Remaking America by George Shollenberger, Idea XXII (Securing the Language of Unites States of America)
When I became employed by the U.S. Department of Justice, it was not long before I learned that the word God cannot be used in any letter or report. In time, I learned that this silly policy exists only because many people equate the word, God, to the word, Religion. Isn’t it time to distinguish these two words, give them their true meaning, and allow people to use them freely anywhere? If these words are properly defined and other words in our national language are also properly defined, won’t our national language become more perfect and be secured?Now, if the national government proposes a project to secure the national language of the United States, is this proposal a social program, as Republicans are saying after they lost the White House in 2009? Would such a program turn the USA into socialism? Not at all because the USA did not turn into socialism after public education was installed throughout the USA. Nor did the USA turn into socialism after public reservoirs, public sewage, public airports, public hospitals, public parks, public telephones, public electricity, public highways, public bridges, etc. were installed throughout the USA. These public programs only improved the life of all citizens and secured them better.
The fear of socialism by the Republican party is being fabricated by their closed minds. Republicans must get out of the box of social programs and begin to see them as advancements for all of our citizens. Otherwise, the Republican party security of the United Stares will be quickly recognized as trash.
The stimulus proposal of President Obama is an advancement in the life for all USA citizens. It will also reduce the big depression that the republicans left for him. So, this stimulus is not socialism, as republicans say. They are angry because they lost the White House and many seats in Congress. But, anger is an evil human behavior because it does not come from God.
posted by George Shollenberger @ 1:58 PM
22 Comments:
At 5:34 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Well, it is true the GOP is angry, but isn't it mostly due to a percieved wreckless spending by the Democrats though? Anyhow, the arguments are the same on both sides, but it seems to be a reversal of who is on what side. The Democrats were angry about the wreckless war-spending of the Republicans the last 8 years too.
The thing I've got an issue with is that, perhaps the Democratic Congress thinks that it can tell businesses how to run their business, even intervening with people's paychecks on top of mandating larger taxes for everybody. If Obama is already signing a 900 billion dollar stimulus bill and cutting the pay of bankers in the first couple months, then what the heck is he going to do next month and the month after that? Perhaps Democrats percieve that as good, but on closer examination it might not be so.
I believe that if too many spending variables are all changed at once, that a crash in the system is inevitable, especially at such a high price tag. Perhaps you think that is mechanistic or that the bill will somehow work because everybody in congress knows what they are doing. However, I still think it was loaded with Democrat pork, how else does congress spend almost a trillion dollars all at once?
The wise thing to have done, instead of spending a trillion all at once would have been to spend it spread out over 4-8 years time so that the effects of each variable being changed could be examined.
At 10:03 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
$800,000,000,000 / 3,000,000 = $266,666.66 .... the beastly amount that people in the USA owe their government.
At 8:07 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F's first comment,
Q_F: Well, it is true the GOP is angry, but isn't it mostly due to a perceived wreckless spending by the Democrats though? Anyhow, the arguments are the same on both sides, but it seems to be a reversal of who is on what side. The Democrats were angry about the wreckless war-spending of the Republicans the last 8 years too.
George: I agree with you. Both use the same debate. But President Obama is thinking above both parties greatly because Obama’s funds will ‘trickle up’ the funds through labor, as John Keynes would. The Republicans trickle-down funds through the top 10% income earners.. Under Reagan and both Bush presidencies, this trickle-down system is installed by lowering taxes for these earners. This system never worked. Yet the Republicans were successful to flow more money down the top 10% class. So 1/3 of the Obama’s stimulus will be lost again in the accounting books of this upper class. The current distribution of wealth in the USA is a form of slavery established by both parties. A nation of castles will not build a ‘secured nation.’.
Q_F: The thing I've got an issue with is that, perhaps the Democratic Congress thinks that it can tell businesses how to run their business, even intervening with people's paychecks on top of mandating larger taxes for everybody. If Obama is already signing a 900 billion dollar stimulus bill and cutting the pay of bankers in the first couple months, then what the heck is he going to do next month and the month after that? Perhaps Democrats perceive that as good, but on closer examination it might not be so.
George: President Obama is not a full blown Democrat. He is a godly person whereas many Democrats are atheists. Thus, Obama will never become a centrist who stands in the middle between the Democrats and Republicans. Obama will return to an economy like the economy that existed during WWII. In this economy, the quantity of money was well known and was rational and manageable. Today, the quantity of money is unknown. To rationalize money, all money must become the ‘means’ of progress. Today money is the ‘end. So, money must be viewed as a man-made whole, which has countable parts, just as the parts of a man-made automobile are countable.’ This way the US economy can be perfected just like automobiles have been perfected.
Q_F: I believe that if too many spending variables are all changed at once, that a crash in the system is inevitable, especially at such a high price tag. Perhaps you think that is mechanistic or that the bill will somehow work because everybody in congress knows what they are doing. However, I still think it was loaded with Democrat pork, how else does congress spend almost a trillion dollars all at once?
George: The Democrats and Republicans never think about God. Thus, they cannot measure their own performance and the performance of of the nation, as the Preamble of the Constitution requires. The function of the national government is ‘to form a more perfect Union,’ as the Constitution says. Cost-benefit analysis can’t measure the performance of a national government. Only a business can measure the performance of itself. When a tangible thing (money) is asked to produce a better intangible thing (e.g., education, health care, etc.), a ‘standard’ is still necessary. This standard is a perfect God. This is what our leaders do not understand.
Q_F: The wise thing to have done, instead of spending a trillion all at once would have been to spend it spread out over 4-8 years time so that the effects of each variable being changed could be examined.
George: The American MIND must change first.
At 8:15 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F's second comment,
We should ask for a bailout from all of those nations we saved so far.
At 4:29 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
I caught a mistake in my calculations.... the number of people in the US is 300 million, so knocking two decimal places off....$2,666.67 owed per capita (neglecting tax brackets) is not as bad as I initially thought it was, haha, that's still some bad math there though.
Anyhow, for the most part I believe you are correct on that trickle up economics being helpful. Everybody is thinking about maximizing their own profits, that's bad for the country though if you're a bigshot CEO so perhaps congress is doing something helpful with this stimulus bill. We'll see, I think you can agree with me that there are still plenty of selfish motives within congress though, and that Obama isn't perhaps perfect either.
You have a history of dealing with the changing of human behavior, particularly in crime, so I take these as some good insights here. What is it about a belief in a god that motivates people to work for the good of the country though?
Also, I know I can site plenty of counterexamples to that where belief in a god has caused harm, perhaps you say something along the lines of "it is not the right god though" and then the argument ends in stalemate. But still, psychology is a young science that seems to be taking cues from biology, and in particular that of evolution, great strides are being made in studying what you call "lower order animals" and in the framework of evolution (perhaps why the animals are less mechanistic than once thought). Maybe there are some moral truths to be learned in religions (and countless immoral falsities too), but perhaps the study of biology and the mind of animals is leading to revolutionary breakthroughs of our understanding of human behavior and how also to control that behavior for the purpose of good and greater societal productivity.
At 7:49 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F,
Q_F: I caught a mistake in my calculations.... the number of people in the US is 300 million, so knocking two decimal places off....$2,666.67 owed per capita (neglecting tax brackets) is not as bad as I initially thought it was, haha, that's still some bad math there though.
George: I saw the error. But errors are normal in human life. So, I do not correct anyone unless they are atheists, who need to be corrected in just about every words they use.
Q_F: Anyhow, for the most part I believe you are correct on that trickle up economics being helpful. Everybody is thinking about maximizing their own profits, that's bad for the country though if you're a bigshot CEO so perhaps congress is doing something helpful with this stimulus bill. We'll see, I think you can agree with me that there are still plenty of selfish motives within congress though, and that Obama isn't perhaps perfect either.
George: I agree. But under God, no finite thing is perfect. Only God is perfect.
Q_F: You have a history of dealing with the changing of human behavior, particularly in crime, so I take these as some good insights here. What is it about a belief in a god that motivates people to work for the good of the country though?
George: The insight I had was that evilness comes from something within us. When I found the 1920 discovry that sensual data is primarily symbolic, I came to the conclusion in the 1980s that the origin of all evilness originate in the symbols we use in our language systems. Then in 1994 after I retired, I was reading the Bible in Mark, Ch.7, I found that Jesus was teaching the origin of evilness in verses 15-23. He says that man is defiled from within, not from something outside. Eventually, I concluded that the within thing is the human mind, which is formed with symbols. These discoveries motivated me to work for the good of God and everything that God has created.
Q_F: Also, I know I can site plenty of counterexamples to that where belief in a god has caused harm, perhaps you say something along the lines of "it is not the right god though" and then the argument ends in stalemate. But still, psychology is a young science that seems to be taking cues from biology, and in particular that of evolution, great strides are being made in studying what you call "lower order animals" and in the framework of evolution (perhaps why the animals are less mechanistic than once thought). Maybe there are some moral truths to be learned in religions (and countless immoral falsities too), but perhaps the study of biology and the mind of animals is leading to revolutionary breakthroughs of our understanding of human behavior and how also to control that behavior for the purpose of good and greater social productivity.
George: The ancients made the same error by believing that they can learn God by knowing themselves. In this method of thought, God became an image of man. But if we say that God is incomprehensible, God cannot be an image of Man. For the same reason, Man cannot be known by knowing the lower animals. So, evolutionary theory is a false theory. For example, our dog cannot know my wife or me. But if we harmonize our relations with him, we and our dog have formed a great relation that God made possible in his intelligent design. If a person can’t find these possible relations among the things that God created, that person’s life will be miserable.
At 8:33 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
On the contrary, a life of atheism is not miserable. What determines whether somebody is miserable or not has to do with their outlook on life, whether it is optimistic (you are) or pessimistic. Not that there ought to be blind optimism though, somebody who knows not the truth of what science teaches and the discipline of what logic dictates will be no better off for being optimistic, well, the belief that ignorance is bliss is incorrect.
Certainly wisdom can bring sorrow, but perhaps that is false wisdom though. If I were to tell you that the Universe was finite, would that make you very optimistic about surviving? Well, you are telling me that you believe that the Universe is infinite, I have no proof to the contrary nor do I wish that to be the case either (as unscientific as that is). However, by modifying Godel's Theorem, perhaps one will arrive at a proof that the Universe can not be finite. ;)
However, as to consciousness, well perhaps death comes to those who disbelieve in eternal life, and perhaps eternal suffering comes to those who believe in that sort of thing. I don't believe in eternal suffering, that it could ever be deserved, and I think that a direct cop-out on the non-existance of god.
At 1:00 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F,
Q_F: On the contrary, a life of atheism is not miserable. What determines whether somebody is miserable or not has to do with their outlook on life, whether it is optimistic (you are) or pessimistic. Not that there ought to be blind optimism though, somebody who knows not the truth of what science teaches and the discipline of what logic dictates will be no better off for being optimistic, well, the belief that ignorance is bliss is incorrect.
Geotge: All of my thoughts are based on the existence of God. So I conclude a true life is opposed to all forms of life that are based on atheism. The true life divides all opposites such as good and evil, non miserable and miserable, etc. The life of an atheists cannot be equated to a life under God. This is th way our symbolic languages work. If all life scientists would distinguish themselves from physical scientists, they could see the difference between God and atheism.
Q_F: Certainly wisdom can bring sorrow, but perhaps that is false wisdom though. If I were to tell you that the Universe was finite, would that make you very optimistic about surviving? Well, you are telling me that you believe that the Universe is infinite, I have no proof to the contrary nor do I wish that to be the case either (as unscientific as that is). However, by modifying Godel's Theorem, perhaps one will arrive at a proof that the Universe can not be finite. ;)
George: Knowing that our universe is finite makes me very happy because it means that something infinite does exist. As a dialectician, I require that the symbol ‘finite’ must be opposed by ‘infinite.’ With this pair of opposites, I am alle to connect something infinite to our finite universe. Infinite is only one attribute of the thing we call God. Connecting the Big Bang particle to a finite universe requires a new symbolic language which allows us to say ‘a finite thing is the origin of a finite universe.’ Then, to say ‘ a finite thing is the origin of all finite things in the universe’ becomes a contradiction.
Defining symbols precisely has become my new interest as I aged. Today, I recognize why F= ma, etc. are true statements. The definitions of the symbols on both sides of these equations are equal, which means that the meanings of the symbols used by physical sciences are precise and EXACT. These equations are thus certain in God’s intelligent design of our world.
However, when our mind moves into higher ideas, and one of these higher ideas is God, we should not expect these equations to apply to God and those things that exist beyond our planet.
If I said that the universe is infinite, I mean that it is a ‘finite infinity.’ This is not God’s infinity. Cantor spoke of finite infinities as ‘bad infinities’ or ‘mathematical infinities.’ Godel incompleteness theorem merely found God.
Unfortunately, today's scientists reject dialectical thought (e.g., Plato) and work only with one-sidedness and Aristotle’s logic.
Q_F: However, as to consciousness, well perhaps death comes to those who disbelieve in eternal life, and perhaps eternal suffering comes to those who believe in that sort of thing. I don't believe in eternal suffering, that it could ever be deserved, and I think that a direct cop-out on the non-existence of god.
George: To me consciousness is a variable that can develop. Jesus spoke of it as self knowledge. I don’t accept death. A person only passes on, by losing its body and developing a new body. This body exists as a seed waiting for being conceived as another human being. So caring for this planet and building all nations is important. A person should not be reborn is Africa if he or she has done a great job for God in the USA. Eternal suffering is not a part of God’s intelligent design. In fact, the concepts absolute maximum and absolute minimum are attributes will be found only in God.
At 2:05 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Hmmmm, well, if Dark Matter and Dark Energy show that the Universe is expanding then perhaps Superstring Theory is something that can explain the Cosmological Constant. I've seen no proofs contrary to the idea of N-dimensional Branes colliding and creating multidimensional universes (a current supersymmetric theory of the Big Bang), but then there is also the Penrose Twister Model which somewhat works on the side of Relativity to converge with Quantum Theory....the two theories are meeting in the middle somewhere as Twister String Theory.
However, what I've seen in all this is a photon that doesn't obey Maxwell's Equations....mine does (although I'm not sure if it represents reality). What do you think of this one (The curl of E is proportional to the time rate of change of B, and the E-field is in a flat 2 dimensional plane with no vectors parallel to time or the direction of travel)?
Quantum's Photon
At 5:59 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
respond to Q_F,
In my research, I accept the concept of a ‘thing in itself’ (or thing). To accept this concept, I had to reject Heraclitus’ doctrine of change. With this rejection, I became a dialectician (like Plato and Aristotle) an require, for instance, that ‘permanence’ coexists with ‘change’ and that other pair of opposites exists such as identity and difference, one and many, infinite and finite, etc.
I thus view God as a thing (with attributes) and view the universe as a set of things (with attributes). I believe that this view is correct because all children develop their minds by naming things, distinguishing them and relating them. In my life as an an electrical engineer, I also made things and united them into systems. So, as I aged, only things filled my mind and life.
But no thing can be known exactly. Kant said this and so did Hegel and others, especially after the scientific method was developed during the Renaissance, because the essence of things cannot be fully known by our senses and reasoning. Thus our knowledge of things cannot be completed with our symbolic languages’
The material you cover leads me to believe that the cosmologists have gone with Heraclitus and thus seek knowledge only of physical processes. If I am wrong on this point please let me know. Anyway, I am unable to respond intelligently to the very complex material you cover without a lengthy and deep study.
At 7:55 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Sure then. I'm thinking my idea may be correct, although I'd need to research it more myself before I say so.
Anyhow, I view God as a thing of the Mind. I view Religion as also a thing of the Mind. There are many things that the Mind concieves but that don't logically add up or can't be objectively measured/produced in the Physical World. I, however, do believe that the Mind is capable of knowing all things that are Logical and True, and all things that can be produced or measured in the Physical World. The Mind can also fabricate things that are illogical or physically impossible too. For this reason, I do not believe in Mind being over Matter, as that effect has never been physically produced in a peer reviewed manner. The Mind can't physically break any laws of Causality, but it can mentally construct all manner of imaginary falsities.
At 11:00 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F,
To me, Mind is the first thing to appear in our world so that it can measure all other things in our world. However, Mind cannot measure God because God does not exist in our world.
Since the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is Lord, Christianity thus becomes inconsistence with a monotheistic God. But God can measure Mind because he made it.
So, I agree with you when you say that Mind is over Mattrer. Measuring something does not mean that the measurer is a master and Matter is slave. Independence is found in everything. So no slaves exist. Only Man makes slaves.
Independence, which is found in everything in our world originates in God. In God, we see that all things must be One. But in our world this One must become Many. So the logical pair, one and many, is one way that God is logically related to our world. To see these things in our world, God’s infinite Essence must be contracted. For instance, think of an infinite line and that you can shorten it so it becomes a finite line. Our Mind thus sees God’s contraction of his infinite Essence is we create concepts such as ‘finitude’ and ‘plurality.’
I see the first things in our world as indivisible things, which can be modeled as geometrical points. Since indivisible things cannot be physical, the indivisible things are ‘spiritual atoms’ or ‘Spirits.’ So, the atoms of our world are not physical Matter. Here, I am following exactly the thoughts of Nicholas of Cusa, see “On Learned Ignorance”; Galileo, see ”Galileo Galilei and his life and his works” (Ch.6, Continua) by Raymond Seeger; and Gottfried Leibniz, see “Monadology.”
I connect Galileo to Nicholas of Cusa through these indivisible things, which can be called ‘indivisible Matter.’ Here is where physicists and I separate. I use dialectical thinking and require opposition to the symbol ‘indivisible.’ The opposition is the symbol ‘divisible.’ Here is the concept ‘body,’ which is formed by organizing the Spirits. This organization appeared first in th writings of Anaxagoras. Cusa referred to Anaxagoras’ organization with the phrase “Each thing in each thing.” Modern science found this organization when it found ‘functional relations.’
So, the initial universe is a complex functional relation among an infinite number of Spirits. The motion of this organization comes from the energy of the Spirits. Spirits are thus irreducible and complex things. Spiritual things can be called ‘things that are indivisible. And physical things can be called ‘things that are divisible.’ My book, “The First Scientific Proof of God,’covers most of this information. I believe that physical scientists missed the work of Galileo on the extension of bodies with indivisibles.
Sience seems to be progressive when it goes into space and try to reduce chemical things from gas to liquid and to solid. At this time, I don't expect scientific progress by searching for a completed mathematics of the cosmos. Our God is too complex.
At 4:58 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
(1) It seems to me that your main plea to the atheists is to accept a form of Einstienien Pantheism.
(2) I see no difference between calling those spirits (points in complex spacetime) infinitesimal or indivisible though.
(3) Also, the vibration of the complex fabric of the cosmos (string theory), in your belief, would be called the energy of the spirits that make up spiritual atoms.
Am I getting what you're saying here?
At 10:37 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F,
Q_F: (1) It seems to me that your main plea to the atheists is to accept a form of Einsteinian Pantheism.
George: No. I am a panentheist. At Einstein’s time, panentheism was unknown because the translations of the writings of Nicholas of Cusa were flawed. A new translation came from Jasper Hopkins at the Univ. of Minnesota in 1979. With Cusa we get panentheism and the infinite qua infinite (infinite becomes a noun rather than a verb).
The Jews and Christians accepted pantheism and believe that God’s spirit was in them and can talk to them. I reject pantheism and thus challenge the religious teachings of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Q_F: (2) I see no difference between calling those spirits (points in complex spacetime) infinitesimal or indivisible though.
George: If the unification of spacetime is found and is consistent with Leibniz’s space and time then it might follow that views of God can be expected to differ from one symbolic language to all other symbolic language. Accordingly, some symbolic languages can be expected to be stronger than other symbolic languages. Cusa says that God can be understood by any worker. For example, a philosopher has no advantage over a shoemaker. So if my symbolic language is useful to you, then your symbolic language and the symbolic language of physical mathematicians will always be the strongest compared to my weaker symbols. The precise meanings of the symbols found in the laws of physicists indicate that these symbols are the strongest symbols we have found so far and that other symbols are still weak.
Q_F: (3) Also, the vibration of the complex fabric of the cosmos (string theory), in your belief, would be called the energy of the spirits that make up spiritual atoms.
George: This makes sense. Each Spirit differ and have an infinity of finite essences. So, the infinity of each Spirit forms a string. Motion begins when each string vibrates in an orderly manner. Spirits thus reflects the permanence of the universe whereas the Strings reflect all changes in the universe.
Q_F; Am I getting what you're saying here.
George; Yes. But with Spirts and Strings, I do not expect the CERN smasher to find a free physical particle. I expect all physical particle to be found only in some String structure.
At 5:07 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
All very interesting views then.
At 5:30 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
At this point, perhaps it's all speculation of what the CERN smasher will reveal. I'm sure you will find these words spiritually relevent here:
Feynman - Not Knowing
At 7:42 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
reresponse to Q-F,
You stimulated my thoughs to look deeper into a few books that I have not read yet but bought them on a hunch.
At 7:59 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q__F,
Feymman has a similar feeling as I have. Nicholas of Cusa's 'On Learned ignorance' teaches the reality of the pair of opposites, knowing and not knowing. According to Plato, not knowing is something positive and different than knowing. It iss something that we cannot know.
At 3:00 AM,
Quantum_Flux said…
Hey, one possibility is the spiritual atom, but there are certainly a few other competing possibilities that have been considered, and most likely other ones that haven't even been considered yet. Although it is always fun to make guesses about what will be found though.
At 10:26 AM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F,
I say yes because God's Actuality and Possibility are one. This oneness in God means that evetything in our contracted world are actual because all actualities ogiginate frome contracted possibilities. So guesses are important. To go beyond gusses, I require a guide. The guide I use is the concept of 'consistency.' In other words my guess must be consistent with a monotheistic God. If not, I throw the guess away.
On the nature of energy, scientists might take a deeper look at its String and its origin, function, decrease and increase, and aging of the Spirit 'Mitochondria.'
According to Leibniz, there are dominant Spirits. He says that dominan Spiritsh hold a basic principle that organizes all 'things' found in our world.
At 2:13 PM,
Quantum_Flux said…
There are certainly mutually consistant possibilities though, in the data there are ranges of uncertainty whereby these possibilities are spanned. In my belief, only one possibility is correct though, but I can live with myself in not knowing which is correct until that possibility has been further determined.
However, can the range of possibility ever be narrowed down to one?
At 3:09 PM,
George Shollenberger said…
response to Q_F,
I belive that possibilities can be reduced to one because my system of though under God requires that no two things are identical. There are no two twims, etc.
George
Post a Comment
<< Home