Mitt Romney & Muhammad Ali : Religious Deferments From Vietnam War

If a citizen takes a deferment from wartime military service ought he rightly be later eligible to command the military or be elected President. While conscientious objectors and religious ministers are Godly people-maybe (for some ungodly religions may be eligible for war-time deferments too such as the 5th Church of Hatred of the I.R.S. whose priesthood regards it as a holy mission to avoid paying taxes the abomination of government-plainly the Government would want not to offend the faithful and send them to battle in unrighteous corporate wars)
A democracy should have a little logic and consistence in its policies in order that the rich and the corrupt might not just have their way through slick passage through loopholes.

Muhammad Ali avoided the draft claiming to be a minister of the Nation of Islam. Mitt Romney got a draft deferment claiming to be a Minister or Missionary of Mormonism-and he spent a year in France during then war proselytizing the faith.

Ali of course had to litigate his conviction for draft evasion five years before getting an 8 to 0 Supreme Court decision overturning his conviction.

The idea that Mormons and Muslims should get arbitrary draft exemption makes one wonder if the religious reason is for being a member of a religion or particularly for believing that God does not want people to kill.

Perhaps the ending of the draft era was requisite if Mormons and Moslems would not be required to serve via draft. Yet Christians too should be free from draft as well so perhaps war falls to just godless atheists these days, though volunteer armies with large pay are the increasing corporate trend.

So should deferments from drafts be awarded for just a year at a time for religious reasons? Is conscientious objector status good for life or just for a year or while none is especially pious?

Individuals too should be free from a draft or receive a deferment or conscientious objector status is they regard God as more important than man.

Can one reasonably elect a conscientious objector President to command military forces? If religious missionary or ministering is sufficient reason not to be drafted even if one is not a conscientious objector, won't even Democrat Party members choose to make a sect of their political faith and perform ministering work to get draft deferments until some hypothetical war is over?

The One; Comparing the Eternal and Temporal

The terms or word referent labels probably don't mean the same to The One as it would in a human context.

Realization is surpassed by omniscience. Can an eternal being experience temporality? The 33 year life of Jesus Christ would be the closest approximation I can imagine. Can the temporal contain the eternal in understanding?

For us the question is like asking how a particle in a river always in motion can consider anything stationary. One might ask if being always in motion as a water molecule in a perpetual motion river circling around a space-globe in a zero gravity mall under a clever magnetic field might could realize it's stationary position relative to other molecules flowing with it, or if the molecule could realize it's timelessness because nothing ever seemed to change in the flow, and neither did it break apart under anomolous Van der Waalls bonds or another physical influence.

Like Plotinus' expression of The One in his 'The Enneads' there is a limit to describing a view that cannot be perceived from human experience. The One is improbably subject to space-time or relativity, as it contains those pluralistic aspects of things-for-others.

Socrates: Innovative Philosopher or Destroyer of Democracy?

From what factually is known about Socrates and the state of Athens then he had that role of advocating for oppression of the demos. The happiness of people does not arise when they are enslaved or subjugated. Mankind naturally desires freedom rather than slavery

That Plato would advocate for female opportunity to oppress the masses as guardian-rulers may have been a political gambit to get feminine support-always important even today for bad political actions as well as good. Certainly women can reason well enough, however abstract reason doesn't compensate for lack of experience for either gender. In the 5th century B.C. childbirth was quite dangerous and in some places still is.

Why did Socrates want to abolish families and have the state raise progeny from mysterious liasons? Socrates might have ruminated about his first wife Xanthippe and alleged second wife Myrto and thought about the good points of a commonality of women in the Utopian Republic. He might have imagined that a prime role of philosopher kings would have been to impregnate lower classes so far as possible and outbreed undesirable characteristics such as the will for independence. In that idea he wouldn't be unique. Yet even from an evolutionary perspective diveristy is better than everyone having the same nose.

Women have tended to rule the home at times while men go out in the streets and fields to fight, strive or labor. The enfranchised agree not to kill one another, dominate the increments of sustainabilty or dump the excrements in the gutters-what could be bettter than that? Well, democracy can try to improve education and assure a fair basic social balance politically. The marketplace of ideas need be free of operant tyranny that excludes the masses from getting a natural selection of the best ideas, songs, poems or science fiction novels etc.

Eventually women too can rise to go out in the streets, fight, agree not to kill one another and labor-and they do. Maids from Mexico maintain homes for cheaper wages than Americans would demand from their middle and upper class employers. Everyone like exploitable labor-even philosopher-kings, the Supreme Soviets of the World and Boss Tweeds.

Set hierarchies are not invariably the most efficient structure for data processing alogirthms. Such are preclusive of much extraneous data and inertially tend to follow pre-determined courses without capibility of restructuring term values, concepts and so forth vital for social good.

The proposal for the education of female potential philosopher-kings may have been unrealisticly patronizing to entice Plato's prospects. The average life span was less than 25 I would guess in the 5th century B.C. One wonders how wise women might have become- guarded themselves as cloistered nun-warrior-Queens forming abstract ideas of the conduct of war and ideal social development planting and nurturing 5th century Athenians relying upon court favorite consultants perhaps-primordial lobbiests from abroad.

One might wonder if elites have a class thing regarding their self-bestowed concept of supremacy that requires that their women too are better than those cattle ruled. Catherine the Great was a competent elite ruler of Russia-quite promiscuous yet Socrates advocated against families and for state raising of all children-a very bee-hive concept that simply isn't very good. In some ways the Republic is a prototype for a fascist, Orewellian communist dictatorship the Khmer Rouge might have appreciated. One musn't forget that the new Kim of North Korea has already been decreed 'the genius amongst geniuses'.

The Roman version of the Republic had a Dictator for a year when war required transcending the joint consulship-a more realistic policy than having female war leaders in that day.

Some generals lead from the rear and others from the front. Alexander led from the front, as did Caesar when necessary. Elites though of a non-democratic sort have a greater tendency to lead in absentia from a comfortable harem, bar or pleasure dome sending the mere commoners to do the menial tasks such as war. On the other hand one might argue that female philosopher kings of a bureaucratic disposition would have been Amazon like warriors. I think war is a specialized occupation though that makes one less philosophical with rank-I am not persuaded that elite rulers can be trained to pursue the good for society and knowledge of war at the same time, nor that the guardians would not have the biased point of view that the good for society is when philosopher kings rule-rather like those tin-pot dictators for life of second and third world nations.

Socrates influenced people like Alcibiades to disrespect democracy and that cost Athenian lives such as in the war against Syracuse when Alcibiades decided to switch sides and turn traitor because he was relieved of command of the Athenian navy after a drunken night defacing statues of demi-urges in some temple (probably the Parthenon).

The Wall Street Quant traders and cdo packagers were/are the nation’s elites nurtured in misguided economic philosophy. Adam Smith’s capitalism was less accentuated than the concept of self-regulated social fee-enterprise. Free enterprise today should have regulations to preserve competition and access to capital by the masses as opposed to a reduction in concentration of wealth.

Corporations should be allowed to have no more than 5000 employees and individual could invest in no more than three corporations. It is possible to restore Adam Smith’s intentions in formalizing capitalism as an economic theory so that the economic good of the citizenry is maximized rather than that of a few. Smith and Hume were anti-aristocratic economic power instead of proponents of it.

One may admire Plato creating the foundation for philosophical realism with his realm of forms paradigm. Even Kripke in 'Naming and Necessity' keep a semblance of imperputability in names while Russell's theory of names is a forerunner of Quine's ideas about language as linguistic units derived from association with objects or events/procesesses etc.

Temporal change and classes of objects in the world of perpetual change does present the idea that some Univeral designs for objects exist that precede any particular expression in the temporal world. One learns through particle physics that select forms do exist for quanta. Only a certain amount of energy may exist in particular orbits, and radiation or fusion exists to renormalize those atoms. In some regards Plato was correct about a realm of forms in physics then after all. Socrates.

In spite of the brilliance of the realm of forms idea and laying the foundation of realism as well as advancing the classification of word and objects etc the will to elevate a Republic that isn't much more than primitive tribal rule is a regressive rather than a positive contribution to posterity. Modernity requires that discrete ad hoc procesing of data and education in ecopheric and social reality be common coin of mass thought as they pursue their own self interest aware that several billion other people are doing the same thing and that their are unintended, concatenated effects of those actions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The will of Socrates to subvert the Athenian democracy and have a regime change against the will of the majority was a dark side to the man. Socrates, like various supremists throughout history had a political personal egoistic eudeamon calling him to put his fellow citizen in chains held by the few, the proud and the rich including himself presumably.

Socrates had a inclination to support revolt against the government and was thrice convicted of fomenting insurrection. His philosophical method was political organizing to persuade others to end the existing government and subjugate the people. People that wish to subjugate one to political non-equal status are on the wrong side of things morally speaking.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Athenian democracy was a utopian experiment-as much then as in 1776. Socrates sought to regress to a primitivist tribalism with philosopher-king co-chiefs, kyshatria-warrior guardians and helot-slaves. He might have been designing a modern corporation or zaibatsu of immense size.

Athens had no oppresion by the majority-all citizens were free and voters. Slaves of whatever origin were that or dead-what could one in that time do with captives of war and others not of one's tribe that one contacted? In world war I more than 50,000 soldier died of blood poisoning from infected blisters I believe. In the 5th century B.C. human physical contact tended to be more violent because any contact was dangerous medically speaking, as well as for other reasons of history.

Jingoism officially was invented by the British-and they were an aristocratic-democratic hybrid then. In 5th century B.C. Athens war newspapers and radio didn't yet exit for jingoitic utility. If one had a sword or a spear drill team one could have a crash at the foes of course-dash across the ground-yet it alsway ressulted in many deaths and killing off of proto-jigoites. The Spartans, very good at war gaming, were not invariably happy about going to the killing fields-heck, even abcessed tooth removal could be painful for 5th century do-it-your-selfers I would guess.

Achilles earlier beleived a warrior death was best, yet it was swift and life with cancer or a myriad other chronic diseases very common then were not. The Roman emperor Sula perished when worm rotted his guts enough that they fell out.

The Athenian democracy wasn't terribly militaritic either-I think that you have imbibed some more 20th century propaganda because of 20th century war historical evaluations made by people with inadequate historical understanding. The Persians attacked the Greeks,and of course later so did the Romans. Alexander was not a democrat.

Democracy does not need to be anti-intellectual. The United States is one of the best places for intellectual efforts. Anti-intellectual is a human trait rather than a democratic trait. In a free society an intellectual may live in a tent and read Quine while the unintellectual can visit Talledega for NASCAR and help advance global warming support (they should use electric cars at least).

The 'Other' Socrates

There is a dark side to Socrates. The little known side may be common knowledge amidst some philosophers, yet it should be understood by the many as well as the few.

Socrates was a supporter of oligarchy and in opposition to the demos. It was the democrats that gave the philosopher the choice-Athens-leave it or die. Socrates choose death rather than to give up the principle of rule by the exclusive.

Bertrand Russell called Plato a fascist (during the Second World War). Plato's Republic was loosely modeled on the Spartan city-state. Yet of course Plato-Socrates wanted philosopher-Kings to dictate everything with a limited number of flunkies below in a rather Spartan configuration. The ordinary people were not helots of course, the men just should be cuckolded and the women imp0regnated by superior males-Socrates was an early formal eugenic supremist.

For most of the history of western civilization aristocracy has ruled and of course they advocate the extreme conservatism of 'The Republic'. How noble was Socrates in thrice being charged by the Demos of corrupting the youth of Athens-he was inciting them to revolt and restore the Oligarchy. Today of course the charge of’ corrupting youth' brings sniggers. Socialist believing corruption is hunkie dorrie want all of that they can get on the premise that it will undermine the conservative amongst us. We know the litany-unlimited sin is o.k. mankind evolved from lizards and hence it should today have a magical lizard's moral sensibilities.

Socrates did evolve the Socratic method. Maybe he refined some sort of water-boarding interrogation methodology that could work in polite society. Socrates wanted to prove that anyone he met was a moron or at least quite ignorant-any maybe he was right for the people were ordinarily ignorant and Socrates was a rare, thoughtful, intelligent aristocrat from a humble background.

Can we find sympathy for Socrates-son of a sculptor who worked on the Parthenon, rugged soldier, voluntary mystic of catatonic like states of deep standing contemplation-because he supported the rich and powerful of his day perhaps to get kickbacks of a financial nature-or at least to have an easy time of accommodations, food, parties and security?

If Socrates did not seek favors of the Buffets and Gates of his time, if the George Soros' of golden age Athens were just means to an end of converting Athenian liberty into a Spartan like domination by a pair of philosophers like Socrates and Plato, he was at least an individual who stimulated political philosophy and the inquiry into the nature of word meaning. It isn't too surprising that his grand-pupil Aristotle invented classical logic, the syllogism and formal scientific classification.

I guess Socrates wasn't all bad after all, yet of course, we like the moderns and several others fairly well in compensation, though of course none are God as is Jesus Christ.

Moderate Red Wine Drinking to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer?

Science Daily posted an article on a scientific finding that the risk of breast cancer may be reduced with the drinking of 8 ounces of red wine nightly. The report will be published in an April edition of the Journal of Women's Health.

The article pointed out that most alcohol consumption increases estrogen levels that are a risk factor for cancerous cell growth yet red wine, seeds and grape skin do not. With environmental estrogen levels also elevated by certain plastic drinking containers, could those plastic cups and bottles be a risk factor for breast cancer too?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120106105925.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+

On Infinities

Cantor's trans-infinite infinities indicate ordinal form in abstract relations, yet it is not necessary that there is a correspondence to anything actual from infinite series. A circle line may be subdivided infinitely forever with smaller and smaller numbers at each point on the line. Reality may be qualitatively transcendent over infinities though, and the evident Universe is simply a project of an indefinable teleology phenomenalized.

Infinities of the abstract sort often are infinite in one direction with ordinal structure (regular intervals or spacing/quantity) yet not in all dimensions. The circle may be infinitely reduced yet not expanded in the same area without fundamental change of investment.

The Universe is sometimes thought to have expanded from a smaller area. Obviously it is logically easier to imagine the Universe shrinking to an infinitely small point.

If the Universe may be regarded theoretically as a circular or spherical section of a two dimensional or eleven dimensional membrane, it is fundamental to imagine reducing that portion or area to a small point before releasing it to expand and resume its normal context state over time.

On the Dionysian Aesthetic Paradigm vs More Objective Criteria?

Reading Euripides' versions of the works of Sophocles is lively. The Bacchae roll right along with a fair field description of the salient point of the advance of the women under the influence of Dionysus. What can't one like about it? Would you regard Timon of Athens as Dionysian because of the strength of Timon's hatred of mankind, or is that in a Euripidean style?

Is Wagner’s Logen a reference to Attila the Hun? Attila made it to France and fought to a stalemate with a Roman Legion.

One comment on the ring cycle offers the opinion that Bakunin was the role model. Adolph Hitler and other political charismatics place the emotion of vengeance right there with Dionysian passion. Monomaniacal political passion can bring a high opportunity cost with it. Artists though seem to require devotion to their project-I find it difficult to associate Dionysian drunkeness with artistic passion. Was Jackson Pollock a Dionysian and Pablo Picasso an intellectual of cubist construction and meta-layered perspective placing subjective psychologic perception into the empirical world?

The work of a the passion of Christ when the word means perserverence through suffering may be the best example of artistic devotion to an aethetic cause if we allow real values to intrude into the aesthete. Passion with sobriety is the best kind.

I stipulate that being in some way compelled to attend an Opera instead of reading philosophy or cosmology would be a terrible fate. So is a succession of Presidents of the United States that would be guided by emotion or red flags stimulating deficit spending instead of rational, analytical informed opinion about ecological economics and the way to move socially in a Thomas Moore direction or at least with a George Luis Borges sort of amusement aesthetically with intellectual genius.

Some prefer irrational motivation for living, yet it requires a good healthy ecosphere to run amuck in decadence instead of one with a prospect for mass extinction. I believe one might sublimate the aesthetic of romanticism within an intellectual appreciation of beauty and avoid the excesses of Nietzsche-