evolution
Nature's negative rights myths
01/September/2010 15:20 Filed in: Weekly
Column
Barack Obama has become known for his description
of the US Constitution as a bundle of negative
rights, or liberties that limit government from
doing a lot of things that he believes the
government should provide. Since those negative
liberties are designed from the federal government
down through the states, to the individual, those
negative liberties are mostly focused upon limiting
national power.
Keeping with our last post on “Our Sin-Cosmos Demise” the increasing federal power over the history of the United States can be portrayed as the slow eroding of the essentially ex nihilo informational energetics of the nation’s founding. This erosion follows the first two laws of thermodynamics. If our sin cosmos analysis is correct, over time that created stasis will reach a point that without significant increases in thermodynamic informational energetics, the whole process will collapse in a manner similar to that shown in radiation half-lives.
Whether you believe that enviable collapse by that mechanism or not, there are a couple of natural laws that provide the basis for those federal limitations of Obama’s negative liberties. Both natural laws basically find their power from the negative reality of sin, but each law focuses on different ends of our created human spectrum of inalienable rights. Both are found in the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis.
Since the highly evolved collective elite considers the Bible essentially a book of negative myths of evolutionary history, the reality of their application is beyond the paradigms of their enlightened worldview. Irreconcilable variations exist between the evolutionary millions and billions of years contrasted with a Biblical constructionist need to compress the creation account and mans’ history into thousands of years. However when you look seriously at that debate, creation historical dates are just differing applications of our two underlying natural laws.
The first sin focuses on the individual and is found in Genesis 3; generally referred to as the fall of mankind, and the beginning of the Christian concept of total depravity. Stated in specific terms this is the individual desire to be like God, to know the difference between good and evil and to be able to define our own specific works as good.
The second is found in the Tower of Babel experience and the confusion of the human language into languages. Stated in Biblical terms, which we have no problem understanding, our highest community desires is to work together so that there is really nothing that human abilities cannot accomplish. That is especially true if we are able to evolve beyond these negative myths. Read More...
Keeping with our last post on “Our Sin-Cosmos Demise” the increasing federal power over the history of the United States can be portrayed as the slow eroding of the essentially ex nihilo informational energetics of the nation’s founding. This erosion follows the first two laws of thermodynamics. If our sin cosmos analysis is correct, over time that created stasis will reach a point that without significant increases in thermodynamic informational energetics, the whole process will collapse in a manner similar to that shown in radiation half-lives.
Whether you believe that enviable collapse by that mechanism or not, there are a couple of natural laws that provide the basis for those federal limitations of Obama’s negative liberties. Both natural laws basically find their power from the negative reality of sin, but each law focuses on different ends of our created human spectrum of inalienable rights. Both are found in the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis.
Since the highly evolved collective elite considers the Bible essentially a book of negative myths of evolutionary history, the reality of their application is beyond the paradigms of their enlightened worldview. Irreconcilable variations exist between the evolutionary millions and billions of years contrasted with a Biblical constructionist need to compress the creation account and mans’ history into thousands of years. However when you look seriously at that debate, creation historical dates are just differing applications of our two underlying natural laws.
The first sin focuses on the individual and is found in Genesis 3; generally referred to as the fall of mankind, and the beginning of the Christian concept of total depravity. Stated in specific terms this is the individual desire to be like God, to know the difference between good and evil and to be able to define our own specific works as good.
The second is found in the Tower of Babel experience and the confusion of the human language into languages. Stated in Biblical terms, which we have no problem understanding, our highest community desires is to work together so that there is really nothing that human abilities cannot accomplish. That is especially true if we are able to evolve beyond these negative myths. Read More...
The Social Darwinism Conundrum
28/April/2010 11:27 Filed in: Weekly
Column
How many times in these United States have you gone
to visit someone and were admonished at the front
door, “We don’t allow the discussion of politics or
religion in this house!”
Even if it is an unspoken rule, the lack of discourse of both politics and religion and how they are related, dare I a say as a civil discussion, is what has gotten America into our current position.
Just mention Sarah Palin and a volcano of anger or praise erupts almost instantaneously and soon volcanic ash threatens to block out the sun. If someone doesn’t change the subject pretty soon, air traffic will have to be diverted around the area.
Underlying all this joy and mirth is the clashing of worldviews.
One view believes that there is a God, who created everything not all that long ago, and mankind was created in the image of God.
The scientific worldview does not believe in god, maybe aliens, but nothing exists but the natural material reality that evolved by quantum leaps of intellectual complexity over millions and billions of years.
A third worldview states that they believe in God but are agnostic on how it all came to be and where we are going, because they just have enough trouble dealing with daily life.
The forth group believes essentially that they are the zenith of evolution, and because of their superior intellect, the rest of us should acquiesce to their understanding of how it all works, and likewise thank and serve them for being so very magnanimous. These are the Social Darwinists, who now are the dominant religion in America, but as we will see as we continue, are facing a conundrum of epic proportions, that will very soon lead to a battle to the finish among the members. The survival of progressive evolution is at stake and to victor belong not only the spoils, but the vanquished will be eliminated from the gene pool.
So if you happen to be in one of the first three religious groups, for the time being, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, sit back, relax, turn on your television, open a cool one of your choice, and watch the battle unfold.
Well just between you and me, the battle has been rigged, because both of the participants have already been found to have fatal weaknesses, but that does not mean that this sport will not be worth watching.
So let the battle begin!
Read More...
Even if it is an unspoken rule, the lack of discourse of both politics and religion and how they are related, dare I a say as a civil discussion, is what has gotten America into our current position.
Just mention Sarah Palin and a volcano of anger or praise erupts almost instantaneously and soon volcanic ash threatens to block out the sun. If someone doesn’t change the subject pretty soon, air traffic will have to be diverted around the area.
Underlying all this joy and mirth is the clashing of worldviews.
One view believes that there is a God, who created everything not all that long ago, and mankind was created in the image of God.
The scientific worldview does not believe in god, maybe aliens, but nothing exists but the natural material reality that evolved by quantum leaps of intellectual complexity over millions and billions of years.
A third worldview states that they believe in God but are agnostic on how it all came to be and where we are going, because they just have enough trouble dealing with daily life.
The forth group believes essentially that they are the zenith of evolution, and because of their superior intellect, the rest of us should acquiesce to their understanding of how it all works, and likewise thank and serve them for being so very magnanimous. These are the Social Darwinists, who now are the dominant religion in America, but as we will see as we continue, are facing a conundrum of epic proportions, that will very soon lead to a battle to the finish among the members. The survival of progressive evolution is at stake and to victor belong not only the spoils, but the vanquished will be eliminated from the gene pool.
So if you happen to be in one of the first three religious groups, for the time being, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, sit back, relax, turn on your television, open a cool one of your choice, and watch the battle unfold.
Well just between you and me, the battle has been rigged, because both of the participants have already been found to have fatal weaknesses, but that does not mean that this sport will not be worth watching.
So let the battle begin!
Read More...
States Rights as Natural as Wildness
26/April/2010 14:31 Filed in: Special
Report | Week in
Review
The
United States of America used to be understood by
the slogan, “Out of many — one.” It is now becoming
better defined as, “Out of many — chaos.”
This evolution has taken place most dramatically in the last fifty years, but those chaotic roots run deep for at least the last century.
In January, when we began the “Why Me? A Novel — Novel of Historic Apprehension” it looked like there was a window in America’s trek to Gomorrah, in which we could develop a little historic context about how we got here and where we were headed, regardless of the desires of mice and men. It looks like the mice are holding up quite well in contrast to the best intentions of American leadership, but a couple realities did begin to be seen as “Why Me?” progressed, which show as early buds of the coming American political spring.
During those four months it was easy to anticipate the passage of Obamacare, but the firestorm of issues related to the individual mandate for people to purchase insurance, angered individuals, but also set off a spring burn of protests at the state level. Who would have thought at the beginning of the year that about a third of the states would begin to act like real sovereign states. All this time we thought they were extinct, except for collecting taxes and creating arcane regulations. We will here attempt to put some natural spring into these new found rumblings. We will look at the heavy lifting of what is just beginning under the Washington guise of “Financial Reform” in our Wednesday article.
I would suppose one could make the case that the concept of state dependency began during the Great Depression and the New Deal that followed. But the way the history has hyped that period among all the enlightenment progressive spin, it makes it impossible to find the states at all. Those who are yet still alive and actually went through that period were too young understand the context.
However using estimated dates beginning with the Civil Rights Movement: 1955-1968; the Viet Nam War Protests: 1965-1975; and the Environmental Movement: 1962-1981; we essentially saw urban intellectual evolution commandeer all aspects of American unity and those who disagreed with their worldview were vilified as: racists, warmongers, and primitive knuckle draggers.
This as continued to evolve until today, we have the Lame Stream Media basically becoming propaganda asylums, and fair and balanced reporting, sponsoring battling pundit promotions. What is lost in all this is the fact that human beings were generally created to like one another and to help one another succeed. In that respect to believe that a bloated Federal government can fix societies ills is truly insanity.
Read More...
This evolution has taken place most dramatically in the last fifty years, but those chaotic roots run deep for at least the last century.
In January, when we began the “Why Me? A Novel — Novel of Historic Apprehension” it looked like there was a window in America’s trek to Gomorrah, in which we could develop a little historic context about how we got here and where we were headed, regardless of the desires of mice and men. It looks like the mice are holding up quite well in contrast to the best intentions of American leadership, but a couple realities did begin to be seen as “Why Me?” progressed, which show as early buds of the coming American political spring.
During those four months it was easy to anticipate the passage of Obamacare, but the firestorm of issues related to the individual mandate for people to purchase insurance, angered individuals, but also set off a spring burn of protests at the state level. Who would have thought at the beginning of the year that about a third of the states would begin to act like real sovereign states. All this time we thought they were extinct, except for collecting taxes and creating arcane regulations. We will here attempt to put some natural spring into these new found rumblings. We will look at the heavy lifting of what is just beginning under the Washington guise of “Financial Reform” in our Wednesday article.
I would suppose one could make the case that the concept of state dependency began during the Great Depression and the New Deal that followed. But the way the history has hyped that period among all the enlightenment progressive spin, it makes it impossible to find the states at all. Those who are yet still alive and actually went through that period were too young understand the context.
However using estimated dates beginning with the Civil Rights Movement: 1955-1968; the Viet Nam War Protests: 1965-1975; and the Environmental Movement: 1962-1981; we essentially saw urban intellectual evolution commandeer all aspects of American unity and those who disagreed with their worldview were vilified as: racists, warmongers, and primitive knuckle draggers.
This as continued to evolve until today, we have the Lame Stream Media basically becoming propaganda asylums, and fair and balanced reporting, sponsoring battling pundit promotions. What is lost in all this is the fact that human beings were generally created to like one another and to help one another succeed. In that respect to believe that a bloated Federal government can fix societies ills is truly insanity.
Read More...
The Law of Malignant Enlightenment
29/March/2010 11:43 Filed in: Special
Report | Week in
Review
Our friend
Et Tu Brute’ early Friday morning showed his
wisdom on how the passage of ObamaCare would be
greatly altered over time by the Law of Unintended
Consequences. Following Brute’s post it was truly
amazing how often this generally undefined law was
mentioned in the world of more traditional news
media and commentary. This was generally rebutted
by a more liberal response, “Yah, but, just wait
until it takes effect and everyone understands this
evolving opportunity.” The definition of
opportunity left to those less infected (sic).
Cutting through all the composting entropy, the rhetoric revolves basically around two mutually exclusive loci. A traditional or conservative spin states, “With the passage of ObamaCare the path to mutually assured destruction has been coated with black ice.” On the other side, now spun in the leftist or liberal construct, “America has now reached Beulah Land and the shining eternal city is just across the Serendipity Plain.”
Furthermore a little research into the Law of Unintended Consequences shows that the abstract is probably the best usage, since in that form the law can be used whenever one would like to make a point without really needing to rely on any points at all. “Essentially, in time the spectrum of unintended consequences will become clear, and I am just focusing on a few that fit my talking points, for talking points after all, is why I make the big bucks.”
Along that line, the talking points tend to focus on specifics of the actual ObamaCare bill such as, its size, cost, repeal, or replace, the list being very vendor specific. What all this tends to show is that the shallow shortsightedness that gave us the bill in the first place, will be used in the opposite direction to make it much better. With all these ignored, but now so plainly unforeseen and unintended consequences so apparent, the truth seems to be that ObamaCare must either be in its current form, created through intelligent design, or something, or some other unseen natural law must be working its magic.
This brings us to a more refined, contemporary, and previously undiscovered natural law: The Law of Malignant Enlightenment. Departing from the unintended law, we shall briefly define the Law of Malignant Enlightenment and then give three examples on how the law allows its applications to reach beyond the specifics of ObamaCare and touch the universal attributes that can be altered to achieve positive results in a world of limited resources and unlimited possibilities.
Read More...
Cutting through all the composting entropy, the rhetoric revolves basically around two mutually exclusive loci. A traditional or conservative spin states, “With the passage of ObamaCare the path to mutually assured destruction has been coated with black ice.” On the other side, now spun in the leftist or liberal construct, “America has now reached Beulah Land and the shining eternal city is just across the Serendipity Plain.”
Furthermore a little research into the Law of Unintended Consequences shows that the abstract is probably the best usage, since in that form the law can be used whenever one would like to make a point without really needing to rely on any points at all. “Essentially, in time the spectrum of unintended consequences will become clear, and I am just focusing on a few that fit my talking points, for talking points after all, is why I make the big bucks.”
Along that line, the talking points tend to focus on specifics of the actual ObamaCare bill such as, its size, cost, repeal, or replace, the list being very vendor specific. What all this tends to show is that the shallow shortsightedness that gave us the bill in the first place, will be used in the opposite direction to make it much better. With all these ignored, but now so plainly unforeseen and unintended consequences so apparent, the truth seems to be that ObamaCare must either be in its current form, created through intelligent design, or something, or some other unseen natural law must be working its magic.
This brings us to a more refined, contemporary, and previously undiscovered natural law: The Law of Malignant Enlightenment. Departing from the unintended law, we shall briefly define the Law of Malignant Enlightenment and then give three examples on how the law allows its applications to reach beyond the specifics of ObamaCare and touch the universal attributes that can be altered to achieve positive results in a world of limited resources and unlimited possibilities.
Read More...
Why Me? A Hundred Year Bad Marriage
24/March/2010 10:31 Filed in: Weekly
Column
So you think your marriage is great, that is
wonderful!
If you think your marriage is awful and you want or need a divorce, sorry about that!
But the really sad thing is if you are married to another party for over a hundred years and then you find out that the troubles you have been experiencing for most of a century are rooted in a mutual codependency. You seemed to want the same thing but you never really understood why you were always arguing about virtually everything in life. It took a hundred years and you recently found out by reading this Wonder Springs article that you have totally incompatible religions. You always thought that you were progressing towards the same goal, and now after all this time you realize that you need to split the sheets.
The two twentieth century religions that are in the process of breaking up after all this time are evolving atheistic materialism and Christendom; better known as those who promoted a social gospel, Protestant liberalism, or in some extreme cases, social justice, and Liberation Theology. Those who were around at the beginning of the marriage believed that it was a marriage made in heaven. After all both parties in that early relationship were interested in creating a utopian city here on earth. A shining city on a hill to show the world how well Christians could get along with pagans and in turn everyone would turn their hearts to Jesus.
The problem that both participants in the marriage did not understand was the vision of creating heaven on earth is really the only religion of man for all of recorded history, with very few exceptions. If you take the Bible, not as a holy book, but rather just a brief synopsis of human history virtually every story is about someone intent on creating the kingdom of God in the here and now. A utopia is the goal, it really doesn’t make any difference on the means required to get there, if we all just work together there is nothing we can’t do.
Read More...
If you think your marriage is awful and you want or need a divorce, sorry about that!
But the really sad thing is if you are married to another party for over a hundred years and then you find out that the troubles you have been experiencing for most of a century are rooted in a mutual codependency. You seemed to want the same thing but you never really understood why you were always arguing about virtually everything in life. It took a hundred years and you recently found out by reading this Wonder Springs article that you have totally incompatible religions. You always thought that you were progressing towards the same goal, and now after all this time you realize that you need to split the sheets.
The two twentieth century religions that are in the process of breaking up after all this time are evolving atheistic materialism and Christendom; better known as those who promoted a social gospel, Protestant liberalism, or in some extreme cases, social justice, and Liberation Theology. Those who were around at the beginning of the marriage believed that it was a marriage made in heaven. After all both parties in that early relationship were interested in creating a utopian city here on earth. A shining city on a hill to show the world how well Christians could get along with pagans and in turn everyone would turn their hearts to Jesus.
The problem that both participants in the marriage did not understand was the vision of creating heaven on earth is really the only religion of man for all of recorded history, with very few exceptions. If you take the Bible, not as a holy book, but rather just a brief synopsis of human history virtually every story is about someone intent on creating the kingdom of God in the here and now. A utopia is the goal, it really doesn’t make any difference on the means required to get there, if we all just work together there is nothing we can’t do.
Read More...