False & True Philosophical Utopias...

[SB_UK]

One mechanism which will kill the savage

one~world
one~currency
one~wage kills competitive practice.

~*~

If you're not doing it for fun then don't do it.
If you do -
- then who do you think pays?

We all do.

We (the rest of us) are forced to pay for your unthinking self-obsession.

~*~

Time to wake up.

~*~

"THE TIMES, THEY ARE A CHANGING!"

[SB_UK]

False & True Philosophical Utopias...

False - everybody in the World having as much 'stuff' as the average (certainly upper quartile for wealth) Westerner

True - everybody having enough 'stuff' to maximise all of our qualities of life
- as one.

The False Philosophical Utopia comes from anything to do with a raw material manufactured Heaven ... ...

Our True Philosophical Utopia comes (as the term suggests)
- from a state of ... ... from an internal structured array -
from a change in mind which renders ... ...

uhhhh... ... ... simply ... ... ...

Our True Philosophical Utopia comes
from within.

[SB_UK]

.
.
.
nothing other than killingmoneythe lawthe savage within matters

->- leads to ->-

our true philosophical utopia arising
(for rrreal)
unsurprisingly herein.
.
.
.
.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

SB, thanks a trillion$$$ for the most seriously thought out posts I've seen anywhere in print, as you came directly from your heart, and an extremely well reasoned logical intelligence. I will be, over the next days, answering every point you raised, as they are so important, expecially as how the local mind, us lil ol' pea brains, plug into this global monster__successfully, and with full emotional and logical contact. We can connect the semantic web, with the knowledge web, to greatly improve the pragmatic web, and along the way may even be able to glimpse the wisdom web. As you said, this will take the simple categorized organization model, so all minds will easily be able to understand it...

That model, of which you speak, I have reduced to some 50 pages of tabled, graphed and diagramed visions and information. These pages seem to have stabilized at this low number, as they were multiplying from what I, a year ago, thought would be enough to represent all you have mentioned in these last posts. So, if this be true, I do have a system, that I am satisfied with, and it takes an extreme effort to satisfy me, then I think I can relay this simple model over the next 6 months, as I originally promised, if even just one person is interested, but as you have clearly shown, I need the firestorm of public criticism, to finalize all my points, as I want to make sure there are no mistakes. This is why I've chosen ToeQuest to be the critic. This doesn't mean there are no mistakes, as I am truly and fully human...

I'll take these last posts of yours and answer within their quoted material, the very valid points you raised, as best I can. I may add in a graphic or two along the way to make the points clearer.

Just a note for now...

Thanks,
Be cool,
Lloyd

Semantic Web / | \ Pragmatic Web / | \ Knowledge Web / | \ Wisdom Web
Equilibrium / | \ Symmetry
Epiphanies / | \ Super-Symmetry
Competition / | \ Pure Liberty
Money / | \ Inverse Greed
The Mind / | \ Quantum Laboratory
Local / | \ National / | \ International
Internal Fields / | \ External Fields / | \ Universal Fields

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I thank Sb for bringing your quote below to my attention. Sorry to have missed it earlier. The Mayan Elders were very wise, and you are very wise for picking up on this most important aspect of our mentalities evolution...

Are you familiar with the 500 year prophecy of the Eagle and the Condor, by the Native N. and S. American Indians at the time of Columbus? Very similar prophecy...

Hi SB...pertaining to the last of your post here (B) this is what the Mayan Elders have said.....

"We are at the crossroads of 'integrity' vs 'self-centeredness, greed, and lust for dominance."

I experienced the Kundalini process and energy in 1994...I've already had the Polar Shift...I survived so there is hope as more knowledge comes out by virtue of our necessity to be genuinely honest about what we are experiencing and our willingness to share our life knowledge....


Regards Mikal

[SteveA]

This Post to SteveA…
Illusions__Where’s Their Boundaries Between Reality & False Content…?
When we look into the clear night sky, we see the distant galaxies, or do we. Anyone who thinks we do is witnessing an illusion. Somewhere between here and there, a boundary exists in the fact that many of the distant galaxy’s stars have all burned out. So, what we actually see is a distant holographic universe.

Well consider that similar to a body, there is a surface of interaction and communication.

I think the chaos seen at the edges is more representative of "real time" chaos - science has constructed an illusion that these events occured billions of years ago by using an analogy with energy/heat dissipating, but a simple stretching of space does not do this - you can't physically perceive a stretched space everything would just happen faster or slower relative to an unavailable external metric of size.

You actually need a diffusion to space in which positions of objects are swapped over time to have things change.

This swapping and diffusion appears very likely in quantum mechanics and it also gives the appearance of gravity, though this diffusion occurs via. the "surface of interaction" to the universe and it's gradually expanding/merging/swapping with an objective reality beyond (I call it "objective" though it's not the familiar physical version - what's the probability that out of everything, all of it can be encapulsated by human experience and knowledge? Pretty slim is my guess and the existence of time basically proves that there's "more".

This, many know as true, but where to draw that line in our interpretations is a scientific choice, yet also a subjective choice, quite un-resolvable to many. I’m not going to even try to resolve it either.

Well I do tend to think that calling it illusion alone isn't ideal, but also not recognizing that things can truly be radically different than someone, in their own mind may believe is not necessarily unvaluable either.

It all depends upon contexts and what you're considering - from one perspective the universe is growing and hasn't "opened its eyes" yet, yes and I use that in the context of a child because it's a good analogy.

Now I must admit that I can't speak past my own knowledge - the physical universe is truly not billions of light years across, because that's a scale I can't verify anything with respect to and the stars could be easily said to just be a little beyond arms reach or a little higher than a plane or rocket can fly etc.

But this is simultaineously true for anyone else I know - then again, I may not know people as well as I typically have assumed to, but in any case my statements don't have validity beyond my experiences and knowledge though I admit to at least assuming time is something that objectively for anything that will relevant to learning - if time did no exist for something, then with regard to knowledge it would already need to be timeless or nonexistant and couldn't be learned. Learning is a process that occurs over time.

From that perspective, a true "external" reality could be considered as the interior of the Earth or Sun, cosmic background radiation or what someone is going to do tomorrow - all things that are unknowns at the "surface" of the interactions between those things we've already learned about and where new information/experiences etc. are available to be found.

If we take the idea that a physical brain encapsulates conscious experiences, then this perspective would be more accurate of what is actually on the edges, than the view of the universe as a basically 3 dimensional space with various material objects moving around within it - that physical version would be the learned mental construction. Are those "real"? It depends upon the context, they're the known reality but that's actually quite subjective and not representative of what some external/objective reality would be.

I guess the basic conflict is over the view that objective reality is suppose to be taken as the "real" version, whereas things learn via. science are subjective.

That's fundamentally the mind/body duality problem but on a scale of science and the physical universe. Once it's recognized that science is a construction of various people using their conscious experiences and intelligence to try to learn what's "out there", then it's all the same - ants see ants, people see people, universes see universes etc. and at any scale, objective reality is the unknown beyond.

(Still replying. I have some catching up to do)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A Note to SteveA...

"Instinct upon instinct, and science stands higher." me
Steve, bring it down to earth__many entities, elements and attributes of both subjective and objective realities are true__perspectives are everything__How one sees determines how one knows__No-one can stop the eyes from seeing in all directions_In_Out_Between__no matter who in the world has ever said so...

The Concrete Subjective & Concrete Objective Worlds...

[SB_UK]

pinhead politicians

Is it wrong to want to live on your own ?
No, it's not wrong - but I must know
How can someone so young
Sing words so sad ?

Sheila take a, Sheila take a bow
Boot the grime of this world in the crotch, dear
And don't go home tonight
Come out and find the one that you love and who loves you
The one that you love and who loves you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-HW_2c3JTw

~*~

It's about all that (at least currently) matters.

[SB_UK]

continued...

.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
"Throw your homework onto the fire ... ...

ved -anta
The end of knowledge

Come out and find the one that you love

... ... and the start of something ~new~
.
Come out and find the one that you l/o|v\e"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

[SteveA]

Now, this can easily create a fundamental illusion many end believing has been resolved by science, which it certainly has not.

In order to be honest, I'll have to be a hypocrit - notice that we use the science in terms of a democratically defined view. There may very well be people that have resolved things for themself but if the crowd lags or if things are misrepresented, then this can create the appearance of a conflict that may not exist.

And I admit to doing the same thing ... it's just out of habit, but truly I don't know everything going on but I've seen enough to know the general flavor of the majority of publicly available information, so I'm using the term science in that respect.

So, iff one chooses to believe facts about what they are looking at in the distant universe, they may very well be believing in an illusion, but the universe, herself, has no real illusions, or does it?

Well that's a good question. I'm at least trying to stick to something that I can hold as true - even assuming everything was an illusion, that still doesn't mean you can't figuratively "pick up a piece" and use that as your basis to define truth within it.

To me, logic seems solid and I do a lot of engineering/programming/designing etc. and so those are the rigid tools I know best. If even logic can fail, then I wouldn't be able to have any confidence making any statement at all, including a statement that logic could fail.

So from that perspective, there's not much problem - logic can simply be considered to be true because if it wasn't, then at least for me, there's little point in even trying to have a conversation regarding any of it.

But I can't maintain every other belief I have and get it all to fit - finite logic and time do not mix - there is no logical way to constraint time inside a box.

The only resolution to this problem appears to be the existence of an infinite determinism.

And that, my friend, is incredible - just two little innocent words, but their significance goes beyond anything we could imagine - things beyond comprehension are all tied together and there is a "oneness" to it all and it's been laid out in meticulous detail and "painted" with colors we have not yet seen and concepts we don't yet understand, or have already understood etc.

The universe will never repeat exactly, but similarly we will also believe that it does and that it doesn't and the scent of a rose will never remain the same, yet we will believe it does and we will also believe that it doesn't and there will be nostalgia and there will always be the new and the old and the "Now" and time as a progression can only be remembered to add, though we can remember to add a forgetting and there are dimensions of experience that are beyond that

I'm trying to give a little better picture of what infinite determinism can look like - there is not such a thing as an infinite void, except as once again, something entirely new and passing and mixing and flowing and dynamically growing and dancing etc.

There is no manner to distinguish in time between an infinite number of identical things. Superpositions would just be the moments between times, waiting to be expanded - if all we'd ever searched in science was the small - science would be a knowledge of the small, and similarly if a flower is seen as a flower then it can remain a flower, but if it's seen as a cure for cancer, then it can become a cure for cancer.

Space is like a tree between endpoints - you select where you want to add the detail and the manner in which its constructed. The processes used determine its form.

Now can we also logically explain why specific processes are used or specific points selected? That also appears a logical paradox - either you know it or your don't or you can figure it out, but as long as time is "running" there'll still be the one you've overlooked.

Boy, this can get tricky, so let’s limit our view to our closer realities. Yes, it is true it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth, but most accept the fact of truly seeing and knowing the real sun is present. There’s not much dis-agreement here.

Well the Sun is largely similar to an influx of energy. We see it in a specific form because that's the manner in which the body interacts with space, but notice that spherical forms can easily be constructed by diffusions in many dimensions.

Now what if we could sort out those diffusions so they weren't so chaotic and random? Would the Sun still appear as a sphere in a 3-D space? I doubt it - it would probably appear as some hyperdimensional tetrahedral form - the volume encapsulated by endpoints. Consider how a diffusion along a single dimension constructs a Bell Curve/Gaussian - in 2 dimensions, it's a blurred point, in 3 dimensions it's a gas cloud.

If you took some very high dimensional structure and projected all these properties into a 3 dimensional space, you get objects like gas clouds - they can't be perfectly incoherent though or they wouldn't even remain in space and appear to possess a variable density etc.

So we have a highly chaotic interaction as properties that are not immediately but these still retain some coherency and we have non-linear and discontinuous features that can be detected in terms of the spectrum as well as the rapid density change along the surface of the Sun etc.

But something else to consider once again is that we're not necessarily seeing the "real" Sun - what's seen is only what reaches us - it's the parts of the Sun that we mix and mingle with that are seen as real. Also, it doesn't really take 8 minutes to see the Sun (Of course that's not what you were saying, but I'm just trying to emphasize that the interpretation of a delay is somewhat artificial - we could similarly construct a model of space in which light moved infinitely fast and it was only relative ratios of delays, and similarly wavelengths that determined the times taken by various pathways - I personally can't "wrap my head around" and get an intuitive view of that, but it appears entirely true and that would be much of how the static/timeless view of physical laws should appear.