Proof of God at last (SRH)

 

Very excited! After 6 years I have my anti-self-reference proof! Consider: Wall-E can fix his eye. There is a proof (adaptable from one already existing*) that there is at least 1 thing he cannot fix. In reality it will be something to do with the circuits that he uses to recognise faults. It therefore follows that he cannot be entirely sure by himself when he is faulty. Thus any independent system can't call itself faulty or non-faulty. To be faulty or non-faulty can only be applied to what is not self.
Now EVE mends him. But if she has a fault he will be mended faulty, which means if she ever relies on him she may be mended faulty. So any closed system of any number of components can't escape the problem.

ERGO: a correct/truthful system can't be closed.
e.g. truthful statements about everything imply there is an even bigger everything.

This is my proof of God.

*The existing proof states that for a map of england in England there will be one point that is in the same place on the map as it is in England.

p.s. I discovered the existing name of the SRH, Horatio Principle, +1 principle and other name for it: Vicious Circle Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_circle_principle)… or at least similar. The issue of circularity is an issue in logic, but the problem will be fleshing out a definition that defines which circularity is benign and which is vicious. So there will be two approaches the Benign Circle Principle BCP and the Vicious Circle Principle VCP.

Narrative v Casuation

An episode of Peep Show has Mark wanting to get out of marriage and Jeremy gives him the perfect excuse by telling him he has kissed his bride. Mark is both relieved and angry, at the same time.

In classical science everything has some cause. In the Peep Show episode a single event (Jeremy kissing his fiance) has caused two quite distinct processes in his mind: the relief that he can get what he wants and not marry his fiance, but also the anger that his best friend has betrayed him. How can a single event be viewed in two different ways at the same time by the same mind? It is because any number of narratives or stories can be told about the things in the world. This is because of what the Buddhists call sunyata, which is to say that in one story the kiss is an act of betrayal, while in the another story the kiss is a means to an end -- in other words the kiss by itself is neither and both!

Originally this thought came to me considering group selection and alarm calls in birds, after seeing a nearby bird give an alarm call along a river in Oxfordshire. One story says that the bird gives the alarm call because it wishes to help its friends. Another story says that the gene causing such behaviour is prevalent in the population because groups with this gene do better than groups without this gene. Another story says (and this is the one I realised after years of pondering is the truth) that the bird gives the call because upsetting all the birds in the area will distract the predator and enable it to escape in a flock. Now in this situation we might say the bird acts because it wants company when it escapes. But why don't other birds stay down when they hear the call and let the calling bird be preyed upon? In this story we say it is in their interests to escape the predator also. What this creates then is a situation when a gene to call spreads and one individual giving the call may feel they want company when they escape, while those hearing the call feel fear and save themselves. However in another story the group can be seen to working together, alothough no individual is actually thinking this.

It made me realise that much (if not all of Human life) is made up of people operating at one level of personal interest, and perhaps co-ordinating their actions by accident or not, and trying to believe in a narrative where they are really working together. Does this suggest that really working together is only possible when people don't focus too much on personal narraitives? Is this why Socialism has failed so far?

The Public/Private Funding the Conning of the NHS!

The hypothesis is that when public and private funding join forces it simply results in a susbidy to private individuals.

To illustrate I create this model of NHS treatment.

In summary first. The model involves people arriving at hospital in a queue. Private patients (quite rightly) because they have paid more, get to go to the front of the queue. The remaining capacity treats public patents.

Once through the admission gate (G) all patients enjoy access to the same health-care, which is better than public funded alone because of the extra contribution of privation patients.

All looks good. However what really happens is that as more people go private, public patients have to wait longer, and since a large number do pay tax they actually end up getting a poorer service than if there was no private contribution.

Private individuals actually get a better service than they would by private means alone, since they are "stealing" resources from the public that are waiting.

The obvious question is at what rate of private admissions do public lose out. The suprising answer is that if there are any private patients, then the public lose out!

While the model may be simplistic, and even inaccurate, it illustrates how easy it is to misunderstand the logic of systems. I'm beginning to realise such misunderstanding are not the exception, but the rule. All of biology, genetics and economics is suspect due to such misunderstanding. As a result "private/public" is far too complex an issue to be handled by anyone but real professionals and has been sold to the nation either deliberately or accidentally by mistake.

The Model

========
Assuming that all patients are treated in same hospitals with money pooled from public and private sources,then:

N : size of population
i : illness rate
p : probability they go private
V : Total value of hospital services (pooling both tax and private insurance)
G : number admitted through Hospital gate per time
t : tax rate (all)
s : insurance rate (Private)

Therefore:
Nlp : patients go private in time.
Ni(1-p) : go public.
Nip : go 1st through the gate,
G-Nip : remaining spaces for public

Total amount paid by people in the queue =

Nip(t+s) : Total amount paid by ill private [they pay taxes too].
Ni(1-p)t : Total amount paid by ill public

Total value of the health service = V
V is the sum of these two + (taxes of healthy individuals)

Share of health service =
Private get : Nip/G % share of service V
public get : (G-Nip)/G % of V

The value of private is then value of treatment over cost of treatment:
(VNip/G)/(Nip(t+s)) = V/[G(s+t)]

Value public: value of those thru gate / amount paid by public

(V(G-Nip)/G)/(Ni(1-p)t) = V(G -Nip)/(GNit(1-p))

Let 'a' be the ratio of the number admitted to hospital over the number needing treatment i.e. a = G/(Ni)

V/(Nisa+Nita) == -((pV-Va)/(Nita-Nipta))

they are equal when p = (sa+ta-t)/s

Let 'b' be the ratio of tax to insurance rate: b = t/s

p -> a - b + a b

This is the proportion turning to private that gives equal value for public and private:

The contour plot for: (tax rate / private insurance cost) / (healthcare admission per ill person)

When number admitted is equal to the number ill (a > 1) it can be seen that increasing the tax rate (increasing b) bends the line of equal value to the left, i.e. fewer people must be admitted to give private a good value. This is obvious as if all public get treated, then being first in the queue has no meaning and so the private pay extra for nothing.

However if people are waiting in the queue, then increasing tax means that the curve bends the other way meaning that more people need admission to keep public and private experiecing equal value for money.

Clearly room for a better model, but it illustrates how easily the private can end up having the public pay for them if health services are shrunk, and how easily the public could have the private pay for them if the services are expanded too much. The problem is that what incentive is there to support the public? Governments and private companies will be all to happy to shrink admissions, thereby leading to a subsidy of the rich by the poor. This I suspect is the true process of society across time: the subsidy of the wealthy life style, by the poor.

Empty Reality, Truth and Jesus

Recently had some insight into "reality" which has drawn together most of my life's enquiry. The question investigates the very nature of this world and our life, what they are, and how we should treat them, and leads to a much more enlightened approach to being alive. Essentially I was on a good track, but seeing it through has taken a long time. It also seems that there are many avenues that lead to the same place! Mine being just one of them.

The issue is the nature of "real" reality, or objective reality. This problem arises when we realise that what we perceive is actually dependent upon ourselves. We walk closer to a tree and it appears to grow in size, we understand intuitively that our perception of it grows in size, while the objective tree has the same size. We are familiar with our perceptions, they are often called our "consciousness", what has been a puzzle for me since a very young age is what then do "real" things look like when we aren't conscious of them? We know there is a "real" tree that doesn't change in size when we walk closer to it, but how large is this "real" tree? We know that a tree may fall in the forest, but what size is it and what sound does it make when there is nothing conscious of it?

This is a mine field of confusion that has baffled the greatest minds from Plato onwards. Buddha however and presumably many others did find the answer long ago. It is Easter tomorrow and while in church yesterday meditation on the cross I considered that arguably Jesus taught a similar view.

The answer is incredibly subtle, but simple. There are 3 possibilities. There is a soldi reality, there is no solid reality, or their is something between these extremes. Obviously it is the 3rd which is correct, but first let us examine the other more common sense ones.

It is wrong to say there is a "real" tree existing just like our perception but some how invisible and perhaps more correct and perfect. Plato argued this. Such a Platonic view is useful because at least our *real but invisible* tree can fall over in a forest even when no-one is there. However if such a tree really had fixed size and colour how could it change it's size or colour as we walked closer or the sun set? "Projection" is the mathematical model of size, so that a "fixed" size "appears" to change as we walk closer. But "projection" is the same equation/model regardless whether the true thing is 5mm high or 5km high. Projection tells us the ratio, not the actual size! A "real" tree has to have a "real" size, not a ratio of 15 standard meters, because then how long is a meter? What is a "real" fixed size? There are only ratios. The Greeks were right here! Our *real but invisible* tree actually has no fixed qualities. Many scientists ought be wary anyway of such an idea of *real but invisible* objectivity, since this is their argument against God!


It is wrong also to say there is no real tree, like Bishop Berkeley. This is to believe in a destruction of all the "things" we presume to cause our perceptions, leaving only our perceptions. If our perceptions are things also then we have to destroy them also, which means we are saying that there is nothing at all. In which case what are we even doing investigating it in the first place?

The third option means that we don't say that the "real" world has a fixed solid existence and we don't say that it doesn't exist either, we adopt an indifferent attitude to it. "Attitude" is the point. In the previous two cases we took a fixed "attitude" in the former asserting 'yes', and in the second denying 'no'. The point about reality is that it has "potential" so that when someone arrives on the scene then this potential can be fullfilled in the mind of the viewer. A falling tree doesn't fall all by itself, and it doesn't not exist either, it remains a potential which a person walking through the wood realises in an experience. However it is important to realise that this "potential" is not a new reality, it is simply a "place holder" in an argument, otherwise we don't understand any different from option 1 above. "Potential" is just an attitude of our mind, so that it can walk between believing that reality must be one way, or that reality is no way at all. The potential is only understood after we interact with something, it is not to say that it was sitting their invisible and hidden awaiting someone to turn up and release it. The point is that Reality for the person with True Mind is empty, neither one way or the other, and all thoughts about is are just thoughts.

It is fashionable to link science and philosophy. This is abolsutely NOT to say that Quantum Physics is anything like this. Superposition and uncollapsed quantum waves, Schroedingers Cat that is, is completely different. Schroedingers Cat states that the fixed "reality" is that we don't know until we interact with the system. Quantum Physics is a statement of mathematical law, of objective reality, which people believe in strongly and which can be proven by experiment. Option 3 above is that the True Nature of Reality is only understood by the mind that can suspend a belief about it! That is to not say it is this way, or that way, but to acknowledge that it simply has an "empty" potential to be what it becomes when perceieved. There is No Theory or Idea behind this middle path, it is about an Equanimous Mind. The mind that perceived Reality doesn't even attribute fixed reality to the Laws of Quantum Physics themselves (even while those Laws state that there is only a probability itself)! We don't hold any fixed opinion about reality! That is Emptiness, and the True Mind understanding Reality.

A simple alternative argument comes from historical criticism of Plato: The Third Man Fallacy. The world is as we perceive and think it normally. When we are start this investigation into reality we are at risk of adding "new things". The problem with these new things is finding a place for them in our world. We start to have "ideas" of "invisible" things. This is unnecessary, and makes things confusing and complicated, and ultimately leads to arguments, differences of opinion and wars.  When Plato argued that what makes two people into "people" is that they share in a True Reality called the Form of a Person of which they are copies; The mould so to speak from which they were moulded. The problem is that this "Form" is a new thing. It may be a negative thing like a mould of a person, or a positive thing like a new person but either way around it is a new thing. Then we can ask what is the mould of this mould? If we answer that it is a person, then why invent it at all? If we argue that it is moulded by a different mould then we have an infinite regression, an infinite number of moulds to explain the nature of a person. Inventing new things like Plato, Kant or Science doesn't really explain anything, it just shifts the question into new arenas. The ultimate answer is to the no-answer, which is neither one way nor the other, just a "potential" to be one thing for one mind, and a different thing for a different mind.

What makes one mind different from another? This is the issue of karma, which says that our eithical behaviour determines the type of mind we have, or more accurately the nature of our experiences since Mind has no fixed reality iself!

How does all this have anything to do with Life? Life can be incredibly easy and enjoyable, however it can also seem very difficult and not be fun at all. The point for the Mind that see reality as potential, is that in Truth it is neither easy and fun, nor difficult and not fun!!!! When we think the sky is about to cave in and the ground to give way and our life is pointless, unworthwhile, unwanted, hated pick any horrible thing we can be tormented by, in Reality it is always just a multiple potential and we have only managed to realised it like this with this mind of ours. If our mind was to change so then would the thing we realise from the potential, completely and utterly change with no memory of what was before. Reality is Empty, it has no preference for one thing or another, it can change from darkness to light as easily and as completely as darkness can be turned into brightness by a candle! The only difference is our Mind, and how we interpret it. Karma is tough however to shift, like many years of not cleaning a carpet makes the day we do clean it hard work. However every bit of cleaning we do, is a slightly cleaner carpet, and a slightly brighter mind, with more control over its realising of Realities potential.

This is similar, but also different from the current fashion of self-realisation. The problem with the american view of self-realisation is that we are driven by a fear of failure. We are "expected" to self realise, which means that we must become "someone" or "something" and with this comes the great sadness if we fail. This is not realisation at all, it is dividing the world into success and failure and fighting to be in the part of the world called success. It is believing that the world is absolutely split into halves! It is believing that we Really *are* a success, or a failure. It is absolutely NOT understanding that in reality we are neither and the belief that we are is something we only realised in our mind! This is why it is so dangerous to attribute a fixed reality to ourselves. The Enlightened absolutely DON'T believe that they are enlightened, it is not a belief about a fixed reality: it is the realising that there is no fixed reality! We live our life understanding that our life is manufactured by our own mind from a reality that can be moulded any way at all depending simply upon our mind.

A discussion with a friend found an added dimension to this. A master may scold a chef for over cooking noodles. In this he is very full, and has a strong opinion on the reality. After all the noodles have gone soggy! However the situation is also one of emptiness. The pupil if wise will be empty so that they can be filled with the masters teaching: such a pupil has a mind that interprets the the situation skillfully, many might cry or feel depressed, but exactly the same situation to the skillful mind is also a learning opportunity! This is emptiness. The empty master can be equally empty by being full at this a time, so that the pupil will learn! How without being full can the master teach? However being empty the master may taken a different approach if he sees it as wise, perhaps for arguments sake realising that soggy noodles can make a different dish.

So did Christ see anything of all this talk of emptiness in His life, death and teachings? He certainly taught that entrance into Heaven depended on our deeds. The Jews believe that entrance to Heaven is through favour from God. God can favour some very unwholesome people looking at the old testament. Jesus says that His father will welcome anyone who follows Jesus' example. Some interpret this to mean just follow Jesus Himself, as opposed to follow his example. What would Jesus do? God wiull smile at our Jesus like behaviour and open the doors of heaven for us. Doesn't Jesus ask us to be good, isn't goodness how we clear karma, and liberate the potential for brightness?

Jesus says that faith will save us. This is simply faith that God will help us. This is to say that be must believe that anything is possible, and God can grant any wish. Is not Reality empty and full of infinite potential? Isn't this the faith being discussed here?

Jesus says love both your neighbours and enemies equally. Isn't this to say that we should realise the potential for love for things that only appear to us to be different? Our minds make some people enemies, and some friends, yet in reality they are neither and God views them equally as His creation. There is potential for love for anyone.

Tomorrow Jesus defeats death. Yesterday he experienced the full face of Mans greatest fear and the complete despair of even doubted his own father. In this reading the infinite potential was none of these things, it was Jesus' mind and incarnation that made him despair His death. Thousands have been crucified and felt the same pain, many tortured even worse. But we know that he was fulfilling scripture and that he didn't need to die on the cross: he was innocent, a simple carpenter's son. A promise to accept the Emperor, and humble acceptance of the authority of the Sanhedrin and Priests would have freed Him. No, He needed to experience Man's cruelty, to take on the role of Messiah as it was written and understood then, to adopt a particular mind and reality to show us who have this mind that it isn't the end of freedom. Even in despair, when we can't see it, the infinite potential is there. So on the third day he rose again... I admit I am unsure what happened here: he looked different, people didn't recognise Him, I'll leave this to faith for now, it isn't necessary for this reading anyway.

And finally for the skeptics: Does God exist? Suspend that thought and stop grasping for fixed Reality immediately; He is neither existing, nor not existing; He is the potential for wonderful things to occur to those who have prepared their minds and who believe!

On Good Government

How power ought be accumulated.
A desire for power can only make a bad leader because that leader is governed by their own wishes. A good leader needs to be able to respond to having power vested in them by others. Good government is therefore not about "electability"; it is about stopping people in office choosing themselves before others! Good governments allow for people to be chosen: either by election by the people or by traditional rules like bloodline. What is critical about both of these is that people find themselves in positions of responsibility by virtue of the world around them not by virtue of their aspirations. In fact Monarchy offers a better system than democratic election because a Monarch is monarch through absolutely no desire of their own. "Politicians" on the other hand can rise through the ranks and gain positions of power because they want that power. This means they will be the worst self-serving types.

Strong government is therefore needed to thwart the aspirations of self-serving individuals who would wish power for themselves.

On Republicanism (after Diamond Jubilee)

I find the faint whiff of republicanism, which has been bobbing around this weekend like a turd which won't flush, rather irksome. Have the republicans forgotten it was them that asked the Monarch back to sort out their own petty squabbles? and it is the commoners alone, lacking strong leadership who have engaged us in too many bloody wars and brought us to virtual bankruptcy for the first time. Democracy and republicanism does for politics what X-factor does for music. It is a serious job for which aristocrats are bred since the beginning of time and remain indispensible in a seriously functioning society.
Like ·  · June 5 at 10:02am via mobile ·

Alva Gosson No one has yet argued what is wrong with blood line succession? All the republicans ever say is it's not democratic... So? Democracy always morphs into oligarchy anyway because the masses aren't politicians, haven't a clue and are easily led. Even Mill son of libertarianism argued that those with education should get two votes for obvious reason. Only poor arguments by those who would be King... and I'm not being led by them (least of all the usurper Murdoch who's been hoisted now anyway ... Off to the tower it should be not expensive Levison enquiry!
June 5 at 10:10am via mobile · Like

Michael Sissons Have you been on the tablets? I kind of agree with your gist. I may have to lie down.
June 5 at 10:31am · Like

Jeremy Edwards It is the exclusion aspect that puts me at odds with this argument, Alva. I have been prevented from being one of the aristoi by the plonkers in the establishment. If they opened their door I might be more sympathetic. One should not be denied one's place in the world just because of one's birth if one has the capability. I wouldn't even think of beating the aristcracy if they were more inclusive and meritocratic. I'm sure some of them would like the opportunity to jack it in in turn, as Tony Benn did. The question was put to the congregation last Sunday by the preacher: would you want to do the job the queen does? The tone of voice indicated a no answer was expected and it was duly received with one exception - me. But instead of getting encouraginf looks from the congregation all I got were dirty looks, as tho' I was a newly uncovered heretic. Plebs, dogs was what I thought of them at that stage. I think that qualifies me to govern, eh? :p
June 5 at 10:38am · Like

Alva Gosson Problem tho is there are probably many people who would like to self-select themselves as Monarch and somehow one must be chosen under any objective system and the rest excluded. Your argument must be that exclusion by popular vote is better than blood line ... But why? Beauty of blood-line is it's simple and predictable; everyone knows where they stand and while we all lose absolute power we all lose equally... That is why the republicans brought in a Monarch. Mike sorry I stopped taking the pills for the w/e ;)
June 5 at 12:44pm via mobile · Like

Alva Gosson The other thing is Aristocracy is spoken about like it's a rude word. Aristocracy is a funfamental tier in all societies (Kshatria in Vedic/Aryan society like our own). If you guillotine one aristoi another will rise in its place like in the US ... Indellible part of human nature. Only when aristocratic principles like property and ownership have gone (which exclude people) will things change.
June 5 at 12:49pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards What if another, more powerful family were able to pull off a palace coup: would that be accepted or would the military lay siege to the palace with the aim of reinstating the overthrown one?
June 5 at 1:30pm · Like

Michael Sissons And what would be the point of that? In any event, it ain't gonna happen. Hardcore republicans have shown themselves to be humourless snobs and radically out of step with public opinion. They've patronised and belittled the flag waving populace. They don't trust or respect the overwhelming will of the people, so it's a mystery to me how they trust democracy.
June 5 at 1:44pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Well, if the public like it that's it, then. The problem lies not so much with the monarch/s as with the flunkies that surround them. As you say, snobs with vested interests. But they don't get it all their own way, as with that boyo who blew his head off last week.
June 5 at 1:54pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards I'm not driven, like, say, Lenin, so I ain't going to do anything about it. I just feel indifferent towards the institution, tho' it would be nice if it could be made more available to the citizenry. I doubt the replacement would be any better but it would help to reduce the us/them gap, Id've thought.
June 5 at 1:58pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards Most of Ireland decided it wasn't for them.
June 5 at 2:01pm · Like

Michael Sissons Better flunkies surrounding what we've got than expanding a political elite. When it boils down to it, I think the people have simply concluded that the political class have let them down. It's shown them the value of what they've got.
June 5 at 2:03pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Piss poor value, I'd say.
June 5 at 2:04pm · Like

Michael Sissons Get back in the rain with the little corner of placard wavers. You'll get on great!
June 5 at 2:06pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Our gov't establishment buggers about too much in other coutries' business and doesn't provide enough resource on the home front.
June 5 at 2:06pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards If a society of plebs subservient to an aristocratic elite is what the people want, so be it. What would my wishes count against those of 62M others? Nothing!
June 5 at 2:08pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards I don't know what's been going on; I have other things of more interest, next week's LNBR, for example :)
June 5 at 2:10pm · Like

Jeremy Edwards Oh, I did read that Philip was taken poorly but that's about it. Were you out there with the revellers?
June 5 at 2:10pm · Like

Michael Sissons ‎'Society of plebs'? That sounds pretty snobby to me! If they wanted a republic you'd be praising their wisdom.
June 5 at 2:12pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards Mike, it's up to the people to decide how they want to be governed. The majority, I think, don't care very much. The minority groups are those who believe in monarchy, those who believe in an elected head of state and those who believe in other ways. Of those minorities I'd say the monarchists have it and that situation is unlikely to change in the near future. The population is ageing in this country and that means the number of little old ladies is increasing and they are generally recognised as one of the most conservative elements in this society. The monarchy is safe in their hands if it comes to a vote. Personally I haven't finalised where I stand on the matter as I haven't given it that much thought, but I do tend to see it as a source of inequality. Palpably levelling society, even to the limited extent that Hollande is proposing, would be a step in the right direction. If society can be levelled under monarchy in the way I would envisage it then I too would be a wholehearted monarchist. As it is, the country seems to be talking itself into depression, and imposing it on substantial sections of the citizenry.
June 5 at 3:14pm · Like

Michael Sissons Ok, I agree. Let the people decide. Oh, they have. In fact they've made their feelings quite clear. QED.
June 5 at 3:17pm via mobile · Like

Jeremy Edwards ‎" ... bloody wars and brought us to virtual bankruptcy for the first time." Hold on, Alva, who's in charge here? According to this, we, under a monarchy, are facing bankruptcy. It may have been an idiot like Blair who got us into Iraq, but the monarch could easily have kept us out of it: "Tony - stand up straight when you talk to me - you're not to do it, do you hear! I forbid you to do it! I don't care if it precipitates a crisis, you've done enough boot licking; show some backbone! What are you, a man or ... !?" Maybe Ollie wasn't such a bad old stick after all :)
June 6 at 11:11am · Like

Alva Gosson There are many points that Republicans chose to ignore.
Firstly: I've already pointed out it was the Republicans who reinstated the Monarchy. That needs explaining (I explain it below).
Secondly: "equality" is one of those oxymorons which is ostensibly just propaganda for weak minds. Another example is "we are all individuals" etc. I'm always calling on people to think for just one second in order to disinfect ourselves from all this mental junk. If there is equality how come a football player can command a salary of 30,000 a day while a nurse who works longer hours and does something useful will earn that a year... is that what republican equality looks like? There is such a thing as equality but it is very different from this see Upekkha.
Third: we have the Olympics coming up soon something based in principle upon inequality - it is about who is best. It is a deep feature of the psychology of all social organisms that they require social hierarchy. This is the nature of the human society all around and is the only reason politics exists. Naive intellectuals who think politics is about organising human endeavour for some goal need look again at their facts.
Fourth: People get hung up on this existential point about "at least in Republicanism there is a chance I could be the leader" while Monarchy shuts the door. Lots of things shut the door. In addition to being King what about the fastest person on earth? Isn't that unfair and unequal? Why chose Monarch as the closed door to get existential gripes over? Our whole life is determined by things we can/cannot, have/haven't become. Don't complain; understand the deep nature of existence.
Fifth: Game Theory. This is the main point (it is true for the whole animal kingdom). The worst thing that can happen is we meet our equal. If we meet someone inferior we challenge them and they'll step down. Meet someone superior and we walk away and save the beating (if we're smart). But if we meet someone equal the battle will start and we just go on and on and on draining resources on both sides until both sides are eliminated. Animals try and avoid this at all costs. Humans do too. You see in Iraq the chaotic battle for supremacy between groups of equalish power. This is what happens in any animal society before a pecking order is established. You will have experienced this at school when you first joined. Access to mating and territory are determined by social pecking order. That is the universal law; can't escape it. Now obviously we all wish to be top dog (have free mating rights and territory - Prince Charles for example has free mating rights he can arrange to sleep with anyone he likes - this goes back to ancient Tribal customs). But the downside of a flat playing field of equals is we need to fight off everyone else. Like the protectors of the temple of Diana who having killed the previous temple guard would suffer endless sleepless nights protecting themselves from future attacks, eventually (a la Hobbes) people grow tired of constant battles and competition and agree to inequality. This equality of peace is where we all agree to be unequal under an all powerful leader. That is the nature of peace. Democracy is just a side show to the real law of aristocracy that goes on in the background (e.g. in US Clintons, Bushs, Kennedys, Rockefellers etc) but it is this law of dynastic power play that really keeps the peace (and which enables democracy to exist at all).
Sixth: the road sweeper may look at the gold carriage that passes and dream of being in there himself. But if he went then someone else would need to take his place sweeping the street. So for each person with aspirations of richness they condemn someone else to poverty. This lack of care for others is exactly what they criticise others for. Exceedingly importantly this is not the way out of poverty!
Seventh: If we wish (and I do) to create a better society we need be extremely clear what it is we wish to change. Republicanisms simply keeps the old social structure and puts new aspirational people in place. These are the worst kind of people having spent their life fighting for the top. They tend to be paranoid (see all the dictators and revolutionary leaders in history) and have only their own social mobility at heart. Much better have someone born into the job who doesn't have to fight for it and think daily about themselves. Fundamental point about aristocracy. We have a press edited by would be kings so unpopular points. But only idiots believe the press.
Eighth: yes a more powerful army taking the palace is exactly how politics works. See Saddam's palace, Gaddaffi, Assad etc. Welcome to the game of chess. True politics is subtle far beyond the understanding of people to whome it's irrelevant. The Kshatriya (as the Indians call them) are the cast who do power (battles, politics) and they are taught from day 1 how to be dutiful, make friends n alliances, hide their feelings, follow etiquette, instinctively show deference to superiors etc etc. This is true (proven in experiments) for top chimp dynasties as much as humans. My mother is aristocratic and I've heard all about it, yawn! The reason why the Queen doesn't have terrorists after her is she understands politics unlike these republican rednecks who've managed to rise to the top in the US but who know nothing really about politics.
June 6 at 11:33am · Like

Alva Gosson Hi Jeremy I think the days the Queen had any say in actual policy are long gone. One false move at the moment and the Monarchy is disbanded. She just reads prewritten scripts and conducts her royal duties very very carefully. She's playing a very long game in politics at the moment something the 4-year-termers couldn't even comprehend.
June 6 at 11:41am · Like

Jeremy Edwards What a pity she can't even say "off with his head!" any more. That long game is aomed at - survival?
June 6 at 11:50am · Like

Alva Gosson Interesting point. Does a doctor who saves his life so he can help others being selfless or selfish?
June 6 at 11:56am · Like

Jeremy Edwards Self-interest, both, a tautology ...
June 6 at 12:11pm · Like

Alva Gosson actually I realise while an interesting question not directly relevant.. the doctor makes people well, the Monarch simply occupies an archetypal position of power: "the top". There are many things (discussed above) which apply to power politics which simply don't occur to ordinary folks. The Queen has no aspiration for her position "the top". (I take aspiration to be the greatest sin.) It is given to her by History or God depending how you wish to look at it. She then accepts it as a matter of Duty like it or not. It is this aspect that we ordinary folks can only understand with regard to issues like accepting that we are short, unintelligent, or bad a music. If we have an aptitude accepting and using this talent, like it or not, would be another example. She has to pass no special test, prove no particular aptitude simply "be" a person in a particular lineage; existentially; a place holder. However should she be wholly inappropriate the powers behind the throne would certainly conspire to change things. One of the idiotic things about post-Lutherian society is the idea of choice. I have spent most of my life trying to figure out why I should "chose" one thing rather than another. It seems that the badly thought out philosophy means do what you like and don't do what you don't like... try telling your boss, on a whim, that you don't like to come into work today. Or I want something but I don't want to pay. We have to do things we don't like every day. In which case if we can't chose based on "don't like" what base is there for choice? It's a nonsense. (Causation and Destiny is much better ideas.) The Queen doesn't have this nonsense to contend with: her life is mapped out from day 1. Now part of her duty is to preserve the Monarchy not because she wishes to be Monarch ... it was made for her and given to her she didn't decide to work her way up and take it, she has no choice... it is because the purpose of Monarch is to provide a credible focus for power so that otherwise warring dynasties can agree to peace. That is why the position was created in the first place. The idea of Rule of Law has largely taken over as the "credible focus for power" from Monarch. How they interact is History. By contrast the Republican movement seems to have no reasonable foundation at all beyond the jealousy and greed of aspirational people who wish to be "the top" themselves. I'd say to the Republicans, go on have the revolution and spend the rest of your days watching your back from other aspirational people. Who am I to stop them I suppose.
June 6 at 12:54pm · Like

Alva Gosson ‎(could be one reason why the US has so many more assassinations)
June 6 at 1:03pm · Like

Alva Gosson ‎.. actually this is encroaching on stuff that really interests me so I'll continue for my own interest... We like to think we are born with a clean slate, but actually almost everything is "given" to us already... our health, our parents, the house we grow up in, the family we grow up in, the body we grow, the look we have, the sex we have, the mental faculties we have, the aptitudes we have, the personality we have, the interests we have... these are utterly overwhelmingly given to us... (if we were to self-determine these things on what basis would we chose other than with dice throws?). We can with great effort start to change the direction these things flow once we have awareness but a 6 month old baby doesn't have any choice; they are set adrift in a fast flowing river that carries them toward their destiny. Given that so much is given to us how can we claim it for ourselves? I had a public school education through absolutely no fault/choice of my own, yet lots of children would like to "chose" this they can't. It's my destiny, but why is something that requires a much deeper understanding of reality than is currently presented by any of the quite frankly trivial and wholly inadequate modern philosophies... and people somehow think they understand anything about life and worse that they can chose based on this childish understanding... sorry it's just all propaganda to silence the critical minds of the masses.
June 6 at 6:32pm · Like

Conspiracy Theories

Finally sick of these. However this does not mean that I stop being 110% skeptical of everything I hear it means that I remain clear about what a fact is: something that can be verified. If we can't personally verify something then we must accept someone elses witness of that verification which means we must trust them. Obviously few people speak without vested interests so we need examine what they stand to gain from us believing them. We also need to examine why they are interested in us knowing; are they really trying to help us? Only once we are clear that they don't want us to believe them for their own personal gain, and because they believe it themselves and because they wish to help us, only then do we add it to the list of possible things.

Problem with conspiracy theories CT is that they only achieve doubt about the motives of authority. Every single CT is based upon some idea of a cover up to protect the selfish motives of the powerful. Of course this happens all the time no mystery. But what about the selfish motives of CT holders? By rejecting the authority and forming a collective of believers they form a power base of their own. They are committing the same fraud they accuse the powerful of committing. CT holders must be aware that there are tigers in every refuge: they can't run to the safety of any dogma.

So no I doubt the authority of conspiracies exactly as I doubt the authority of any official orthodoxy. All dogmas can only become universal by progressively ignoring more and more facts until they apply to everything by applying to nothing.

Which simply clears the field for a much more even, unbiased, unparanoid and subtler approach to truth.

So my own motives? Can I trust myself ... That is a work in progress...