FOOTNOTES PAGE January 2016 (page 1)

De~men~shun~alism[!]

Bohemian gravity!

Bohemian~INET*, Quid Pro Physics , A universe of 4 di-men shuns[!] ,Father, Son, ,  Meta4 V 4D, Chez V (slash) 4D , Wittgenstein ,

Gravitas~ Satire is not a two way street., 4Mat , Footnotes Page December 2014(Page One) , Way, Too Point Oh? , Or ask for a third , Funneling Crisis?

* compactified?

The catch may be in the fold.  The pun is in the journalism.  The trick or narrative may be in the math and physics.  The point is: what is a dimension?  Not to mention: what is a point?  A point may represent a perspective in space as well as what it may represent in view of the perspective.  A point has no dimension.  Two points represent 1 dimension or a line.   Three non-linear points determine a plane or represent 2 dimensions.  Four non-planar points, require 3 dimensions and represent volume or space.  But dimensions are one level below the point. 

Time is often referred to as the 4th dimension.  But returning to a point as representing no dimensions, 4 points equilaterally spaced require 3 dimensions (x, y & z).

1-23-16 Overton Perspectivism {perspectivalism: x, y, z}

Over Helming.

[6-24-11 The lack of pomp and need for circumstance*(or circumdecision?)
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]

Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.

* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]

Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

Literally

The catch may be in the fold.  The pun is in the journalism.  The trick or narrative may be in the math and physics.  The point is: what is a dimension?  Not to mention: what is a point?  A point may represent a perspective in space as well as what it may represent in view of the perspective.  A point has no dimension.  Two points represent 1 dimension or a line.   Three non-linear points determine a plane or represent 2 dimensions.  Four non-planar points, require 3 dimensions and represent volume or space.  But dimensions are one level below the point[!]

Time is often referred to as the 4th dimension.  But returning to a point as representing no dimensions, 4 points equilaterally spaced require 3 dimensions (x, y & z).

(1-21-16)

1.):  Forward (Ironically), Para~graph Three!, Coordinary, Rough Philosophy, Order of Inserts.

2.): FOOTNOTES PAGE January 2016 (page 1),  Literally , Nadir, Dimentionalism(sic).

Then there is the Platonic Cave(or ideal). 
The tetrahedron is the most basic platonic form or ideal.  At least in our geometry, four points are the most that can be in perfect contact with each other.  Although a review of the perspectivism of Plato may be necessary. 

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"

On any given day?

A heading*, prelude or forward is probably called for.
Yeah, that's the ticket.  Not exactly love it or leave it, but maybe between swiftboats and being in the same boat.

* lede or ship ? 
[To footnote later focus on *.]

 
 
The point that politics is at the pinnacle is not that it is an ultimate point, but what determines the point. These have evolved through pythagorean socratics. As a starting point though, physics might be understood as the study of the behavior of matter, energy and forces.

[published today]

3-19-13: Note that links may have expired which might make it difficult to do the math.  Not that it really is math but here is a substitute Rachel Maddow from around that time. Here is a repost of the original link: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#46550300
New ants or New Aunts ?

FOOTNOTES MARCH 2013

3-14-13 : interesting digs Six Links
(b.s.) "S.E.(vi)" A. (fn)FOR D... , B. i.e. S.E. (vi) edgy , C. ROW MAN #Sign [Numeral (i)]. 
(b.s.) "Six Sigma" A. No Frackin' Way (sc) ... E. Rocket Man?[!] ... I. Over Helming. (sc).
un M bed Ed (sc) ?[!] {?}

3-18-13:  Not to leave it, or pun on SNL: nor love it.  R we LOL in the same boat? As for Heading
*: dimentionalism(sic) -
lede : (b.s.)tetra+heed+run - A.,B.,C.,D.,G.,H.,I.
or : (b.s.) lede+or+ship - A., ... . N. Walking the Plank[!] (s.c.)
ship : (b.s.) share+n+angle -
? : (b.s.) tetrahedron of will -
focus : (b.s.) Hume  A. Third Times a Charm. B. He said *a fowl*!
on :  (b.s.) Hume+or+us  / Humorism
Pythagorean : Pythagorean - A Place to Ponder
Socratic :  Socratics. - (b.s.)Kant+Hegel
published today 3-18-13

3-20-13 Curve Balls?  (b.s.)Curve+Balls: A., B., C., D. /  Original Intent and Spin.

3-22-13  Scroll over, and only "Physics" had been read at time of post. Post Physics? / Un Try
Angles? 

3-28-13 Absolut(ist)ly - "clothing" (b.s.)robin+hood: RawMoney Runnin', Genre Clash (sc),  Fair and Balanced... (sc) / divide**: At what point is (pun and rap on justice/scales and founding docs) / "absolutist"(b.s.)absolutism : At what point is , Primary Boogeyman.  / win or lose (b.s.)former(pop+culture): A.(sc), B., C., D., E., F., G., Slash Segue(sc), The Billy Club...(sc), A generous dia-Gnosis.(sc).,  FAUX CULTIAN? (sc), Close Enough for(sc),  Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, M(m)., N(n), Pluto, Plato, and the Pen Dull'em, P., Q.(q).  latter (b.s.)boogeyman: Primary Boogeyman, B., C., Bottom Line Update(sc), Juxta-Boogey (sc)
VFW:Virtue Freedom War?  Rhetoric, Logic, Grammar ? [!]

Remembering Rorty!

Or is it dis~membering? 

The point?  The Clash?

Unfortunately, links don't last, but that is not the point.  Or maybe that is physics.  The issue is...
Hegelian and Straussian, and maybe Wittgenstinian* and Nietzschian, let alone Manichean.
The point is the ongoing project.  **

* (spell check later)
[Lost in the draft: Crying Neo-Wolf?]
(~) - / - ?

** having now actually read the Rorty piece, I will simply note a Kantian judgement, to be parsed later. 

Too Random...

...Righty[!]

Knot 2 fraught with fraud'nfreud? 
Freedom the foundation or fountainhead? 
A stopped clock is right... 
too undimention,
1* over infinity has left. 


* poetic license in 3 or 4-D.
won over


**

knot exactly; 1/infinity= zorro?

But seriously to unpun one in particular, freedom over everything is the problem. 
Freedom over everything equals nothing over physics.



12-2-13 (...)added and *reframed

** s/b standard mobius/infinity (Thought I had previously used one, not this one.)

Embedded links:(Not fully read.)
1.  The Difficulty with Hegel
2.  Hegel or Anti-Hegel

Fully Read and Reviewing:
The Hegel Myth and its Method: (Kaufmann 1959)Akin to Plato's Form(The Socratics of the Ideal and States)^
Selections:
"The writings of Hegel and Plato abound in admittedly one-sided statements that are clearly meant to formulate points of view that are then shown to be inadequate and are countered by another perspective. Thus an impressive quilt quotation could be patched together to convince gullible readers that Hegel was — depending on the “scholar’s” plans — either emphatically for or utterly opposed to, say, “equality.” But the understanding of Hegel would be advanced ever so much more by citing one of his remarks about equality in context, showing how it is a step in an argument that is designed to lead the reader to a better comprehension of equality and not to enlist his emotions either for it or against it."

"Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. (...) Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato."

References to 3D/4M@.  English***, Math, Form~process.
*** generic word language/numbers as an ideal and a language/so-called results.

I do not necessarily want to break out of my understanding of Hegel, not say he would have understood it my way or anyone else's.  But is Popper properly popped?  Yet I do use a method of labelism/reference/progression-digression.  The hazards of the Internet, not to mention old material, one might not recall running into sources before.  I developed my tetrahedron courtesy of my older work on The Republic(1970~), delineating the mass-energy equivalence formula, and possibly Milo Wolff.(2004~)

In the above not yet reads, but glanced at's, they may have a point, and may be missing or pointing from their own point.  I may yet to agree or disagree with them, but still appreciate or depreciate their points. 
^ & ~ must be reviewed.  "Dates~" note time of encounter.

12-3-13 (FP1) Have yet to locate "^". [rtd]

12-4-13 That's the ticket ! ?



But to tilt at swans?

12-9-13 Roughly 13 in rough. 

12-10-13 Scientific American Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians
verses RealClearPolitics Newtonian Government
Trinity Squared ? 

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>

Speculative Physics

Math is next to Godliness? ^
Or sixth sense?

Not just^ another Sunday ! ?

(Not that Socrates is alive[!])

[eff'notes: As of this time there are four lines above. Links inserted line 3, then 4, then 2.  Not to force or farce the model, but there is an event horizon.]

[ seg weigh ? ... is tough to track down ... ? ]

1-27-14  Not that I had any* mocumentary intent. But there was the Pro Bowl with intent to do something different and I had run across a YouTube on a different singularity.  Note that** my "sixth sense" is reference to the six edges of a tetrahedron which has four points.^^  My point of departure or parsing is that we may have a chicken and egg, not to mention crossing the road and sky dilemma.  While the singularities of Chomski and Hawking are different, that does not mean that we dismiss clause wits [!][?] ***

 

* Caging Godzillas 
^ or amer mots? French for "bitter words"
** further tangents?  (math and intelligence)
^^ at this point I will note that I have still to read three:
It's About Blackmail, Not National Security
Get Ready for Rand Paul
Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All
Related ?




*** Our Hierarchy of Needs

[OW ? ! ? ? ]
And the past four ?
Foot notes ?
Not that there is anything in HeyDigger[!] butt ... ? [!] ?

^quote is my creation (recent search and non-related googles).

What the Beck?

[Under-De(con)struction.]
OK, this actually works in the perspective of the way some use words.
As in De for Dem and destruction, and Con for conservative and construction. Heck even conservation. Oops. I think we get the flip-flop. Lack of perspective is the subject, and preemption the aim of their construction. This is a work in progress. I'm still chalking it up.

My friend Thrasymachus* is embedded in the above (con) link...
while our seemingly seemly nemesis might be lost in Flatland.

I have recently revamped my PBMP tetrahedron, to the Tetrahedron of Will or TOW. It all began with my reading of Plato's Republic, going on 40 years ago, and my presentation not in a Platonic solid form but in a Platonic pillar model. Justice being the point, with appetites, emotions, and intellect being the base. I cannot vouch for these as being my original tripod to the triangular pillar, but I more recently reconstructed this balanced purpose on the legs of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy coming together to evolve Justice, much as our constitution rests or rather works with the balance of three branches and rests or works on the people.

Words are sometimes only ideals, but in reality I must say they are always ideals, but in some they are missing the concept of perspective, if not even a dimension(or pun, just dimentioning it), and whether you seem left or right or middle the reality is not even in line or online with a spectrum. The Third Way might not even be enough of a perspective, but it is better than Linear Beck or my way or the highway. [It was purported to be the Clinton way in that the aim was a balance between the goals of the left and right of the political spectrum(Ideally to move the middle nontheless) but I might say that the Obama way is more balanced, and may point to answers that are not always just a balance between two extremes or even two parties, and many people understand that, even though we feel that our way might be better it is hard to let go of our ideals.

[I believe I have now finished construction of this post, but have yet to finish reading the first link, and my "What the Beck" referred to my own preemption or condescending reference in the previous post.]

* Thrasymachus: a character in The Republic, and nickname for a Neo-Con I know, who might more accurately be called a Beck Head, or Eon-Libertarian (which I just pegged). [I won't peg any meaning on the Eon part, only to say I(not quite) flipped Neo.]

[Disclaimer: My first use of the term phrase "What the Beck?" was just yesterday, and until I just googled it, I had no knowledge it was a YouTube Channel, and I only used it as a segue to MoveOn to other issues. A search also found the Daily Beast and Op-Ed references and I might have picked on the Countdown but not the Intelligent Design, but the Gee Oh Me Try is similar but I can't dig up that one.]

[UPDATE 3-17-10: The "seemingly" link does not quite buffer completely, and has moderate moments but lacks perspective and balance let alone appreciation of others or perspective**. It can certainly be understood why everything seems off balance, but it is another to have an intention to balance it or respect dynamics, human or natural.]


** pulled from second link in the context of Thrasymachus

Looking Back, and Moving On.

Thanks for Thom Hartmann reference to Naomi Klein Year Zero

A few years later,something I just googled up on the Unified Model of Reality which Bush violates. [America's Darwin Awards and a Philosophy Assignment
by Martin Schönfeld / Commondreams.org]

Which fits my PBMP "Power Broker Mountain Project" which is about how things work and it is not just "trickle down". The three branches of government are just one example of how things should work and what it is about. The point is progress and the people. You can't "trickle down" till you get there and try getting there without the system (structure, environment, culture) and other people.

The points of my "Tetrahedron Model of Reality" is basically the fields of physics, philosophy, and psychology which represent forces, thoughts and feelings but the point is the big project.

And now John Nichols: "Bush may have been wrong about war presidents being popular." On "The Genius of Impeachment".

Enough for now, I have my own reality to work on, for the time being.

F'N 3

Update Labels.
My Images: Review of Recent
Gitmo or less.(HeGel Try Angle), 

 

Ear Rock, Ear Ron,(Subjective/Objective d'ow) 

Change Logos (RYGB)DeltaLogos(Economics, Hume, Or us, Politics)

Ghost Busters (4TetraHedrons)
Speculative Physics (Original 4-sided-die.)(Not my Maslow)
Wittgenstein (Secondary Die?)

Secondary Edgy's 
The Physics of the DOW
Rough Philosophy (Venn History)
On any given day? 3Models(Environment)~
A Place To Ponder 3Models(Environment)~
Bricks and stones (Politics, Economics, Religion, Culture)~

*

Pre-Capitalization

(fn)TOO Point OH[!] (Politics, Economics, Religion, Culture)~

~
* uncertain of origional insert (found in image archive)
Feels Like Tetra Spirit [!]

Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.

[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.

Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.

Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.

Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.

Star Chamber?

[Posted 10-24-11]
Working groups or GeO'MeTry*

Randi Rhodes
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rachell Maddow
Ed Schultz
Norman Goldman

Thom Hartmann
Martin Bashir
Dylan Ratigan

Joe Scarborough
Jon Stewart
Steven Colbert

The Fab** Five?

*see metrics
** uncertain Fab search find and/or F I V E ?

[ 10-26-11 Note: While I had this open...NOW I WILL ADD THE POINT: Thumbs up to Lawrence O'Donnell and MSNBC applying physics.]

"A flip-flop should be no handicap."

Richard Dawkins points to his own flip-flop on Amotz Zahavi's Handicap Principle [*] and how it fits in with his own theory in The Selfish Gene. The point is not that anyone has a handicap, but that those that do, must be actually more successful to survive or are selected by a mate (or voter) for that reason. However, the traslation from the math to the biology to the sociology has a handicap. The math. Most people will follow a meme whether they follow the math or the meme. Meaning they will follow a leader whether they know the meme or they are just mean. But flip-flopping on a meme, does not mean the results will be progess.

If this has not been followed I will leave it anyway. Politics is not science, science not a religion, and religion is not faith. Faith is another story.[**] But cost is a reality that can't always be calculated and takes more than economists.

[*] last article on link
[**] first article
[also see comments on Richard Dawkins to the left in first link]

BTW: flip-flop is no joke in physics, let alone other fields -- not to mention nuance

[Follow-up: Changing my religion. Roger Bingham (second-to-last article)and The Light Side of Locality (third article). Or Hubris and Humor?]

Bread Crumbs

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-did-the-genetic-code-of-all-life-on-earth-suddenly-stop-evolving


https://motherboard.vice.com/read/scientists-think-intelligent-life-could-have-evolved-before-brains-slime-mold-learning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MckuBQC6gKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijjsjCv6k7w

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150803-physics-theories-map/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160419-string-inflation-triangles/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160324-in-newly-created-life-form-a-major-mystery/


-
5-8-16
-
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=para+digm

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/field-guide-to-defending-hillary-clinton-against-fake-scandals/24710/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/06/3775910/hillary-clinton-faith-profile/

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36713-a-contested-convention-is-exactly-what-the-democratic-party-needs

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36702-david-brooks-discovers-income-inequality

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36742-point-of-no-return-obamas-legacy-in-the-middle-east

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bernard-carr/time-and-consciousness_b_9855418.html?utm_content=bufferf22ec&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Un-Exceptionalism

Are there conflicts of interest in economics today?

Undoubtedly[!]
Buy definition and nature.

This may take us back to my Try-UNism, and one, none or all of punderous pondering.
[Mid-post tangent and update.]

No Twain in Try-ing. Well, I did not mean to display un-exceptionalism by example, as in "there he goes again." But my original point was that conflicts of interest are what economics and politics and government are all about. There, is that clear enough?

The "Try-UNism" is a pun in this regard. A sorting of one, none or all. Now, technically the physics might be beyond anyone to say if freedom is a force, and psychologically it may be closer to philosophy for some. But economically, I am saying that without an intent, we will be getting only where we are going, and even that is not a won way street.

My apologies for any missed links or leaps(in your scroll or click-on), but it is an ongoing process. Economics contains and is about conflicts of interest, and politics and government, play crucial rolls for (sum) people.

In regards to my lede, Un-Exceptionalism, I take it from one of the economists, who notes that any field will present conflicts of interest between the professional and the profession or the field if it has a purpose other than the individual. Well, he did not go that far, but I think he could. The "one, none or all" of my tangent relates to Exceptionalism, as it is seen, possibly in that light.

BTW: The first three links are an economic series of videos. Other links may require clicking on and scrolling the link address for a compendium of purpose. For example, "Buy definition and nature". The first two simply reference the ledes. The "be-all-and-end-all" a reference from part 3 of series. The "funny-thing-happened" is a recap of the CW. And regarding "nature" the address is a search of my blog for "Adam+Smith"(without, now with the quotation marks). Skipping over the "Try-UNism" and "Mid-post tangent"(lines) the Twain is deeply embedded in Trying.
[Speaking of exceptions(won): just to be sure.]

[Insert more Ed here and here: enthusiasm gap]