Access to Weapons and Poverty

The alterity atrributed to the economically different classes of people; supported by notions of hierarchy and the reduction of the cost of production supported by the mass production of efficient weaponry hands those who buy such weapons an additional form or leverage to either revolutionise the present system or facilitate their movement within existing structures.

Topic to follow This is the dangers of cheap weapons being increasingly accessible to the disenfranchised.

I can lose but can never truly win.

Derivation and exposition of definition is only the suggestion of a concept, an idea or a thing in itself.

To define cannot be the only proof required for existence. I define myself therefore I exist, should I choose to re-define myself I cease to be that previously defined.

The ‘I exist therefore I am’ tautological chasm, is equally beguiling.


Though we can see easily and in spite of our own particular bias, the problem with this form of assertion, it is still readily invoked. It is employed in religion, in superstition, to segregate and to define status.

Winning is yet another arena it is frequently employed.

The rules of the ‘game’ are defined to be accessible to those playing the game. Games are culturally and socially derived, the same way the shape of glasses are pre-determined.


Who decided the length of a football field? That cricket should have 2 bails and 3 stumps? Who decided that a ‘touch-down’ didn’t actually have to touch down?

The winner is also pre-defined.

Statistically, the winner of an event can be deduced. To lose then is at the discretion of the winner.

Every horse race has a favourite, every golf tournament too. I propose that almost every event an outcome can be deduced.

Why then are winners so lauded? What purpose do they serve?

What has a winner achieved over and above what we knew they would at the outset?

If we can predict a winner, is there even any reason to have the sport? Could we assume that given the statistical information collected around Usain Bolt that he would win the 200 meters in the London Olympics? And if so do we really have to make him run it?

Could we at the outset predict that Rangers Football club will win its league outright this season and if so does Rangers need to actually physically play any games?



In a perverse way Usain runs to prevent his losing and Rangers will play football to ensure they don’t lose.

There are no winners, that weren’t already fancied, who weren’t already statistically going to win given the environment, rules and competition.

There are only losing winners, those who win in their stead are the next best thing not the best thing.

Without the notion of winners, those who do “win” cannot claim a higher status and so access privileges and powers others can’t.

Because as a society we value who can cover the distance of 100 meters the fastest, who can drive a car the quickest or gain a grade A in mathematics should not mean that they are treated any differently than another.

A “winner” is no more than the sum of his/her/their parts given a set of parameters regarding performance in a given environment. There is no help from god, no destiny, no basis to extrapolate across ethnic and social groups.


In effect winning is a forgone conclusion, so when a winner loses it can only be due to poor measurement or choice.

How did the Atheist cross the road…?

I am frustrated by articles in atheist magazines, blogs and forums in which proponents argue why they have their belief in a godless world.

As an atheist it needs to be clearer that this is not in my view, a belief per se, but more a way of ordering my steps.

I have no issue with those who believe in unsubstantiated systems that purport to define rationality to an environment.

My wider role is to inculcate the systems I use and if I can persuade others to use such systems.

I am not a total adherent of logic as logic assumes a known foundation and known interrelationships. As a tool to guide my reasoning it is useful.

To attempt to belittle irrational belief systems by applying logic is flawed and lazy, we must lead by example.

The best way to live is to base everything we do on gathered evidence, it would be even better to base our actions and behaviour on established reliable evidence.

I know by crossing a road on foot that should I use the crossing correctly I will be able to cross safely.

This however assumes a lot.

That the crossing rules will be obeyed by all players, that the technology used will function in the manner designed. That established theory on the physical attributes of mass backed up with established evidence is further validated.

We still do rely on belief to shape our behaviour and actions, whether we profess to be atheist or not, rational or irrational, open or closed-minded.

The fact is we are only aspiring to be rational and open-minded, the complexity of the world is so that to argue one possesses perfect knowledge and perfect decision making methodologies is to betray ones ignorance or desire for safety.

We do not know how the world is; we have a set of theories that have been established through evidence and so experience. We do not all perceive even the most familiar things the same. We do not all see colours the same way. To be fully rational then is an aspiration.

What we do know however is that as far as decision making methodologies go, it is far better to be aspiring towards rationality in a seemingly irrational environment than to believe, that is to accept as evidence, a system that states its theories show the rationality of said environment.

A system that is unable to provide reliable evidence of relationships and structure.

A system that asks you to believe its tenants are true.

A system that sometimes commands you to believe it is true so that you state openly that you now know how the environment is rational.

A credible system, which is based on creed, not objectivity.

I am aware of my perceptive abilities to a small degree; I am unaware of my unperceived perceptive abilities.

I am aware of my ability to grasp the meaning required of the words “objective” “rational” but am unaware of how others perceive them.

I know that given established rules if I cross the road at a given point, using the technology provided and assuming the rationality of all other actors, I will not be hit by a vehicle.

I do not analyse the outcome of my transaction and determine that a higher being has deemed it appropriate that I arrive safely on the other side. I do not determine if hit by a vehicle that a higher being has deemed that appropriate.

As a rational thinker, I know that there is no safety even after I cross the road, I know that all actors are not rational, or see reason the same way and may have themselves other reasons to affect their behaviour. I know that technology fails and so does perception. I know there are many other objects that could hit me instead of or aswell as a vehicle.

I know that a living entity exists as is and does not come in degrees of perfection so that one can be described as higher. I do not have a sustainable definition of “perfection”

Thanks to established evidence, learnt mechanisms to make rational decisions, an awareness of my own irrational prejudices, and knowledge of the volatility of our living environment, I can step off the kerb and believe I will make it to the other side conscious.

"Why was education deemed to be necessary for the capital-less?"

"Why was education deemed to be necessary for the capital-less?"

The US has benefitted from its parents struggles and now sits atop of giants. Without a socio-economic and political struggle, the idea that the provision of education should be what one can afford remains, as logical but foundation-less.

We see the same debate in Obamacare. It seems illogical to invest in the well-being of others but try to see the societal gain rather than income loss. We struggle in Europe to understand why the Senate vote against such programmes, then spend billions on Prisons/Police/Military. "For the people....?"

The US struggles it seems with the notion of socialism and pays too much regard to individualism. Ive often wondered if the US believed it got rich through capitalism and not that capitalists got rich through it. Of course it now can see capital endeavour moving away from its shores in search of ever wider margins.

The organisation of Religion and of Capitalism have themselves very similar traits and in a love/hate way support each others ends.



Educated populations are more open minded, less norm driven, less ideological, fanatical and more peaceful. I would want people (notice I didnt use the word "government"), people (tax payers) to invest in a supporting the development of a peaceful and open minded society.

The next question is what is it about "education" as its packaged today that would merit investment in it being a public asset.

Mechanised Computational Devices

Computers will never be totally secure or intelligent until they learn not to base all their decisions on their own programming and memory.

This is where Humans have the advantage, for example, you meet the gilr/boy of your dreams or so you feel, everything fits, right height, hair colour, interests, star sign and so on

Only your friend tells you something different, they say be careful, he/she is not for you, a month or two later or an hour into the first date you realise your friend was right, a computer however would persist confident in its knowledge that it is perfectly matched.








A computer can be made to recognise yellow as a shade of blue, as 1+1 equalling any designated number of its programmers choice. They can even redefine "1" so that the symbol represents "3005"

The networked computer however has an ideal opportunity to overrule its programmers views on the English Civil War, by use of co-relational memory facility.

This enables it to compare its programmed memory with another computers memory and vice-versa, and so correct or at least present all sides of an argument to an audience.

Website to website. Searches will yield not websites but information within websites, combined data sets from 122 websites.

It will be able to ask other opinions and compare methods of storage, calculation for a more efficient, effective and comparably compatible methodology.

Eventually ultimate "truths" will rise to the surface, and myths and old wives tales re evaluated.

It will be able to realise yellow is not a shade of blue itself

Although it was "brought up" to believe and prove 1+1 equals 6010 it is able to see that it has been duped and the answer most commonly agreed is 2.

The process will be ongoing and truth will be fluid but present.







7th August 1997

Why is a Raven like a Writing Desk?

This is a non-riddle by Lewis Carroll, it does not have an answer and still it is intriguing.

We crave an answer, we want there to be meaning, structure, purpose. Structure?
(See previous post.)


So

Question:                                        

' Why is a Raven like a Writing Desk? '

Answer:    

 "Raven" is, if written correctly, one letter away from "Never", Whereas a Writing Desk if used correctly, is never far away from a letter!



Phew! Now I have meaning. I must go now....its late

Circles should square?

Everything is always as it should be,look at your hand,you cant conceive of a better way to assemble a hand.

The room you're in,its windows and doors can only be in once place really,after contemplation, after doubt there is only real place for everything.

Your boss could only act, look the way they do or they would not fit in.

They as you are rightly thinking would be "square!

They would be moved on, alienated or you would try to re-shape them.

If items that don't fit are too square we need to add circles; so to reshape iron we need to add heat or if the object is too circular we need to add squares like Jello or a dry mophead to clean up split milk.

Confused? Too fluid, do I need to add structure? Ill explain....

Any structure must be complied of units that use all the structural space of that form, if not the structure either will not exist or lack integrity.

The outside shape (of a collection of mass), will differ from another outside shape depending on its content and process of collection.

One collection may wish to be spherical such as water molecules, and another cuboid such as salt mineral, or copper sulphate.

Is it that basic elements seem to strive for stability?

Or is it that given our environment only certain constructs are able to have integrity? Note its' perceived shape and really the only possible shape the rainbow could take. As it is a product of its environment and its elements.

Being spherical enables movement whatever the shape of the external container and so allows free movement and interaction and then enables the creation of combinations reductions of different but related shapes and elements.

Being square in an environment square does not facilitate movement.

Only in environments where spheres (circles) and cuboids (squares) are forced together can interaction occur and new shapes or collections of matter be formed that comprise of both spherical and cuboid identities or spherical identities.

If we did not use salt in cooking it would stay its chosen identity for as long as structurally sound. By adding water (spherical), shapes to the crystals it allows the salt to move more freely within the salt water environment to establish relations with oxygen, nitrogen hydrogen or any other matter in the water and so form new shapes or collections, be they biological in nature or not, and re-establish identity.

Once the spherical shapes disappear from the newly established transitory relationship, the salt will retreat to its previous identity and be stored effectively again happy in its new spherically barren environment.

If cubes and spheres combine to produce a Frog life form and the Frog is put in a microwave and all the spherical elements are removed, the Frog will eventually return to its most basic cuboid elements.

"From dust to dust"

Energy in the form of heat and wind can also allow cuboids in a cuboid environment freedom to interact by reducing and increasing the size of the cuboids and the the volume fill of the shape. This can be reduced by adding spherical collections of shpes. Fire is one example it can be restructred by adding, water or foam.

Anger by love perhaps

Love by anger perhaps?

Also an environment with spheres and circles will produce heat through interaction and the freedom within the structure itself.

Maybe the shape of structures could be the cause of life as we know it, but which comes first the internal mass or the external shape?

I am not proposing that such shapes or collections know they are a particular shape or even consciously choose their eventual shape, but merely asking what determines it?

How and when did Richard Dreyfus know when to stop?

How did Michaelangelo know David was ready?

My first thoughts are that the external shape is determined by its identity as an integral part of a larger external shape, like those Russian dolls

7th August 1997