The Essence of the Society - To Be or Not to Be?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

It has been said that God has no respect for the individual, not a totally accurate statement, but close enough.

People gather so as to accomplish what the individual could not accomplish alone. But to agree to such an arrangement indicates that the individual sees what it is that he needs to accomplish. And little piece by piece, he does. Thus for sake of this piece or that piece of his needs, he agrees, a society is born.

But in all the variations of need and want, who if any, have seen and agreed to the entirely of their need? Without understanding the whole, each particular is over or under-focused. Infighting breaks out as agreements are stressed and needs are exaggerated or forgotten. One individual against the many. Many against the few. Many against the many. The need of all within rises, a greater need for the gathering merely to handle the new needs caused by the struggles of the gatherings. Nations are born, born by war, in war, for sake of war. The individual loses all importance. The need of the war is supreme for sake of the needs of the individuals, the very individuals who have lost all significance save in their numbers for sake of the war against the other society, the others disregarding all but their war against the first.

So what happened? How is it that the gathering proposed to serve the individuals relents to ignore the individual as it gains its own agenda and need, its own being, foresight, and cognition? Is society to be a gathering of the living, or is it to have its own life within which the individuals are but cells of the body, insignificant save for the service to the society, the “real life”, the “important life”, above those needs of the insignificant particulates.

At what point after a society has acquired its own consciousness, can it proclaim that it should not be, that it should not have consciousness or life above those who banned together to create it? To whom does life belong, the cells, or the body, or perhaps to that ethereal consciousness itself free to disregard the entire body and all within.

From the seed of the men who knew not the whole for what they sought, society is born to seek beyond any need of those very men and yet still having too little intellect to wholly comprehend for what it truly needs as well.

Society, merely a higher wave in the turbulence and noise that life is as it seeks what it can yet comprehend yet determined to fight for the right to obtain it.

Should it end or merely continue the strife, struggle, and crushingly and selfishly blind pursuit for it knows not what?

2

There is no society anymore. Its just one giant jail cell.

3

To Be

4

to be destroyed

5

A human cannot decide that, its not a question of if they should do it, they will do it, no matter what. This is already determined.

6

Hey there victorel, LTNS… :sunglasses:

I have to agree that the probability is extraordinarily high that homosapian is simply “too cleverly dumb to live” as a species, but being one of those “troubleshooter” type guys, I am always examining even the most infinitesimal signs of hope.

And an update, btw…
I finally got my particle to form, spin, and respond totally as contemporary physics would demand.
I can now incontrovertibly prove the UFT, GUT, or ToE. And taking steps to publish.

Not that such would help society recover from its reckless abandonment of rationality.

7

Hey there you have been quite lost, i would love to see how you managed to do that, I was actually stuck on that same issue and thus, could not develop my theory of human behaviour any more.

8

Well human behavior, although related and in the long run included, is different. I had that one worked out quite some time ago, but…
I was going to leave this ToE proof as my last donation to the intellectual world of Man when I suddenly remembered that there was this behavioral issue that I never resolved in the practical sense. What good is a theory or design if you can’t put it into practice.

The issue is in the realm of presumption vs indecision. The equations involved concerning the exact Science of how to handle a situation wherein a person feels the need to act but can’t risk acting in the wrong direction is not merely complex, but seemingly out of reach of an individual already trapped in a declining society filled to the hilt with neurotoxins, retro-viruses, and demonic media all disrupting his neurology and thus his ability to maintain a clear mind. Regardless of any theory he might sincerely believe, his mind is simply caught inside a broken brain within a broken society of broken brains.

So what to do about it is the new project. I really didn’t want a new project. The last was enough to drive a man to drinking, smoking, and abstinence. I seriously felt like Max in the film “Pi”. Fortunately I have no affinity for drill bits or drugs. :mrgreen:

9

A Short Overview of the ToE/UFT/GUT Project
The project began in the field of Rational Metaphysics wherein Definitional Logic outlines details concerning why the universe exists at all. But more significantly, it lays a foundation from which an understanding of exactly why and how particles form, what form they take, and why they do what they do… all that they do. Basically it reveals an understanding of why the laws of physics are what they have been noted to be by contemporary physics.

In order to demonstrate the logic involved, a computer(s) (a single-bit-processor and a PC) had to be programmed to handle the issue of EM turbulence within a volume of space. In order to get that accomplished such that a small PC could handle the nearly infinite number of concerns involved, I had to come up with a method to describe generic turbulence such that calculations could be made concerning its interaction. I dubbed that method “Afflate Analysis” which is a combination of statistical analysis, analytic geometry, and tensor analysis.

An Afflate is merely an “affectence oblate” or simply put, “a clump of turbulence”. It is a statistical entity and a tensor field element. 200,000 afflates become a rudimentary model of an otherwise vacuous portion of space filled with turbulent EM noise/chaos. By applying the proper “rules of afflate engagement” equally to each and every afflate and letting logic take its course, particles begin to form. The particles choose to become positive, negative or neutral based on the particular balance of the turbulence that inspired them. Still without further instruction, the particles begin to display all of the known behaviors of subatomic particles including inertia, momentum, inverse squared mass attraction, inverse squared charge attraction and repulsion, quantization limits, strong and weak force bonding, spin, and so on.

What is interesting besides being able to see exactly why these phenomena are happening, is that with proper and precise mathematics and programming (very poorly done at the moment), the exact relations concerning the laws of physics can be calculated and even measured literally off of the computer screen. And what is more interesting about that is new relationships can be seen of which it appears contemporary physics is not yet aware.

The long shot of it is that the project offers to explain the “why” behind every known law and phenomena of physics and even explain things like the famous photon double slit experiment with ultimate detail and precision.

I am still pondering what to do about the Presumption vs Indecision issue.
Given a gestaltic phobia or more, what can a single person do to free their mind, especially while amidst the subplanters.

10

I do understand but the my theory resides in the premise that existence is based on affect, I have started to question that idea several times since i have had problems reconciling my predictions with the data published. Since my theory is based on that it is necessary to have complete certainty over the premise.

11

Interesting, what problems would you have concerning existence being affectence??
I can’t imagine any publication proposing anything contrary that couldn’t be shredded pretty easily.

12

The posibility that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light.

This is potentially dreadful for my theory, which states that for time to exist there must be some speed limit at which “something” affects something else. This with the aggregation that I am unable to understand space time energy relationship, has made me question the reliability of the premise assumption, and look deeper into it.

IT starts as follows the ability to affect is simply another name for energy transfer, for time to exist energy ( ability to affect) must have a speed limit, otherwise nothing could exist ( an affect would happen instantly thus affecting speed would be 0) thus nothing would affect. Now energy is described as mass times velocity squared. but velocity is measured by meters per second. This means that energy needs by necesity two things space and time, but time cannot exist without energy and energy needs by neccesity space. which means their is a dialectic relationship between them. However this makes it impossible to “know” what energy really is, or space and more importantly time. I have also failed to understand how mass is formed. More importantly accoding to logic space must affect mass and thus, to the most intrinsic they m,ust be the same thing, in this scenario how can someone differentiate mass from space other than by saying space is the must diluted form of mass? All the unsolved questions make me look at all the possible answers including looking at the possiblity of changing the first premise assumption.

13

Well, you are definitely doing the right thing in trying to ensure that ALL of the details fit into the puzzle without conflict.

But be careful of 2 things in particular;
A) what some people have published as “Science” is in fact their own misrepresentation of their experiment and results
B) don’t assume, I as initially did as well, that the puzzle only has 11 pieces when in fact it has 21. In short, don’t try to jump to the conclusion so quickly or imagine that you have all of the pieces such as to validate a conclusion in any direction.

I can guarantee you that no neutrino has ever, does never, or will ever exceed the speed of radiant energy (aka “speed of light”). Of course in Rational Metaphysics, we don’t talk in terms of light and energy due to definitional problems. In the long run, those entities gain proper perspective and exact definition, but the words belong to Science and it is up to Science to choose how they want to define them. There is a slight difference between affectence and energy.

When I began explaining RM to you some time ago, I hadn’t finished organizing the course, so through no fault of your own, you didn’t complete it. You have some missing gaps. It is far more complete now and I am formalizing it into definitive principles and formulae. But even before that is complete, I can tell you that the first step in the process of learning it (or really anything), is learning “Definitional Logic” (the parent to mathematics).

Since I was having trouble explaining things to people, I decided to simply explain the “rules of reality” to my processors and let them do the math and the communication via display to people. My processors argue less and seldom jump to a conclusion without a logical reason. Of course, I discovered that Microsoft might be a general except to that theory. Probably 90% of my time was merely dealing with what I have discovered is embarrassingly primitive software tools. Someone seriously needs to inform Microsoft that “Visual” doesn’t mean merely colored text. This project using VBA was like trying to resolve a Rubik’s cube behind my back and Microsoft’s idea of “visual” was that I was privileged to do it in daylight where I could view my shadow.

Initially, I suspected that I could layout the entire theory on merely a spreadsheet, a very complex spreadsheet, but still merely a spreadsheet for sake of display. Eventually the number of arrays necessary to store the data became too much for Excel, so I backed into VBA where the number of arrays eventually accumulated to 30-40 100,000 element arrays all culminating into 2 primary tensor arrays. If I had known how large and complex it was going to become, I definitely would have gone for C++. I just didn’t think I was going to have the need to go relearn it. I really should have gone that route.

But affectence (or loosely “energy”) does not “need space”. Nor is it “in space”.
Affectence causes space and time.… as well as mass, inertia, momentum, etc…

14

Interesting we might need another op for that, and I do agree I only discuss things in this forum when I beleive I might have a philosophical discussion instead of a brainless struggle to "win " a debate for the sake of having a dopamine ruch in the brain. People like being right because it makes them feel “good”. Its like Ivans parlovs dog or a rat.

15

Btw, a quick thesis on Definitional Logic.

But I can’t reply to posts on that blog for some reason. :confused:

16

Vic… an update on Faster than Light Travel