Index 
Death Epistemology Government Human Nature Language Science (Energy) War
written this month: Canadian Hippies Immortality Grand Junction Musings: We now have “house plants” as if to make plants tolerable, unthreatening; we must bring them into the house and “tame” them. The continuing trend of the mechanistic reduction of environmental variations seems to carry with it an alienation from non-mechanistic variations and an increasing fear of them, of “nature”. Maybe the “back to nature”, “ecological” and “awareness” are guilt reactions to deep fears and disgusts of non-manipulated nature. For nature is life, and individuals alway dies; its disintegration and reassimilation accelerating abruptly at “death” of an individual. However humans evolved a mechanism, i.e. language of abstracts for transmitting more individual “learning” from individual to individual, or generation to generation, than was possible before abstraction. Recording and storage of information further, e.g. writing, increased available information for an individual to a degree above that which time allowed him to accumulate in one lifetime. The information now accumulates so rapidly that each passing instant renders a person more ignorant than more knowledgeable. Perhaps the hypothesis of increasing “fear of nature” is linked to increasing rather than decreasing ignorance as our knowledge increases. For ignorance, as knowledge, must always have an antecedent and at the instant knowledge is increased for one so is ignorance for all other. Each is the antecedent of the other. Organization of specialized knowledge can increase “social knowledge” and its effects, whereas “individual knowledge” is focused on such fine distinctions that the knowledge of “others” overwhelms one in a sense of ignorance. Our appeal to “equality” cannot appeal to knowledge unless specialization of occupation is eliminated, a very unlikely event. The question then arises, “Is one kind of specialized knowledge ‘better’ for a particular function than another?” Further, “Are any functions ‘better’ than others?” Perhaps administration of affairs of state requires such specialization in techniques of administration that we are losing a class of humanity that can look behind the techniques to the purposes. Perhaps this has become a separate specialty of its own, separate from administration but essential to it, and impossible to specialize in by any effective administrator. As we approach the verge of a centralized world-wide administration, the discrepancy increases rapidly between the skills required for effective administration and those required to determine the “best” direction toward which administrators should guide. The emerging military power makes war inevitable given the present attention paid to it by dministrative class other than to preservation of organizations which they administer. This is a necessary and beneficial function, except when two organizations challenge one another about a mutually required resource. If the one’s requirements threaten to deplete the other’s resources below a “critical mass” resulting in collapse of the organization, the primary allegiance of the administrator is to survive and risk of war becomes the only possible road to survival. A noble cause if the organization is a nation, but an ignominious crime if the organization is sub-national. Perhaps in today’s military environment it is also an ignominious crime even if the organization is a nation. If the organization were super-national, maybe world-wide, the preservation function of administration might again become laudable but its application to alternatives given survival require non-administrative skills.  Because scientific postulates define an infinite possible increase in “data” available for intellectual creation, at least until a sub-atomic comprehensive physical and “conditional” force field map of the universe can be constructed for this and thus all given instants, math can only simulate not describe nature. By looking in a microscope we can create energy; only by looking in a macroscope can we judge how to use it. A telescope is a type of microscope that enlarges images; a camera is usually a type of microscope that reduces images. Consider the microscopically sought cure for cancer that is ardently pursued today; consider that a cure is “discovered”; consider the necessary effect on demographic curves. Consider the microscopically sought fusion reactor; consider the sociological implication for work, jobs, leisure, and “anomie”. Consider “world peace” sought even more ardently; consider it “achieved”; consider its effect on psychological “affectation”, e.g. patriotism, Christianity, Buddhism, Bear’s fans, etc. | In regards to that atomic achievement, I just heard on the radio that the “neutron bomb” was tested 18 months ago. Are we ready to face the implications of atomic power in terms of world peace? Peace can only be achieved if no external source can challenge a governmental proposal. This potential had never existed until 1944, actually the mid 1950’s, and now the neutron bomb provides fear for humans but does not cause significant thermodynamic damage that must be repaired at high cost. Consider if the bombs were aimed at anyone violent his immediate geographic, human environment. But who will control the bombs and define violence or any other instigating cause of retributions for wrong behavior. Has perhaps the time for duty of Plato’s “philosopher kings” arrived? But which philosophy? The judicial-legal? The communist? The capitalist? The Hindu? The scientific? The scholar that knows them all historically? Which? Each country is already represented at the U.N. and almost all, if not all philosophical “ideals” are represented. Why then cannot the U.N. rule? Perhaps the Platonic philosopher is the rare exception if present at all the U.N because he is omitted from consideration in all selection processes. “Only if he inherit or be asked” to serve rather than pursuing the invitation. Can we yet acknowledge that chaos is the other alternative; and many are pursuing just that in confrontation with total objectification or idealization of the universe fostered by science. Although science must be an ally, the only one of the philosopher, he must be able to extricate himself from logical necessity but retain an empirical reference standard. Each county has many such philosophers, but they must be sought initially by non-philosophers who cannot recognize the inadequacy of their own approach. A dilemma. But perhaps a selection of a selecting committee from each country and each committee member appointed as an assessed philosopher. Professional philosophers are not prohibited from the committee, because even some of them might be philosophers, neither are generals, farmers, geologists, laborers, doctors, etc; but all should enter with a discursive rather than agnostic spirit. Each head of state appoints 100 individuals assessed as “philosophers” by some screening process to a selection committee. The committee meets 10 hours every day for a year in a single space, not desks, only soft chairs, noting only that they are commissioned to select one “philosopher” who they would entrust with atomic power. After a year the committee votes. The top 10 vote getters then meet for 2 months. Then all countries send their 10 member commissions to a single meeting place. Every third day all commissions meet in common space, the other two each meet with another and always different country’s commission. When every 10 member commission have spent 4 days with every other commission, each selects one member to be the U.N representative. When the representatives meet, they spend 1 year in a common space. After a year of discourse they vote for permanent membership of each representative; rules of selection process are beyond external control. Control of the bombs is then turned over the permanent membership. All communications of the originally appointed one of 100 “philosophers” in each country is to be restricted to only other “philosophers” during the extent of duty, i.e. total blackout of internal proceedings and no records kept. Thus those finally selected as members are removed from the world until such time as the “membership” decides otherwise. Total selection time about 3-5 years. A world government must eventually come, and who are we to submit to as an entire race? – doers or thinkers? I suggest a world convention of “philosophers”, impractical “star-gazers” firmly founded in science. More importantly can the mechanism of transfer of control to a single body be affected? I suggest that if the body is selected, the transfer becomes more likely. |