God’s Good Earthen Soil – Dystopic Sci-Fi – Vesper Heliotropic Excerpt

She also and weirdly, knew that his daughter was no longer ‘present’ on God’s Good Earthen Soil, either. Harietta Damiand had died in a horrible Hover accident involving several or more automobiles. She was nine at the time of her death.

He had loved her, like Daddy’s do. Or like, Daddy’s can. To complicate things, Johanna, his wife was going senile. Her sudden dementia was combatted with restructuring software and everything, but in the end, she just slipped away.

This made things more convenient for him of course, especially. Harietta had been made of God’s Good Flesh when she lived. She was made of God’s Own Good Born Silicate and now, well now, she was made of wood. Dr. Damiand, resurrected her by copying what the Intra-Portable Equiv-MRI Bot, that is, the brain software, had recorded…

…Read More of Vesper Heliotropic Book II. RACHAEL Here!

Vesper Heliotropic Dystopic Sci-Fi Novel

How Do You Know When You’re Right?

 Or at least more right, more often than not.

 The answer? By constructing an amendable matrix. Of differing lists.

 Along with the following concepts:

Integration

Subjectivity

Objectivity

Rationality                       MATRIX

Deduction

Induction

Context

Co-Occurrence

The concepts I don’t cover out of not having time to write more, you’re going to have to look up, but most of these are here at least used in a context.

1. I want you to think whether or not you consider yourself a follower or a leader, a conformist or a free thinker.

Okay, got that?

2. Now I want you to make a list of all the things you think of as 100% true in reality.

3. Then list all the things you know for 100% are agreed upon by all of your friends. You might notice that this is a very different list. It should be and would be the more you are a leader. As long as those truths remain rational.

4. Now list all the things you can think of that are ambiguous truths. These must be things in reality you really don’t have much of a clue about.

5. Then list all the things you think are good at. You can even make different lists so long as you identify them with an attribute that connects with reality.

6. Now list all the things you are passionately interested about.

7. Now list all the things you could care less about.

8. Then the things you are completely indifferent to.

9. The extent to which you are surprised is the round about extent to which you are aware or not.

10. Weed out contradictions or suspend them and proactively research the proper relevant information.

11. Combine and group similarities and make the proper conclusions and put them into their respective boxes: i.e. Deduction is the 100% true category. Induction is the ambiguous category.

Experiment by making shorter and longer lists. The point is to make you more aware via cross referencing elements that would never have co-occurred.

Howard Gardnener is his book Frames of Mind, points out that children begin by mere association i.e. Hammer and nail are more similar than hammer and screwdriver. Ayn Rand points out that we later (if we become rational people) move onto abstraction, removing and therefore grasping similarities and differences and then remembering them.

Your brain doesn’t integrate similarities across the board in a wide-scale fashion necessarily, it is extremely easy to default to compartmentalization. This is what the Matrix gives you: regardless of whether one element is right or wrong, the total context as a categorical board that progressively links and groups things together, is called mental integration. It is this that is most severely missing from our cultural understanding.

The question “How do you know when you’re right,” is an important one, but the real question is “How does a fairly rational person live an intelligent life in a culture that is severely and self-confessed to be anti-intellectual and is in fact highly irrational?”

That is the last concept I will give you today to chew on. Make no mistake, I have more often than not wound up correct in more situations than anyone I know, relative to my interests.

Practice Matrix List Making and I guarantee you will learn something substantial about yourself and reality. Keep these lists and even write them up in a program like Excel, Adobe Illustrator, etc. The computer makes it real easy. That is, until I come out with  the cognitive learning software to do it for you 😉

Temporary Like Achilles

It’s hard to know who a traitor is.

“Treason doth never prosper. Why? Because if treason prospered, none dare call it treason.” – JFK, Oliver Stone

The major reigning institution of our time, primarily government dominated corporatism, or oligarchy, a business run society, finds it convenient to pour propaganda into believing in the Achilles tendon approach to life and logic by always going after non-sequitors to debunk claims.

Why?

Well consider that most people you know are probably oriented toward reasoning that looks for anything to disprove any theory. Whether you know it or not. I’ve even been duped by the present form of business and remnant Christendom in the form of skepticism.

That is, the skeptic movement is extremely convenient for big business that depends on making big theories into hash. We don’t see it but it’s there. For the right, the American oligarchy is trying pit the right against the left out of poking ‘holes’ in evolution. For the left, big business is trying to poke holes in anything philosophical that challenges the so-called capitalist story while supporting judeo-christian values in their propaganda. Its kind of like when I saw all of a 4 year old cousin’s Lego set of you know, random houses and people painted all in red white and blue. The advertising agenda had a conservative parental strategy in mind to sell patriotic Lego sets.

I’ve witnessed the veiling of christian ethics in the guise of the real and true science of skepticism, (vs. the philosophy I believe to be inherently flawed) which I believe in good enough numbers, to be a hidden Christian movement, as many skeptics are also former Church goers. Michael Shermer, a former Christian himself and now a leader of the skeptics movement is a poster boy for the allegedly converted atheist. Yet he is extremely populist in Rhetoric and the Things he writes about Tend to be politically motivated, yet, go figure–sound in content. Practically being raised atheist, myself, I see where the interpersonal gaps are.

The truth is not in what we’re saying (cause people will think your crazy) but even the most adamant conservative brainwashed Fox News junky, or conditioned liberal MSNBC monk, will reveal things about how desperate they feel through implicit means such as inflection, but also content, when their living space is under attack. My late grandfather, a very conservative christian former WW2 Colonel railed against corporate clear cutting of forests in Maine, as said, only cause he lived there, but still, it shows what people actually believe once their interests are threatened.

I’ve had 4 close friends pose as Intellectuals who are actually touting status quo religious attitudes. Funny enough, I have to admit I am partially a religious thinker in method. That is, I think the mental process of  rapture is necessary to a healthy epistemology. Another story for another time.

I am not saying that all skeptics are synonymous with Christian values, but that business is profiting off of playing one group against another so that the acquisition of threatening quantities of Capitol are kept at shallow equadistant levels for the common ‘Peasantry.’ According to Michael Moore which I later verified, Citibank group leaked a document describing the American people as ‘Peasantry.’

It’s no secret that those in power consider things from a medieval point of view since their real business is power and force. Global domination. At present I do not see major signs that the global corporate agenda is coming at all exclusively from the right, though it may.

My point here is that people are translating bottom lines into lived philosophy. The bottom line inside the corporate model, is a job in which (unless it’s tech, and most often even then) you must work all of your vital weekly hours inside someone else’s dream of your life. This consumer model environment has been rendered temporary by the advent of the Internet and its decentralization of culture. Meanwhile centralized authority strives to make all countries sit stagnant together, as Chomsky points out, into ‘a low wage equilibrium’ within a blanket of constant war and low scale innovation. He has a tantamount quantity of controlled evidence to support this.

So when a close friend or family tells you that trying to get rich is a pipe dream,they may be correct, or they may not, but don’t ever close the door on any idea because people are telling you it just isn’t gonna happen. What you’re confronting is not an opinion, but very possibly, a conditioned reflex.

Sent from my iPad

Philosophy is Real

In this blog, I will indicate why abstract, philosophical action is especially appropriate as it pertains to domestic situations.

If a computer is given a set of files and folders it can’t find, it let’s you know. It does this with an error, or used to just shut down. My Dad’s Apple IIc would making a grinding sound akin to pulling tantamount quantities of air into your lungs through your nose and a straw.

To a human, with relativity to a large abstract concept called: life–these files and folders are meant to be inserted as input; instructions on how to translate the incoming data into a course of action. (Rand)

What is this action? Living. What is living? Rand says it’s the process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. I say that it is the reactive system & environment between individual and often collective action that passes through moments, space and time. Something like that.

In any case, if life consists of moments, there are qualities and quantities to these moments, ups and downs, input and output. When there is an inappropriate file in another folder, we often make things up to cover it up. I did. For years. But since ethics does not exist in reality and can only exist through the thoughtful reasoned, full integration of consciousness–my fundamental principles remain absolute.  Link here.

A full integration of consciousness on a literal level is not possible without technology. However, I  do think that a conscious philosophy is not only necessary, but essential to resolving lived situations and ‘advancing in life.’ This is the same thing as saying “Think top-down,” since philosophy is a top-down system. It has to be, the amount of information it has to deal with is too broad to be examined in terms of anything else. Concepts as Peikoff says, are the Algebra of cognition.

Like a book entailing how to run a computer ‘program’ like Drupal or write code like PHP, style in CSS, etc–we have a choice to read bottom up or top down. (Source on top-down-bottom-up thinking in this example: Author of “SVN” by OReilly)

When you read top-down, you are trying to get an over view, and this often sounds very superfluous to us. It did to me for many years without that concept, and as a result, like the absence of any idea, it results in large errors.

The analogy of the The Maze and the Revolving Orb comes to mind. These analogies are my own.

The Maze is all the situations we live in that we must pass through since we must walk forward. If we go back, in ‘philosophical space,’ we die which in reality means stagnancy and its inevitable end result: death.

The Revolving Orb is what’s directly in front of us, obscuring (very Platonic and sort of New-Agey I know) our vision from what’s in front of us.

Can we stop? No. Can we look to the sides? Yes, you can only see in your peripheral though and its often very blurry but can also be sharp if you look closely. The Orb never stops turning, but relays on its revolving, undulating surface, that which is in front of you and also, the maze itself, invconveniently located as an overlay, a metling transparecny of the entire Maze.

So let me complete the analogy: Philosophy is the Orb. Life is what’s in the maze itself along with its walls. The more we learn about philosophy, the clearer what is front of us becomes as the Orb merely CAN relay (say in pixels) what is in front of us, but does not necessarily relay the right thing at all even.

So say you have an angry head. What’s in front of you will be distorted or made of characters that aren’t really there. If you take your anger and reason it, what’s in front of you might become clear. But there’s no indication that what is on the Orb is true other than your ability to navigate the Maze and find your way out.

Most people are using peripheral sight in place of the Orb. Literal fragmented vision in place of a birds eye: Philosophy, a conscious, maintained fully actualized way of life.

We live in a world to whom philosophy is invisible. Why has it remained invisible?

Philosophy began as a way to explain things, nothing more and it keeps its roots because of one of its branches: metaphysics. Metaphysics deals not merely with reality itself, but with absolute reality. In the universe, this is literally that which is permanent to it.

Think about that.

Stars might be one literal thing. Planets maybe. Solar systems. Okay, but what about the things we can’t see and often can’t even feel? What permanent things are there that we can’t see? Is Freedom something we can touch and see? Sure it is, we are free to go outside and smell the air and the flowers.

But this isn’t freedom, is it?

Freedom is the ability to have options. Options are granted via a law that protects us from other people infringing on us. In our society. Why is this? Because the alternative as Rand says, is a gun and everything that comes with that.

So what happens when people say “I don’t need privacy, the law takes care of that.” Yeah. Well, this is the same way I feel when talking and dealing with people who care not to have a conscious philosophy.

It’s very much like the scene in Scarface with Toni Montana talking to the Banker in his own home. In this scene, Toni has a complete misconception of banking, banking systems and is uneducated so knows very little about money or Economics. As the result of this he wishes to hold all his money in cash in his house or go with another bank. The Banker tells him not to be a Schmuck and that he’s paying the extra taxes he’s balking on,  for security. Rather than actually reason or look into this, he tells the guy to leave. He merely smiles and tells him to say Hi to his wife for him. Toni has believed something abstract about his situation, it’s not that he hasn’t. He understands that Bankers are people that need to make money and that this banker could be cheating him. Cared he to articulate it, and that’s exactly my point. Toni even with his own limited information could still ask the question: “What is my knowledge based on in this instance?” Upon seeing not too much in front of him from the recall done to files and folders in his mind, he brings up that he doesn’t really have very much. As the result of this, a normal person would conclude that they need more input.

And in terms of philosophy (the conceptual bird’s eye in relation to the concept life and how we live it along with what reality as a whole is) this is virtually anybody I meet since I live in U.S. Or really anywhere, but especially in my country.

The Orb to someone who does not have a conscious philosophy, is highly distorted at best.

So what about the argument that contends that we don’t need philosophy in practical reality?

My first answer to this is: “You’re right.” My second is: “For You.”

In reality this is the same thing as saying “I don’t really need to know my wife’s motivations, I just need to love her.” Or: “I don’t need to study up to know that women are generally weaker than men.”

How about: “Black people are inferior.” Still convinced you don’t need philosophy?

But science does that, you might say. And yet Science even in method now, is the historical evolution of philosophy itself.

The Real Reason: I hear about how philosophy couldn’t mean less, often in situations where it could make a difference, the most.

Watching TV shows is oddly a good source to learn about all of philosophies in action. I recommend Six Feet Under for an honest view and Rome or the movie Gladiator for an exaggerated but keen eye into the importance of personal politics and philosophy.

There’s one thing missing though…

What in the Maze analogy is moving us again? Aside from ultimate death and ongoing prolonged torture or whatever else, why do we need to move forward? There is even a good amount of scientific evidence to suggest that without exercise, the body atrophies. So does the mind. And so does philosophy, contained, by the way, by means of the mind. So if we must move forward in life, how fast? What sets its speed?

My answer for now is this: Adjust the speed for yourself, but don’t let the speed distort what you see in front of you. What do you see in front you?

Philosophy.

***