Reality is the 4D.

[Rough Draft 6-3-14]

The politics of nature.
X, Y & Z R physics, psychology & philosophy.
Each an acronimble player[!]*

*to parse disciplines & unfuzz math/logic.

~~~
Edited 6-4-14 [!]

The fourth dimention is politics, in the pantheon of disciplines. 
A. Physics
B. Psychology
C. Philosophy
D. Politics

X, Y and Z, plus time are the four dimensions in 4 moolah shun.
Spoiler alert:  The fifth element ?**

** not exactly

Is it just too much?

Maybe it is just me, but sometimes the stridency and wry humor of some are just too much. But it is not just me, it is not just Bush. Or rather unjust Bush
and those who have not stood in his way.

This rhetoric just flashed through my mind, just before and after I watched Mike Papantonio’s GoLeft.Tv titled R.I.P -- G.O.P. Or rather it started before and fell onto my keyboard after having viewed it and finding it not so harsh but true.

An apropos link in this manner is to even wryer and wrier takes:
Headzup: John McCain's Oscar Speech

Diebold Leak

[More subtle approaches: Thomas Friedman was on the Late Show the other night. I have yet to find a link to it, but have yet to read what I did find. But they seem to fit into my world view that everything is round. From Third World Traveler - - Norman Solomon - - Brewer/Lakoff not that they need to be right or come from my perspective. The hinge point is communicating over disciplines, disciplines over just discipline, and maybe WholeEness in conjunction with "the devil in the details".]

[even later with sadness: William F. Buckley - - may he truly R.I.P. I could not concur more with 7 of the first 8 sentences of Rick Perlstein's piece. I did not know him, nor follow him that closely. But the title does not apply, that I know of and I did not see it, until I clicked on the link to read later. So I may comment more later.]

Equivalence

Principles:
a run on in other words.
Especially important in the rhetorical fields or disciplines.

[posted pre-post 3-1-10]

Economy or Economics

To SIN or not to sin?

SIN*:
Switch Topics
Ignore Facts
Name Call

Call it a Wrap?
With no bow on it, or aft?**

* rated X for economiX
(I should note that I was thoroughly entertained by the Fight of the Century, but it is a Koch sponsored production, and requires a fair bit of economics** as well as other disciplines to see that it is more inciteful than insightful. But the other links provide some other perspectives that I only have a hunch are more "fair and balanced" and not in a Faux or FOKS way. I have only begun to unRap them, but there is a pun in the 3 bows.***

** redone duncy Not! (actually this just might be the bow)

*** correction 4 is more on target

[NOTE: Under(see Wrap) and a fair bit of economics and NOT! are the links I have yet to dijest (see sic and pour ridge metaphor)]

The Tetrahedron Ramble*

What the heck** is the point? I revisit my Power Broker Mountain Project, or actually move on. What I call the prime disciplines as in fields of study, Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy form the base with Progress or their result as the point of their projection or application forming a reality or culture, as we know it, or think we know it, or feel we apply it, regardless.

The perspective that caused me to reconsider this model, or concept (as it also may be the perspective) is a proposition that Science, Religion, Politics, and Economics,(structures) have at least three things in common: Values, Ideology, and Power.(VIP) Now I don't want to be restricted to the math or geometry or insistence that there is meaning in them for some sake other than they are structures. But conceptually they are at the point of the tetrahedron and not the point of the tetrahedron any more than culture. Now to some this may have gotten nowhere, but we will get somewhere, with or without consideration of VIP and the Very Important Point of who and what we are or will become.

Is it no coincidence that there are three branches of the government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary based on the constitution and the preamble, or that the first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Freedom and Justice are not forces to reckon*** with, but create.

*somewhat impromptu
** search fuzzy math and English; not to mention viscious cycle or golden rule
*** "bottom line"

Poetic Justice

Right Face Left Faith

Great minds think alike
But being alike does not make right
Being right may make might
But more important is thinking
Right?

Being right is more likely
Why great minds will think alike
Thinking may not be so likely
In those that just think might
Right.

Faith is nowhere near alike
The truth that others think is might
Faith is might and more like maybe
Unless you only think it's right
Not maybe!

(link to updated commentary)

Fearnauts
There is no good and evil.
There are only goods and needs
and wants, and no freedom
from them.

So work on the good,
not just the goods
and justice will flow,
not evil.

Fear not but face good
and fear will fly.
Fearnauts may fly,
but will is not
just the stuff of dreams.

Fear may be,
but results,
don’t have to be
but will.

(not to mention psychology and physics)

Unified Poem

Everything
is but
a Wave
between
perspectives
in Time
and Space

(Theme: Fear of Disciplines in particular Economics.)
[This falls in the tinkering and filing category, not to mention labels or discipline, let alone hiatus. Hint? In Updated find #6 ]Or Bottom line? Or writing for the right?

[Irony of all ironies or poetic justice, I must admit to an erroneous leap myself. Long story short:"Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean." "Philosophical" was a word he used to lower the boom on Dean, but it was not he but about him(Safire) in which Lying in Ponds had a category of Philosophy. Which does not really shake my perspective, but complicates references to #6 and bumps into #7.]

Confession: No pun intended.

 In regards to the Tetrahedron of Everything, I may need to give credit to Ken Wilber.  While I was not aware of it at the time, and I had recovered it base on earlier work of mine(i.e. a reading of Plato’s Republic), I may need to give him credit for it.  Even to the point of unconsciously stealing it lock, stock and barrel.  Alternatively it is a case of synchronicity* but it turns out, he had a late night radio program from 1973 to 1982 about such “new age” matters.  This coincides with a period I worked mostly graveyard shifts and had access to a radio.  I recovered this not only through Plato other fields of study.  Only thanks to a  question to Meta AI did I discover that he had the same disciplines on the vertices of the tetrahedron.  They are Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics.  HOWEVER: while this has not been run through AI even for cleanup, in a quick search I could not find the sources for what AI had given me on another device.    

A more comprehensive search (who came up with the Tetrahedron of Everything Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and Politics.) does not find what I have on my other device either.  But it does remind me to credit Buckminster Fuller who I saw speak at our high school in the early 70’s. Then there is Milo Wolfe who I can not place on the timeline of this process.  More credit to be processed.

https://youtu.be/bc5V_YXvGC8   This has not been viewed yet, but shows four people I have studied.  Three of them in one class.  “Marx, Nietzsche, Freud” and Einstein an early publication.  Sometime in the early 70’s I read the book, Man and his Symbols by Joseph Campbell, with a forward by Carl Jung.

* Update: I have found that Wilbur had not mentioned it until his book in 1995. Which I did not read or have.

5-9-26  However Arthur Youg mentioned a Tetrahedron of Will in 1976>

Segue/Sabbatical

Steel on Wheels Dylan Ratigan.
Rahm Rhetoric on going to waste.
Hardball Politics of them and us.
I will leave this post with this and rest as to reads for further thumbing.

The Steel on Wheels and Hardball are two MSNBC linguistic references(to be links) to a Genre Clash or Segue Slash between disciplines*. Ratigan and Business for the People, and Matthews and Political Partisan strategies of conflict.

* not to mention Apostles and Ledership

[YES! as I recall. Well I may have made to much of a leap here but, I think that Obama should be making the most of the Wiscsonsin Waterloo for the Republican Strategy.

New Approaches?

New Intelligence Estimate New York Times
New Approach to Terrorism Associated Press
CUT FUNDS means RAISED TAXES
Unless we consider the war won,
state and local taxes must cover the cuts.
[There is still something to be said
about the [Act to]PVRHT
and Pre-Empting Crimes] *

Much may be due about nothing.
But it is the grey areas or
"in the shadows" where they operate.

Another benign bill, but in conjunction with The Patriot Act, and failure to follow FISA or II and over 750 Presidential signing statements, do we really need more bills that will be followed at the whim of the administration? But it really is in the definitions and the intentions which are pre-emptive and likely pre-empted by intentions.

* LINK RECAP:
11-10-07 Alicia Mundy Seattle Times Washington Bureau
11-1-07 Chip Berlet quoted in this piece. In These Times
The long and the short of it?
Slate 11-27-07 ThruthOut 11-29-07

FURTHER COMMENT: Senate Bill 1959 has made strides in one area only since the House version, H.R. 1955 and that is the balance of the committee appointments, but what about the fields that will be covered, and the collections of material and the following of laws. The following is a crack at a critique of this attempt (S. 1959) to make up for the poor performance of the administration and congress in the areas of accountability:

While many disciplines and departments are involved there are three primary fields that make up the dynamics of individuals in society, and those are the Physical, Psychological, and Philosophical, and the fourth is represented by the dynamics which is about the people and their goals and that is Politics. These are the areas that need work in society before we can hope to prevent let alone predict people who will take thoughts and feelings into actions. But some of the circumstances that one guest listed as contributors to radicalization are the lack of issues being addressed by society, issues that could be said to cause violent radicalization. Issues which are just the ones that Republicans refuse to address, and Democrats just barely stand up for. Those being basic needs and government accountability

.

Others may look at the fourth dimension of this world view and think economics, religion or spirituality, but what are these all but the power of working with others.

Mentor Project

Power Broker Mentor Project


Psychology *
Philosophy
Physics
Politics
[original 7-24-14]






* 7-28-14 Technical glitches lost the first run at this. Here is the 2nd still under construction.
By intention there are two runs at Physics.  Di-Spencering with 4mat dot dot dot?


Rough Clearing House of Disciplines? 
Philosophy: Giroux
Physics: Gravity
Politics: OW
Go to *
[Pardon my spaciousness- Apparent Browser Anomaly]
















7-30-14 More Triadic Referrals.

Order of Inserts

 6-3-15 Not Exactly ?

6-16-15 Back from Tangent? The lede is Chomsky! 
From the brackets up:
(b.s.) pinnacle+disciplines #1 Discipline - Philosophy
(b.s.) Art+Young Forward (Ironically)
(b.s.) dimentions [A thru I]
A. Counter Intelligence, B., C. Ouroboros, D. Ghost Busters , E., F.,   
G. Throwing the Game, H. Facebook Town Hall (amended), I. Dimentions
(b.s.) Oriental+German Economics 2011

Tangent/Spoiler Alert [Let alone to read later]:  (or move FP?)
The point is in the Orient~ation, or Ergonomics of Change...or Ergodynamics of Culture.
To break down the Ying-Yang and Jung, there are languages of various nature. 
Words, Numbers, Symbols...far be it from me to label a forth. 
former: a. Neo-changian?, b. Recycling Trash, c. Here We Go Again, d. D&R Tan ya?
latter: A. Bring It On!, B. Hang down your head Paul Krugman!

#1 Discipline - Philosophy

Philosophy should be the top priority for the Democrats!
It is the top priority for the Neo-Cons
and the Republicans are all too disciplined.

Philosophy is just one discipline.
Discipline is not the only philosophy.
Their philosophy is just "offensive".
Our philosophy must be "everything matters".

Not just more discipline, but more disciplines
as in "law" and "politics" "Get No Respect" as Rodney Dangerfield said.
And as I have said, hence the dangerfield we are in.

War is a "last resort", but does the President still have the "war powers" which congress gave him to fight "terrorism"?
His philosophy is that his word is the exception to every rule.

The other two points of THE POWER BROKER MOUNTAIN PROJECT,
may be Physics and Psychology [*].


These should be the next two priorities, which should focus on what goes on in the world and what goes on in peoples minds,
besides the philosophy that "We are No. 1" for each and every one of us. But it must be noted how much science is devalued, at least in getting it together. Of course we know what physics has brought us in terms of the nuclear age, but the matter of which came first is still a head game.

Where does this fit into the current affairs? Some might say, it is the "Power of Intention" but it starts with trying to determine what other's intentions are while devaluing what our own intentions are or should be.

[any links will be added in due course]
[italics are additions, and bolds are for emphasis, and minor editing within 10 minutes of original post]

The above is not based on a reading of the following... yet!

The Next Act By Seymour M. Hersh Iran? Syria? [update here  ]

Kristol: ‘We Could Be In A Military Confrontation With Iran Much Sooner Than People Expect’

These are just two links,
that are yet to be read by me.
HAVE YOU? - - NO MATTER,
if you can process and address the rest of the above.

For deeper matters see these two organizations;Center for American Progress
and
just foreign policy

[* UPDATE 04-08-08: pinnacle or tetrahedron to be added phoney or funny to political points ] as in
[1. Physical
2. Psychological
3. Philosophical
4. Political
(power loop of phony and funny or what will happen)
Hence the battle over not just temper but meant and there4 humor's another battle field, not counting Dangerfield.]

Cost of Course

From no less than David S. Broder, no lefty
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic."

As Reagan would say: "There you go again." Well I use this to refer to my post which I just lost as time expired.
[NOTE: After doing all this work, a second time, I then notice that the lost post is up. LESSONS OF WAR. Sorry for the redundancy, and it is unedited, but I will leave it up as I must go off in another reality or discipline.] [a navigation aid: use CTRL F in these links to save "hard work".]

My point: Reality is about many disciplines, not just discipline. Hmmm, I've never been to the point before, maybe there is something to beginning from scratch.

In this case economics over just the economy. Work not just hard work.

Well this does not mean that I won't have tangents, in fact that is what linking the fields implies.

My second or original point, is that economics has more to do with history than winning. Actually I may be getting farther from the course I took in the lost post. But two examples are Vietnam and Afghanistan. We lost one and are losing the other. We are doing business with one and the other beat the Soviet Union, and we are still losing.

Then there is the "pottery store" or simple minded advice that still is in play and not fully understood.

This is where I have more experience that I even knew, forgetting that my first job was printing store signs. I also have wandered a few shops or two and feel that it was "You break it, you bought it." Doesn't that flow better both literally and economically. Despite the fact that it is not the Pottery Barn policy, it is ironic or not that Thomas Friedman is involved in this. Only a sloppy or slanted writer would confuse the credit to his words. As far as I can tell, the course often depends on reading signs. and getting their meaning straight. Owning something is a whole lot better sounding than whatever work it takes to get it.

I don't know if you get this sign but the post was a whole lot shorter and straighter than the one lost.

Maybe Woodward and Russert got it, but Powell probably used too many words for Bush. See Wikipedia
[8-19-10: labels and link added]

Lessons of War

From a less than left writer David S. Broder no less:
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic".

As noted before(I will have to find where)economics may be more a factor in history and war than winning. (Well, I never put it that way exactly.) There are those that ignore the importance of economics in reality(as in all the various fields or disciplines of study), but do tend to focus on just a winning economy. That may be a little closer to the point, and if not even less understood.

Here are two examples: a.) We are now doing business with Vietnam. Versus not with North Korea. b.) Reagan's words tore down the Berlin Wall, or Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.

Again it may not be clear to those that see winning a military war as the only way to win. Money is power, but not everybody wins.

War is hard work. Peace is hard work. Facing realities is hard work.
Enough from me, before I give you more hard work.

By the way. "You break it, you bought it." comes to mind. Besides that fact that pottery bard[*] does not have that policy, I don't know if a point has been made that it is misquoted as "You break it, you own it".
{Use Ctrl f to find each quote in each article) Many do not want to face who pays.

[* 8-19-10] Noting typo