#RawDeal

A socialist/communist #brain-fart that thinks everything will get better by redistributing wealth & goodies from those that have to whomsoever they & their cronies deem worthy who support them to make “the World” better.null

Comments


well i suppose there are those who think that way … i am not one them.  

i do however notice that some of the laws  and habits of our culture are accumulating recourses in a few to the decrement of the many.    that flies in the face of the principal of equality of individuals in eyes of the law.  for example #CitizensUnited.   i believe there needs to be a balancing force in the opposite direction.  collectively people should have just as much say in how they are governed as has accumulated wealth.  we should not be allowed to BUY  how we are goverened.

There are more rich democrats than republicans in Congress.  Hillary & Bill got rich while in office & after & so did Obama https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/01/20/how-barack-obama-has-made-20-million-since-arriving-in-washington/#b7134275bf05
Go figure!  Trump made his the old fashioned way – not in government. Stop #TrumpingOff
.Anyway with threefoldness the economy, (money etc) is divorced from government.

Well #Trump does not value what i value, what is important to him is not what is important to me.  I do not intend that his senario wins.  Obviously i will resist it.

Yep & I oppose your values etc. Evolution will do it’s job.

& what you think & reason is probably off the page anyway for 

Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.
Liber Legis – II,32


well reason and reasonable stories are pretty much what i have to figure out what to do.  it is necessary because  i assume that i am an intentional person who can consciously take responsibility  for my experiences.  As such i avoid  #fallacies of reason which confuse that process.

#reason #logic

And ...

Reasonable stories can be shared with and spread to others who use the principles of reason and avoid  #fallacies. 

Whereas a story which is not reasonable can spread only by virtue of the power of the person (or group) telling the story.

seth

Good for You! null – LL says there is more – government & you ares rarely reasonable from all points of view.

okay i agree … government is rarely reasonable … especially the laws crafted out of partisan fighting.

“there is a factor infinite & unknown”,  is reasonable … but assuming that does not help me “figure out what *I* have to do” … especially since it admits that this factor is “unknown” null.

Me,  i try to maximize my stories and reasons to match with all factors that i know.  To that extent they are not  necessarily “skew-wise” to infinite factors.  Avoiding the #fallacies of reason helps in that regard.

This train of thought brings to mind a meme i heard recently,  …

The best way to predict the future, is to create it .

Abraham Lincoln
… reasonable, eh?
tag #reason #logic #predicting #PredictingEvents


Doesn’t sound like Lincoln or his language of the Civil war days. … but then that infinite & unknown does creep in & all your skew wise plans can fade just like the 2016 election.

FYI AC’s comment on II,32 ( via ***) xor (*)

AL II,32: “Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.”

The Old Comment
32. We have insufficient data on which to reason. This passage only allies to ‘rational’ criticism of the Things Beyond.

The New Comment
The ‘factor infinite and unknown’ is the subconscious Will. ‘On with the revel!” ‘Their words’ — the plausible humbug of the newspapers and the churches. Forget it! Allons! Marchons!

It has been explained at length in a previous note that ‘reason is a lie’ by nature. We may here add certain confirmations suggested by the ‘factor.’ A and a (not-A) together make up the Universe. As a is evidently ‘infinite and unknown,’ its equal and opposite A must be so no less. Again, from any proposition S is P, reason deduces “S is not p;” thus the apparent finitude and knowability of S is deceptive, since it is in direct relation with p.

No matter what n may be, {?infinity?}, the number of the inductive numbers, is unaltered by adding or subtracting it. There are just as many odd numbers as there are numbers altogether. Our knowledge is confined to statements of the relations between certain sets of our own sensory impressions; and we are convinced by our limitations that ‘a factor infinite and unknown’ must be concealed within the sphere of which we see but one minute part of the surface. As to reason itself, what is more certain than that its laws are only the conscious expression of the limits imposed upon us by our animal nature, and that to attribute universal validity, or even significance, to them is a logical folly, the raving of our megalomania? Experiment proves nothing; it is surely obvious that we are obliged to correlate all observations with the physical and mental structure whose truth we are trying to test. Indeed, we can assume an ‘unreasonable’ axiom, and translate the whole of our knowledge into its terms, without fear of stumbling over any obstacle. Reason is no more than a set or rules developed by the race; it takes no account of anything beyond sensory impressions and their reactions to various parts of our being. There is no possible escape from the vicious circle that we can register only the behaviour of our own instrument. We conclude from the fact that it behaves at all, that there must be ‘a factor infinite and unknown’ at work upon it. This being the case, we may be sure that our apparatus is inherently incapable of discovering the truth about anything, even in part.

Let me illustrate. I see a drop of water. Distrusting my eyes, I put it under the microscope. Still in doubt, I photograph and enlarge the slide. I compare my results with those of others. I check them by cultivating the germs in the water, and injecting them into paupers. But I have learnt nothing at all about ‘the infinite and unknown,’ merely producing all sorts of different impressions according to the conditions in which one observes it!

More yet, all the instruments used have been tested and declared “true” on the evidence of those very eyes distrust of which drove me to the research.

Modern Science has at last grown out of the very-young-man cocksureness of the 19th century. It is now admitted that axioms themselves depend on definitions, and that Intuitive Certainty is simply one trait of “homo sapiens”, like the ears of the ass or the slime of the slug. That we reason as we do merely proves that we cannot reason otherwise. We cannot move the upper jaw; it does not follow that the idea of motion is ridiculous. The limitation hints rather that there may be an infinite variety of structures which the jaw cannot imagine. The metric system is not the necessary mode of measurement. It is the mark of a mind untrained to take its own processes as valid for all men, and its own judgments for absolute truth. Our two eyes see an object in two aspects, and present to our consciousness a third which agrees with neither, is indeed, strictly speaking, not sensible to sight, but to touch! Our senses declare some things at rest and others in motion; our reason corrects the error, firstly by denying that anything can exist unless it is in motion, secondly by denying that absolute motion possesses any meaning at all.

At the time when this Book was written, official Science angrily scouted the ‘factor infinite and unknown,’ and clung with pathetic faith to the idea that reason was the touchstone of truth. In a single sentence, Aiwaz anticipates the discoveries by which the greatest minds now incarnate have made the last ten years memorable.



Good stuff null.   I agree with most of his conclusions, though not necessarily his reasoning to conclude them.  If you follow it in detail you might notice that much of it is the same as i have been saying. 

I think it can be summarized by the proposition,  “The map is not the territory it maps” … or “A story of what happens, is not what happens”.  And whatever the story, it is subjective to the story teller. 

His next to last paragraph is an alternate telling of my own story of #underdetermine null … that was music to my ears.

But just like me, he exaggerates if you interpret that he implies all stories, all maps, all reason, all patterns, are lies.  There should be no such binary determination to be had in this context.  But rather takeaway a story of asymptotes … a map will represent a territory just as accurately in a context as it is constructed and used for that purpose.   Maybe more about that later when, as and if, such a dialog emerges.   I  just caution against interpreting  some of #AC’s statements here as literally applying in all contexts, outside of the context of some specific example null

Strange I came up with the peanut butter vs not peanut butter meme before reading it above. The context is similar to dividing up good people from bad people etc.  keep cutting the line in half until it is just you & I and I know which one is going to be “good” ion my book. null


The point being you ALWAYS have insufficient information.


Would you have the same conclusion if you  were cutting the line in half between yourself and for example  RS, or AC, or GW, or Gandhi, or Jesus ?

It was a thought experiment I first heard from Michael Hadley.  One can assume I have insufficient information to answer your question. null
xor there is stuff in/around/about/concerning consciousness for which reason is an unsuitable tool to grock it (if it has an “it” nature at all) !