US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Human Rights
Bird’s eye-view
13 Apr 2013
Modified: 02:09:00 PM
If one tries to express original ideas about physics and math then one finds that one will be excluded and oppressed by tradition and authority.
First one needs to realize that modern science has no valid relation to: both accurate descriptions of the prevalent observed stable physical (and living) systems at all size scales, and it has no (identifiable) relation to practical creativity. This has been noted by the press, but the reporter was almost immediately sent to the margins, and this was done by J Horgan in his 1995 book, “The End of Science,” wherein Horgan noted that math and science had become irrelevant to practical development, and science has, essentially, come to be a “society of literary criticism” (ie essentially a science describing an illusionary world, ie science-fiction).
However, when one has actual new ideas about science, then the criticisms become stronger and more direct, and one sees that science has out-right failed in regard to both its descriptions and its relation to practical creativity.

Why should it be true that a dis-functional authority, in regard to science and math, exclude new ideas? Apparently, this is because of both science and math’s relation to traditional authority and to the authority of the propaganda system?

Because there is a dis-connect within the US society between the relation of precisely described truths to practical creativity our society is failing.
The relation (between valid description and practical creativity) motivates the main ideas of Socrates’ concerning equal free-inquiry, and is central to the example of Copernicus, wherein Copernicus expresses a new descriptive context for planetary motions, and the relation of precisely described truths to practical creativity is the focus, in regard to the conclusions about Godel’s incompleteness theorem (ie that precise language has great limits as to the patterns which it is capable of describing), wherein the conclusions would be;
“that descriptive truths must always be questioned at the level of: assumption, context, interpretation, logical structures, containment constructs, etc, in order to have a robust relation between precisely described truths (or measurable properties) and practical creativity: measuring, coupling, geometry and timing in regard to inter-relating systems in a practically creative manner.”

Why would such a clear dis-connect, between the relation of precisely described truths to practical creativity, exist?
Because the owners (or the ruling class) of society do not want any interference by any significant efforts, or expression of significant ideas, which interfere with their narrow interests.

Note: This is the same model used by the Roman-Empire with the church providing the arbitrary moralizations and authoritative pronouncements by which the propaganda system supported the actions of the emperor, a Holy-Roman-Empire, but now it is an absolute authoritative but dis-functional physical science upon which the authority of propaganda rests, ie modern engineering is still based on 19th century science principles (including the nuclear bomb and the smart phone).

That is, modern science has no valid relation to:
accurate descriptions of the prevalent observed stable physical (and living) systems at all size scales,
it has (almost) no relation to practical creativity.

According to Chomsky, (and it seems to be correct) everything within (every aspect of) the US society is organized to serve the interests of the owners of society. (but Chomsky’s analysis runs thin after this revelation, science is not thriving, yet Chomsky believes it is (he is an authoritative practitioner of linguistics), the inequality of the US society rests on the extreme violence of its institutions, an issue which Chomsky cannot see, etc).
Furthermore, and though the owners are as bewildered as anyone else about making sense about existence, nonetheless they have clear viewpoints about their own social power and their interests, which they enhance and defend. Whereas everyone else must first serve the emperors (their clear model for purpose in life), and then try to make sense of the world.

There is the belief that this organization of society, around the interests of the owners of society, has become a tradition with deep authority, and thus, “there is no alternative.”
[Apparently, all people who believe that they are “articulate types of people,” eg possess institutional positions, believe that thought-control must be applied to the bewildered herd, but it is clear that those people instituting (or controlling) the thought-control are as bewildered as anyone else, if not even more bewildered, as the destruction caused by the institutions of this current society destroy everything; both the earth and society, yet they can only see their own selfish interests]

Thus, the idea that there is no alternative, and that people’s stupidity (the bewildered herd) is proof of social inequality, is quite a lie.
The so called stone-age (native) cultures of the Northern American continent were highly individualistic societies, and basically they were equal societies, many of them organized around a dominant principle of the female (so all the results of sexual activity could thrive in the community), and the wide knowledge of biology, and ideas about natural harmony, and the fellowship of life allowed for an easy capability for sustainability and survival leading to a very “deep” religious-scientific viewpoint about life, and such a viewpoint’s true reaches.
It was the highly centralized hierarchical cultures of South America, which the narrow exploitative European belief structures found easiest to destroy and take-over.

In fact, the core issue of the relation of the US to European society during the US revolutionary war, was about the idea that law be based on equality, a government built both “by and for the people,” where government is to be used to promote the common welfare, and to promote freedom to know and create, was the only way (or a very good way) in which to dull the socially destructive edge of both inequality and arbitrary authority. The American revolution was about the relation that knowledge and practical creativity had to an equal society. It was about both exploring the ideas of both religion and science.
The model of equality represented by the Quaker community was the most equal and energetic of all the early US colonies. While the Puritan communities fought within itself about the expressions of new ideas about religion.
The solution of the US colonies was to base law on equality, and learn and create (selflessly), ie the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Is civilization about being centrally-run empire?
Is it about knowledge and (practical) creativity?

Is the market to be narrow and run by investors who do not allow risks so as to have a narrow society which must expand?
Is a market about equality and creativity so as to be related to a wide range of knowledge and new (practically) creative possibilities, as well as a community’s relation to food?

Is knowledge and creativity to be narrow so as to only serve the rulers?
Is knowledge and creativity expressed in an equal society to be about that which an equal free-market should be, in a society where everyone is treated as an equal creator?

This boils-down to making decisions about
equality and inequality,
Science vs religion
materialism vs. equality

The US revolutionary war is still of central importance to the American society, not the Constitution, since the Bill of Rights was never enforced.

[but, since the main teaching of religion is “equality between people,” but in regard to “the religion of the Emperor,” such a religion serves the Emperor’s interests, while the idea of evolution, or of biological materialism, implies inequality (survival of the fittest, ie the superior organism wins-out)]
Thus, in regard to what words mean within society: science vs. religion, is really about:

materialism vs arbitrary moralizations

But placing these words in a more grandly philosophical context, it would be
materialism vs. idealism

But this is not the whole story, since there are new math and physics descriptive structures which makes the material world a proper subset of a higher-dimensional containment set, wherein the issue of stability is made concrete (the core idea [ie stability of patterns] about which both math and physical science are not properly dealing), where this relation to stability is made clear (within the patterns of math) by the Thurston-Perelman geometrization, so that the higher-dimensional containment set, whose different dimensional-level contexts are both macroscopic and microscopic, is related to the stable and very prevalent set of geometries of the discrete hyperbolic shapes.
Thus, in the new math-physics model (equivalent to the model of Copernicus and Kepler which gave the answers to the reasons for the motions of the planets) both the material world and an ideal world (a world which transcends the material world) and this is done in higher-dimensions in a stable context which may be either macroscopic or microscopic in its constructs.

The current claim by modern science that their models are measurably verified, would essentially be the same claim that Ptolemy could have made in regard to its defense against the ideas of Copernicus, where the ideas of Copernicus won-out due to the fact that the ideas of Copernicus were considered to be simpler. (The claims in favor of modern science today (2013) are: that modern science is measurably verified, and other ideas are too simple;
[but more fundamentally {it is about the dominance of language} the ideas of modern science are backed-up as their being considered to be authoritative due to their relation with the propaganda system])

The value which a society really possesses is its ability to both
(1) organize itself to be in harmony with the earth, and
(2) to possess knowledge which allows for the expansion of “practical” creativity within the society,
where “practical” creativity does not necessarily mean only in regard to material-creativity.

It needs to be noted that “the new vision of math and physics” will upset the narrow and highly controlled investment constructs of the ruling class. Thus, there is the simple investment rule: Keep society narrow to both lessen risk and to stabilize existing investments.

The new ideas about science and math will support the idea that each person is an equal creator, and the practical context of creativity might not be in the material world, ie the creativity of others is not judge-able (a meritocracy is an illusion).

But then the media-voice of Chomsky (an elitist, whose intellect is overly protected) can be challenged too.
Chomsky’s claim that (the likes of)
“MIT-science is considering all possibilities, which science an consider, so that science is developing technology, and then it is given to private interests to develop for profit”
is not true,
rather MIT is developing the very narrow set of “science ideas” which the corporations want developed by MIT.

(However, if one challenges the authority of a media icon, such as Chomsky, then others in the media ({and adherents of the media…, but the public is given only one choice, which is both in the media and in the education system, ie training for corporate jobs} will scorn you,
ie this is an example of the power of personality-cult [which is a main theme presented by the media to the public].
However, if one challenges the authority of science and math then…..such a statement cannot be heard…it is outside of the myth, ie of social mind control, especially, since math and science are failing at such a horrendous scale [and the evidence is clear {see above, both inaccurate and practically useless}])

This, in a nut-shell, are the social forces which oppresses new ideas, both personality-cult and authority determined by the investment-class, and new ideas which are not within tradition and within established authority, will not be allowed to be expressed in a context of authority, where the context of absolute authority is a central component of the “sole authoritative voice” of the empire,
ie the propaganda system, or the media, controlling language and acceptable thought, where the media is a set of instruments controlled by the owners of society, and used to control thought and language within society.

Where all the institutional authorities: academics, journalists, engineers, lawyers, etc are the enemies of equality and freedom, ie they effectively oppose the likeness of a modern Copernicus, those who change language at the elementary level of context, and thus challenge authority.
ie those with proven-merit (the articulate few) still serve the Empires of Emperors (since they are shown to have merit within the narrow scope of the narrow interests of the emperor), and subsequently, they see the public as an emperor sees the public, as a bewildered herd, where the life of these high-valued experts has the purpose of striving (in a narrow and exclusive context) to help the empire, as the emperors strive to uphold their own high-social-value.
But the emptiness of these purposes is demonstrated by the fact that engineering-creativity is stuck in the 19th century, held in place by a requirement of the highly-touted risk takers (the owners of society) not wanting any risks, and “not wanting any creative competitions, ie not wanting equality and not wanting equal free-inquiry.”
One sees what happens when the ruling-class opens-up to the idea of risk…, and the owners of society believe that math is providing them with valid measurable-models of risk within the economy (but any indefinably random math model is invalid {stable patterns do not exist within such a math structure})
…, one sees devastating losses, and then the expression of, so called, legalized-fraud, and then legalized-theft, within the empire (so as to make-up for these losses).

There can be a very well-defined (and very different) sets of ideas concerning the main issues of: food, shelter, travel, (relations between permanence, individual dwelling, and change), communication, and practical creativity, which a modern society can devise…, so as to both allow for a wide range of different individual choices and still be in harmony with the earth and life…, and these are ways of social organization which society could adopt.

It should be pointed-out that the web-sites where the notion of “free speech” was to be the guiding principle, where these web-sites grew out of the 1999 Seattle anti-corporate demonstrations, ie Indymedia, have changed into sites of controlled-speech, wherein expressions of both value and truth have become very limited and narrow. Apparently, the now-captured editors of these web-sites, are deferring to the authority of the propaganda system, so as to only value (and allow expressed) the narrow ideas about science, education, and the progressiveness of the, so called, left
(where those allowed to speak on the left are those few who have demonstrated [to the owners of society] that they possess the “accepted authority” to be allowed to express [the allowed] ideas on the media).
That is, the, so called, left is now as much about personality-cult (and its associated authority), as is anything else which is allowed to be expressed in the media.

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.