?

Log in

No account? Create an account
juillet 2019   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
* - galaxy

WE COUNT STARS AS IF THEY WERE BEANS

Posted on 2010.02.06 at 18:53
Tags:


Counting is the fundamental act of observation. (Ask any bird-brained bird and he'll tell you the same thing). In science, this is called MEASUREMENT. We recognise patterns, call it a "ONE", and then add it to another "ONE", and then there are "TWO".

The patterns we see involve a combination of qualities, (millions of even-more numbers), such as type of light or colour, similar sound patterns, a smell or chemical taste, a size, and so forth. Beans are easy to count, because they are all of similar colour, size, shape - almost identical, as far as we are concerned. But why would we count bean, when what we are supposed to be counting are pounds; or bags, or truckloads of beans? There are three reasons why would focus on counting individual beans:

1 - We are poor. We cannot AFFORD to set our sites on the great universe of beans BEYOND.

2 - We are playing some kind of game. (That would include a game inside a mentally-ill head).

3 - We want to fuck with certain beans; we want to bother certain people, and/or we want to force some kind of outcome via bean-trading. This means WE WANT TO CONTROL for it's own sake.

There are good reasons to "count beans", of course. It is a good thing to dot all your "i's" and cross all your "t's". It is good to get a lot of scientific formulae EXACTLY right. And so forth. But at times when it isn't CRUCIAL, (which comes down to #1), then IT ISN'T CRUCIAL to have every bean counted. It isn't crucial to add every cent on your shopping list - it's fine to round up or down. And so forth.

But some people are obsessed with counting beans precisely because they seek to CONTROL. They don't know it, but they are no longer living in a life of POVERTY, but are living in a life of GAMESMANSHIP, where the object is TO WIN.

For example: The whole health care bill fiasco. For Nuther example: An idiot Senator, bought-out by corporate interests, may say to the President, "You've only given me THIRTEEN beans, when I DEMAND FOURTEEN," and consequently deny Senate approval of 80 critical Presidential staff appointments. See what's missing? The big picture. The self-centered GAME is denying the big picture. There are MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN COUNTING BEANS.

Daddy takes his two sons out to a park to learn football. The boys don't know the rules. The older son makes a clear touchdown, but throws the ball down in victory, while he's entering the endzone. The father, instead of explaining that you need to touch the endzone while holding the ball and/or actually TOUCH the ball down, requires that the play be done over - so the son had never scored. The son, alienated and having no fun,leaves the game. The younger son grows up to be a bean-counter. The father never perceives that it was not the elder son who failed, but that HE HIMSELF had failed at fathering. The big picture. Fairness and respect for innocence. Of course, he told himself, "This will teach my son how to take a hit - how to be TOUGH!" But that's selfish, because the son was taking hits and being tough all the REST of the time: all the time the father was absent.

Bean-counters like to refer to math or to rules in defense of their pettiness. In defense of taking their tit-for-tat nigardliness to the EXTREME of ABSOLUTISM. That is to say, they refer to abstract numbers to rationalise fallible laws to demand such ABSOLUTES as executions, wars, "three-strikes you're out", and so forth. Yet, how do you REALLY quantify such buzzwords as "terrorism" or "morality"?

They do not see that they are self-referencing, far from being objective. They are caught in a GAME which is not only excluding THE BIG PICTURE, but, by the very nature of MEASUREMENT, an infinity of qualities and numbers not accounted into the game rules. E X T E R N A L I T I E S . Yet, the soothsayers of the state, set themselves up as impersonal AUTHORITIES. Impersonal. Ha! They elevate objectivism to a deity, and yet they are themselves profoundly disturbed.

You focus on black beans, you ignore red beans. You ignore rice. You ignore potatoes, and so on. What is worst is: YOU IGNORE THE VERY CONCEPT OF ALTERNATIVES. Ergo ABSOLUTISM. Start by counting beans, end by incinerating Jews. You may say you are doing math, when what you are doing is your own racism. Your own ill-fitedness - as Hitler despised himself for being 1/16th Jewish. But he offered people a lot of lovely absolutes. "To dissolve completely". To lose one's will and spirit to bean-counting on behalf of the God-loving STATE.

There are other interesting aspects of counting beans. A big problem is the problem of PREDICTION. You see, counting beans is largely a SPATIAL affair, a recognition pattern of the Parietal Lobe at the back of the brain. But it does rely, at least a LITTLE bit, upon TIME. Science is a bean-counter. It cloaks all the universe with a cloak of geometry. If it sees 100 white swans pass it's way, it predicts that the next swan will be white, though it be black. Nature is multi-dimensional and chaotic, always beyond absolute prediction. Shapes an genes and conditions an butterfly wings all shift and conspire, (to say the least, for I am not even mentioning the subatomic realm). A human counts 100 red beans and a black bean slips in - what does the human do? That's right. Misses it. By substitution the SELFISH big picture for the NATURAL big picture. Science will not allow itself to PROVE A NEGATIVE, thankfully. Thus, given no evidence of black swans, science cannot prove that black swans DON'T EXIST, (theoretically). HOWEVER: Not only do scientists MISS critical information; and not only is research SELECTIVE via government grants, etc., and not only do corporations buy scientists to say this or shut up that - scientists tend to rely upon the AUTHORITY of science, to adjust for the :shortcomings" of science, and so to make assertions amongst themselves and to the public that some NEGATIVES MAY BE CONSIDERED DISPROVED. This is a deep, deep danger of science when mixed with politics. And finally, to somewhat repeat, experimental science - and even theoretical and observational science - creates a virtual germ-free skinner-box wherein it performs it's IMPERSONAL experiments, such as stressing-out mice so that the mice make predictable STRESS-INDUCED responses. But there is no such vaccuum in the natural world. There is rarely even a box for Schroedinger's Cat. NATURE ABHORS THE VACUUM THAT SCIENCE WOULD CREATE.

I am neither arguing in favour of religion or superstition or discounting the role and place of proper bean-counting. I am merely pointing out some limits of science. Science is not appropriately corruptible into a legitimisation of corrupted politics. It is not appropriate to use science as a rationalisation of irrational, absolutist, ulteriorly-motivated bean-counting ethics or games.

A basic problem of this country is that it has continuously abstracted a "divinely" ENLIGHTENED Puritan (Work) Ethic into an ethic of divinely-underwritten greed, under-girded by the false authorities of bad science and corrupt coporporate money and philosophy. Once, we counted bean because we are poor, now we count beans and threaten armagedon lest we be made rich.

Now: moving on to the stars:

Stars, like beans, are easy to count. They all are bright little dots, fairly similar, pretty simple. Never mind that once, when we counted stars, we MISSED the fact that we were including in our count PLANETS and GALAXIES, (black swans, black beans). But even today, as science marches on, further and further to the edges of the universe, it essentially commits the same errors. There may be giant floating elephants out there which science misses, and then which scienTISTS proudly declare DO NOT EXIST, (and then receive more gov't funding). But, there is a difference between beans and stars. You run out of beans, you go out and buy some more. You grow some more. You own and CONTROL some more. (Theoretically). With stars, allegorical of our TRULY limited planetary resources, you count all the stars you can, you can't see no more - you can't count no more - but, somehow, more stars are still out there. AND YA DON'T GET TO OWN THEM, SILLY MONKEY PEOPLE.

Because: No one knows why, but for some reason, we can't see all the stars and galazies that exist. For some reason, even if there is an INFINITY of stars, (which there likely ARE), WE DON'T SEE A NIGHT SKY FULL OF LIGHT, which we should. We instead see a night sky full of DARKNESS - with maybe a handful of stars and galaxies in easy view. Scientifically, all the light of the universe should be reaching us and BLINDING us at night. As it is, instead, we get to lollygag around and wile away, counting a relative handful of stars as if they were beans.

What is it? 70% of the universe is made up of dark energy or dark matter, and we don't really have a CLUE as to what dark energy or dark matter ARE?! Maybe the roblem is that we are counting out all the beans in our physics. We are cloaking the universe in a shrowd of geometry. And so WE ARE COMPLETELY MISSING A BIGGER PICTURE.

With this said, let me divert for a moment. I want to discuss this from inside the brain...

Bean counting: Ya recognise some beans, you recognise numbers, you put things in order = you have counted beans. You mainly used the back of your brain. Visual. Recognition. But you also used the amygdala and the left hemisphere to announce "ONE', "TWO", etc. You needed TIME to count. A lot of that was done in your temporal lobes. So long as you don't eat the beans, you can keep doing this over and over again, in an OCD loop. But what happens if you run out of beans? Three choices:

1 - keep running the OCD loop, PRETENDING there are beans to count.

2 - stop counting beans and get a life.

3 - use the front of your brain and go off and HUNT MORE BEANS TO COUNT!

Oddly, when bean-counting turns to insisting upon absolute laws and ideals, rather than simply finding more beans, it uses a combination of #1 and #3. HUNTING beans involves a movement away from spatial pattern recognition towards temporal (time) pattern recognition. Instead of measuring quantities in space, you track possible patterns OVER TIME, using the FRONT of your brain, (plus temporal). You do this,you find a bean, you do that, you don't find a bean. Now, this involves dozens of textbooks in psychology, but I will simply say it concerns intermittent reinforcement, dopamine, risk-taking, and possibly addiction. Counting beans isn't very exciting unless those beans are poker chips. If those beans are poker chips, you can be sure of one thing: There aren't a hell of a lot of beans to go around. So the GAME is, get as many beans as you can. Spot the patterns through time that most likely reward you with more beans - if only so you will have beans to fulfill your need to count them. Which is why billionaires always want MORE.

The problem with focusing on bean-releasing PATTERNS through time is that IT IS EVEN MORE INCORRECT THAN SCIENCE - it sits right on the edge of SUPERSTITION. The higher the risk, the more foolish the world-view. So,what you do is focus more and more narrowly on gaining beans, and meanwhile the whole rest of your life falls apart. It is the same in nations. They strut around proclaiming the values of bean-counting, and they run themselves into poverty through senseless wars and deficit spending, all the while ignoring the most essential health sectors of society.

Focus on one goal, absurdly, and it becomes invisible, clouded in the dust of fighting to defend it. And YOU become insane. ALL ELSE IS IGNORED, and in fact ACTIVELY DENIED AND DESTROYED. The definition of insanity is the same as dopamine-addiction: Keep doing the same thing over and over again, despite always coming up with the same negative results. Keep coming up with no beans, ultimately, and basing it on the holy ethic of bean-counting. Money is, for fools, poverty incarnate. A measure of this mania is always present in any act of MEASUREMENT, no matter how "scientific".

And so, we look to the stars, some of us as if hunting beans. But as we look out into the universe, the universe looks back at us and laughs,"Not a chance!"

A final diversion: I have said that subatomic particles are shy. Does ANY ONE OF YOU have any possible idea of what a revolutionary concept this is? Though it obviously seems completely insane? But it's true. Every thing around us is in conscious contemplation and interaction, because consciousness was never OURS TO OWN.

The act of measuring subatomic particles is the epitome of bean-counting. But first, basics: You keep counting particles, what happens? Big problems. Atomism is a fallacy. Place. Space. Is a fallacy. You count a thousand particles, you completely deny the infinite reality of their WAVE FORM nature. You also deny the inter-connectedness which stretches across the universe INSTANTANEOUSLY - faster than the speed of light. Counting billiard balls is no foundation for any superior science. Yet, bean counting is all the rage.

Expanded: It has been proved that either of two particles separated by thousands of miles, and everything else, will make "decisions" based on the decisions of the other particle: FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Scientifically, the theory is supported: All particles across the universe, despite being unable to communicate in the thermodynamic realm except by thousands upon thousands of years of delay in the signal, are DIRECTLY AND EMPATHICALLY AND COMMUNICATIVELY CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER INSTANTANEOUSLY AND FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. This is an overwhelmingly revolutionary finding. What happens in your bathtub is INSTANTLY connected to what particles are thinking billions upon billions of miles away.

Therefore, the very idea of describing REALITY - of being "AUTHORITATIVE" - by merely measuring and mapping subatomic particles, the very zenith of modern scientific research, IS A FALLACY. Bean-counting IS NO BASIS FOR AUTHORITY in and of itself.

To measure is to alter. Measurement is subjectivity. Measurement is personal. Chasing after black holes in a CERN particle accelerator, hunting beans, is always more than science, it is a human endeavour. It must needs be evaluated POLITICALLY. Take that, "new world order".

As far as I'm concerned, Liberals need to shake the vanity that comes with this sort of scientific hubris.

Finally, here it is. We count stars as if they were beans, as if we can control them forever. But we can't. Stars laugh back at us, JUST AS DO SUBATOMIC PARTICLES. It's the same horizon of humiliation. It amazes me that we think we can count our way to enlightenment, when the very thing we claim to seek is bubbling up in the hearts of the poor and the hungry. And yet, what is going on? We have been forcing our bean-counting rules on Latin America, sending them into debt by supporting our corporations, then DEMANDING they pay us on the debt, forcing them to devalue their currencies, sening MILLIONS of them into poverty and early death. For them, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. According to the absolutes of our bean-counting ethic, they are given only one choice: a CATCH 22 - "heads I win, tales you lose".

But at the TOP of our bean-counting conspiracy, we have banksters and quants and traders and managers who are in THE VERY OPPOSITE OF A CATCH 22: They make money off of an investment - but if it FAILS, well then, they MAKE MONEY OFF OF IT! They get bailed out for being TOO BIG TO FAIL, they make MILLIONS IN BONUSES, and then they FAIL - which means THEY WIN! OUR WHOLE FUCKING AMERICAN CIVILIZATION IS A BEAN-COUNTING PONZI SCHEME.

DON'T GIVE ME THIS BEAN-COUNTING CRAP ANYMORE! TO SELECTIVELY EXPLAIN HEALTH CARE, OR LEGALESE, OR FAMILY VALUES, OR FOOTBALL, OR FASCISM, OR WALL STREET, OR CORPORATE FREE SPEECH OR ANYTHING ELSE...


DON'T

FUCKING

GIVE

ME

THIS

BEAN-

COUNTING

CRAP

ANYMORE!


YOU DO NOT OWN THE FUCKING STARS, CUNT!


"We grant corporations the right to unlimited, moneyed free speech. But we suggest you not criticise the Supreme Court, as you will be damaging the country."...


Later: Actual examples in the here and now world...

Previous Entry  Next Entry