Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Accuracy (or equivalently, Truth)
by Martin Concoyle Ph D
Email: martinconcoyle (nospam) hotmail.com
13 May 2012
The US Revolutionary War was about breaking-away from the (violent, absolute) tradition of western civilization (see the introduction), it was about establishing equality within a new culture (it opposed both absolute truths and institutions based on absolute ideas), and it was partly about establishing a new Christianity which did not make deals with the state (did not make deals with Caesar), and it was mostly about, the ideas of the enlightenment, an equal people who could learn and determine “truth” for themselves, and use their truths to be creative, in an equal society, where an equal and (truly) free-market can exist,
but where the state supplies its citizens with what they need to:
create, so that
their creativity can be done in a selfless manner (since everyone is equal).
[eg T Jefferson wanted each citizen to have 600 acres, though this ignores the extermination of the native people to acquire such land, yet there might have been a way to do something like this in partnership with the native peoples.]
The (correct interpretation of the) incompleteness theorem of Godel assures us that we will always eventually be wrong about ideas we express with a precise language, and this, in turn, can be interpreted to mean that “only equality allows us to be both wrong and right (within some limited context), so that (real) development of ideas can proceed.”
Otherwise, we “do not get the ‘well paying’ job” if we are wrong, within an artificially narrow context (for determining right and wrong), and thus we cannot survive.
The owners of society have no use for those who are wrong [as the owners of society judge what is right or wrong] and such people can be exterminated. The lower 33% of the US population are “living” within a context of being exterminated by the US society. This is the type of society which the US justice system has created.
[Note: life and mind are very stable systems which, it is now believed, emerge from indefinable randomness]. Such an assumption should be challenged.) “Science” which serves primarily the interests of the owners of society becomes a part of the extermination process.
Hallmarks, achievements, standards of high value; are these ideas (measures of value) to be judged (determined) in an unequal society or within an equal society?
A social criticism which is seldom heard expressed by social critics (either progressive or conservative) and that is, that social institutions of the western cultures are all defined in absolute terms, ie absolute truths. Thus, providing a way in which to compare people and to assign “to each person” a social (but absolute) value, ie the west are societies based on the assumption of inequality. But institutions which are built around absolute ideas…
(especially if the descriptive language is precise [and thus assumed to be verifiable by measuring, but this is wrong, Ptolemy’s ideas were thought to be verified by measuring])
…, are doomed to fail, since this is the correct interpretation of Godel’s incompleteness theorem (see below).
However, there are various and different types of quantitative languages, some where the description is useful, eg classical physics, and most (those based on indefinable randomness) where “what the language is describing” is an illusionary world.
On the other hand, absolute institutions, where the descriptive structures can change as the owners of society…, “those people who are in control” of “what is allowed to be spoken (in an absolute western society)”…, want the descriptions to change.
These changeable, yet mostly absolute (until the owners of society allow change), languages (the illusionary descriptions of religion, economics, etc) are mostly used to manipulate the public, within the hierarchical western society, a society obsessed with comparing “a person’s value.”
Extreme violence is needed to maintain the absolute social structures of a western society.
Since the human mind is much more creative when unfettered than when it is being forced to deal with the world, in the language of absolutes.
Since the birth of the west…,
ie the Judeo-Christian-Constantine’s-(Roman-catholic-Empire)-Islam civilizations,
…, the western cultures (where the communist societies are also to be considered hierarchical western cultures) have essentially been fighting “the other western cultures” of the world over issues of propaganda, and over issues concerning, “which ‘small set of people’ are going to rule the authoritarian, hierarchical western cultures.”
(ie cultures built from extreme violence, where extreme violence is needed to uphold the absolute principles of the institutions which define the western culture, ie absolute institutions which obey a central command).
The way in which the few owners of society control society, the organization of society’s institutions, is based on (done in) the same way institutions were organized in the Roman-catholic empire in order to serve the emperors, and those institutions were organized around ideas which are considered to be absolute truths.
A narrowly defined vision of absolute truth, either religious or scientific, where it should be noted that the absolute truths of science today (2012) are based on indefinable randomness, but these truths are only true in a world which is an illusion.
The information of the described patterns, where the descriptions are based on indefinable randomness, do not fit with the observed patterns, and it is not useful information, it has not been related to wide ranging practical creativity it is hard to control systems which being described by random principles.
For example, the context of a nuclear explosion is that of indefinable randomness, ie a transition (ie no existing form) between relatively stable states of matter but such a random context does not form a basis from which the description of order emerges, rather the randomness describes fleeting (unstable) transitional processes.
Narrowly defined institutions are the basis for “authoritative bullying” which both the justice system and the “national security state” uses as a basis for terrorism against the public, so as to force the public to conform with a narrow vision of absolute truth, ie the narrow beliefs of the owners the society, that is, they own the institutions which they define and control, eg education, law, markets, science (which is used for narrow business interests) etc.
There is a fallacy that imperialism is only successful if the imperial culture possesses superior technology, rather (or in truth) it is a society which is “less human,” so as to be based on both extreme violence and expansion, which sustains its inhuman leadership, where expansion is based on lying, stealing, ie expansion is done in a context of acquiring material and property (whereas creativity has been narrowly defined), thus, the basis for an absolute imperial state’s law is property rights.
The technology and behaviors of such a culture only needs to serve these needs, and it is best if the technology remains narrow and limited, and the attack by the owners on the world, which demands that its people acquiesce to the “absolute truths” upon which the owners of society base their social power, is continual and single-minded.
Though a panel of copyright-lawyers seem to agree that science and math are failing to provide the technical development needed for economic or social (or creative) growth today (2012),
[they also seem to agree that, because in the western culture the institution of science possesses “absolute knowledge,” this failing can be remedied by the “legal deregulation” of science].
Accuracy in reporting
The (progressive) social critics describe “how the few owners of society control society,” yet the (published) progressive critics uphold and value the institutions of the society. But it is the narrowly defined institutions which are mostly involved in upholding the structure of society, in which (or so that) only a (relatively) few owners can control society and direct its violent expansion.
On the other hand, the conservative social critics, whom simply serve the owners, criticize the progressives, essentially, by labeling the progressives as being immoral, and as not being loyal to the “absolute truths” upon which the culture is based (depends): narrowness, inequality, and authority.
Conservative pundits babble incomprehensible dogmas, in a what seems to be a “highly designed” set of “sequenced word structures,” which is a “carefully structured sequence” which is used to manipulate language in order to get what the owners of society want.
The conservative pundits also marginalize liberals, often by denigrating remarks and making disparaging jokes about liberals (ie the conservative pundits model the behavior of “inhuman violence” which is the main psychological type of the society upon which an expansive, imperial state depends).
Whereas the progressives’ criticisms of society are centered around the immorality of societal actions, both administrative actions and legal structures which oppose the interests of the public, while these social institutions protect the interests of the very rich, where it is the owners of society and their hired politicians and institutional workers, eg the justice system, who are responsible for these actions, laws, and policies [though the progressives never (or seldom) say this directly].
Yet, these progressive critics still buy into the idea that the western institutions possess a superior knowledge, to which (often) the progressive critics are loyal.
Nonetheless the way in which these few owners of society control society, seems to not be understood by the progressive social critics…, namely…,
…, the way in which these few owners of society control society follows the same structure as the rest of the history of western-cultural empire, the institutions upon which the society is controlled are both based on a set of absolute ideas upon which (the) important social institutions of the society are formed, and these institutions are hierarchically organized so as to answer to the “owners of society,” in a similar manner as the (social) institutions of Rome answered to the emperors, and then there is also the extreme violence which is needed to maintain this order.
People believe in (have confidence in) the western empire because it is based on absolutes, it expresses itself in a confident manner, and it has been (somewhat) technologically accomplished in regard to the material attributes of human culture. This seems to be the legacy of the Roman engineers, and the recent development of electronics (which emanated from a locally measurable, and geometric description of material properties, so that this descriptive language of electromagnetism was essentially built be Faraday, and this useful description led to an “inventive expansiveness” in the “business world” which the owners of society had to control) and is part of a communication system, which can be used for imperial expansion so as to overwhelm those whom “the owners of society” have targeted to be over-come.
However, when a different culture challenges these absolutes (which exist in a more human context) then that other culture is exterminated, eg the native cultures of the Americas.
The depth of the original American cultures, and its relation to an existence beyond a material existence, is made clear by having a new structure for math descriptions being based on stability and geometry [ie “cubical” simplexes] rather than being based on both indefinable randomness and excessive authority.
That is, the “western culture” is a culture (an empire) which does not value life, nor is it interested in ideas.
A few are allowed to destroy, society and the earth, while the society has been led to believe in upholding the use of a narrowly defined technology.
(where this destructive capability is dependent on a narrow use of technology, limited and controlled by a central command, whose purpose is aggression and domination).
An increase in population is something which helps an empire grow, and is the subject of the modern abortion conflict.
Essentially, the western culture is the Judeo-Christian-Islam cultures of the world, where Islam (650 AD) seems to be a copy of the Roman-Catholic-Empire, or religion (330 AD, based on Constantine’s agreement with the Catholic church).
That Christianity is a religion of an empire (as is Islam and Judaism), is similar to the way in which western “democracies,” hide a ruling system based on money (where an economy based on money might be a direct result of a society based on militarism (?)).
That is, western culture is characterized by both an authoritarian religion and an authoritarian science and this dependence on authority can be seen to be directly related to the western culture’s social structure of oligarchy.
The way in which the few owners of society control society, so easily, is a result of the fact that it is done in the same way in which the roman-catholic empire was organized.
Namely, the society is organized by violence around institutions which represent absolute truths.
But now there are a few more categories associated to an imperial society which go beyond:
1. property rights [or property acquisition] (which implies the domination of the many by the few, ie ownership by the emperor)
2. control of the food supply
3. Religion (absolute truths upon which arbitrary morals are proclaimed, and then used to manipulate the public)
4. the arts and engineering being narrowly directed (by the emperors),
5. education-media, (words were (can be) used to promote the interests of the rulers), and
(Note: domination by the few, is still the western basis for governance, but such a type of social
domination is denied to be true, yet the high-valued aspects of the culture [listed above] are all
organized in a hierarchical manner [as was done in the Roman-Catholic Empire]),
but, now, there is also:
7. the illusion of democracy,
8. material based science (electronics, properties of materials, thermal physics), and
math, (whose focus is on indefinable randomness, and non-linearity, the most commonly observed patterns when one considers either shape, or identifiable patterns, as well as processes of change, but they are patterns which cannot account for stable, definitive systems)
9. social psychology (based on statistics, in turn, based on indefinable randomness, thus the “proved statements” of the discipline of psychology are arbitrary, and might only be meaningful under the context of great social constraints), and
10. Language’s relation to the control of a society, ie modern propaganda, and
11. market-economics (organized in the same way in which agriculture was controlled by the Romans, and furthermore the risks of a market economy are determined by indefinably random math patterns, or [more realistically] determined by some private money supplies which can dominate the economy).
That is, (the owners by) controlling, through investment and knowledge-creativity which is knowledge that is used to support monopolistic markets, which dominate the way in which society is organized around its ruling few (where the very rich ruling few are the “owners of society” ).
The extra categories, define (relatively new) absolute institutions which are also organized around the, few, who are the primary managers of these institutions, so that this is done in much the same manner as the “Cardinals were subordinate to the Pope,” and these institutions are controlled in a context in which the people who compose these institutions believe in an absolute idea about knowledge and value, and these primary managers serve the principle investors in the institutions.
That is, knowledge remains absolute, but new categories are added.
That is, the model of absolute values of the Roman-Catholic Empire are still the basis by which a diverse set of institutions are organized so as to continue to serve the few.
That is, if scientific truth can be defined in terms of measurements being consistent with (measurable) descriptions (the facts of the world interpreted through a descriptive structure) then this is the same scenario as the science of Ptolemy (whose measurable descriptions were also verified by measurements, and Ptolemy’s model was (at first) more precise than the descriptions of Copernicus) and in this way science is also captured by absolute laws, with its old descriptive structures (classical physics after having been captured by “big business” ) still functioning to uphold “what are now” monopolistic economic market structures. But the authority of today’s science cannot be challenged, and thus the development of science is effectively prohibited.
This (stopping of [practically useful] math development) is easier to do with math, since math is claimed to be about truths “determined by the ways in which we agree to use words in the descriptions of math patterns.”
This method of extending the number of absolute institutional categories within society in order to maintain the social structure of “rule by the few,” is quite similar to how the limitations of Godel’s incompleteness theorem are interpreted today (2012), namely, one can simply continue to add axioms associated to new categories of absolute (math-science) knowledge so that the old part of the system does not really have to change, but merely needs to get bigger, but in this expanding process the realm of an institution’s absolute dominating authority is re-defined.
The other way in which Godel’s incompleteness theorem is framed (so that its correct interpretation can be ignored), is that the conditions of the theorem, eg the existence of a number system, are treated as if they need to be re-considered (in the theorem) in relation to their axiomatic structure (the suggestion is that, perhaps the theorem is not true, if its conditions are related to other [fundamental] axiomatic structures about “how numbers can come to exist” ), and this attention (which is tangent to the incompleteness theorem’s correct interpretation) is done so as to avoid the correct interpretation of the incompleteness theorem. Namely, that the structure of assumptions of any precise descriptive language (ie language as a whole, not simply the language of one theorem) need to be questioned, and all the axioms need to be re-considered, ie the axioms of algebra and the axioms of calculus need to be questioned and always one tries to re-arrange the fundamental structure of words so as to be able to describe the patterns which are observed (a property which all absolute languages will fail, namely they will (eventually) fail to be able to describe the observed patterns of existence).
The axioms of algebra are about: 1. Order of operations (associative and communicative), 2. Identity elements, 3. The existence of inverses, 4. The distributive property.
There are other ways in which to introduce the idea of number (other fundamental axiomatic structures), such as:
1. The need for a uniform unit of measuring
2. The type of measurement a number represents
3. Counting numbers of the same type (related to forming a number system as well as to the operations of addition and subtraction)
3. Re-grouping and/or changing a number’s type, eg length x width = area [which is no longer a length] (related to the operation of multiplication and division)
4. Forming equations and using inverse operators to solve the equations
5. A measured value placed into a greater containing space (or set) (the idea of a function)
6. Models of local (linear) measuring, the derivative operator (which acts on function spaces), whose measured values are consistent with the original uniform unit of measuring, and
7. Models of measurable systems which are placed within a logically consistent set structure eg the set cannot be “too big” and the sets of numbers must be quantitatively consistent, both stable and definable, (most modern math structures lie outside of these conditions).
The institutions can change based on the authorities which manage (or which lead) the institutions, nonetheless, these authorities will remain obedient to the owners of society (the new boss is the same as the old boss), but once a new structure of knowledge is related to a business-product then the changes become much more limited. Otherwise the knowledge (which is unrelated to business interests, or which does not challenge the existing authority) floats as if it were an orphan [Godel’s incompleteness theorem floats “like this,” as well as the recent “Thurston-Perelman realizations” about non-linear geometry, and the prominence of spaces of non-positive curvature, which exist in a metric-invariant context of “containment and measuring” metric-spaces], where these “orphaned ideas” are mostly ignored (the usual danger of being an orphan), or are not analyzed in a serious manner (by absolute institutions which claim to be so serious).
Thus, there is always the argument (or claim), by the top managers of the absolute institutions, that “things cannot be any other way” since we (the experts) possess absolute knowledge of the categories upon which the power of the owners is based.
And wages, and social value, and intellectual value, are all derived from the interests and assets of the owners of society, thus those in society must obey or they will not get a wage or they will not be considered to be of any value to society.
Furthermore, in order to protect the public from any interference (by outsiders) of this pure form of knowledge…,
where the intellectual interference would, supposedly, be done by inferior people who want to interfere with this pure knowledge (because they are not capable of understanding the pure form of knowledge)…,
…, we, the authorities, will protect the “pure ideas” by means of “peer review” ie one can only be an authority if one believes in the absolute truths which define the subject’s authority.
That is, this extra protection (for society) is brought about since it is not believed (by the owners of society, and their submissive authorities) that measurable verifications of their overly authoritative descriptions can withstand the onslaughts of ideas which challenge the authority of the “professional society’s” set of absolute truths (such as science and math professionals).
The trouble with the criticisms provided by the progressives, is that, in regard to many (if not most) of the subsets of the absolute institutions, the progressives, themselves, also “believe in” the “absolute proclamations” of the absolute institutions
*(see below for such an example in regard to T Hartman [a progressive alternative media personality]).
Thus, such critics (who believe in the absolute institutions) are also in support of the owners of society (because these absolute institutions are designed to be absolute, in order to uphold the interests of the owners of society).
That is, the critics equivocate and undermine their own criticisms, because they are also loyal to the absolute truths upheld by the social institutions of society, where these absolute social institutions serve the owners of society.
That is, only those critics who believe in the absolute ideas (of the institutions) which support the owners…, where the critics have, themselves, competed, and won the game of value, within the social structure of narrow absolute truths, ie their actions support the structure…, are allowed to have a voice within the media or within the absolute institutions.
To play the game of society, one must support the owners of society. Anyone who does not support “the owners of society” are violently opposed by either one of society’s institutions are another (absolute) institution of society. Thus the expressions of ideas from the margins are effectively excluded from consideration by society.
The western culture defined by both the Judeo-Christian-Islam religions, as well as by the oligarchic western democracies and the oligarchic communist governments, or any other totalitarian government (or countries), ie the issue is simply “who exactly is ruling.”
The fight is to maintain one’s ruling position and to expand.
All the strident, or opposing, factions (which fit into a hierarchical western society) believe, essentially, the same things, (ie it does not matter which “side” one is on, the (so called different) society’s are almost all organized in the same way, the differences seem to be about the way in which language is controlled) and these are all cultures which are all defined by their absolute institutions and their violence, ie institutions governed by fixed authoritarian dogmas,
to science and math,
to some monetary form of social organization
upheld by extreme violence.
The point of these absolute institutions is to focus on the idea that “the ability to discern truth”…., within narrowly defined (and thus very complicated) institutional truths…., naturally defines a state of inequality within society, where the winners of the institutional competitions determines the superior people (who can serve these institutions).
Since these absolute institutions serve the interests of the owners of society, it is the owners of society who define these “absolute social values” because the owners are the superior people who determine society’s values.
This causes a division in society such that:
1. Those who are superior, eg those who manage the absolute institutions, can say anything, while those who are inferior, eg those who are not a part of the absolute institutions, must try to diligently express the truth, and that truth must be based on the absolute truths of the institutions.
This means that if new ideas about science are expressed, then this (social) condition on “what is true,” would be equivalent to having the ideas of Copernicus being edited by the Pope, before they can be expressed as being true.
2. The superior people are virtuous, while the inferior people are criminal (criminalized).
3. With both a standing army (which is very religious) and a religious system controlled through funding (ie religion is part of the media) so that violence is absolutely controlled by the privately-owned state [while the second-amendment is about “not allowing a standing army,” propaganda makes the second amendment an issue of state controlled violence (due to under-cover agents) centering around gun-toting militias, and political assassins] and this violence is based on (controlled by) the arbitrary framing of morality, which can be done within the media.
This condition allows for the extermination of the public, of which homelessness is a good example of a legally sanctioned extermination process, based on the criminalization-militarization of social problems.
4. Language is based on assumptions which are used to organize facts. One uses assumptions (or laws) to try to organize “the information contained in observed patterns,” ie “the facts.”
That is, facts are secondary, rather it is the assumptions upon which useful discourse depends, in order for the discussion to have a valid meaning.
(a) the real choice in our society is between either
(1) equality and creativity
(2) inequality and violence (which is needed to uphold absolute ideas),
(b) propaganda mixes together inconsistent words so that messages are vague and criticisms
cannot use the (word) concepts which they should, since the words are already taken
(c ) absolute institutions organize facts for business interests, not for truth, this is because social power is
derived from “how money flows,” or “how money is controlled,” in society.
(d) in math and science the choice for the structure of language is:
(1) stability, wherein numerical-values, words, concepts, and properties have stable, well-defined
(2) the meaninglessness of descriptions, upon which current math and science are based where the
descriptions focus on too many irrelevant details,
built on the ideas of:
random sets, and
inconsistent sets, and
sets which are “too big,” and
sets which are not stable, and
sets which are not well-defined.
A Breivik (the political assassin of Norway, similar to the political assassin J Laughner of the US) made his defense to be…, the usual defense (or usual justification) of the violence which is used by western culture…, namely, that I am justified because I am superior, and this is because I believe in the absolute ideas of my culture’s institutions.
Similar to mega-churches,
The absolute language structure…, used in (according to western culture) the two different subjects of religion and science…, can be compared since they both claim to be descriptions of absolute truths.
The absolute truths of religion are used to manipulate people (within society) by defining morality in arbitrary ways.
The absolute truths of science are used to both define practical creativity within society, and they are used to limit the range of “what is created” within society, where this limitation is due to “what science allows to be described,” based on the set of assumptions (or laws) of an absolute language, ie a language which claims to describe an absolute truth.
Science is used as an absolute truth in order to define knowledge as being a language structure for which only a few within society have the capacity to possess and use that truth.
of a few elite people within society.
Science “as an absolute truth” defines an “aristocracy of intellect.” That is, absolute science is used to define a natural social structure of inequality.
The facts, please
There is quite a bit of absurd talk in the media about “accuracy in reporting,” or accuracy when telling the story, ie the command is that the liberal reporters (or more realistically reporting on stories about the failures and injustices of the social system run by the owners of society) must provide the facts, whereas the voice of the owners of society are allowed to say “whatever they want.”
The media, which is owned by the owners of society, can say anything, true or untrue, it does not matter.
This is the fundamental distinction which separates the public from the “superior people,” which is the fundamental basis in inequality which (now) defines our society. The public must acquiesce to the absolute dogmas of the social institutions while the voice of the owners can say anything.
Science is ruled by an authoritative dogma to which an aspiring person from the public must adhere in order to make a living as a scientist. These dogmas fit into the business interests of the owners of society.
That is, the voice of the owners of society echo through the institutions of science, and it is the absolute structure of knowledge (within science) which serves the interests of the owners of society.
Simply look at what science is used to create in society, ie instruments of war.
Only the authoritative dogmas of science and math are allowed to be called truths, and these institutions serve the interests of the owners of society. This is called the scientific consensus.
Thus, it is claimed that, though the voice of the owners, ie the media and the absolute institutions which support the owners of society, can say whatever they want (and it is to be considered true by the media), anyone criticizing the official truth is “identified as ‘not being accurate.’”
In today’s society (2012), One’s choice is between absolute ideas or being on the margins of society.
Being on the margins of society means being criminalized.
This choice is enforced by violence.
If one chooses the absolute idea of violence, ie be a part of security, or to oppose a particular side, one sees that both sides are essentially the same types of western cultures, cultures which are essentially the same.
The western nations “fights the other western nations” over essentially petty issues [what small set of people are the rulers].
However, the absolute institutions of both sides lead to destruction of both society and the earth.
All sides are simply expressions of domination and selfishness; lying, stealing, murdering for petty concerns. A social structure which is not conducive to creativity.
Yet, the true heritage of mankind is to create in a context which lies beyond the material world.
That is, the “real fact is” that “in order to be a professional,” then one must both agree with, and support, a wage-slave system.
The entire social context is, that the public must be wage-slaves who are in the service of those who own society.
This is due to the fact that US law is about expressing the need to protect the property rights of those who own the society.
The structure for the institutions which protect the property and value of the owners of society is mainly that of extreme violence.
Back to the copy-right lawyers
Copyright lawyers should have a good concept about how a person can make money off of creativity, and which creative categories are in need of greater creative efforts (or greater creative incentives).
The reason which the corporate copy-right lawyers see for the failing of science and technology is that there is too much “government regulation.”
But if this is true then why is there not technical development in other nations.
R Epstein, a copyright lawyer, pointed out that V Bush had identified, what Epstein thought, was the “correct way” in which government should subsidize research,
academic research should be “government subsidized” to the point of the “proof of a principle” and then
the principles should be related to the formation of patents for business interests.
However, (Epstein seems to be unaware that) though the principles (to which science and math now adhere) can be proved as Platonic (absolute) truths (in relation to the word usage to which one agrees) the proved (verified [by means of data agreement]) principles cannot be applied in a practical manner (the dogmas of today’s science have been verified by the same data-fitting processes by which Ptolemy verified the Ptolemaic system). The “agreed upon” structure of words are only capable of describing the patterns in a world which is an illusion (just as Ptolemy’s system was an illusion).
This is similar to “how arbitrary morality is based on a descriptive structure which describes an illusionary world (of western religion).
For example, there is truth to the claim that a “big reason” for the 2008 economic collapse (other than business fraud) is that the calculations of financial risks failed (ie but this is a form of academic fraud).
The viewpoint of corporate copyright-lawyers is about “how to make money from intellectual property rights.”
That is, they want to use the legal process of “stealing ideas” in order to either make products or monopolize (dominate) markets.
[*Note: Commercially “Successful” artists, naturally become opposed to equality by their belief in a need to defend their intellectual property rights, for their own selfish purposes (in their narrowly defined, and highly competitive, artistic contexts). Commercial artists are providing a product, within a narrowly defined context, wherein the people’s familiarity with the narrowly defined context for the art, is used to define and exploit a market.]
Another implicit assumption, which the copyright-lawyers seem to be making, is that today’s science and math professionals, essentially, possess “the absolute truth about the nature of the world.” That is, “our culture already knows everything,” we simply have to adjust the legal structure so as to let the “absolute scientific truth” to once again lead technical development.
Though these copy-right lawyers correctly identified the current state of affairs in regard to the failure of science and math, where science and math have not been able to continue to drive technological developments, but these lawyers do not understand that, it is both…,
1. “property rights” which have the affect of narrowing all aspects of the current culture (intellectual property rights actually oppose the development of intellectual ideas), and
2. that the professional math and scientist also narrow their own fields by means of following absolute authoritative dogmas (which serve the business interests, ie which serve the interests of property), so that this narrowing of culture has been done (so as to the point in which it is these narrow absolutes cannot be related to actual practical development), and subsequently,
…, this has destroyed science and math, in that they (the scientists and the mathematicians, now, 2012) only find absolute truths which seem to only apply to a world which is an illusion.
Though the “point of focus” of copyright-lawyers is:
The media’s “focused message” to the public is:
The need for more security (more bullying power for the rich), and
Being against abortion (so as to be ever more invasive into the lives of the public), and
Being against big government (though the above agenda requires huge amounts of government investments as well as big government, so as to serve the interests of the rich), but the media is all in favor of regulations which make the big businesses more dominant over the public, but oppose regulations which would help keep the public from being dominated by the big businesses (or from being dominated by the owners of society).
The media dominates the way in which words are used within society, so that the media uses words so as to not allow the opposing liberal side to express its message “in the words which it should use” since the media already uses those words, so as to identify a context which seems to be conservative rather than liberal (confusion is most often the best strategy).
Where liberal should mean, for equality and creativity
Conservative should mean, in favor of (inequality) the owners of society and for tradition and opposed to creativity (unless the creativity helps the owners of society).
In other words, the media (and big business interests) adopt the position which the liberals should adopt, namely, to seek smaller government so as to oppose the militarization, and the need for “too much money” which is required to enforce property rights, and the need for government to regulate big business and not
regulate the public but to rather protect the public (wherein it is cheaper to regulate business), and the need for government to be more invasive of big business and less invasive of the public.
The remedy is simple:
1. Law needs to be based on equality
2. knowledge based on equal free-inquiry, and
3. creativity based on equality and the relation that creativity has to equal expressions about what is true, and
4. on an equal access to material and technical processes needed for creativity.
By equality, it is meant that the needs for one’s existence in society are to be met by society, within a reasonable context of equality.
Equality is about freedom to know and to create and to place what one creates in a free market, but a market is a minor part of a society’s activities, and each person must be given some equal amount of money each year, that is, if one wants an equal and free market, where each person in society is an equal creator.
If some deranged and powerful person in today’s society, claims that this idea about equality within the US society is diametrically opposed to the US society, then that statement is an absolute lie, since the moment this nation was born, there was the statement, that the law of the US was to be based on equality, and this is expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
It is pointless to start picking apart the words of this document so as to “make a case” in a country which is all about the “letter of the law,” since these are the expressions of a deranged psychopath ie a manipulative nation which seeks to help the owners of society dominant all of society (where such a need to dominate identifies an unbalanced person).
Law needs to be simple and clear, where the fundamental idea behind the law is equality, and the spirit of the law needs to be enforced.
When the “letter of the law” is the focus of a society, then this means that the psychopaths have taken over.
This seems to characterize both Roman emperors, and many of the popes, etc.
However, in today’s society:
When one does intellectual research, then one must follow the traditions established by the previous authorities, one must follow the existing literature, and build upon “what the previous and current authorities have done.”
The validity of an idea is to be based on documentation, where “what can be documented” is the observed material patterns, or an observable and documented “trail,” which indicates an actual behavior pattern.
This type of rigor is demanded of either a “court case” or a (progressive) journalist’s articles about some particular “subject matter,” or an article of a professional intellectual.
1. But then the “democracy supporting” organization, the “Acorn organization,” is destroyed by fraudulent reporting (which should have been filtered out by the media),
2. the W Bush administration creates a trail of fake documents used to justify a war (which should have been filtered out by the media),
3. science about global warming is manipulated in ways (which should be filtered from the professional science journals).
There is an absurd standard in regard to determining what ideas are to be given a voice on the media, and this standard is the arbitrariness of the publisher, and that arbitrariness requires that the expression of certain ideas be carefully documented facts, where these documents are to stand as proof.
This arbitrary standard is a joke.
For example, the above baloney (1-3) is allowed onto the media, while on the other hand, some very interesting ideas which challenge the assumptions of modern math and science are naturally excluded from “peer review,” since they are ideas which challenge the authoritative dogma.
Namely, the dogma which determines if one passes through the “peer review process,” and they are ideas which are also excluded by both the managers of “free speech” outlets [except indymedia/en] and journals which claim to be on the lookout for new ideas, and this is because these managers believe in the “absolute truths,” which they believe are possessed by science and math institutions. While, on the other hand, the progressive critics almost always uphold the absolute truths of the science and math institutions.
That is, the demand for accuracy needs to be placed in its proper context, and that context is about, “How language has meaning.”
The facts are relatively unimportant, rather the fundamental issues are about how one uses assumptions to organize a set of observed patterns, ie the facts:
1. What are the assumptions of the new proposals (in regard to either society or in regard to practical creativity)
2. What are the assumptions of the old structures (upon which the owners of society depend).
In regard to social organization:
Is meaning about stealing and lying and murdering so as to become dominant?
Is meaning about descriptions having a relation to creativity, where people are equally creative in a selfless manner?
That is, “is domination fundamental to the human condition?” or “is creativity fundamental to the human condition?”
How does language possess meaning?
In science the meaning of a precise description needs to be determined in regard to both accurate (within an acceptable range of precision) and practically useful descriptions, ie related to practical creativity.
In regard to governing, a false sense of needing (requiring) accuracy is used to deceive (the public, or to deceive those who do not own the media).
(as usual, accuracy means truth (the assumptions can be used to organize “the facts” in useful ways), but it also tends to imply precision (but precision is not always necessary to identify truth), ie careful distinctions (or precise measurements) can be made to distinguish different things, eg the spectra of different atomic elements), but some fairly imprecise measurements can be used as evidence to show that the laws of thermal physics are “true.”
Thus, it is better that the “standard of truthfulness” be lowered for public discourse.
This is because the high standards of “truth” are related to authoritative dogmas, [related in the sense of “there being a general belief” that authoritative dogmas are true], and it is believed that these dogmas are not to be questioned, rather than analyzing the observed properties which the dogmas are claimed to describe (but mostly they do not), and subsequently questioning the dogmas.
This is because (1) the observed properties are placed in a dogmatic interpretive context and (2) because authoritative dogmas are always assumed to be true.
It is necessary that the “standard of truthfulness” be lowered, so that the issue in public discourse concerning truth, is not always about making a court case composed of detailed evidence against the (one’s) opposition….
(or a scientific investigation which is only based on measured values), when in fact the assumptions of authoritative dogmas may very well be very wrong,
…, in a legal system, which operates based on the “letter of the law.”
Rather public discourse, in regard to truth, is about expressing “what are the principles of governing,” as well as public discourse being about asking whether the assumptions, which science and math make, are valid, and to always supply alternative ways to organize language (the assumptions are the basis for the organization of a language).
Thus the principles of governing are not about identifying a false “distinguishing feature” upon which measures (or quantities) can be defined (where it would be false if the distinguished feature, which is represented, was a part of an indefinably random structure), in regard to discussing some subject, such as counting money (or funding a project, such as a military project), but rather the discussion needs to center around the questions about things like…, “security for whom?” in regard to using the government to organize human activity (so as to become a militarized society).
That is, the fundamental governing principle is to be made clear.
For example, security is about serving the interests of the very rich military businesses, getting very rich on government hand-outs, while in turn, the military businesses are serving the interests of the oil and banking businesses, it has nothing to do with the security of the US public, where security of the public is supposed to be based on a well armed public, ie the second amendment, and that the citizenry can discuss anything it chooses to discuss (since security is about western cultures fighting other western cultures, the only substantial difference are “who are the owners (or rulers) of society?” That is western conflict seems to be primarily about how propaganda is to be organized within a western oligarchy. ).
By accepting the principles of capitalism one is accepting the idea that those few who “own society” can judge a person’s value (within an apparent context of those few who own society possessing absolute knowledge) and that personal value can be quantified in terms of the money which a person possesses. Thus, if a person possesses no value (no money) then such a person should be exterminated, or criminalized.
Similarly, if a person’s health needs are “cutting into a health insurance’s profits” then that person should also be exterminated, where the justice system is complicit in this extermination by allowing the issue to become an issue of contract law, rather than an issue of health insurance fraud.
Nonetheless it is clear that the documentation of the governing intent of the birth of our US nation makes it clear that the governing intent of the US society is equality.
The intent of the Declaration of Independence was opposed to the idea of capitalism.
That is, according to the Declaration of Independence, US law (ie our governing principle) is supposed to be based on equality.
The intent of the US is not about protecting the money bins of the owners of society, it is not about a military state which opposes its own people (unless the individual agrees with all the monopolistic economic interests which contribute to the organization and maintenance of “how the society is owned” by the very rich people), it is not about property rights.
The emphasis on equality, by the founding document of the US, means…, in the language of the high-paid servants, who serve in the media for those who own society…, that the US society is a “communist society” (according to those who serve the idea of property rights, and not the idea of America as a nation which is dedicated to continually developing creative revolutions (which is the (real) point of a society based on equality)).
That is, how can anyone take seriously the idea that the media needs to be accurate (truthful)?
The media lies about everything, and this is done to serve the interests of the rich owners of society.
** If the churches had any amount of virtue associated to their self-righteous and sanctimonious rhetoric (or belief structure) then they would be demanding that the government and the justice system and the media all be turned-out (or thrown into jail).
But, instead, following the corrupt model of the Roman-Catholic Empire, the pillars of societal virtue, such as the protestant religions of the US, are now also “on the take,” just as Constantine (the Emperor of Rome 330 AD) created a Catholic Church, which has been forever-after, “on the take,” and complicit with the extreme violence which is used to shape and maintain social structures.
Since the formal beginnings of the Christian church by Paul, it is not clear that this Christian church has sought equality (love one’s enemy) or the spiritual freedom from a state (do not make deals with Caesar) as the “policies of a religious life” as proclaimed by Christ, as the “Christian religion’s” own policies, but rather has sought to enforce (proclaim) arbitrary absolutes at the expense of equality and freedom.
The reformation was supposed to, in part, be about such an objection to imposing arbitrary absolutes on society based on individual interpretations of the Bible.
But it was really the American revolution and the Declaration of Independence which proclaimed equality and independence from the state, in regard to one’s beliefs, that these ideals of Christ could have been realized.
But the Constitution, and law based on property rights, so that the religion would depend on private funding process enforced by the government, dashed these Christian hopes (as expressed by the evangelicals of that age).
Whereas it was the absolutist expressions of formal religion, such as expressed by some of the Puritans, which changed America back, by means of the Constitution, to an absolutist state, wherein people are manipulated through arbitrary morality, in a similar manner as the European society, since the time of Constantine.
An issue which many religions particularly are interested is in opposing abortion and birth control. This is an issue about “what sex means within society?”
Is sex about wanting children?
Is sex about making absolute and arbitrary rules?
Is it about using traditions to connive and manipulate in regard to one’s social condition by means of marriage?
Is it about sexual domination of the female by the male?
Is it simply about the domination by the church over its (the) faithful public?
If it (sex) is really about ‘wanting children” then the point of a religion which supports the idea of equality and freedom within one’s own self then that religion should be about (peacefully) forming this idea about sex (ie wanting children) within society.
Yet these same (self proclaimed) pillars of morality within society, ie the institutional (or formal) churches, accept the extreme violence associated to the social order which reflects selfishness.
As an example of the way in which selfishness thrives in such a significant way within the US society, consider the recent (2008 ‘til now) banking fraud, and subsequent theft by the bankers. This is selfish behavior expressed on an institutional scale, which was aided by the government and the justice system, as well as aided by a morally bankrupt religious systems.
Today’s religions in the US are based on a system of religious funding which allows religion to make deals with the private sector whose social position depends on its legal relation to the government.
Apparently, a few sheriffs would not evict foreclosed home owners, but they got fired.
One can only conclude that our society of absolute institutions is a society (governed, or ruled) by amoral psychopaths (ie manipulative, selfish people) who insist on inequality, government intrusion into people’s personal life, and (though it might seem removed, in fact, it is even more insidious) “peer review” where the intellectuals influenced by the need to agree with an absolutists form of science and math and thus they ignore the conclusions of Godel’s incompleteness theorem, which claims that absolute (precise) language structures fail. Intellectual conformity where knowledge is no longer based on equal and free-inquiry is an absolute structure which most opposes the true nature of mankind, namely, people are made to be equal creators, but creativity is related to mankind’s relation to knowledge, ie to a truth which is based on the actual world, knowledge cannot be tied to a world of illusion.
But today (2012), most of institutional science and math is based upon a set of assumptions which, in turn, is mostly are directed to describing patterns which are a part of a world of illusion. This is the result of science and math being based on absolute dogmas, ie overly-valued sets of absolute assumptions.
The language of creativity is the language of assumptions, contained in a measurable descriptive structure which is also based on geometry.
On the other hand, the people who are raised to leadership positions of the absolute institutions, express moral outrage over irrelevant issues, and express intellectual curiosity over irrelevant issues.
There are actions of fundamentalists (absolutists), who murder others (Brevievik, Laughner, those who murder abortion doctors, etc), claiming moral outrage, yet the people who perpetrate these incidents seldom express moral outrage over the much more powerful absolute institutions (they, tend to, stay away from those institutions which are more extremely violent than they, themselves, are violent. This must be an example of these murderers respecting their teachers).
In fact, these terrorists are essentially being manipulated by these extremely violent absolute institutions.
Science and math institutions should be opposed to making their own institutions being based on fundamental absolutism, ie science should not take on the same character as a dogmatic religion.
The reply is that there are only “the facts” which science must follow.
This must have also been the reply, that those, who followed Ptolemy, gave to the Copernicans?
The dogmatist always claims “things cannot be any other way.”
How could this not be a result of interpreting patterns within an absolute set of assumptions.
If instead, one considers that quantitative description should be based on the known math properties of stable descriptions?
What is offered, by focusing on stability in math descriptions? Answer: It is life’s creative relation to existence.
Nonetheless, absolute institutions and an associated extreme violence (demanding mental conformity) results in violence against their own intellectual curiosity.
Thus, within society there is a set of distorted minds and distorted lives, who have been forced into beliefs which uphold absolutes, as well as the extreme violence associated to these absolute claims, in a more or less autistic or obsessive manner.
This is a result of human behavior within a de-humanizing society.
This seems to be the natural structure of absolute authority based on absolute truths (or absolute dogmas). Absolute authority is developed in a society by the people (the public) and institutions acquiescing to absolute dogmas, such as institutions being “on the take,” or people being wage-slaves, who support how things are organized, and “how things are talked about” within society.
When one (a publisher) says that “what is published must be accurate.”
Is this truth determined by dogma and a set of assumptions, ie a truth determined by arbitrary (beliefs), or facts (observed patterns) which fit into a dogmatic interpretation.
The media is about lying and deceiving the public, so as to aid the owners of society.
This has the effect of distorting the education system, where the US education system has always been authoritarian and thus easily influenced by an even more authoritative force within society.
Furthermore, if one wants a “truly free market” then one wants everyone in society to be equal, and for everyone to be an equal creator within society, and this is not possible if resources are controlled by a few.
The US is a superior society because “what is created” by the US’s very productive capabilities, is done in a (narrow) competitive context, and this competitive “market” structure is the result of (the narrow business interests of the owners of society) the knowledgeable decisions of a superior set of investors…, who know what can be produced and how to produce it efficiently…, so that the US people can get the greatest good for the most people, from the US (and world) resources (because we can use our vast military capacity to bully the entire world).
This is a cover, for the truth which is that the investors want to minimize their risks so they invest in relatively stable markets, and they are able to structure society so that the society, built upon absolute institutions, is consistent with the investment decisions of the investors. This is all about the owners of society selfishly holding onto their own power. The result is that there are some industries which do “incrementally develop,” eg the electronic industry, but mostly it means that creativity within society is stifled and fixed, so that there is no way for creativity to expand, in a system which, nonetheless, is violently expanding, but doing so within a narrow and absolute structure.
This leads to destruction and exploitation of societies’ and resources.
[That is, the society is defined in a narrow manner so that the way things are defined to best serve the interests of the owners of society (and these narrow interests are violently protected), and this narrowness of the US society is used to define competition within society, ie competition to better serve the narrow interest of the few owners of society.]
Note: In reality, it is those who own property and who can exploit their resources in any way in which they might decide, so that they (the owners) dominate everything which is done within our US-European society (ie based on property rights). That is, the public are made into wage-slaves who work for the owners of society. All aspects of society are determined by a narrow set of authoritative ideas which both serve the interests of the owners of society, and are used to identify value within society. And that value is all about supporting the owners of society, and also supporting the arbitrary, but absolute, ideas that the owners have about both technology and morality, (where morality is about manipulating people based on arbitrariness) and it is about using knowledge to support a narrow set of businesses interests.
This system (of supporting monopolistic property rights) destroys knowledge, and it limits art, as well as limiting the full range of creative possibilities.
Furthermore, the owners of society (falsely) claim to be able to determine both a person’s intrinsic moral-value and creative-value, based on whether the person believes-in the authoritative dogmas (or dictates) of certain (religious and science and legal) institutions, which are supported by the existing system, which in turn supports the narrow interests of the owners of society.
Furthermore, law is about arbitrary claims used to provide support for the governing policies which serve the owners of society, as well as the law (the justice system) insisting that the public be wage-slaves, where these demands are upheld by the extreme violence of the justice system, ie by the violent institutions of society which uphold the owners of society, as well as upholding the managers of the absolute institutions which serve the owners of society.
The owners and their managers proclaim:
We already know everything.
We have controlled the atom, and
can control the properties of materials
and this is because of both productive and military competitions which are a part of our (narrowly defined) institutions.
we have the best standard of living,
we live the longest, and
we are the most productive, and
we produce and distribute things so efficiently so as to make all of this possible.
That is, all of these wonderful things happen because of our superior social and economic institutions, which “through the competitive process” require that we (the owners of society) use the superior people (the most moral, and those few who are capable of possessing (or acquiring) the superior knowledge of our
society, and this process of finding superior people depends on all those people who exist within society and who believe the types of thoughts which they need to believe in order to serve this system, where the “social filtering process” is carried-out by means of competitions…,
After over 2000 years any social system should have something to show for itself.
Note: Institutional competitions are defined on narrow authoritative dogmas which the people must believe in order to compete (ie everyone has an equal opportunity to compete within the narrowly defined competitions). The arbitrary dogmas upon which the competitions (which determine human value) are based, depend on the decisions made by the owners of society, so that society will best serve their (the owners) interests.
Thus, the claim by the owners of society is that:
Statistically, the “average person” is clearly a loser, who cannot compete with the high level of our society, and it is best to assume that these losers want to destroy society for everyone else, who enjoys being wage-slaves, or destroy society for those few who have domineering management positions within society, where it is these people who support the US way of life.
Note: The US “way of life” serves…, the owners of society…, those in society who like to dominate others through violence, where those who bully others are taught to bully and to terrorize the others who comprise the public by being rewarded, for such bullying actions, by the institutions which they are a part.
Those who win the competitions are allowed (encouraged) to bully others.
Then there is a lot of babble about irrelevant issues like “accuracy in reporting” where the those who own the media are allowed to proclaim “what is true (within the confines of a society owned by a few)” because there is only one voice which is allowed expression…, within the US society, which is built out of absolute institutions which serve the narrow absolute interests of the owners of society.
That is, we are (the US is) a totalitarian society.
The real issue is the story “about the social context, itself.” Namely, that the US is a totalitarian society. Furthermore, it is a totalitarian society within a world-wide social context of totalitarian (absolutist) societies. That is, all the violence in the world, is being funded by, essentially, the same set of owners of society.
Those intellects who engage in the competitions… (which the owners of society provide to the public, so as to provide to the public an equal opportunity to help the owners of society)…, and win, believe that they are superior people (they believe in the value-system which is devised by the owners of society), and subsequently analyze society based on the “fact that” our society does already “know everything,” and that one can only try to help “realize the justice” which w
This work is in the public domain