience itself, this is the key to the final door and it is, embodied, wisdom, for it is the love of knowledge itself.

To attack oneself and one’s own proofs, to never rest and to even invite attack from others that is the sign of a healthy and robust mind.

To acknowledge that even a point particle model of the entire universe in real time would only offer us a Model and that no matter how sophisticated that model may be, it is still an incomplete synthetic reference, to admit this! Such admission is the sign of our true future, a future where man comes back into harmony with nature, where technology is instrumentation and not a mere crutch for a hobbling civilization. For beware, though you climb to the greatest height, if you do so with such a crutch, when you arrive there and put that crutch away your stance may falter!

Science as instrumentation which allows the greatest instrument, Mankind, to play the music of the spheres, for the universe truly is a sort of fractal hologram and we are, all of us, inextricably bound up in this integral nature. Man as a tuning fork which may resonate the purpose of organic life, man as steward over organic life not the master, not the servant, but mankind as a key, mankind as an instrument on which the meter of the universe can be made sensible as a sort of living music.

“Obama already betrayed the US population on FISA, bailout, Iraq, Afghanistan and MUCH more. Yet they STILL think he represents change. The leader of millions of superficial idiots.” -stevedtrm

The case is clear and this citation is but a partial list. Is the claim that a majority of the American electorate is blind to history, they are blind to what happened even last week, not empirically justified by the election of so naked a charlatan? It is more telling the way adulation and praise abound for someone who merely is a good rhetorician and yet is a very bad and dishonest statesman. The way he is being trumped up the world over is very disconcerting to me, the agenda of the CFR thus apparently bears fruits, by controlling the media of the world one can indeed control perception.

But it is the model offered by Dostoevsky that I find encouraging, the man who upon beholding the crystal palace of perfection folds his arms akimbo and says “I don’t like it”. For it is this capacity within our species that encourages me, the capacity for variation which precludes the triumph of falsehood. You can never silence All opposition and even if we today beheld a truly Orwellian system where people are drugged into submission and blinded by so extensive a system of propaganda that the vast majority march in lock-step with whatever brutality a ruling elite desire to force unto the people as an ethos, e would still bear witness to the exceptions to that tyranny: no matter how bad it gets this only Increases the probability for the system to throw exceptions.

The higher the pressure on the system the greater escape velocity for ejected material. And where are these intrepid searchers and researchers going? Where are these strange fish swimming, these birds who fly out, across a vast and seemingly infinite ocean, where is it that they are all heading?

It is they who shall decide the future, for the world truly does revolve inaudibly around the creators of new values.

Atheists Don’t Believe in God

I can neither prove nor refute the existence of deity, as a quantum dualist I must assume that the unified field of energy underlying existence may in fact have a type of consciousness most akin to the taoist concept of “the way” or perhaps o the transcendentalist notion of the “over soul”. Is that deity? I cannot say, to be honest its not really a subject that interests me because i cant prove much about it so why even bother myself with it. thats what gets me about religious people, they all seem to think they can know the mind of god etc, ludicrous. if there were a god or gods how could anyone know what they think and if so why should anyone else belive them! The saddest thing is I am sure some religious person will come along and argue some insane inherency via a Kantian treatment. that is how silly people can be, they have a personal need for there to be a god and will go to any length to create a system which proves his existence.

In a fight against global corporatism and the dominance of an elite people of faith often are my natural allies, whats more I find that on the whole they are also decent people, perhaps even more so than my atheistic friends. But to be perfectly honest its about a horse a piece, neither group has an exclusive claim to be more ethical or humane.

I think it is important to tolerate both because one cannot prove or disprove the point of contention to within a reasonable degree of probability.

When it comes to the theoretical application of a process, or the perspective of that process as accounting for variation etc, again it is important to go with which system is more probably true based on evidence and examination. Available evidence suggests that “evolution” (which is a very complex concept and should not be mistakenly considered to be a codified set of principles in any sense although clearly one could make a list) is the most reasonable explanation for a range of aspects in cell biology. Although we may not understand this process completely, and we may never truly understand it thus not ruling out the hand of some unknown and unknowable god (for instance we might say that our thoughts have some influence on the process or our feelings this would hold with a qm view and yet seem metaphysical enough to insight notions of the divine), we can safely understand the process from the perspective analysis justifies.

The real danger here is interpretation and attitude. As with all science, it is a question of how you use it, it is a tool and one can wield a tool for humane and beneficial purposes or for brutal and inefficient ones.

Evolutionary theory was used to underwrite a gilded age philosophy of might makes right, it has been used again and again by some to underwrite their own arrogance and sense of entitlement to brutalize and dominate others. While we might never wish to dismiss the concept of a theory of rank, we must come to understand that absolute necessity of the whole, we can never make the mistake of thinking we know more than we do! Often one becomes arrogant because they think they understand a complex system well enough to safely make decisions, this is utter folly, one can never understand any system this well and must always make a decision with caution and a circumspection informed by tolerance.

History is full of examples where sweeping decisions were made about systems and the result was that those decisions broke the system because they overlooked or neglected what was vital, sweeping it away out of ignorance as to the integral nature of the system and the role each integer played!

Who knows, perhaps we atheists should learn something here, perhaps as a species we even Need this idea of god now more than ever. If not for ourselves than for others, though it bears incredible risks, it may still serve some vital purpose! Of course my instinct is not friendly to that view, I see religion as a source of manipulation and some of histories greatest atrocities.

Do People Become Atheists so They Can Act Immorally?

There are probably some people who do, but largely no, in fact most atheists start out religious because that’s how they were indoctrinated and gradually come to openly oppose religion after conducting analysis. In my own life I have spent nearly a decade making a comparative study of world religions, from the Elder Eddas to the Eleusinian Mysteries, I love the perspective of religion as astro-theology when it comes to judeo-christianity but the same thing applies to many other systems. Many of the earliest metaphysical systems that we might call pagan religions are closer almost to a quantum view of nature, in that they posit that there are “gods in all things” etc.

The problem here is that without morality one must stand on ethics, which is sufficient, but requires Other People to hold a person to a standard. Deity is more effective because it uses the Threat of repercussions after death (about which we have no experience and therefore it is terrifying) or within this own life via an omnipotent and omnipresent mind. We mustn’t forget however that morality is a perspective informed by a set of values which are human, they are not divine, and they are codified by humans. Thus the two approaches are identical! It is just that with the moralistic one there is an injected fear of divine reprisal to sweeten the pot and keep people from doing ill to one another or acting unjustly. But isn’t this also the source of a greater volatility within the morality system? All too often we have evidence of god being used as the justification for bloodshed!

I prefer ethics, without a concept of the divine, governed by a culture (which, as plato reminds us, is a difficult thing to produce and should be our primary concern) a culture which rigorously pursues the concept of justice.

Don’t you see?

We were “born to chaos as the sparks flew upwards”, this fire into which we have been born is the very means by which we shall be tempered. What shall come of all this is not what any suspects, not those who stoked the fire, nor those who laid the kindling.

The global elite is destroying itself because it hates itself, the transhumanists are destroying themselves for they hate life and fear death, business is destroying the earth because it hates itself and wants to choke off its very preconditional framework.

And what is all of this? Mankind is pregnant with the future, but it is not a future that any of those who think they are in Control foresee. Control is an illusion, no one is more confused than the one who thinks he is in control. If you want to know what is being born simply invert everything which has occurred and is occurring, this will give you an inkling of what is being produced here.

A will to self deception has been the antecedent, the prerequisite for every major advancement, the greatest strategy of organic life here plays itself out in spectacular fashion: the cleverest way to deceive ones opponent is to embed a piece of self deception into the projection.

but what here is being opposed?

What, in the last analysis makes us human? I have heard some people call it choice, but I must admit I have no belief in a so-called free will which chooses. To me control is an illusion and identity is a maze of infinite complexity.

i think the best architect is also the one who realizes control is an illusion and that the variable you didn’t account for is the one thing you can count on. live dangerously my friend.

So years of study has led me to one final conclusion about economic theory: it is all fucking make believe.

There is only production, the rest is a contrivance as fickle and as feeble as the dreams of youth. Yep, its all completely made up, the value of everything is completely subjective. The only thing that matters is production, the res tis capital it is either property or it is “that which has been produced and retains a subjective value”.

But whence come all those values?

From here on out every human being to me is sacred. It is my sworn duty to kill and to destroy every society which does not have a vested interest in every human being born. Any society that would throw away even one human being is an atavism and laughing stock to me.

Any economic theory which does not result in maximizing the potential of the human beings alive during a given interval is a contrivance more absurd than is organized religion and it seems very much like a religion to me.

It is as if, people had never Practiced science and only read about it being practiced.

Any practicing researcher knows one thing above all else about statistics and proofs: they are perspectives. Indeed the term proof is somewhat misleading, because what proof means is something other than what people think it means. Inconceivable! A proof is a step upon which to place one’s foot, empirical data is limited, every proof is merely a description of what is valid within a context and that context is always limited. What people forget is that it is contextual, that it doesn’t prove anything other than that which it states within a given context and that it is ultimately (and this is absolutely key) true until proved otherwise!

eal scientists approach statistical data critically and almost skeptically. Real scientists understand that the complexity of existence always maligns the very process of data generation! This is why it is imperative to design experiments with such meticulous precision, so as to rule out junk data skewing the results!

But look at how the masses clamor for all manner of data, poor, bedraggled and huddled together statistics, as if somehow the mere act of assembling information constituted a proof!

The IRS and Federal Reserve system are the two biggest scoundrels and thieves, the 13th amendment is unconstitutional and there should be no tax on income but only on legitimate transactions between corporations. The manipulation of terminology and the law which has occurred in order to legitimize this nefarious practice must be routed out and eliminated and we must restore our monetary system to the hands of the people. I encourage very much the production of local forms of currency by communities and a voluntary acceptance of this currency as a substitute for dollars as means of payment for services rendered.

A market analysis is to be performed and values of essential goods for the poorest 20-40% of the populace determined. From this analysis values will be periodically set above which any given item will be affixed a geometrically or exponentially increasing excise tax. This tax shall not be applicable to essentials like food or medicine or fuel in certain cases where the individual makes their living by driving etc., additionally certain provisions shall be made to individuals and small businesses (only if they can legitimately produce evidence of a need and are not merely front organizations for wealthier entities effectively standing as tax shelters). Also, the point at which the excise tax is to be applied will be much higher for domestically produced goods versus imported ones so as to constitute a sort of hidden tariff system which does not require tariffing imports but rather relies on the excise taxation system to manipulate demand in favor of domestic production. The design of such a system is to ensure prosperity for the poorest members of our community. As an example let us take clothing, shirts over the price of say 10 dollars shall be taxed or 15 dollars or wherever we set the price (but note that the price should be set so as to provide maximum benefit to the poorest), but if that shirt is made domestically the tax will not be applied on any item unless it costs more than 40 dollars etc (this is an example to illustrate the tariff function). As the dollar value of the item to be purchased increases, so to does the excise tax, if the shirt cost 15 dollars the tax might be one dollar and if it costs 1500 dollars the tax might be 300 dollars. These taxes are to be expressed by the seller of the item on the sticker or tag presented to the consumer, all excise taxes must be expressed within the value of the item presented to the customer on the shelf etc, and not hidden in a point of purchase addition or anything of the sort.

In cases of extremely expensive items, such as those exceeding a given dollar amount, where no functional and valid use can be assured for the sake of furthering business objectives (we must be circumspect and look at the exemptions claimed for a sense of how existing tax laws are exploited by the wealthiest to get a good sense of how to police such criminal exemptions. As an example you cannot buy a yacht and then claim exemption because you use it to entertain guests etc, you cannot write off business lunches and this entire category of exemption is to be prohibited where given values are exceeded. The goal here is to make the wealthiest members of a given community pay for the welfare of the poorest and to further technology. In this sense leniency and exemptions shall be offered to productive and technologically forward industries and businesses. Whereas in the case of a stock brokerage or other non-productive industry or business they are to be revoked and policed.) in such cases as those the purchaser must submit to a transparency system where their net worth can be assayed and in cases where the net worth of the individual is extremely high, the excise tax is to be multiplied by a given factor so as to make the super rich pay an additional fee for luxury goods.