Tense Logic; Prior and Kripke--are worth the time to learn about

Logic in science has an ancient lineage; Aristotle was the world's first formal logician (he invented classical deductive logic) as well as one of the best early philosophers of science. He took the rational metaphysical ideas that Plato presented and inductively applied them to form a classification of cosmological ontology. Forms and genera and the presentation of matter in time were thoughtfully considered. That process has continued over two and a half millenia.

Symbolic logic was invented in the 19th century. It is true that Liebniz invented a symbolic mathematical logic, yet it wasn't published in his lifetime nor for a lengthy time after his death. There is a history of productive philosophers, mathematicians and scientists. Bertrand Russell and Allan North Whitehead wrote 'The Principia Mathematica' early in the 20th century. Logical structures representing abstract possible forms are a logical method to consider how the physical world is constructed to-especially at the quantum mechanical level. When structures become to small to observe-or perhaps too large, it is logical reasoning processes including math advances that must be developed to probe the way thing might be. Some philosophers such as Arthur Prior have even investigated the relationships of contingence within logic to a substantial extent. It seems a paradox that a hypothetical entity that is purely logical could have anything besides a nominal contingent existence, and could form a logical basis for representing real contingent relations.

It is rather amazing that Saul Kripke was in high school, or just out when he published A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic'. Kripke had neen influenced by Arthur Prior-basically the inventor of tense logic.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/prior/

Tense logic developed by Prior and later others in the 1960's established the logical relationships of temporal order. It was useful not only for computing logic but brought in the modal logical relationships of hypothetical worlds. Kripke developed a matrix approach to possible worlds, and I would think that ontologies of temporal based modal logic assume discrete values of units logically consistent and able to be falsifiable as existing or non-existing sates as trivial as that might be to remark.

Matrix and group mathematical representation of fields in multi-dimensional time contexts have obvious values in forming cosmological theories. The tense logic of prior may have had some kind of use in cosmology, and even String or M-theory-I must say that the topic exceeds my present reading. I have only recently discovered Prior and tense logic, and look forward to reading more in the field.

Prior believed that logical formalism-the idea that logic is valid only, or mostly as an intensional, analytical phenomena , isn't valid. His approach of renormalizing intentional logic with the Universe may have been a method drawn from an assumption tat knowledge of the world's physics and time can only be known contingently so therefor logic must apply functionally if knowledge is to have any valid human foundation.

Logic is basically perhaps limited to ordering relations between existent and non-existent states as well as descriptions of their intervals and scale. Space-time events logically represented may be inconsistent with the potential physical relationships of physically concatenated elements. If such is the case then logical induction may be more difficult.

Given space-time fields of science the discovery of logical relationships is necessary for knowledge. Readings in Prior and of the mathematics of M-Theory such as may be made simply explained (really) promises interesting ideas for metaphysical contemplation, as well as tools for science.

The St. Novilistricka Plan

Before traveling north for then winter to look for work, I finished a brief science fiction novel in about four weeks. The book is named 'The St. Novilistricka Plan'. I took about four weeks to write the somewhat philosphically obtuse work. It could use a second draft obviously and topped out at maybe 30,000 words, yet I felt it worth the effort and enjoyed the composition quite a bit.

The book is about the philosopher from the University of Mars Patrick Voevoda's continuing extra galactic existential ventures--this time to recover his lost girlfriend--Lush who disappeared innocently enough. Perhaps he is a little like Sherlock in that regard, attempting to infer her location from the available evidence, yet of course perpetrators abound to complicate the issue.

Tolerant Intolerators of Intolerance

'Tolerance breeds'--is that true? Can tolerance breed intolerance? Does tolerance breed? Let's say that it does. Tolerance breads intolerance like one might horses or dogs. Tolerance is a kind of abstract thing. One tolerates a wheel wobbling on a car and drives at high speed until it falls off and thus intolerance naturally follows. Either one never again tolerates wheel wobbling or without a wheel to wobble tolerance of such cannot occur. Tolerance may be considered to be a kind of marginal error permissible because it's concatenated deviation isn't too significant--especially if one isn't going anywhere.

In the North however magnetic north may be to the east or west rather than North. Tolerance of deviation of compass azimuth/heading may not be tolerated by those without a g.p.s. Yet it is possible to find more tolerance and intolerance in political affairs commonly than in position in grid coordinates.

Toleration implies that one has a choice of being intolerant. That a good position to be in, better than having no choice at all.

How would it be to be a Jew and have no choice about intolerance for Nazi's stopping to deport you to a concentration camp in 1941? They should have been intolerant rather than tolerant of the putch party if they had a choice. Tolerance is however the yin of the yang and vice versa--the dark and the light, the apposite to the opposite, the being to the nothingness. Sometimes it's right and sometimes its wrong. The determination of what should and should not be tolerated follows from the conservation of individual liberty within a democratic context; things that reduce it should not be tolerated, things that impinge upon privacy should be stopped at the door or over the border.

Tolerance can be viewed through the perspective of piling up public debt. A little is tolerated,then more, and more and finally 12 trillion dollars going on toward 21 trillion. One would be an intolerant 'deficit hawk' if rationally intolerant of public debt approaching a year's gross national product. So let it go.Nothing is real. Its strawberries and marmalade fields forever,uh huh.

Tolerance is presumptive of a right of repression. One either has equal rights or not. no one has the right to be offensive, all have the right for self-defense. What's to tolerate in that? Intoleration is said to occur when the offenders are met with resistance in whatever it is--people have a right to keep h.i.v. out from getting under their skin haven't they? What isn't tolerated generally is intelligence and the pursuit of happiness that doesn't accord with the mass delusions in pride about what is possible economically and socially. The strong tend to rule and usurp roles of individuality and intellect. Society gets stupid and even hierarchical corporations and churches becomes intolerant of intelligence, innovation, intelligence and individualism.

Too big to be corrected, majorities tolerant of their own corruption, and that expect it in all others comprise a kind of Prince of Darkness that want's its finger in every pie. With mass economic and environmental delusion the lemmings happily run over the edge into mass disaster and everything becomes set anew to tolerance in demographic remoteness.

Tolerance connotes a decadent society confident that debt and sloth, corruption and conformity to political idiocy have no potneital consequences. Maybe the advocates of decadence breed intolerance when those aware of the increasing moral and political perfidy start writing iin opposition to the protracted wars, mass deaths behind cordon sanitaires such as occurred in sanctions era Iraq, reliance on foreign fuels and production, destruction of the ecosystem--when political opposition to stupid and nationally destructive policies becomes loud. To the 'tolerant' that give everything away, subvert every valid non-hierarchical religious impulse, pervert every youth, abort every potential genius or inventor of faster-than light travel and drop their drawers to every southern border illegal alien destroyers of U.S. wage labor value the dissenters are 'intolerant'.

On Holocaust History Obfuscators and Select Censorship

Political organizations of power not uncommonly deny the reality of inconvenient political facts. The United States denied that a democide was occurring in Iraq because of the sanctions and Saddam Hussein being in power. A lie about WMD's had to be the reason for the 2003 war-no one faced up to competent post-war planning. Trillions of dollars andtens of thousands of casualties was the result. The common truth goverrnor that makes a government incapable of pursuing or recognizing the truth within a reasonable margin of error was in effect. Human social organizations are not usually a lot of Richard Feynman's, but of apprentice, would be Joseph Stalins. So many deny the holocaust happened-oh vey!

Helium deleted six articles I wrote on the 2008 election. They said they had no editorial interest. So far I haven't got a trace of where they went or of how to recover them. In the modern internet era of the cloud we believe as writers that what we have published is permanent, yet it isn't so. Too commonly Internet publishers simply disappear content we believed was permanent. The Nazi sympathizers that deny the history of the holocaust pioneered that effort to deny history perhaps. As time moves on past the event that is politically incorrect today it is simply denied. The past may have no editorial value to those that prefer a different version or account of what happened. If the Nazis had won the second world war those inclined to deny the holocaust would probably be bragging about it instead and claiming that it was their relatives that manned the gates of the death camps, invented Zyklon B or censored impertinent Jews with hostile political opinions in the 1920'a and 1930's before they could be liquidated terminally. Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat its evils. Many wish to remember history from the point of view of a brave new world, yet honest historians and philosophers like to remember it as it actually was in order to stand upon better foundations for continuing to pursue the structure of truth where it leads.

In the late 60's I met a woman with the Auschwitz concentration camp numbers stamped permanently on her wrist. She was a survivor.

Famous deniers of the Holocaust exist with the President of Iran-Aminidinijab being the most infamous unlearned individual. False-conscious or lying convincingly to oneself isn't a new thing.Sartre wrote about false consciousness in his book written in occupied France-Being and Nothingness ((published in 1943). We like to have permanent political and sociological records to help understand the reasoning of humanity during evolving periods of history. I have written seven volumes of such contemporary history in the 'Waveform Politics' series beginning in 1999. With the instant deletion of my political writing during 2008 probably in support of Honest John McCain those ideas and the place they had, though small, in the streaming flow of ideas is now lost forever. Many powers would delete history for their convenience and lose their credibility as reliable keepers of records. With so much cheap digital storage there are no technical reasons to delete content without advising authors first. in order that they may conserve targeted, dissident material.

Deniers of the history of the holocaust may publish counterfactual propaganda in advocacy of an false historical record. Deletion of exiting material is important in establish the credibility of the false history. In most middle eastern Arab countries there is probably little true information regarding the holocaust and they way the Mufti of Jerusalem was a Nazi sympathizing collaborator with the fascists. Historical confusion created by the social support of lies as historical fact is probably one of the causes of protracted Arab and Palestinian poverty and terrorism. Without true and objective history mass confusion sets in and the limits on calibrating social truth increase contemporaneously with the inability to pursue ration political objectives. A culture of the perpetuation of dissimulation overcomes right moral social order as an egalitarian democratic society with increasing good social values.

http://www.nizkor.org/

The Nizkor Project is dedicated to the memory of the holocaust. Unfortunately it also targets white nationalists as the main deniers of the holocaust accomplishing on the front page a persecution of white people and an opposition to nationalism and socialism. We wish the Jews survivalist mentality would not have such hindsight that they put themselves in a bad as de facto advocates of globalism and communism. That is a kind of blindness utterly remarkable considering the history of Nazi Germany. The world today doesn't need non-white fascist movements or globalist attacks upon national sovereignty, private property and democracy any more than it needs white fascists violating the rights of non-whites. Epimetheus is the 'goddess' of the past. It is difficult to journey along with Prometheus walking backwards, to stop and stand like Lot's wife gazing forever at the wrong direction. If Prometheus had amnesia or delusions he would probably wander in circles alternatively.

The pursuit of a good, rational society and global ecological economic policy with a stable population cannot be accomplished with the creation of falsehoods of omission or commission. Such historical and political sins exert a will within a non-consequential existential political context that is illusory. Ignorance and the continuity of a culture of ignorance and dissimulation miss the marks of intelligent and positive natural law and progress as good neighbors rightly should. Perhaps the effort to be wise and just is too much for many of today's megalomanical globalist of fascist, Mohammedan and Corporatist kinds.

The holocaust denials of organizations and politicians create time consuming opportunity costs for forward human progress within a challengingly declining global ecological health. There are innumerable ways that weapons of mass or designer mass destruction might target the world for another round of pervasive general holocaust. The genocides of the mass should not be forgotten or minimized from anyone's history. Instead the conditions that lead to such activities should be researched without transfer of guilt to the wrong generations who are in fact entirely innocent of blameworthiness. Future democides could occur simply for global population reduction to sustainably low levels. In an acrimonious socially imbalanced political environment the human condition will obviously not be moving full speed to progress on solving the most challenging issues facing the world today.

The Universe in Relation to The Reference Frame of God (a hypothesis)

The question is of course difficult to answer in some respects. Traditionally it might mean that some location of God would determine his nature. if he is everywhere such as Spinoza believed then one is a pantheist. Such ideas bring along subsidiary associated criteria. As in any set theory the subset must be formed from within the categories of the larger set. It is a principal of logic that it is possible to formulate some things such that they are exclusive of other things.

If pantheism means that there is some inference of a lesser responsibility for living beings to morally obey God's right deonotological details because they too are a little bit of God, then it has some repercussions upon everything we might believe about the protocols of being such as good and evil and so forth. With this initial denotation of the importance of the question about where God is potentially,we can move on to 'where is God?'.

A very modern context is string theory cosmology. A very old context is described by the 3rd century neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus. It may seem difficult to believe that both old and new theories have a similar cosmological paradigm of the Universe, yet essentially they have. The Enneads of Plotinus go a little farther in completing the answer of 'where is God?' than pre-big bang theory does. Pre-big bang theory does help to make the Universe seem like an emanation from at least one zero dimensional membrane before the big bang in some sort of 'without form and void' context. The primordial void experienced some sort of a fusion of strings or membranes that became highly ordered (its inferred) before expanding rapidly as an inflaton then big bang of space-time mass and energy. Modern astronomy has viewed gamma ray star burst events from the period when the Universe was only 650 billion years old (in the scale that its now 13.7 billion years old).

Wherever God was when the Word was spoken for the expansion of light quanta (strings, loops, quarks or whatever) and the extreme radiation and light of the primordial Universe, we can infer that a He still is. The frequencies of space-time that were spoken to given an initial endowment of power and purposeful destiny to the Universe was an act of God. Everything that came to exist occurred because of the Word.

Even the standard model of physics and the equations of the general theory of relativity reduce the Universe at it's origin to a near infinitesimally small size. String theory has a slightly different point of view. The Universe's origin is like the tight spot of an hourglass through which energy has flowed. The load of mass into the top part was believed to have started from a void with the appearance of virtual particles that drew together under a kind of gravity particle. I should point out that so far as I know (and that isn't much) there aren't adequate field equations for the order and appearance of virtual particles in a zero-degree void. never the less the size of the Universe was small. God created the entire structure and it was smaller than the period at the end of this sentence by orders of magnitude. It was a reasoned actuation of a Universe that increased in scale. To God it must still be very small though it seems large to us humans.

Where is God then we ask? Where is the Universe? Is that a good question? If the Universe is the size of a period at the end of a very small sentence...with a type font size of less than 10 to the minus 35th size, we could fill the planet with all the red ink of the U.S. Government and it would disappear to insignificance, unless we citizens were shrunken to a comparably small scale. Well, where would that period-Universe be? It would be in the midst of some tremendous void bigger than good U.S. job prospects for unemployed, undegree'd philosophers in their fifties. God would however know everything in it, having made aforementioned Universe. If the Universe scaled up in size billions of light-years in size it would for God, probably seemed to have increased not much. Surrounding the period-Universe is infinity in all directions.

At least we might believe that the Universe is surrounded by infinity. The pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides of Ionia considered the nature of everything, of God and where or what the Universe must be quite well. His inquiries were carried on by Plato and Plotinus. Today we can see Isaac Newton spinning bucket thought experimental criteria as continuities of the thought of Parmenides. He called the Universe a plenum, whatever was contained in it was a volume itself. Did it displace something or nothing? Where there was something nothing could not be. Substantial questions about nothing, yet it is from nothing that everything originated, with the Word of God.

Plotinus believed that The One is absolutely perfect. We can consider The One to be God. He is so perfect that He has no need to think foreknowing the answers to every possible question. The same goes for His physical existence; He is everywhere and yet nowhere. The Universe tat He emanated for some reason could just be an aspect of His continuing omnipotence in action actualizing all things. So we have a Being like that of Parmenides' style and simultaneously one such as another pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus might have described.

Heraclitus is the guy that said that one cannot step into the same river twice. He thought that everything is continually in change. Well, if God is actualizing all things forever as an omnipotent Being that is true, yet Parmenides is also right, because everything that is in change or being and becoming is of God. We would make a mistake to suppose that its all some sort of natural flow however, for God is about reason and good. Everything is known and inn order. All things that should be, are. God even seems to run close to the edge of deficit sometimes and allows apparent evil to occur within His divine economy of perfect goodness. Maybe that's to let some virtual evil exist that will be discontinued eventually in order to allow as much good and possible experience exist as is possible.

Plotinus believed that all things are a result of emanations from God's perfection. The Intelligence and The Soul are comparable to the Son and the Spirit somewhat, although the Soul cannot well be compared to the Holy Spirit of which Jesus and Paul talked. The Intelligence as creator of all forms and eventually of the material Universe seems well compared with Jesus Christ. In the beginning was the Word...

God has created every quanta of every structure, yet it does all have protocols and proper places that are in the process of change. People are creations of God yet not God. Perhaps people could be compared to being individual numbers without being all numbers (such as we could think about God being). Because each element is individual and finite they are not omniscient or omnipotent and can go wrong when they disobey the will of God. Presently some numbers want to change their number orientation-make their eigenvalues not what they should and at taxpayer expense. This is not appreciated by the protocols of the ordered quantum Universe. Just try to do what God wants and win bonus points in some future endeavor...they can be useful.

The Universe may be described as having reality, yet it is a contingent reality created by God even if one wants to describe it as a theistic evolution. It could be compared by analogy to an image in the mind thought intentionally,or even to vision seeing a view of the ocean perhaps. The view is how the mind interprets all of the waveforms striking the optic nerve and reaching the brain. The experience is different than the innumerable particles that make it occur. Our entire Universe can be said to have similar localized universal forces (localized in the Universe) that were created by God as our own brains and the environment of the Universe allow the creation of an experience of images of 'reality'.

The Universe is like a mist in the mind of God. God as absolute Spirit has created our Universe such that it appears material to us human beings in it. We thus exist to ask questions such as; 'where is God?'

Non-Self Philosophical Reference Points

Philosophers tend to use their natural logic in a somewhat more disciplined way than do most people. They may construct a theory of everything or just a theory about thought. Language and logic have themselves been the subject of philosophical investigation as well as the nature of the material or spirit perceived by the mind. When one strips down the methods of logic and language to its bare essentials we have an opportunity to process data that may be presented to mind and reasoning a little more constructively. There may be ten-thousand 'points of reference' or perhaps just one (allow that would be a very monistic criterion making the observer or user of one reference point something of a passive partner to the one point of reference perhaps).

Referred to points may be suitable for a particular set theory, yet of course we would prefer more than one point if we hoped to construct something meaningful. In systems of relativity at least three points of reference are required for directions of motion to be established. In language, one referent would be a one word vocabulary. Primordially even apes accomplish more than that with recognizable grunt referent meanings. The challenge for linguistics is to denote specific lexical ontology referents amidst others. Philosophically the challenge may be to reduce the possible plethora of words and objects to primary structures of meaning. Martin Heidegger pursued language in such a way looking for 'essents'. Modern analytical philosophers may exploit some of the ontological references of science for their cosmological criteria as well as neurological foundation for thought similes to epistemological phenomena subjectively.

Unreasonable points of reference are a little hoary, so we prefer reasonable ones if we are compelled to choose. So one must make a reasoned reasonable point to have a philosophy and eat it too, as if it were a cake. How might one argue with such fell logic as that? I think we must try.

A philosophy as an objective thing in itself seems something of a trivialization of the activity of the pursuit of wisdom. Yet moderns like to have sound bite reasoning and packaged products such as 'a philosophy' and then describe the contents it must have to be a marketable product. It needs a point of reference, and the point of reference must be reasonable. We cannot say who the judge must be of whether or not a particular point in a philosophy is reasonable or not. Certainly in ecclesiastical history there were those that de facto stipulated that 'a philosophy' was heretical and the authors would be burned at the stake or given unto the inquisition. At least Galileo learned to mind his p's and q's and was spared be burned at the stake. He knew when to assert a reasonable point of reference and when to kow-tow to the communist party ideologues of the day (a Chinese former communist professor was just given a ten year prison sentence for forming a political party. Only one party is reasonable in China).

We like to believe that in the many fields of philosophy including political philosophy virtually any approach regarding the mind or matter, spirit or social order, mass or energy might be taken with potential for good results. The French philosopher Descartes intentionally dispensed with any conventional points of reference in his quest to understand existence. His existential doubt was a result of the will to found philosophical knowledge upon first principles--things or ideas he could regard as direct knowledge in personal experience as true. He had no 'point of reference'. Cogito ergo sum was self-standing or self-evident. At least he believed it was and that belief advanced philosophy significantly.

Jean Paul Sartre's existentialist researches expanded French philosophical rationalism beyond the a priori, analytic thinking efforts of Descartes. Sartre's existentialism made the entirety of experience a self-aware cognitive field that was all that might be known. He recognized the heterodox nature of experience with the existence of other's in the cognitive event. The Critique of Dialectical Reason was an effort to describe the concatenated nature of that experience.

If one has a reasoning mind it is important to keep free the criteria of investigation with which one might construct a philosophical lexicon of ideas. If one doesn't have a reasoning mind then find a point of reference and make that your philosophy. Be an elephant that grasps hold of the tale before thee and waddle along to the beat of the same drummer booming through the speakers of your brain housing unit. Otherwise break down those ideas into workable size and use a little symbolic or even classical logic to analyze the meaning they have. Remove all of the adjectives and such to get to the salient proposition if it may be approached that way. Determine like Hume did what is sophistry and what isn't. Determine what is actual rather than some sort of actually meaningless metaphysics or passing the buck refer to a point of reference next that is just one of an infinite series of points in some order along a meaningless path of unnatural numbers representing computer generated phrases. Think for yourself but read those great ideas worth learning in order to not reinvent the wheel each day.

Philosophy is more than an epistemology or theory of knowledge. A theory of knowledge is implicitly referential to something other than the immediate self-awareness; that is it must explain itself preferably within its own terms and context. Of course to do so is in a way self-defeating. Theories of knowledge naturally tend to be propositional ontologies other than self. If one is referring to a theory of knowledge as a theory of mind, which one presumably has, then it must always be a kind of alienation of idea as experience from self. It is a reductionism from mind to an ossified phrase and inert, or dead.

A point of reference does seem to a prior assume that points exist, and that a particular point-do we mean geographic or linguistic coordinate reference points- has some ordination from which all other inferences and deductions are made. A philosophy would seem in this context to be contingent upon a prime meridian for meaning, placing the meridian at a higher level than the egalitarian context of the rest.One may reasonably assume certain axioms within any given ontology to induct and construct the remainder of the composition members of the element set. In matters of life and experience referring to the world as it appears we find it improbable that a single reference point-a most obscure assumed premise-might adequately serve to anchor a theory of either monism or pluralism. it is instead a kind of social myopia that fails a criterion of pragmatism.

W.V.O. Quine's 'Word and Object' and 'Ontological Relativity' of course are linguistic and logic based philosophical analysis of the meaning of language and of how it is used. It especially considers how the philosophical uses of language and symbolic logic are structured. Life itself has a self-standing reality about which people talk. Talk and words to refer to present and not present things or events are primordial in the history of mankind. Perhaps one-hundred thousand years ago more or less simple human languages existed. Language has as many objects or referents potentially to talk about as there are objects in the Universes of experience and imagination. Words refer to objects. It is a wonderful fact that words can refer to themselves. They are address points of meaning. The Universe itself is the one primary referent, and of course we include ourselves within this Universe. Human beings even refer to their own being, and self, in self-reference.

Philosophically we prefer to consider knowledge of what is experienced, and of knowledge beyond one's personal being, and of course of existing at all as activities or investments of our time worth the pursuit. Some element of wisdom seems to exist in learning all one can about life. Of course we also pursue these most general yet intimately important of concerns is philosophical activities. Philosophy is a method of inquiry. Knowledge continually should advance without ever reaching a conclusion in some sort of omniscience. Theologically our interests are developed in learning about the Ultimate Designer of the Universe1 and of any potential other Universes. In such concerns our metaphysical inquiry becomes an alternate ontology rather than the self-evident one into which we are born, live and die.

It is somewhat fashionable nowadays more than a 150 years after Darwin's theory for many in society to regard themselves as liberated from hoary church dogma of creation. So many were oppressed by corrupt ecclesiastical neo-theocratic relationships with feudal lords that history did not refer sufficiently to the role that the Catholic Church played occasionally in opposing rising national imperial powers. Following the Inquisition such neglect was perhaps well deserved in the popular realm. At any rate following the Darwinism many were concerned that the disbelief that a scientific explanation for the origin of the species could not be anything besides a contradiction and even a negation of the Genesis story of creation. The last forty years have shown us that a theistic evolution of the Universe is consistent with the Bible, yet without modern scientific knowledge there were few that could interpret the book of Genesis in such a light.

The 'incredible lightness of being'; the giddiness of disbelief in God was feared by some authorities as leaving mankind rootless and adrift in a meaningless mechanical Universe. Of course the assumption that the Universe as it is cannot be a self-evident ground for being philosophically grounded isn't too valid. Cicero's natural law and a myriad other systems are able to provide an ordination for morality inferred from the criterion of being in-the-world. Kant's categorical imperative is a deontological inference from logic and being. Kant believed in God yet his moral law is axiomatic. The 'point of reference' a mariner might have wanted in the era before the invention of the compass isn't too applicable to philosophy. The Universe of experience exists for-itself; the 'reference' is all around us. We believe also that God exists transcendentally though we have no material point of reference for that faith. The ungrounded with hysterical 'philosophies' requiring a 'point of reference' have existed throughout history even before Darwin or the reformation. The Dionysian choice may itself become an ethic for a majority of ruling elites. A point of reference is no assurance of the existential validity of a particular philosophical ontology.

Philosophers did not first invent an a priori language such as found in Descartes cogito and then construct reality from it; they simply have tried to learn more and more about the actual world experienced. Perhaps some could miss it. Take the first right...

Health Care Bills 2009 U.S.A.

The U.S. Government is stuffed legislatively with the astigmatic viewpoint of wealthy politicians seeking to enrich their paymasters. The useful middle class seeks to make all tax benefits directly of benefit to themselves--and screw the poor. With such a federal policy and an NPR cluster of accomplices the advocates for an independent and no-cost, no-load public health service for the poor are few. The present federal health care follies in congress are a case in point of the malaise that has settled upon the U.S. Congress like a dank and fetid fog of political poison released by the effluent bowels of the global corporatism that one hopes is in a declining state--as it is a fundamentally treasonous political method of redistributing wealth, health and power to powers of a transnational basis consolidating their wealth and devastating the ecological well being of the planet Earth.

The present federal congressional planning to compel Americans to become enslaved to global corporate surveillance known as global insurance companies is a treasonous bit of political perfidy duping the somnolent middle class toadies of globalism farther into the evil clutches of the evil trans-national corporate-communist empire. The requirement that Americans buy insurance from global corporations in effect tithing secularism and trans-nationalism is a gross bill of attainder and federal coercion compelling allegiance to trans-national corporations with the payment of insurance 'tribute'.

Evil global corporations seeking to enslave Americans as enthralled indentured servants would with federal complicity receive mass personal data to distribute to anyone on Earth via the insurance corporations. Al Qa'eda sympathizers in oil rich OPEC nations will know just who and how turkeys of the U.S.A. rightly ought to be plucked. In the rush to find more free wealth for the middle class the poor are held hostage to the stuffed technocratic corporate and federal disdain for human and civil rights.

A plethora of no-load health care provisioning policies for the poor should be created by a federal health service, while the matter of the relationships between the comfortable and the global predatory insurers and corporations should be dealt with separately by honest politicians should they ever arise in congress again. Obviously the congress is barely representative any more, and is more of a servo-unit for the kind of post-Reagan era privatizing of government that destroyed the economy of New Zealand before it reversed its course in recent years.

The myth of tax cuts and federal deficits as beneficial to the U.S. economy was just that--it was a plundering redistribution of wealth to a corporate class of global crooks and the TARP theft was the most recent consequence. The United States will be the last to understand that corporatism and communism just aren't so different. Each are opposed to individualism and free enterprise, and each are inimical to freedom and good human ethics. A healthy American poor can get out to work and help themselves instead of losing decades of time while the comfortable and effectively spaced comfortable class just injure them further with the corrupting closure to reason that follows the possession of too much power.

Poor Americans may move a lot of the time in search of work. They may be homeless annually and strive to save what meager earnings they can from sporadic labor even while injured. A health insurance federally requisite structure would degrade furhter, potentially, the quality of life for those requiring medical services for hernia repair for example, that must travel and are not comfortably sedentary citizens able to receive mail from an insurance corporation owned by Duubains or Moscowvite organized crime syndicates, delivered by the postman ringing twice always while they 'wait a minute, wait a minute, then look and see if there's a card or a letter for me'.

Unrealistic and aloof federal thinking in government is a norma aspect of a nation in decline and fall. The reform of health insurance should have a real safety net for the poor without insurance that works without subscription or payments from anyone to global health corproations. The ciorrupt congress should go back and try again, yet they make money on that too and just have more of a chance to get kickbacks from lobbiests while in office. Is there even one senator that isn't a millionaire?