a discussion with a friend....

a week or so ago, a friend was in town… he is a conservative who moved
to Texas… we were talking in a bar and one of us mentioned BLM…
the discussion then went something like this…

Me: why was BLM marching? to protest the deaths of
innocent people at the hands of the police"

Him: “what about the people who businesses were burned downed?”

and right there, in that exchanged we see the difference between the mindset
of conservatives vs liberals…his mind jumped to the business owners building
being burnt down and the loss of money… I was thinking about the loss of lives
and he was concerned with the loss of private property…

and that exactly shows us the difference between conservatives and liberals…
he had no concern about the loss of lives, but plenty of concern about the loss
of private property…

I hold that lives are more important then money or private property,
he held as do all conservatives, money, private property is more important…

the conservative answer to life saving programs that save lives is this,
‘‘who is going to pay for it’’’ or ‘‘we can’t afford it’’…

pro-life indeed when money or private property becomes the means by
which we judge things…that isn’t pro-life… that is pro-money or
pro-property…and that in a nutshell is a conservative… pro-money

Kropotkin

Some say human life is beyond money value.

But the people that said that would sometimes go on to saying that the poor should not be sheltered or saved.

The price of a human life is around 20$ a day.

Food, shelter, water, etc.

Evil clowns will burn through the surplus far before the money hits the needy.

earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life.

Meno,

We naturally live forever. There is no being you need for this.

Your job is to figure out your best forever.

We have gone over this before , but unless this idea is always kept in mind, the certainty of it fades, then disappears.

The forever is guaranteed, because if it was not, the moment to moment of existance rwould break up conscious awareness, and that is an impossibility because our composite conscious being always appear to reappear as a recognizable sense in the continuity called history.

This fact proves the continuity of the self’s conscious floa by re -cognition of recognizable-similar parts in and out of patterns.

The only problem is the absolute fragmentation of the self toward unrecognizability, based on Leibnitz’ notion of the infinitesimally reduced cognative transformative shift toward perceptive reduction. This parallel implies the mutability of a self concept to image variability, with on and out of a permiable shell. This may be a literal representative cognative bubble, based on a virtual mathematically probable substance or one that is actually perceived as such

Our math which ground our becoming aware of the prior fallacy of falling off after the straight appearing horizon of limit is reached, is an early example.

As the science gets increasingly removed from hands on technical feasibility, a curvature occurs to realign it with earlier underlying dsuppositions, thereby re-establishing more stable relative links.

The fact that classical laws are more stable in giving more credible certainty, does not unhinge the proposition that classical physics is as valid in terms of man’s evolutionary goals, then modern science, unsettling that objective.

The continuum is broken into the old and the new, with neither prioritized by preference.

They ard both partially enriched and deconstructed partially differentiated hypothetical presumptions. The modern presumption would not have been possible without the earlier general laws, which in fact could not have been conceived without farther off, vaguer objectives. ( The self image and it’s corresponding concept may be holographycally connected here, or in a multitude of various linkages. Eternity can so be defined as as many linkegas required to form some type that recurs in or out of a measurable state. ( of being)

The early puppet show sets really set the ideas of movies and TV possible is a naive example of science fiction enabling the objective development of scientific progress