Too Late Mitt

This first appeared as a Facebook Status Update but I wanted to put it here too.

It is simply too late for Mitt Romney to try to move toward the center. Everybody understands that in a primary a candidate will position him or herself further from the center than they will be in the General Election and we all take account of this, however the Candidate needs to begin their move toward the center around the time of their Party's convention. Mitt Romney continued to hold to his hard Right positions well after the convention and only took a hard move toward center in the first Presidential Debate. This is simply too late to be taken seriously. It was a smart strategy if we let him get away with it, because it put President Obama in the position of having no idea where Mitt Romney stood going into the debate. Obama took Mitt Romney at his word on all of his positions and sought to engage with that man on those positions, Mitt Romney simply stood there and said, "No thats not what I believe", even though it was exactly what he had been saying he believed for the past 2 years. I know I have been saying this a lot but Mitt Romney only seems to have won the first debate if you do not consider the extent to which he was lying and radically changing his established positions. Mitt Romney's positions are those he has professed for the last 2 years or at least those he held at the end of the week following the end of his convention, this goes for President Obama as well, any position shifts which come after this point should be acknowledged as a change in postion and accompanied by an explanation of why the position has changed, otherwise the candidate is asking people to vote for them blind as to what their actual actionable position is once they are elected and that is simply no way to run a democracy.

A list of Core Assumptions and Principles

Every person carries with them a set of core assumptions and principles through which they filter all of their thoughts and experiences. It is important to become conscious of these such that you can check them and determine their effect on your experiences and whether perhaps you need to make a conscious effort to counteract and change them. I am sure this list I am about to provide is far from complete and it is my intention to add to and edit these as time passes. I will not remove any from this list but should any of these change I will note that they have either been amended or abandoned and attempt to explain how and why. I will also attempt to take each one in turn and make it the subject of its own post or series of posts exploring their source and implications. This post will be simply a list in order to keep it focused but please if you wish to question any of these let me know that is the point of making them public.

1. There is No God.

2. The basic nature of the Universe is one of random chance and consequences dictated by the principle of cause and effect.

3. The Principle of Cause and Effect is itself a coincidental result of the random and chance physical make up of the Universe as determined in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang or Great Expansion or whatever name we give to the beginning point of the Universe (as we know it.)

4. The only road to truth or knowledge is empirical experience.

5. Truth is the accurate representation of observable empirical fact.

6. Knowledge is merely a level of certainty about the truth of a statement.

7. Absolute certainty is impossible. It is entirely a question of relative certainty as it approaches but never reaches 100%

8. Human beings do not occupy any special position either in the Universe, or on Earth.

9. Humans are merely one species of primate which has superiority in some aspects and inferiority in others and it is only through the over emphasis of our strengths and underemphasis of our weaknesses that we have deluded ourselves into believing we are special.

10. There are no fundamental morals.

11. "Moral" behavior is culturally determined and is based on the needs and best functioning of a given society.

12. Differing moral stances can be assessed on how they affect the lives of those people subject to them on an empirical level.

13. Our "laws" of logic and rationality are not fundamental to the universe a priori

14. "Laws" of logic are derived from experience and as such are subject to change consequent to new experience.

15. Logic is predictive not proscriptive.

16. Logic is merely useful for understanding the most likely outcome and for identifying likely instances of mistakes in perception

17. Should outcomes differ from predictions consistently and after the elimination of likely error the prediction and the "laws" from which it was derived must be changed.

18. There is no a priori truth, everything we know we know a posteriori.

19. Existence precedes essence.

20. All men (and women) are not created equal.

21. No individual or group of individuals is in any position to determine what inequalities are of any real consequence so society and particularly Government must treat all people as equals.

22. The world as we perceive it is for all intents and purposes accurate enough to be considered real.

23. There is no essential truth hidden behind the illusion of reality.

24. All of our perceptions and experiences are filtered through our conceptualizations about the world.

25. Our conceptualizations are the result of our past experiences and the structures of our brains and organs of sense perception which have been determined by the process of evolution.

It was in no way intentional for this to be 25. It was 14 in almost these same words but then I split some of them up to get to the fundamental statement of what I meant and to not allow 2 assumptions to support each other as one point such that they contained their own internal support... I suppose however actively trying not to have a multiple of 5 would be as artificial as actively trying to achieve such a number so I won't just come up with another right now but seeing as I do not consider this a final and complete list it really doesn't matter.

26. The future is determined and cannot be known. (I am just going to put this not here to remind myself what I mean by this so I can remember and try to expand it later: The future is determined by the laws of physics which on the quantum level contain a level of uncertainty and chance... Human future is determined by our reactions and interactions with the world around us, the nature of which is determined by our past experiences and make up, this is not a denial of free will because it is exactly these past expereinces and internal make up which is what we refer to as the I making the decisions we perceive as free will we cannot choose differently than we do because to do so with necessitate that we be a different person, we are free to choose as we wish and the way we wish is determined by who we are such that the I chooses freely... or some bullshit like that)

I need to write a philosophic paper...

I think I need to write something of some length and substance. About 10-15 pages of a philosophical nature. I just need a topic, and then I am going to give myself a deadline of 2 weeks for a first draft and a month for a final-ish product, I did it all the time when I was in school but this time it will be good. Some possible ideas are: Schopenhaur's essay On Suicide in the context of the modern debate on physician assisted suicide and end of life care, I was listening to Tuesday's Fresh Air discussion of these issues... As well as several presentations of Tig Nataro's Largo set from August about her recent cancer diagnosis... Which of course is not about her imminent death because she has had successful double mastectomy and all the cancer has been removed giving her an estimated 7% chance of recurrence... but at the time she performed the set none of this had happened yet and all she knew was that she had stage 2 breast cancer in both breasts and it might have spread to her lymphnodes... the point being that it was a brave assessment of her own mortality and the pain life can throw at you... This topic would allow for the introduction of some Nietzsche and Sartre... though I would also need to actively keep things contained and succicnt... Ok another possibility would be to try to find an opening to begin to explore some questions of Deep Ecology which I find interesting, but this is obviously a new area of study for me and perhaps not the best thing to attempt an academic level paper on at this time. It would however open some interesting doors to Anarchist political theory which is another area I want to do more to explore. Maybe I can find an article or selection from No Gods No Masters to use as a jumping off point... but again this is an area in which I have an incomplete base from which to start. I don't want to pick something which will require a large amount of preliminary research mainly because I will use that as an excuse to postpone the doing in favor of reading which will then slip as the deadline becomes shaky and so the need to push to make it will lose force... In the context of that last statement perhaps I should pick some aspect of Nietzsche to work on being as that is my most sturdy area... Maybe take something from my college work and break it into pieces to find something worth expanding on. The problem is the continual grail of the integrated theory... especially because I do not believe in the possibility of an integrated theory and am opposed to the task of system building... that being the base of my integrated theory. There is an intersection point of Existentialism, Zen, and Quantum Theory / Modern Cosmology, in an atheistic comprehension of the world around us, and it is one which provides a compelling starting point for various Anarchistic/Libertarian Socialist political beliefs including a Deep Ecology stance but ultimately that is a series of book length projects which I am in no way prepared to even begin at the moment, especially considering that I can't even seem to get a simple 10 pages of quality philosophical writing done... It was my intention to promise you all a paper posted on here by X date in this post and tell you the topic... I don't know the topic but it is the 11th so lets say that by Nov. 1 I will have my first draft posted... and in order to make that happen I will be announcing the topic in this space on or before Monday October 15th!!!

A bit of a loose ramble about the Direct Democracy Scheme

This is kind of rambling and stream of consciousness but I wanted to get it out there and flowing. I hope to come back and make something more of it soon.

One of the key problems in this concept is trying to think how it might be modeled so as to be studied and improved. This program would require an established culture of political involvement as well as essentially universal internet and communications access. The first requirement stems from the need of a high level of active involvement in the political process. In the current American system the low level of active political involvement throughout the populace is masked by the fact that the same number of legislators fill congress regardless of how few people vote in any given election. Also because elections are held at least 2 years apart in the immediate run up to and aftermath of each election there may be a great deal of discussion about the low percentage of people participating but this fact is quickly obscured and forgotten by the time the actual work of the Government is being done. This situation would become immediately obvious once a more direct democratic process is put in place as the number of votes cast on each issue would directly reflect the interest and concern in the population for that issue. This would likely lead to the need for a floor or minimum number of votes to be cast in order for any issue to become law, we could not have a small number of people with a high level of interest being allowed to pass laws effecting the larger population which might not immediately draw the interest or notice of the majority at the time of voting.

The second issue of universal internet access is a more technical/practical hindrance. In order for this system to work people need access to large amounts of information as well as the ability to make instant and possibly frequent changes in the division of their voting power, as well as to vote for themselves on issues which they have not established a proxy. Voting periods would need to be open for several days if not longer because while all people would need to have access to vote at any given time to expect them all to be able to do it on a regular basis in a limited window would be overly optimistic. This might also open the door for the ability of a person to withdraw their proxy vote after it has been cast should they disagree or feel that they were mislead. This possibility would need to be closely examined to determine whether it should be allowed as well as if it is how to do it and avoid complications and possible corruption.

One possible example of the effects of direct democracy which might immediately come to mind is that of the state of California and other municipalities which allow for ballot initiatives. Generally speaking these examples have not functioned to bring about the best possible outcomes. California's current budget problems stem at least in part from the propensity of the population voting in favor of both spending bills and tax cuts without proper concern over the balancing of the budget. This is however a problem of human nature not necessarily limited to direct forms of democracy. The budget problems in much of the rest of the country stem from the same cause only with the intermediate step of elected officials voting for increased spending and tax cuts simultaneously in the belief that it is the most sure way to gain favor with the voters needed for reelection. The hope under my plan would be to encourage more responsible voting behavior through a closer connection of the voters with the consequences of their decisions. One other possible benefit would be that the writing of legislation might be put into the hands of experts whose jobs do not depend on their suggestions being popular or even enacted. Another possible outcome, although one which might fairly be seen as overly optimistic, is that perhaps we will find people more willing to make sacrifices and hard choices than the elected officials have given them credit for.

Some opening thoughts about Quantum Mechanics

This is really just a collection of the things scribbled on the pieces of paper shoved inside of my copy of the Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. I have no idea whether any of it is of any value or what but I wanted to put it up here as something I can come back to and take pieces of and expand on...

Questions: Gravity described as a curvature in space/time but why do objects roll “down” the curve toward the earth...? Close to the Earth or any object the curvature would become greater lessening as you move away from the object so the second object of lesser mass would follow the more dramatic curvature??

In string theory: are subatomic particles ect. vibrating strings moving through space? Or vibrations moving along/between strings which themselves are staying locationaly fixed in space? Are the strings themselves the constituent basis of space itself?

What force does the curvature of space/time exert on an object? None, the object and space are not pushing against one another there simply is no other elsewhere for the object to be... but doesn't the idea of curvature imply a dimension through which the space is curving? The earth is only edgeless in 2 dimensions we can move along the surface forever and arrive back at our beginning but if we blast off the surface in a rocket or dig down we will not be brought back to our beginning point. The same would be true of a 3D manifold universe which curves back on itself, this would require a 4^th dimension through which the curve is made, just because we currently cannot move in or perceive this 4^th dimension does not remove it from the Universe under discussion nor does it mean that our technological abilities will not someday progress to the point that we will be able to interact with the 4^th dimension. On the contradictory side any theory which requires the existence of imperceptible extra dimensions to work properly cannot be held to be true, until the existence of such dimensions has been proven empirically and not merely by mathematical equations... in this way we can say that as our current understanding of the universe stands it would be ridiculous to say it is spatially finite but once a fourth dimension is proven to exist we would need to show how that dimension is curved back upon itself which might require a 5^th etc. etc. although perhaps the 4^th is curved through one or more of the known dimensions, but if this is possible why would it not be possible for the three known dimensions to curve back upon themselves through one another removing the need for the 4^th in the first place...

Quantum Entanglement (I think): What if a particle's spin changes according to a pattern such that at any given point in time rotation around a randomly chosen axis is the same... I am not entirely sure what I mean by this as I don't have a clear reference back to what brought this thought up....

The expansion of space might be going on constantly at all points but at the nano-meter scale it is so small it cannot be effectively measured but summed up over distances at the light-year scale they become great, such that individual particles are being pulled apart but it can't be measured where as galaxies are being pulled away from each other at great speed. (This I think is intended to respond to the problem of explaining the source of expansion) There might also be something to be said for the fact that at the quantum scale or even the everyday scale there are forces sufficient to pull matter back in upon itself countering the internal expansion of space particles and objects are experiencing on the galactic scale such forces do not exist or are insufficient to counter the expansion of space and so we are able to measure and perceive the expansion...

Our horizon expands at the speed of light, but if space itself were to expand at a rate faster than light, not impossible as nothing would be moving within space faster than light, areas once within the horizon would be moved beyond it and we would not have any proof of their ever existing...

It's not my fault I swear

Hello Loyal Readers,

I know I promised you all daily posts and swore that no matter what I would put something up here everyday even if it was just some weak rambling about how I was supposed to put something up everyday and didn't have anything good to post so I was just going to ramble about how I was supposed to put something up everyday but since I didn't have anything good to post I was just posting this ramble about... Ok so obviously you noticed that there was this glaring hole in the timeline from last tuesdayish until this morning and I know from all the angry phone calls and nasty comments left on the blog that you were all going through nasty withdrawl from lack of my brilliance... but the site went down in this super annoying way that it wouldn't let me write any text in the new post window... Problem fixed! I am back! (pause for applause) Ok what is my fault is that as much as I kept telling myself that I should just write a shadow set of posts to be ready to bomb the site when it came back online, I did not do that...  This of course proves the importance of the blog to my process because for years I could have been writing such material and not posting it on the internet but I was not doing it so thats why I got myself this rocking blog and am making myself post something everyday as I have so laboriously described so many times instead of actually posting things... but now I have proven to myself and the world that the system works, or at least is necessary to whateve small amount of success it has brought as as soon as the sight went down I ceased to produce... Also I have decided to start pretending that I have an audience clamouring for my thoughts... Perhaps I will have to actually go out and get said audience eventually as the self delusion wears increasingly thin but in order for the delusion lose its effect I need to embrace it and let the effect wash over me so as to build up a resistance, you will never be completely free of the hold as long as you never let it grab on so that you can break it... like heroin...

Response to George Will of 10/2/12... More to Patience with Obama than Race

In this morning's Washington Post George Will advanced the opinion that the American people are being overly patient with President Obama because we are unwilling to vote out the First African American President... I cannot deny that some including myself might be less patient with a white president, but I hardly think that it is a determinative factor. I would be voting for whatever candidate the Democrats put forward in this election, I think this is probably true of 40 something percent of the population, just as it is true of about 40 percent that they would vote for whoever the Republicans put forward. All of this is true regardless of the color of the candidates in question. The real question is whether that remaining 15-20% is giving President Obama a break they would not give to any other President. In this case I think the answer is no, or at least they would grant the same level of patience to any President who came into office with the situation he had to confront and who faced the kind of opposition he has faced, the second of these circumstances can be legitimately linked to some extent, if only a small one, to his race. The Republican Party was bound to be the bunch of obstructionist a-holes they have been over the past 4 years regardless of the who the Democratic President was but it is hard to imagine they would have been able to muster such levels of vehemence and bile for anyone else, with the possible exception of Hilary Clinton. But even in her case, despite being exactly as legally qualified to be President of the United States, it is hard to believe they would have been able to bring themselves to deny her basic legitimacy. The real issue at hand in this election and the reason why the American people are still so decidedly behind President Barack Obama is that no matter how insufficient the argument that things could have been worse may sound we know it is undeniably true. Had John McCain been elected in 2008 the nation would be in significantly worse shape, primarily because Democrats lack the obstructionist backbone of the Republicans and we would be facing the results of 4 more years of disastrous Republican policies. Also we can see that things could be much better than they are today. We can see that the failures of the last 4 years and of Obama's policies are the result of the policies themselves but rather of the Republican obstructionism and the extent to which the policies were compromised upon in the apparently futile attempt to avoid such childish refusal to work together. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are offering nothing of substance to the American people except a return to the failures that lead us into our current predicament. They dug the country a giant hole and then spent 4 years knocking down every attempt to get us out so as to position themselves to yell and scream about the hole we are in and demand to be put back in charge so they can continue digging. Barack Obama is not being given a break because he is black he is being given a break because the only other option on the table is a group of assholes who got us into this mess in the first time. President Obama has done a better job than anyone could have expected given his circumstances and maybe if the Republicans had not spent 4 years trying to make everything harder they would be in a position to say that he hasn't done good enough.