#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.]

Coin-age of the day.

Veriabling.

Origin*: Prior coin-age on our coin age. 
Pre-coin-age:  prior posts that coin new words, although not necessarily sovereigns***

Structural Speculation

* already evolved from variabling to veriabling, not to emphasize bling. 
Not to be confused or separated from** coin age, or should I Say knot.
** line is reference to labels, inserted links are geometricks
*** timing is everything?

Note:  Everything may be a pun on the word or dimention, but it is the last inserted link at this time.  It spins off of the sovereigns reference and humorism(or Lincoln Logs) where I will refrain from more quantum leaps[!]  Now to proceed from the double asterisked line's determinant[?] ... regarding the knot Say: 
12/12  Power Point on Philosophy of Science and Economics: Positivism, Popper, and After

11/12 Fideism: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

10/12 PDF Russell On Denoting.

9/12 Wittgenstein's Poker Lost and Found

8/12 Jiggery Pokery

7/12 Philosophy Stories

#6 See (FP below) 4moolah

5/12 Realmiffications ?

4/12 (b.s.) ofor

3. relavent

2. segweigh

1. veriabling 

FP[!]) insert #6 a. Pre-Pan FRY. b. Clinton(Bill) is full of B.S.

[!] exception to the rule? i.e. anachronical links
[?] matrix pun dropped

[Closed Cap shun ? ] (FP1)

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>

hmmm?

New Thinking on the Economy
by Dean Baker,
co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)

also Beat the Press

[This points to an interesting problem or ROR:
(see labels for explaination)

The government is not getting its money's worth when buying bad assets. Anyone who understands how the economy works and the market works should not wonder. That is how it works. That is the point of buying bad assets, whether one wonders whether it should be done or not. If someone else would buy them the same would apply. The housing bubble* is a similar mechanism within the greater mechanism that is the financial problem.

How the economy works is different than how economics works. The economy is the thing. Economics is an equation. They both need tweaking and can work the way they are designed, but will tweak someone. Unfortunately an equation in economics will work only to the extent that everything (that is needed or wanted) is included in it. The economy works regardless but almost everything is included, except they are tweaking when they do the economics. And speaking of bubbles, they leak.

It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.]

* housing equals assets except for the financial blowing of the economics.

** meaning failure should be prevented, and freedom promoted(are these not good points to work on?)

[Speaking of link(and equations): the stimulating if not shaky journalism below.(nfry)]

[only glanced at but likely recommended read: and see comments and embedded Krugman. For now: They'll be back.]

[That was Shwartznegger but later Ron Reagan covers similar territory with a guest who earlier slammed the stimulus. That was in December, so it was not the current plan. Which should be called what is: ARARA for Jobs! or just the begining or what is a quick and practical start. But does have a good chart on "Bang for the Buck", which depending on the math(see comments), could make a 1 trillion dollar difference in effectiveness.] [Post comment comment: of course this is as ridiculous a hypothesis as Plato's Republic, but for the sake of dialogue, a totally bipartisan package, could be seen to have potential for zero stimulus, as dollar for dollar is not really a bang.]

dunn dunn done[!]?

Bruticus Sardonicus[!]*

~We are physics, psychology and philosophy being.  Speaking of Try ads or Hegel or bane or or whoa man, politics is the pinnacle and base.
“The rational alone is real.”  “presupposition of the empirical movement”
1. a. "Timing is everything.",* b. Foe Cult, c. Lame
2. William Castle Trailer
3.   BlogSpot Has A New "Blogger" , escapement? , Middle C? !

4. a. Connecting the Dots, b. Anti-semantics or...**, c. PC [^], d. Kant we get along... e. Between Iraq and a Hard Work!, f. fnp-11-13.
5. a. Un-Exceptionalism, b. In the begining..., c. Flow of Conscience, d. Punderous Ponderings

* See Quido(Sarducci) under bru
[also (*2) under "Timing is everything"]
Disregard ** under 4b as already in heading.
*#3 D-cap (b.s.)(s.c.) blog search/scroll click or knot[!]

~ my amalgam contribushun
Ra-shunall[?]

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.]

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.

More on the geometrics of everything.

A. but in no particular order or to be arranged later...there is the tetrahedron of will as I reconstructed a platonic book report.
B.  My reference to math being next to Godliness.
C.  the deconstruction of a famous formula into x,y,z & t
D ...may the cable guy be with you or hoist on our own Picard.
Enough charting of points, here is an article that may be relative.

Some prospecting.  Math, geometry and theories are all constructs.  Uniting constructs is problematic.
I have a hunch that some of them are the problem as much as the key.

PS.  I had not even gotten into the piece maybe as far as locality and unitarity, let alone "constructs."

ahhhh..."Rube Goldberg" that's the ticket[!]
or Rubrics Cube or tetrahedron.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

~the problem of one and infinities and paradoxes

~~~a problem with the tetrahedron of will in my physics, psychology, philosophy and politics...
see "bundles of tetrahedrons" and a different rendering.

image credit
Pardon the live-blogging/reading but I better get some zzz's.
bookmark Quest for Quantum Gravity or the Jinga of time and space.

Wittgenstein

Theory of Philosophy ?

Letting you read so I don't have to?  To pun on...basker ville?

To cut the roar shack, not to Hume or Mill, but a mathematical physicist once told me,(to paraphrase) "everything we can think is only a model".

 

 

To Re Pair a Dime

 

 

knot pare a docks{*}

=======================================================

 

 

===================

Colbert Bama Bohemian Gravity

 

 

Tikkun

 

(FP)

{*} Post (FP) inserted paradox of 8&9  



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