It is or it is not

I would have used 'tis and tain't but for the taint that might come forth. So, what is this about? Well, we're going to look at issues raised by a growing set of people, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. You see, this type of discussion is central to truth engineering, especially as it relates to T-issues.

--

As well, we see both sides of the arguments claiming to know. On the one side, it's phrased in terms of having fact at hand (to wit, discussions at the Richard Dawkins site), as we expect with science (except, evidence has become increasingly wrapped within computational/mathematical modeling that requires us to put into place the necessary filters/lens, etc. -- recursive issues) as it has evolved in the past few centuries. On the other side, there are statements about material obtained via various types of means, with revelation (whole slew of sacred literature) being one of these.

So, it's like a fence for the reasonable folks. There are two sides, yet one may (ought to be allowed to) waffle on both sides (actually, operational effectiveness may require us to do just that). Too, nuances come into play on both sides. All of this is relevant to the discourse, however we are using an 'engineering' ontology, so that means the following assignment.

• It is not -- argues this: any claims that might have theistic leanings are basically bonkers, as in delusional (look it up on Google). We can wrap ourselves in the Mystery (see Krauss, et al) or Evolution (see Dawkins) or ... 
• It is -- the converse, in a sense: there is a whole lot to look at here as this is an age-old issue. From our viewpoint, though, we'll just say that there exists a meme (or set of memes) that follow Anselm's argument of the ontological nature. Or, in other words, we have times when something outside of the human limits (mind you, only offering the use of a symmetric entity to which we can project) has a role to play in our decision processes. For now, the use of  'meme' means that we can draw benefits (potentially quite remarkable -- hence, the motivation) without taking the discussion to the nth degree (that cannot currently be resolved for many folks - okay?).  

Before we proceed, there needs to be a statement of a disclosure nature. That is, on which side is the blogger? Well, it may be that using 'It is not' as the basis for argument may imply something about that. But, then, again, that question will remain unanswered, for now, in an attempt to be balanced. 

---

Now, again, one might ask if an a-theist (some say, the 'It is not' side) can claim to be scientific (and that might imply a position on the part of the blogger). You know, science does not provide answers in an ultimate sense. There is always a provisional platform that grows in size. Too, that increase in size does not diminish what is not known (at least, from the viewpoint of the less strident mind). If science cannot at this time disprove the meme (or its metaphysical analog), how can one claim to make the decision via science? 

---

On the other hand, if one were to argue for the 'It is' claim, why does it have to take the ultimate leap to describing what exactly is being labelled? You see, the meme would be an operational flavor; nowhere within the context of its use would there be any requirement to subsume the essence (that which is labelled) within some limited sensibility. Look, if science has increasing boundaries, so too will this argument.  

---

Okay, we'll be going back and forth on this. Mind you, the meme mentioned above is a type of closure. As a joke, one could say it deals with compactification (use any sense that you want). Yet, the issue is that we have to assume closure, in many cases, since we have undecidable regions (in both time and space) lurking. You know, we do that anyway with our common sense. Lots of times, it works. 

With computational complexity being a core issue with 'truth' (only one of many other things, so don't leap too far in trying to extract implications here), we cannot use the 'omniscience' approach (though, one wonders how the 'It is not' side is going to look at this -- we'll look at this later) that seems to underlie some notions (those who ponder such things do not know how we can know the truth behind any modern situation with having our arms around the whole thing -- oh yes, some have taken mathematics as the basis meanwhile ignoring quasi-empirical issues). I say 'underlies' as it seems to be that we have a basis moving about down there. Truthfully? Many seem to just jump right over the matter; my hope is to show that they're straddling the fence when they do so.

That brings up the first requirement. Show that there is a fence. At the same time, discuss the symmetry related to this fence's dynamics.

---

How long will this take? Why would there be a rush? Mankind has fought over these matters for thousands of years. My interest is trying to set a framework that will allow increased insights (as well, will provide for some interesting discussions and experiments).

Remarks:

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/15/2012 --  Hitch lives on. In more ways than one. ..., One might say that this is the middle way (variously characterized throughout our history on the planet). From the viewpoint of product development, middle out is the only way that finds success.

Modified: 01/15/2012

Posts of interest - 2011

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

• --  Leverage and truth II -- From 2008. We all love leverage. Engineering has applied this everywhere with all of our gadgets. But, we also know about limbs; too far can be problematic. What about cutting the limb between yourself and the tree? You see, we do this latter with computation. I can explain if you give me time; it's one motivation for what I've been trying to do here for the past few years. Why no hurry?  You see, every bit of time elapse makes the argument stronger. The big problem is that the boys (and some girls) who like risk (emotional failure on their part - this, too, can be explained) do not just incur it themselves. No, they drag along the hapless. The 99% need to get a grasp on the themes of this blog; it's at the core of computational modeling where we can bring in the human element in a way that has only been considered peripheral. 

• --  Last post for 2008 -- From 2008. Too many seats-of-the-pants decisions by the best and brightest keep things in turmoil. Somehow, we've accepted that as the norm. But, then the dryness of a scientific approach becomes more than tedious, it's a distraction. What ought to be the balance, and how do we attain such a thing?

• -- Extrapolation, calibration, truth -- From 2007. So much is wrapped in knowing. Always has been. The newer methods can be more problematic, though, that we've seen in the past. Now, who is to do the knowing? Obviously, the way things are now, not everybody. Perhaps, that will always be. But, would it not be nice to think that those who have the talents, the resources, et al are not just looking out for themselves? Actually, whom can be trusted is a key issue that we'll address, again and again? Also, how we know the value of things is key, too. 

• --  OWS Occupy Wall Street News | Plutocracy Files -- From 2011. Have to love these people who not only put themselves into the class of the 99% but also do something to get attention and to try to attempt change. Before this happened, it seemed that the pall thrown on everyone by the uppers (CEOs, et al) had become an interminable yoke. That is, this pall: if you're not the best and brightest, or if you are not motivated by greed, or a whole number of other things that needs to be listed, then you're of no use. The pall says: we'll export any potential job for you off to the hapless elsewhere who can be more easily exploited; too, we'll make is so that you're indentured forever.   

Remarks:

12/31/2011 --  

Modified: 01/01/2012

Christopher Hitchens

R.I.P. (in the many senses -- at some point, will bring forth truth issues, both small 't' and large 'T' -- paraphrasing one comment, he launched avalanches of words/concepts that disallowed precision of a measurable sort)

Also, am trying to maintain a prayerful, and respectful, mindset (never got a chance to discuss my points with him) while traversing his broadly ranging work.

The guy was so right on so many things. What a viewpoint! To wit: When the King saved God. Many burned, on the several sides, of this issue.

He came over here, like all of the others. It's been 400+ years now. And, we still have so much to learn. 

Remarks:

01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).

01/19/2012 -- Notice the comment of someone dreaming of Hitch's state (this can raise a whole lot of discussion, eventually). Just ran across this debate, in 2008, between Christopher and his younger brother, Peter, at Grand Valley State University. Interesting.

01/15/2012 -- Hitch motivates a series: It is or It is not. Hitch lives on. In more ways than one.

01/13/2012 -- Thinking about Hitch, and the wide-range of topics with which he was involved, will motivate several themes this year. Here is the first one (see the Aside -- to be expanded). Now, coming here will be a discussion of Tis (as in, it is so) and Taint (as in, it ain't so). Guess which will be assigned to which side of the argument? Some would say, and so it is (the operational stance that moves its definitions along as it learns -- you know, the business leaders (yes, Jamie, you and your ilk) think that they're smart for learning how to broaden their pockets and how to increase the flow into such -- world-class jerks, actually).

01/02/2012 -- We'll look at what might be an oxymoron (or almost so, as a whole lot of discussion will ensue about this): atheistic scientist. There are two words here of various meanings. The former denotes a position on a question that may very well be unanswerable; yet, one does have a right to conjecture that God is a man-made creation (ah, creationist thinking?). So, it would be a working hypothesis. Now, unanswerable? Yes, in the terms of falsifiable-ness, cannot be phrased publicly sufficiently to allow tests (and, as in, don't fall for all the contentions about 'literalness'  as being necessary to resolve the thing personally). The latter term ought to have connotations dealing with testable-ness, repeatable-ness, and much more. Too, a moving platform, albeit with a more firm basis in the future from current work, hopefully. To an end? Ah, just as we see no end to the horizon, why ought we see some limit to that which is (may be) unanswerable? Call it what you will. Your recognition of such, nor whatever name you apply, really has no effect whatsoever, except in a limited sense. As, the hubris of the atheist is (can be) as much of an issue as is the idiocy of the fundamentalist. Remember, our states of knowledge are becoming increasingly wrapped within our lens, filters, and what have you; do not all of these have their foundations in mathematics (quasi-empiricism) and our prowess at material manipulations (uncertainty, et al)? By the way, consider that that which is unanswerable (and unknown) may very well have an 'echo' feature which we can understand, and use for our (collective) benefits. Granted the signal may come from our conscious being (oh yes, we'll have to consider essence as opposed to property), yet from whence that?

12/22/2011 -- Remembering, Christopher, at the clear-thinking oasis.

12/20/2011 -- Apropos quote from Paul Wallace: Both the closed-hearted scientism of atheist hardliners and the narrow creationism of religious fundamentalists kill our strange and beautiful world by flattening it beyond repair.

12/17/2011 -- Mocker meets the Mockee, one might say. That theme would offer much to discuss. We'll collect the several of these that Christopher's views might have brought to the fore. Too, as a focal point, the t-issues become very interesting. Perhaps, Hitchens was an angel in disguise.

12/17/2011 -- Our import underwent, and remarked on, the barbarism of waterboarding; power needs its carvers.

Modified: 01/25/2012

Nitty Gritty Truth II

Foreword: Second of a series (the basis).

As we stumble around our lives, which we all do (don't you just love those eternally optimistic sorts -- ignorance is bliss applies, in a sense), from time to time we run across things that make sense, even if they weave in and out of our awareness.

You see, the whole intent (speaking teleologically) is to have a stable framework wrapped within a chaotic blanket (now, having said that, we also could talk the inverse -- chaotic core wrapped with stability). Ah, the difference? The former is that of the one who sees the nitty gritty.

Such as, those in the ring who know that they have to stand on their own two feet. Who is there to help them in their endeavor? The old guy trainer? The ref? The fans (this for all of those who are vicariously living through others -- via the web -- via pushing our young men and women into harms' (meant to characterize the multitudinous facets to this thing) ways for stupid reasons --- and much more ...)?

---

So, again, the former is the bottom-up view to which we'll be paying a lot of attention. Why? It's always been cast under the rug. What GEK III brought to boxing? An excellent mind and superb word artistry. In fact, the whole thing about his work was its uplifting (we'll go into this technically, as it's essential mathematically as we grapple with complex systems and the consequences of stupid peoples' -- would say politicos but am being polite -- ontological failings) nature.

Yes, GEK III saw through all of the confusions which lead to things like the chimera chase.

The latter (see above) is the view of those who like top-down thinking (myriads, but mostly the 1% -- that ilk). Brass? Aristocrats? Essentially, those who cannot clean up after their messings; yes, unfortunately, diaper changing of the elite is a nitty gritty task for bottom-up people.

Ah, so much to discuss in all of this.

---

So, for now, consider the efforts of two facing off in a ring. To what end? Oh, we know about the money, sometimes. That does not happen to the many -- the reality of sports not being an escape for the many (rather, only the few).

Granted, we can itemize the motivations, both good and bad. In any case, it's all over in a matter of rounds or seconds. So, too, on the field, games end. Of course, ego-related effects will linger.

Yet, those athletic efforts have a larger meaning (a broader scope - aside: it's not enough, colleges & universities, to prostitute academics). And, I'm not talking just 'lifting' here. Rather, they can be metaphor. That'll be a later topic.

Consider this, please? On the two feet, the being can loom beyond the sun to the vast expanses of the universe(s). Wait! Isn't that usually done in a navel contemplating mode (rather than under the stress of effort)?

---

So, there are two things here to bring forth on another day. Truth is not an entity found at the limits of the abstract (not entirely, I should say). Rather, it's integral to the nitty gritty (a paraphrase of Joel Orr, author of 'Every Man a Hero, Every Woman a Coach'). Ah, how can we show this?

Well, GEK III's insights lead me to consider how sports may just have some deeper meaning ('deep' in the broadest sense -- again, does not imply, in any way, that the current mess is right -- to wit, The Atlantic's article on the NCAA -- ouch!! -- I'm no longer a fan of these hypocritical dealings).

Too, though, we don't have to go far out (even to the plane's view) to wonder why all of those projected things (yes, we'll have to get psychological, and spiritual -- pecking order, for one) are of such importance to the moment. Oh, winning? What about the rewards of showing up for the game (et al)?

---

You see, those pushing the 'now' seem to ignore that it's one dimension on a multi-dimensional thing. Too, we have not learned all that we can about spatial issues related to the matter (as a hint, we'll have a inter-disciplinarian's bailiwick to unwind -- un-thread, actually).

Yes, even in the ring, such contemplative themes can (ought to?) be of essence. GEK III, no doubt, saw that. But, some of these things cannot be word-i-fied. Yes, one has to experience the nitty gritty to get to the truth (ah, 'being' at last).

---

Oh, what about those who push buttons and kill people (many times, innocent women, children, and old men) in what is essentially a surgical strike? Or, they have an elite team do the dirty work while covering up the nitty gritty. Do we know these people?

Aside: having been Army, and having brothers who are Marines, lies behind a worldview that rails at views that do not understand the necessity for feet on the ground, in the muck, and such.

Remarks:


12/16/2011 -- Charles P. Pierce's blog post on Christopher Hitchens today reminded me to look at his post on George.  

12/13/2011 -- We have, essentially, been (allowed ourselves to be) overlaid with an abstracted mesh (mess) that is deleterious to our (and the planet's) health and that is unsustainable in the longer run. Shocking statement? What we need to see is how the uprisings of the 99%, and the protesters (Person of the Year), are nature's (life's) effort to cast off this yoke that has always been instituted (defined, created, kept in place) by the 1% (best and brightest, divinely-ordained kings, ...) for several reasons: they could, they had the means, they have the motivations, ... I'll state it again: there has been no instance on this planet where a true peer-run politic was allowed to become reality (arguable is the point that this is a fantasy, anyway). And, it continues to be the case that those who came over here, for whatever reason, are the ones to whom we need to look to see what went wrong. ... Uprisings we can study, too (they are legion, continuously manifesting throughout our history on the planet); in many cases, these were the results of talented souls finding themselves bound into (without any means to loosen) the constraints/burdens that have always been the lot of the have-nots (many ways to characterize this) and trying to shrug these things off (not that which A. Rand saw -- even, though, her prose dazzled everyone -- yes, everyman is Atlas!). .... Incidentally, these blogs are meant to deal with issues that need attention especially since they've been wrapped with intellectual cloaks that are meant to make these things palatable to those who rule ('potemkin' might be used here). ...

Modified: 12/16/2011

Nitty Gritty Truth I

As a way of introduction, these NittyGrittyTruth posts will be about George Edward Kimball, III who passed away in July of this year. And more, these will look at George's impact upon the planet's inhabitants.

George, the penultimate iconoclast, had an American pedigree that dates back to the beginning of the stirrings that coming to this side of the pond brought forth in the hearts of those who left their old countries yearning for a better life (albeit at costs (detrimental impacts on the already resident populace, et al) that are yet to be figured). His pre-boomer experiences are telling, to boot. And, his luck was that the prior generation had started to describe (modernize and retell about) the ‘void’ which will figure prominently in these post.

In a sense, as George W (not Bush, definitely) was a constellation for us to ponder about over the ages, so, too, can GEK III (how we’ll refer to the wonderful fella) be more than a splash as was HST who blasted out further than his basis. GEK III’s basis was solid to which fact we’ll pay a lot of attention.

George was a good kid (we'll explain this, to boot), the quintessential world citizen. In short, the America in which he was born let him down, as it has all the rest of us. Of course, HST, et al, were very much capable of pointing out those failures. America? Where the likes of Newt is listened to? Sick at the core, GEI III might say (might be paraphrased as saying) as he, creatively, demonstrated these problems, if we looked closely.

The dreams of our childhoods? Well, we found out that they were fantasy propagated by old men and their machinations. Understanding this was a major leap forward for George albeit such knowledge is painful to hold. His humor was a try to abate that deep insight, one could say. Note, please (as an example), his cheeky take on the classic American boy with his toys in the picture in the Alex Belth article, tin badge and all.

That some jerk happened to be acting out what he had seen in the movies, or on TV, and that George’s head was in the wrong place at the wrong time set loose dynamics that he had to learn to control. We’ll look more closely at those types of things, as it is essentially what we all face everyday.

This old medic will tell you that the health industry failed us, and was not its progress largely American-based, too boot? We exported our dim ways (to wit, Japan’s lost generation, and much more -- say the 'mistreatment' of returning veterans).

As GEK III might say, it was not those who work in any of these areas that is the problem (albeit that some might be characterized as faulty - to be nice). He knew the importance of the human spirit. Rather, it was the system that de-evolved (actually, was never let to evolve). But, those topics are another whole story, and we’ll get technical, from time to time.

George’s efforts at attaining balance were, essentially, thwarted all around in ways that will be interesting to analyze. Of course, when has the world ever been healthy for its kids (yes, even those of the upper-upper have their issues)? Our task? Build such a world. An immense military-industrial complex as the foundation? Perhaps, if the side of it that stresses world health, the capabilities of the Seabees, and such. Naturally, there would be some policing (had I been in Lawrence at the time, I would have voted for GEK III).

Mind you, swimming in the void and looking for structure is daily dilemma of us all. Hopefully, the people that we know, and the sub-systems (alluding to the fact that no system is it) that we encounter, will be more an assistance than a hindrance. GEK III was solid, in many ways, as his friend will tell you. One comment talked about his metaphysical stature (we’ll delve there, too – we ought to have some comments on what St. Peter and GEK III had as a discourse).

This series has no planned end. The topics will be wide-ranging, as was GEK III’s mind. Some words that seem to come to mind, or apropos to the undertaking, would be from JC’s ‘Man in Black’ and BD’s (BZ’s) ‘Chimes of Freedom’ (which, for GEK III might relate to some tales of those naturally-based methods of which HST was so fond). Yes, GEK III has many lessons for us all.

Remarks:

12/23/2011 -- Void? Excuse my laziness. Of course, I meant 'existential despair' with many senses. There are analogs that could be of use, to boot. TPD has a good (fairly modern and without the claptrap coming out of bad psychology) take on what this means for talent. Can we really bottle up our insights? How many have used drugs, or alcohol, to grasp at creativity, for instance?

12/16/2011 -- Did Christopher Hitchens understand America as it could be?


12/13/2011 -- See NGT II.

12/09/2011 -- Some have used 'bad ass' in reference to GEK III. We'll go into that: the motivation, the mis-characterization, the meanings behind the mis-quote, ... 'archetypal' would be a very much better way to approach this subject.

12/09/2011 -- George's remarks about editors applies. Yet, from time to time, typos (and the like) will be corrected since these posts will be written without use of a high-falutin' tool.

Modified: 12/23/2011

December, 2007

That was awhile ago. Since then, things tumbled (the DOW got to about where it ought to be). The chimera started to re-inflate, yet not without lots of help from Big Ben who just recently kicked the printing presses up to high gear.

---

So, again, December, 2007. After awakening to the idiocy that had abounded while the blogger was working on real problems, it became apparent that the financial guys had gone too far (that post was written on Christmas day, of 2007).

Tranche and trash was added later.

---

It's obvious that the wizards are confounding issues with their money, their lobbyists, and snowing people with mathematics and computation (the most popular post of the FEDaerated blog). How do we get a 'reset' going that would help build a better basis?

---

So much has gone into building the 'market' economy, is it possible to delta off of that in some incremental mode? To what, though?

OWS talks about symptoms. It is not a solution definitional system.

---

Politics? We have seen how that descends. The story now is that those who get elected to Washington come away rich. They even pull silly games with the Street. Ah, yes, are politicos not those who salivate with they see (or think of) a buck (or have it passed beneath their nose by lobbyists)?

---

If you haven't noticed, it's a real mess. Of course, the 1% likes it since they can muddy themselves, and us, as they rake in their takings. The 99%? Of course, that is where the real hurts always happens.

This is a new meme; perhaps, it'll be helpful.

---

Disclosure: In 2007, I started to look at finance to see why the younger ones had queued up there in droves during the prior 10 years. Well, given the shenanigans, it was obvious that the open field (relaxed oversight, greed as good, etc.) allowed many to make money; at what cost? Oh, yes, impoverishing of the many (near-zero). So, it was seen, in 2007, that the walls were beginning to shake; who thought to what extent? Those who were benefiting still were expecting bonuses. You see, the whole game quit (markets froze, bankers sat on their money, people like Jamie became focals of too much attention, et al) since the players knew that it was a crooked game (wake up, Ben) and stopped playing when it became clear that they could make decisions that would cost them (ah, Bank of America, et al). Yet, at the same time, these people didn't acknowledge the reality (given that we can know the actual state -- too, they play to win, expending enormous energies to ensure that they win -- ah, then, the re-insurance scheme was shown to be faulty, to boot). The lemon lesson kicked in; if you and your peers are crooks, who do you trust? Oh, the American taxpayer from whom can be extracted oodles without any side-effect (not so, says the OWS - before them, the tea-party). So, it became obvious that finance was a lot of fiction (recap -- how did we allow this?). It was unsettling to see Iceland fail, since they listened to the idiots (see Remarks 02/03/2011) and made themselves vulnerable. So, too Ireland. England (with its thrust on finance) ought to have known better. And, now we're seeing holes all over Europe which Ben is trying to fill with his cheap bucks. Since 2007, we have had changes in laws. Yet, there is truth to the statement that those who legislate now become rich while in office. Too, they let those who skim off the top do so without any threat (the stench comes from systemic pustules). The ca-pital-sino needs to be reigned in; so too, those new kings who run rampant over the populace. That the 1%-99% meme brought forward some recognition was nice to see, too, albeit a little reminiscent of earlier times.

Remarks:

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

12/06/2011 -- Congress wants to clean up its act.

Modified: 12/07/2011

Carvers and carvees

Or, I might have titled this: Thanksgiving thoughts.

-----

We have a lot to be thankful for. Itemizing these things can be interesting and, even, beneficial.

That we saw a pepper applier, recently, work with such efficiency and zeal brought to mind several questions. Such as, are we any better now than we were 400 years ago? Why do the carvers (and the burners and the hangers -- as in Iran, ever see a squadron of cranes used to dangle bodies by the neck?) put so much effort into getting efficient?

Consider, please, this example of quartering. We can thank Edward III for letting the mode become commonplace. 'Put the people in their place' sort of strategy, using tactics like the Treason Act.

The image shows Sir Thomas Armstrong being worked on, posthumously.

This? In 1684 which is a mere eight years before the madness descended upon Salem. Can we be thankful that we have progressed beyond such things?

Some think that the evidence against Sir Thomas was doctored. Have we not seen that sort of thing in our times?

Why does all of this still have some ring of truth (the core focus of this blog) to it in these modern times?

Remarks:

12/16/2011 -- This guy is a national treasure, almost. Everyone ought to see this wateboarding video (from two years ago). Gosh, Dick, how would you fair? Hitches explains more on this sign of barbarism running rampant.

12/08/2011-- Does it not appear, perhaps, that some of the 1% would be very much appreciative if this type of law were to be brought back?

"In 1536 a more severe law was passed stating that those caught outside of their parish without work would be punished by being whipped through the streets. If caught a second time they could lose an ear and if caught a third time they could be executed."

12/07/2011 -- Looks like Isabella (Hugh Despenser) was as bad as her son, Edward III.

12/06/2011 -- Congress wants to clean up its act.

11/27/2011 -- Further comment.

11/23/2011 -- Salem? Yes, yearly look back.

11/23/2011 -- Though the topic is somewhat troubling, it does represent several things that we will discuss here and in the other forums. Much has been written, and debated, about life, liberty, and more. The U.S.A. is a couple hundred years or so into its unfolding of a framework for peaceful, progressive living. And, there has been no end of troubles, both internal and external.

As well, new things have emerged. For instance, who rules, why they might rule, and how they ought to rule are points that need attention. Of late, power and money have intertwined to create a top-down mess; yes, one successful lobbyist in D.C. says that some problems arise from too much power in Washington that is easily manipulated by the monied set. That is, politicos, in my words, salivate at the sight (or even the thought) of a buck (going into their pockets). There was a recent article about insider trading making some rich.

Yet, at the same time, these types do not properly compensate those who are serving their country. This is another story that we'll look at.

---

That leaders are elected probably naturally trends toward the mess that we see now (the un-workings of the super-committee, for instance). But, we don't want tyrants assuming control, either. What a quandry!

So, who ought to rule? The best-and-brightest? How is this determined? Those who now get such labels have surely made some things worse in many ways. Let me count the ways (Harvard figures). So, that'll be a topic of interest. The recent downturn has so many culprits that it would be funny except that the consequences are dire and real.

---

But, let's consider the royalty and its problems. That is, the old order, in some view.

Why look at these types (beyond the fact that we've had 1000s years of experience with the bumblers)? What has emerged, with the advances in systems (all types), are planetary institutional views (yes, the corporation, that which has been given the rights of an individual by those gowned persons who sit at the bench) that are above any country and really have no control (besides that provided by the egos at the top - and, we all know their motivations).

This reality leads to the need for us to look at the Magna Carta, and the like, as being necessary to rein in the reign of these super types (0.001% or less --- 100% minus 99% is just too gross of a measure). Even the consumer, the supposed backbone of the economy has little power. Why? Bucks have been sucked out of their pockets.

---

What else can we learn from royalty? Well, Edward III, mentioned earlier, is an example. His desire for total control (and we've seen innumerable examples of these types) needed some support, so, of course, we get the divine right of the kings. We'll be looking at this, too.

---

What about the people and their rights? Oh, you mean the common man and woman? If they have any rights, they'll be God given. Was that not stated in one of our documents? The 99%'ers know this and are expressing some deep intuition. However, how do we establish this notion in more than just words on paper?

---

From time to time, there is a harmonious state that comes about. Some of these have even been more than short-lived. Prick the skin of some old hippies (who may now be of the suited class) and there'll be the old blood. Some claim that general education (hey, thanks, early New Englanders) supports a trend that is upward. The educated man does not make a good servant. We all know how slaves (has very many meanings) are kept from their rightful opportunities.

But, does education lead toward money grabbing mindsets? Oh God, please not that. We know that this is not the case; to wit, any of the middle-class scientists who have worked and contributed, any of the economic worker whose remuneration is less than 'rent' (we'll go into this further), and very many more.

For that matter, take any of the enlisted military persons (yes, E series, as in underpaid, under-appreciated, and under the Os whose egos are without bound) who risk life and limb despite the poor treatment (Walter Reed, remember? -- ah, that just barely scraped the surface).

---

Why bring up the Os? Well, the upper ranks there have their royal attitudes (we'll go into this, to boot). Now, there is no cause to misunderstand the intent here. Of course, we need hierarchy for order (perhaps, one could argue that non-uniform distributions of wealth is a natural outcome, to boot -- somewhat). That whole environment is top-down and command driven. Nice. It works; to an extent.

Where have we ever seen a real bottom-up attempt? The modern environment has developed enablers that will allow such a view to become a reality. One of the enablers would be the 'cloud' (though, there are several issues to address -- undecidability, for one).

---

Some have been fortunate enough to have found a bottom-up working experience. These are rare. In some cases, it goes too far as what we see is a coddling of a pampered set (as if they are not replaceable).

---

Aside, what's worse? A pampered (diapered, actually) boss man (or woman) who throws their weight around, has tantrums, and essentially disembowels (see above) their workers or some worker who has the needed talents in some specific framework so as to be cowtowed to by their companies (excessive pay, et al)?

---

There are many ways to carve and oodles in the set of those who can undergo carving. The trait of a wise person? Even if one finds oneself in a carving role, there is a choice about whether or not to fill this role. All sorts of moral arguments can come into play here.

But, a core issue is the following of orders that are wrong, or unconstitutional. So much to discuss there, to boot.

---

So, we're back to something that relates to intelligence, whatever it is. Those who are at the top of the top-down do have talents. Can these be measured a priori? Too, some slough through life as if there is nothing between their ears. However, in the vast majority there is a substantial subset of those who are of sufficient talent to do the roles of the topper-most. Ah, is that so?

Yes, and we do see some upward movement when the environment allows this. In fact, the meritocratic push demonstrates this reality.

Aside: it is atrocious that some allowed gaming of the student financial system in order to line the pockets of fat cats while enveloping students into indentured servant-hood; there were all sorts of this type of gaming that is not necessary nor desirable to a sustainable system.

---

The military does demonstrate the issue, to boot. That is, the uppermosts are not, by need, out of the military academies. Too, rising in the ranks implies successful experience and making the most of the opportunities (mind you, not equivalent to being an opportunist). Somewhat, one might make this claim for a company.

Yet, the latter is too political (we'll get into this). Some who rise in business are good at directing others; in trying situations, some could not wipe their own behinds (ah, that trait of being ineffective in real ways needs a lot of characterization -- fortunately, I've seen enough up close to have a lot of material to use).

---

A group of professionals that I know passed the leadership hat around. When they could, as those who want business per usual could not fathom such a thing (did I mention shallow -- short-term -- thinking (disguised with mathematics -- atrociously) as being an attribute that seems to have been rewarded of late?).

'leadership' (what is that? isn't it sickening hearing 'leaders' brag of themselves?) -- ah, what about leading oneself? It's like the saying of neither a borrower nor a lender be (neither a leader nor a follower be). So much to discuss here.

---

What role can a 'free' man take? How about being autodidact? This role, people, is going to be the most important one in the future that is emerging. And, it will involve 'know how' that is related to more than just collecting money, fame, or other spiritually detrimental assets.

Modified: 12/16/2011