Friday, 12 October 2012

All human action whether positive or negative has a positive outcome.

Don't be pessimistic; reach for the stars. It's more the societal condition. We can't really change individual humans' greedy desires, but we can temper their expression within socially evolving constructs. I think we work well as a collective, but sometimes our goals are all wrong. If the military budgets of the world were funneled into space exploration we could get to Mars soon. We should be there already. But we do have to stay positive so we can bring the world into equilibrium, to then have a shot at the bigtime. 

I suppose we can't force frontier physics, it evolves as it will. But the fact so many scientists are working so hard is kind of comforting. Ego-centric behaviours have detrimental effects: Ego of individuals or groups who are glued to their specialisations; but we do have to go through this process.

Every action a human makes is a contribution to the whole, whether it is a positive or negative. All actions inevitably produce positive outcomes (which kind of backs up why a god (if there is one) allows pain and suffering). We have to look forward to what might be, that is what will drive us. Equations and scientific insights will refine as they are applied successfully to the physical (backing this scientific position or that). The inner details of financial markets aren't a fundamentally problematic issue. I think it is politics that needs to step up and force the redistribution of money to the correct places (as much as possible). Though of course this is difficult. All are wrapped in a system that works as it will. But it would be nice to see a bit more will to explore. Say Kennedy made the Moon landings happen (for relatively little more money); who's going to make Mars happen, or are we waiting for technology (the All to just evolve to the level)?

There is a disconnect in the financial systems. A will to accumulate wealth for the individual or for corporate-persons instead of putting wealth into projects for the many (humankind). I suppose this doesn't equate to us traveling in the wrong direction necessarily, but it does cause financial and resource wastage.

Are we talking about melting down and remoulding the system? No way! Not gonna happen. It needs to evolve its own way forward (it is). You could say that human nature is what will prevent us forging forth; I say human nature (collective (as in tweaked/socially evolved)) is the only thing we can truly rely on; and I think we can because the selfish, greedy drives of individuals only truly prosper when the whole prospers/moves forwards/consumes etc.

Can we look at container space as a metaphor for money for humankind, and relational space as a metaphor for ego-centric, selfish profit gain?

I would also say that financial markets are contingent on futures. As is the imagination-driven scientific exploration. All looking forwards to estimate what will be if we strive.

I am aware that there is a project mapping the skies; mapping all of the galaxies and all of the stars in those galaxies. But this imagery is only a snapshot of the visible universe, and not a map of the way the universe is now. I am not aware of a project that is attempting to map the universe as it actually is. I would imagine that the computer power required would be immense, to plot course forwards in time in relation to distance etc. plus the fact many stars will die and be born; even if we could plot accurate predictions over billions of years (many many galaxial cycles) we can't predict the chaos of change/creation/destruction. Maybe if we could understand darkmatter and darkenergy (or the whole true picture what ever it may be) then we would have a more comprehensive picture, but the chaos of matter is something we can't plot I think, at present. Not until we can be sure of the ages of all those stars too, and even then its HARD (we need to be a bit/lot further along the path).

So the actual mapping is as hard as the combining of the equations is as hard as say the accurate predictions within financial markets. Two have too much chaos at present, as in not enough ability to compute or understand the intricacy, and the other is an evolving process to try and learn. I suppose they all require and are processes to learn.

Which brings us neatly to the overarching conundrum. Human Nature, Human Purpose, Human Desire, Humanity of Humanity. I would always take the positive view.

I tend to focus my ponderings on beyond the empirical constructions: layers of infinity, estimations of multiversal interactions. A more generalised speculation/conjecturalisation of physical systems beyond our ken. And the possible influences of such on theories of god. All from a philosophical perspective.  

But where would any conjecture be, what would be the validity of human endeavour, if as a race we adopted the notion that pessimism and skepticism towards the natural order of social evolution (where we are now) is of benefit to the whole. We learn from our mistakes. Bad action formulates and steels positive reaction due to the inherently constructive nature of human being, especially including greed. Yes spread positive vibes, but also capitalise on the ignorant and oppressive natures of the evil societies in the world. Through the power of Constructiveism, by seeding the world with the knowledge that wealth and productivity will bring the world into a balance, men and women as equals, which will in turn free all of us to evolve the system to the next level. Globalisation supported by consumeristic driven technological development.

Balance the scales. Balance all the scales. Gender. Monetary. Political. Intellectual.

Free women. Free the world.

Evolve Human Society.


  1. Nice, but just to play devil's advocate, could a sustainable world (or a pocket of it) with very little productivity (besides the cultivation of food, shelter, medicine, and art) work? Hasn't so far, but who knows?

  2. In the context of the whole of humanity, such a model falls down . . . however if one was to have a small-scale community then anything could work if sustainable. However, this is never enough for a representative cross-section of humanity, as there will always be those with ambition and unhappiness with living a technologically, philosophically, and generally sociologically dead-end existence.