Carl Was Right: We Really Are Made of “Star Stuff”

Here are a few things that we might never have been told, at least, not in this way.  We are actually made out of the same stuff, of which our formula nebula was made, that collapsed into what is now our star, the Sun.

You were made from the stars, and we are made FOR the stars — our future home, if the trajectory of current science and technological development continue.  This is nearly inevitable, though probably far off into the future.

You were made for very great things.  This needs a little explaining.  Given my studies, humans are capable of extraordinarily great things, because of our design.

It is clear that we are designed.  In fact, we were not just designed, we were engineered, and I am sure of it.  The complex systems of systems that make up people run so high in the range of complex functionality tha the probability that they could have come together “accretively” (evolution) is very, very, very slight.

The ability of DNA to yield utterly remarkable carbon-based technology (that would be YOU) testifies that our future is one of “hyperintelligence.”  We were all created to be hyperintelligent — brilliantly wise and sublime thinkers.

I have come through my study and analysis of DNA to be entirely WOW-ed by the value (present, but far more in the future) and wisdom we represent (don’t laugh).  DNA shows incredible design wisdom and it can do things that even humans cannot do — yet.

It — and so also we — is a building machine.  It builds the impossible with surprising ease, and with untold skill.  And it even made us extensible (meaning we will become so much greater in the future than we are now that it’s a little scary).

So here is the “punchline” for today’s post — when you next look in the mirror, you should see brilliance and beauty, value and great things.  You were born for the stars.

More-than-just-amazing star stuff.  It’s who you are.  And you were made to build.

I’d bet my best science on it.



The World, the Mentalese And Your Dictionary

In 1994, Dr. Steven Pinker of M.I.T. wrote a fascinating book, The Language Instinct, promoting the idea that we all have a kind of built-in propensity for language development that comes with a unique kind of “hardware,” or mental grammar-syntax-logic platform, he (with others) has dubbed “the mental-ese.”  Here, the suffix -ese is like that of “Chinese” or “Japanese,” indicating “the language of” (the human mind).  Only this cognitive frame does not have its own vocabulary.

Long story short, I believe he is probably correct, notwithstanding a few problems that attend the ways he goes about arguing for his central claims — he builds a kind of cumulative case in favor of his thesis.  My take on his thesis would add that it would be a far better way to approach the subject by studying the very best users of each language studied (meaning the members which make up the class of all “Cicero-es”), rather than youngsters and many cases of disabled language usage (and inabilities or dysfunctions) and that the ideal value system should be assumed at the outset as a central part of the innate language platform that shapes our mind(s).

Despite his (fairly strenuous) objections to it, I still favor the incommensurability thesis (Thomas Kuhn et al), and do not believe that the shared mentalese — even if proven — would require or permit the conclusion he seems to believe that it does.  Other factors might contribute to the incompatibility of social forms (or paradigms) when applied to the real world that go beyond the mental frame with which one applies them to the material world to create civilization (form).  Metaphysical outlooks have in fact played a critical role, especially religious ones, that bear axiomatic foundations held immune from revision, in some instances of real, historical — “incompatibility of reality-schemes.”

Rememberest thou the eleventh commandment, Dr. PINKER, My monotheistic Fiction can beat up Your monotheistic ICEBERG — real good. Kentucky be praised.   

The role that one’s worldview takes in shaping, or in some instances even ruining, one’s own (natural) cognitive frame and disposition, can be significant.  In other words, I would add the hypothesis to Dr. Pinker’s that if an individual uses a language in the context of a worldview largely at odds (in certain mission-critical ways) with the mentalese, it can actually ruin a person.  And this in fact happens all the time, and has happened often throughout history.   Pressing our “software” against our “hardware” has been an extraordinary problems for humans — from the outset of language and earlier.  This may even cause much of what we have identified as “evil behaviors” (anti-humanitarian, even barbaric actions) and as “insanity” — which is by matter of degree (not exactly a yes or no proposition).

For those with the academic prowess and the willpower, I would invite inquiry into such questions as these.  To what extent can a person be “ruined,” (rendered anti-social or criminal) and does evil-perceived come from driving our languages and ideologies against the categories of the mentalese?  If so, what about Nihilism, which often seems to have in its ranks “people who quit” (civilization, objective knowledge, morality, etc).

If this line of reasoning turns out to be correct, Dr. Pinker’s book could have unintended consequences (profitable, medical ones) for the study mental pathologies (disorders), and the like, into the future.

One of the categories, in my own studies of language, which I had already become convinced, will necessarily work against our excellent frame of mind, is what professors have opposed for decades, namely “conflict language,” summarized by the word “against.”  I believe that every conception that involves social antagonism will necessarily work against the mentalese.  My reasoning runs thus:

DNA built the mentalese.  DNA builds families, yielding ready-to-reproduce human MALES AND FEMALES.  The survival of families so yielded depends upon their co-operation — not competition.  DNA builds.  Families are built to build.  The mentalese was built to help us build.The co-operation of families, both within and between them, remains an important purpose of the mentalese.  Conflict works against the basic construction, therefore, both of DNA and its consequent mentalese;  therefore, conflict (language and concepts) must run contrary to the mentalese and its categories, by which it is fitted to the world.

This would mean that conflict language ought to be removed from our natural tongues, and the many of professors (mentioned above) were correct all along.  I am well aware that this implies the recommendation of an “ortholeptic” (correct speech) dictionary, although I have no “stick” in mind for punishing its scrabble-addicted violators, who need those extra points to win.  The French, and other governments, of course, have created such a dictionary, which I absolutely favor, to distinguish the official from the unofficial tongues, so that the universities and grammar schools can maintain their uniformity and accuracy.

I would make a similar challenge against what I have called the problem of “empty reference” language and the mentalese categories.

In any case, let ortholepsis run wild. I believe it can do nothing but improve our consistency with our natural “linguistic disposition” toward the real world.  And science will only benefit in the long of it, from careful language management.



Tetragamy: Marriage by Two Sets of Two (2 Pairs)

Imagine that all of western civilization was based upon a religious notion of the building blocks of society — heterosexual monogamy.  Now imagine that they got it wrong, some 300%.  By this I mean that DNA became known to the world as the “Double Helix,” (1961) by Crick and Watson.  Then, not so coincidentally, immediately thereafter, the social order began to change radically, as the “Free Lovr” movement began.

But they ddnt have a better model to follow, so after turning away from the older “monogamy,” they simply experimented with sexuality and community.  Like the older Emperors of the ancient world, who often took a small number of wives (3 or 2 was typical), and other number of concubines might also comprise their family equation, I am advocating now a different model for the nuclear family.  I hold that ideally it would come to consist of two (natural or adopted) brothers, who marry two (NOA) sisters — though each of these pairs could consist of “best friend” pairs, either male, or female (BFF’s) or both.

But the brother-sister pairs guarantee that the relationahsip would remain “gender-closed,” or heterosexual pairs only.  Consider what effect this kind of family would have on childrearing — each of the children would have four parents (not as many babysitters though), and 16 grandparents.   The extended family would boom within a few generations to yield “a people,” or “a team.”

The model mimics the actions of DNA’s “Base pairs,” which (DNA) molecule sports exactly 4 proteins in two pairs — “purines” and “pyramidines.”

Religion gave us the one-armed and one-legged “nuclear family” that (arguably) failed miserably, because it lacked what “The square of synergy” has as a most-basic social system — redundancy in systems, for mutual support and edification.  The ideal value system underlying this family would make it, and the WEST, far more stable and lasting than it has ever been, across generations.

This kind of marriage, because it is relationally more complex, involving four individuals, would of course make marriage nec. very “Planned and strategic,” in its design, with much good advice and counseling aforethought.  These marraiges would in effect be “engineered.”    It would seem a far more “scientific” kind of planning that it has been in the past.  No harm here.

What if religion has been wrong by 300% the entire time?  Four cheers for tetragamy.

In the world of economics, if we compare tetragamy to traditional (I call it “broken”) monogamy, we find that the disposable income factor soars in favor of T.; Even if it takes all of the first income to pay the bills, all three remaining checks become non-necessary income — money that we could either invest or spend.

This means that the personal economic history of the planet has been retarded greatly, causing incredible unnec. hardship for people who followed the “broken” monogamy model of marriage and family.  Tetragamy is an economic superpower by comparison; and its economic effects on the future of global trade and economics is potentially staggering.

Free markets absolutely vote in favor of Tetragamy.

What about Genetics?  Same thing.  Genetics favors tetragamy, since DNA falls out as exactly 4 proteins (They begin with G, C, T, A), that make up “Base pairs — two of them called “Purines” and “Pyramidines.”  In other words, they combine in 2 of one kind and as 2 of another, but they do not mix (crossover). This means Pu 1 can combine with Pu 2, but not with pyramidines, and Pyr 1 can combine with Pyr 2, but not with purines.

In the case of tetragamy, if one husband, for whatever reason, cannot yield children to one of his wives, the other husbands most likely could.  And since the children belong to all in the fourfold family, this redundancy in the familial system, yet enables to family to grow (nearly) unhindered.

The world of genetics favors tetragamy.

But what of the law?  Didn’t the US outlaw all forms of polygamy back in the 1880’s?  That is true.  However, it was clearly a Christian nation at the time, and this was clearly a Christian law, one that even came with Scripture verses quoted to support its initiation.  Since then — Brown v. Board of Education et al (ref. to like cases) — mandates the separation of Church and State.  This is therefore, like Shariah law, forbidden in the US.

The prohibition of polygamy was a deliberate attempt to Christianize (or to keep Christian) the nation, which has since thrown off this cultural baggage.  It mandated monogamy, and the other laws in place show this was a specific attempt to mandate a kind of monogamy consistent with Mosaic legislation, which commands the state to stone to death all adulterers, and to kill all homosexuals and witches.  This is the nature of that “monogamy” law – we might call it some crazy-ass Shi’ite.

The state of Utah dissented greatly from the monogamy mandate, and coincidentally, was the only one with a golden spike in its rails (promontory point).  Given tetragamy, this is fitting, if coincidental.  In any case, Utah would have won today, by challenging that this Blue Law clearly violates the separation of Church and State, and spray-paints the Wall set there since WW II in the U.S. courts.

The redrawing of the nuclear family in terms of tetragamy would cause in a relatively brief period, a long-lasting surge in the productivity of the global economy, and a newfound stability that begins to grow underneath it.  There are very good reasons to expect crime rates to drop as well wherever tetragamy flourishes.  But perhaps I can blog on this topic at a later time.

How I Know That We are Designed to be “Hyper-intelligent” — Yes YOU too

I have been reading a very helpful book lately, one that has proven invaluable to my quest for the ideal language.  It bears the title, “Language as Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language.”  The M.I.T. Professor responsible for this literary outrage, is called “Steven.”  And He has a surname too. He works at MIT and writes books, and other stuff.  And he hates the word “disinterested” like I hate red beets.  And his reasons for this are just as good as mine.  Linguists are picky consumers, and they have every right to be when dealing with English, and even worse, “English-speakers,” and still worse, the American “TV commercial sound-byte” English-Imposter.  Word up.

As we all know, I favor an entirely different, rebuild of the ancient Greek (and some English, and French), using the ideal value system as the paradigm-framework, around which to build it.  It self-consciously omits much of the present-day English vocabulary, including all references to death, and death-language, empty-reference (deception) LGG  (e.g. “negative one,” “angels,” “Messiah,” “fulfilled prophecy,” “infinite being,” etc), vice and transgression LGG (e.g. evil, sin, bastard, tramp, coward, etc).  We can employ circumlocutory LGG aplenty (e.g. “Perhaps he’ll be more courageous tomorrow”), antithetical LGG, by which I mean the LGG of “against,” where it means the “social-relational” version of “against,” not the physics of handclapping — e.g. “he slapped one hand against the other.) and, of course, the ever-dreary “conflict and tragic-speak” vernacular.  Religious LGG that tends to undermine the preconditions for the sciences and critical arts (miracle-speak, etc) is, also, as it were, to be tossed out the window like Eutychus (ref. to Acts 20), but without the bounce-back power.  Scientists will not wish to follow our lady of the holy tortilla.

With what kind of LGG does this leave us?  Exactly the unpacking of the IVS will show the way, where “truth and integrity” includes the vocabularies of the sciences and other critical disciplines that aim at veridical accuracy (“how things really are”), profitability, progress, excellence, “virtue-speak,” and the like.  If we use functional (performance) definitions for the performance of virtuous deeds, we do not need contrasts (the via negative) to show us the way.  What is charity?  Well, er, it meets the needs of people, prevents hunger, etc.  We could use illustrations, “Courage is what you see when you see a lion charging its opponent.  It retreats before nothing” to describe them as well, indicating that sound communication does not always need definitions.  Sometimes descriptions (even proverbs) will do well enough to convey the point.

What is the difference between the phrases, “old prophets,” and “prophets of old”?  Sometimes word-order changes more than the denoted sense intended, and connotes new information.

This means that the ideal LGG will have to pay much attention to PHRASES, not just letters (phonemes) or syllables (morphemes), or official words (lexemes), or even sentences (a brief [else Puritan] collection of questionable and awkward syntagmemes, up with which at times we ought not put — brethren).

My tongue-in-cheek challenge demands of anyone who disbelieves in hell to read Puritan literature.  Thou shalt repent.  The Middle Ages were indeed dark.   They actually left the Puritans to this planet as its most literate legacy.  Be Afraid.  1500 years of religious development, and we were left with the Spanish inquisition and puritan, homiletical brutality (sermonizing ad infinitum).  If these together cannot make one a nontheist, nothing can.  Some theists are bulletproof.

A quick glance above will show that the ideal LGG would in fact remove most of the puritan-speak from the more universal tongue.

And now for a brief clarification. Do you, or do you not! believe in the gods, Dr. Craig?  I believe in two, or perhaps at most four, Ideal persons, who PROcreated this universe into existence.  I believe in no creation account, but a “romance and fusion” account of high-energy quantum collision, approximating twice the speed of C squared — the natural motion-speed of the Ideal Persons.  I am a personalist, but not a theist.  Why are you not a theist?  The definitions and descriptions of every one of the so-called gods or goddesses of every religions displays persons that are anything but ideal — especially Yahweh, who, according to his own record killed every man, woman and child, past present and future, by imposing a worldwide curse.  The countercharge that it was a JUST ACT puts YHWH in complete agreement with the devil of the same book, and gives him the same material adequacy.  The only real difference between that evil bastard YHWH and the devil is that, where the devil would toss all humans into hell — which YHWH created, not the devil — his counterpart would only toss MOST of them into hell.  Both would have created a hell, but Satan (in the literature) could not.  This makes YHWH infinitely worse for material adequacy than the devil.  Fortunately, the whole hog-wash account in phonier than a 2 and a half dollar bill.

And the Puritans would remind us that such lies are, of course, from the devil.  But which ONE?  Ask a theologian.   The quantum fluctuations about which physicist often write and speak, pre- “BB” are entirely consistent with what I believe, prior to T = 0.  Only a collision at twice C squared is a bit more than a fluctuation.  It’s even more than a particle accelerator could manage.  It means “E = MC squared x 2” = approximately T = .0001 —  As we say, “Mas o Menos.”

Now, back to the topic at hand.  Children learn and use LGG with surprising facility and acumen, with the trial-and-error stage flourishing around 2 years or so.  They seem to think in binary ways (in word-pairs, or idea-pairs) , with their earliest speech sounding like “Hi calico” or “cat here,” “dry hands,” or “more cereal.”

They are (we are) brilliant little linguists-in-the-making, and they are capable at an early age of creative idea-management.  When they learn LGG, they learn creatively and experimentally, as though rudimentary science comes instinctively to them, with skill sets that grow (around age 9) to begin to include the use of concrete logic, and then (by age 12 or so) they begin to add basic, abstract reasoning skills to the “instinctive” tool set.

Ordinary LGG does in fact “come with” a basic number theory (use of numerals and operations to manage quantities) — e.g. represented by words like “Multiplied by,” “four plus six,” “sum of,” etc. — logic and rules to follow in employing it — e.g. “therefore,” “because of,” “in light of the fact that…,” “This means that …” “This implies that …,” “Compared to,” “In contrast with,” etc.

The logic of grammar seems somehow built-in, and arises from our earliest years within the proper environment.   And since LGG has both a math and a logic to unpack, these skills — concrete and abstract reasoning — arrive just on time to enable us to “unfold the language framework” learned earlier, as it touches upon questions of number-crunching and idea-munching.   And again, even when given difficult mental tasks to manage, youngster often behave quite creatively, even surprising their teachers at times.

The brilliance and glory of mind-growing and cognitive prowess, not to mention the reading of books, seems to stall for most people around age 20.  This is an entirely arbitrary phenomenon that is unnecessary.  In fact, with shorthand strategies taht are highly effective learning helps — tips, tricks and tactics — we could easily accelerate the glory of this process, and then continue not only its growth, but its accelerated counterpart, by linking an individual’s study to that of a like-minded “learning group,”  or think tank, for budding wonks.

Our DNA is easily built for this, and given that it is quite possible to arrange such a group so as to cause a kind of learning “synergy” — of which Yogi (Berra) may have said “It’s like a vicious cycle, without all the vice!” — the accelerated pace of learning, with correcting assistance along the way from one’s peers, could easily propel the average learner into the hyper-intelligent (roughly, though not exactly, the multiple Ph.D.) category.

I believe that humans were designed for hyper-intelligence, and that we will all become just this in time.  Once we learn more about our instincts for hyper-learning, and how they best fit together, the aim of technology will probably shift toward aiding and abetting either the development of hyper-intelligent (and very wise) people, and then — onto the obvious — ultra-intelligence (and hyper-wise) people — or both.

It is what I have learned about people and our instincts, what science and technology could do to enhance these, and what the strategies and dynamics of people groups, and the learning strategies that can be employed by them to further enhance their Ideal learning status, which together have convinced me that we were and are designed for very great things.  The Ideal LGG and Value System offer the keys to the entire process enabling and retaining wisdom and understanding throughout our — well (DNA) predestined, extraordinary future of excellence and progress, or value and honor.

To quote Hugo Weaving (Sounding a bit like Carl Sagan), “IT IS INEVITABLE.”

Just HOW intelligent and Wise do you think we could become?  My answer to this question has changed over time with more extensive research into the capabilities of some of the greatest innovations ever.  Think of the power of these elements combined: Free Markets, An Excellent Written Constitution (Upgrade), the Computer and related Tech, Modern Science and Technology, Empowered Research Groups — Add these together, then multiply.  I believe now that there are actually no limits but time and entropy.  And trans-generationally, this limit will disappear (We will live longer and longer). The above elements and time will also help us defeat entropy progressively as well.

“The sky is the limit” is now my view.  It means we really have only imagined limitations (real, but ephemeral) that we can defeat over time.  [Just say it.] Okay, “Up, up and away!”

This should be our new self-concept.  Our self-concept is our future.

My Ideal Music-Theory Quest (Continued)

What is excellent music?  My music theory aims at answering this primary question (though others are important).  The first part of my answer is: excellent music is beautiful music.  Part two is this: excellent music is orderly (wise, investigative, exporatory) music.  Part three?  Excellent music is celebratory music.  Four: excellent music is about love and other humanitarian concerns.

Each of these answer-parts will, of course, need exposition at some length to be sufficiently clear.  But suffice it so far to say that I believe that IDEAL (most excellent) music falls within the parameters of the Romantic tradition, then “Neo-Romantic.”  Still narrowing the topic — then vocal harmony music.  What next?  Then, expanding, or else reshaping (or both), I believe that the best music will take a turn for the ideal.  Ideal concerns are those naturally stemming from the ideal value system, and from the operational and functional values of human DNA.

Human DNA actually has preferences and practices.  It makes people.  We are a chatty lot by instinct, and so I say “DNA is chatty” (inherently linguistic).  Our Instincts (from DNA) display a value system that matches the “success features” of what we see as “highly successful people” (and groups) in the historical record.

The neo-Ideal tradition of vocal harmony (It is in the making presently) is the stuff of angels that are all-too-human (Grin).  We are closing in on the ideal.  But it will take time.  I am studying as fast as I can.  What drives this grasp of music?  The singular idea that the universe was actually (not just on the Disney Big Screen), really born from love.  It is actually what we are.  “We” here, is the entire cosmos.  But is going to take a while for us to figure out what that means (apparently).   The ideal value system is the best guide yet.    The ideal language (still working on this too) will advance us even further.

It may well be that the ideal language is musical, with each of a series of rehearsed speech cards (one for this social situation, another for that) carrying its own melody.  Perhaps each topical group of cards will have its own melody.   Progress awaits.

Beauty and Majesty: The Ideal Value System Explained

See the source image

       The Ideal Value System indicates Beauty and Majesty as a “mission-critical” (‘transcendental’ in the philosopher’s jargon) feature of the universe, and helps to explain “why we are here.”  A photograph like this makes it easy to believe that “this (cosmos) is no accident.”  It’s more like a Rembrandt.

However, one of the difficulties in evaluating the grand lustre of the vibrant side of life and the natural world stems from the fact that it makes an appeal to all five senses, though most think of beauty as “aimed at the eyes” (What you see, rather than what you taste or hear).  However, in the interest of clarity and comprehensibility, I should like to give a brief description of “beauty and majesty.”

Beauty is not merely “in the eye of the beer-holder.”   These are some of its salient features:

  1. Light & color.     These can be “Luminosity,” “Brilliance,” “Radiance,” etc.
  2. Proportion & Symmetry.  This label aims at “Balance,” “Even-ness,” and “Medial” or averaged (approximately).
  3. Uniformity & Variety (diversity).  These two together can make for a dazzling display.
  4. Order & Boundary Arrangement.   This could look like linear structure, or curvature (or both).
  5. Complementarity and Fitted-ness.  You see this when two halves of something designed to fit together mesh neatly.  In the case of gustatory beauty, this would be like chocolate and peanut butter both in one round-ridged, two-cup candy (which shall ree-main nameless).  Some have said that the Yin needs the Yang.
  6. Motion & Change.   When something moves from the “corner of the eye,” it grabs our attention.  Motion perceived instinctively commands our regard.  We could call this the beauty of development, growth or “play” upon the senses.
  7. Constancy or Intermittence.   This is sometimes labeled “continuity or dis-c.”.   It is obvious with “dots versus lines” in writing, or the beat of a drum v. the song of the smoother violin.
  8. Similarity & dissimilarity.   This could be the contrast of shadow and light in a painting.

It is possible to derive other features of beauty in different arts or disciplines, but these cover a great deal of “ideal turf,” enough to show the character of beauty, with which we are already somewhat intuitively familiar, since it has transcendental status.  Consider also the relationship between beauty and value — what makes gold so valuable if not in large measure its beauty?

Some of the religious pantheons of old also insist on the hendiadic connectedness between beauty and love — as with “Venus” or “Aphrodite.”   The romantic reasons for this are more than obvious.  “Love” is translated in the ideal value system as its counterpart in the world of “material adequacy.”  MA names the real difference(s) that something makes in the natural world — its distinguishing effects.  When love makes a real difference in the real world, we call its “power to effect” by the name of “kindness and gentleness.”   Whether it is the love that a father has for his son or daughter, or for his German Shepherd, it always displays G & K.

Some will have asked, “If your Ideal Value System is so grand as you suggest, why does it no even display “love” as a primary element of the ideal?  I answer that, of course, that it does.  But it does so in a very important way — by showing the most essential, and universal, material aspects of love.

Finally, the term “love” names a very important set of ideas, but these leave open the question of (mis-) interpretation by remaining (often) fair to vague or open-ended in the use of expressions containing this word.  It is often far too general, vague and needing a much clearer sense that what a speaker of writer offers his audience.

Gentleness and kindness remain far more specific, and have a sort of “rubber-meets-the-road” tangible quality to them. We easily recognize good will and a soft touch for what they are — a way of showing real, not merely imagined, love for someone else.  This pair bares the overlap between friendship, maternal affection, romantic attention, or even “be kind to animals week.”   A soft answer (gentle) can turn away wrath. And a kind (encouraging) word can cheer one’s face.

So Beauty and Majesty seem to bear important relations to both profit and value, on the one hand, and to Gentleness and Kindness on the other.    For now, I shall leave off with the suggestion, that, because these two hendiads form part of the “critical core” of the same ideal value system, they “fit together neatly by design.”  Beauty and Majesty “fit” together with Kindness and Gentleness.  I believe that these are integrated neatly in the ones I call the “Ideal Persons” (Our divine parents) who run this cosmos.

More about these topics later.


Build It Upon Verb-bits: A Revolutionary Approach to Language Creation

According to Language As Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language, a fascinating book for those who love language studies, written by MIT Professor, Steven Pinker (1994), the natural tongues so far have taken their foundations (“Atomic” basics) different forms of nouns.  By “forms,” I mean that some display the plural form (bookS) or the singular (book) etc.

So it would seem that nouns have been ruling the world.  But, I maintain that this approach to language building fundamentally MISrepresents the way things really are.  The two most important features of the observable world are 1. everything operates within the context of SYSTEMS, and 2. Everything is in process (Matter-energy is in motion).  THIS BEARS PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS for the ideal language.

A language that would be “realistic,” that is, show us the truth about the real world — and one that would prove far more useful to the sciences and critical arts that aim to discover and describe the natural world — must necessary start is “basic bricks” with verbal constructions (verb-bits) not nominal one (noun-bits).

Nouns represent STASIS, verbs show change.  Nouns “sit there.”  These couch-potatoes barely “Subsist.”  They are just barely hanging on.  Verbs, on the other hand, careen, soar, plunge and swing.  They dart and dive, bob and weave, and get the job done.  Compared to verbs, nouns are half-dead.  Living things grow and thrive, change and develop, mature and organize.

The real world consists not so much as “things,” but as phenomena and “things-in-process,” especially when viewed over significant periods of time. The more time you allow to a “viewing sample” (an observation), the more even a solid object (e.g. window pane) is seen to “flow” — here downward. Yet, it seems static to the eye.

We should also weigh carefully the other verbals — gerunds (verbs that act as nouns) and participles (verbs that act as adjectives), and adverbs.  Long live the verb-bit construction crew.

This Heraclitean advertisement aims to show the importance of the fact that our natural languages have so far proven the handiwork of children learning how to speak a language well.  This means that languages have left out of the vocabulary-at-bottom that proceeds from values that seek to make “language-dom” more scientific.  Recall that children learn to use concrete logic at just about the time that their window of language-learning opportunity comes to a close (around 9-ish), so that languages were not put together with logical considerations — concrete or abstract — at the formative level.  These thus have to be add-ons.

This is not good.  It bespeaks a reconstructive effort like the one found here, that adds the best FORMAL elements (from ideal math-logic [set theory cannot be omitted]) to the better efforts of the most important languages procured so far.

We will also need to consider the special relationships of logic involved in managing the “quantities, qualities, modalities and relations” that undergird our (somewhat contrived) experience of the real world.  These are the lenses we have for taking on the world, like it or no.

Systems, like alphabets (and coffee makers with filtration systems), do in fact rule the universe.

We have solar systems, nervous systems, electrical systems, weather systems, language systems, and on it goes, in all different aspects of the real world.  Nowhere can you run; nowhere can you hide, from systems.  It is your destiny, Luke.  To improve scientific investigation of the natural world, we will need to take seriously in the 21st century, the addition to the university curriculum, various courses in the study of systems.  “Systems studies” should even become available as a B.A. or B.S. degree at universities and college.  These curricula and courses are guaranteed to yield a crop of brilliant new students of all the traditional fields of study, with a host of new insights and technologies.

Change is in the air.  It’s all about process. We are witnessing the law of progress at work.  Verbs are “What’s Happening Now.”   And systems have it “Goin’ On.”

If fortune and the fates should favor it, I shall continue this Hegelian commercial later.  The dialectic is winning.


Introducing the Ideal Value System

I’ve been studying a great deal lately (as usual). Consequently, I have many new insights to offer.  Here are some of them in brief:  I believe that not all value systems are created equal, and that, DNA, taken as our template, prefers one of them in particular, and this DNA-preferred value system represents the “telos” of human design, the purpose at which it aims. For what purpose (s) are we built just so, and do not take some other form?

It is also well to notice that DNA has an operational set of preferences and priorities that come with the proteins that comprise it.  It has values (and priorities), and these values set the pace for all of life.  This defeats the fact-value dichotomy of the positivist agenda by showing that some (if not all) facts come with values.

Notice (below) that this ideal value system is “hendiadic” ( a two-fold unity), and that its hendiad units (pairs) take an 8-fold form.   These pairs display the highest and most excellent values, which should (and shall) define the future. “Progress” leads us from the present in to the future, but “progress toward what?” we might ask]. Progress will take us toward better conformity to the ideal value system as we mature in our humanity (become better people).

To that end we ought to pursue and promote these values:

Wisdom and Understanding; Life and Joy; Gentleness and Kindness; Profit and Value (production); Excellence and Progress; Beauty and Majesty; Honor and Dignity; Truth and Integrity. What do we mean by W & U?

Wisdom & Understanding

This hendiad unfolds as:

  1. Patience & Self-Control
  2. Discretion & Discernment
  3. Strategy & Tactics (= Efficient Management & Finesse)
  4. Education & Training
  5. Insight & Innovation
  6. Study and Application of Ideal Values and Principles
  7. The Study of Systems and Process (Change)
  8. The Study of Time and the Future (Includes a future-oriented — optimistic outlook).

Life & Joy

These Values Include the practical aspects I call:

  1. Diet & Exercise  (I maintain that the best one is a version of the Vegan diet I call the Ultra-life diet.).
  2. Freedom & Opportunity
  3. Friendship & Work/ Labor  (Wealth)
  4. Entertainment & Leisure (Fun/ Play time)
  5. Romance & Marriage (Family Life)
  6. Arts & Culture (Includes Community-life, including 8 Annual, Festival-Days – )
  7. (Skilled/ Rehearsed) Language & Humor

Profitability & Value

Excellence & Progress

Honor & Dignity

Beauty & Majesty (What you see in the sky at night)

Gentleness & Kindness

Truth & Integrity

As opportunity shall avail, I intend to expound upon these Ideal Values (please note that they remain a SYSTEM of values) at some length to illumine just what I mean by invoking this sort of language.

I will attempt to expound these at greater length at a later time when convenient.

The Bible As DreamWorld: According to the Bible

Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them.” {And} “Look well into thyself; there is a source of strength [Beauty] which will always spring up if thou wilt always look.”
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

My earlier stipulation that the Biblical record actually originally consisted largely of the dream material taken from ancient royals, prophets, and more rarely priests was not an ad hoc suggestion.  Years of my personal study and research support it.  Here are some noteworthy points in favor of my own perspective on this matter:

  1. Genesis culminates with Joseph as the chief of both Egypt, and in a way, of the whole planet. This was the result of his stated dream (Gen. 37.8). In the story, he was “called a dreamer” by his brothers who despised him.
  2. Joseph was simply in the tradition of many of the patriarchs before him who all saw visions. The “Bible gateway” search-engine portal online lists 22 references to dreams in Genesis alone.
  3. Here (20.3) king Abimelech has a dream. (28.10- 12) records Jacob’s dream of “jacob’s ladder.”
  4. Gen. 31.11 say an angel of God spoke to Jacob in a dream.
  5. 31.24 Laban dreams a dream.
  6. We are told that “the interpretation of dreams belongs to God,” implying that dreams have prophetic import, not mere a kind of random (trivial) status we apply to them today; and Gen. 41.11 indicates that “every dream has a meaning of its own.” Ecclesiastes 5.7 cynically contradicts this (otherwise nearly universally-held) biblical view, however, saying, “much dreaming is meaningless.”
  7. Numbers 12.6 equates (prophetic) “visions” with “dreams.” Dreams throughout the Bible are consider “night visions,” and while moderns distinguish “dreams” from visions, the ancient most often did not. The apocalyptic visions of Daniel and Revelation are presaged with each falling either asleep, or else into a kind of trance. The visions were dreams.
  8. Deuteronomy 13.3 calls “prophets” “dreamers,” like Joseph.
  9. Judges 7 has Gideon overhearing an enemy’s dream, which both sides take to be prophetic, and it turns out to be so. The man was no prophet, but his dream comes true anyway. This again shows the ancient superstitions about dreams and dreaming – that they determine history.
  10.    1 Kings 3.5 has God appearing to Solomon to ask for whatever he might wish in a dream. He asks for wisdom and impresses God.
  11. Job 4.13 mentions “disquieting dreams.” The ancients called them “night-terrors” when we call them “nightmares.” These are the basis for the apocalyptic literature. Job 7.14 has Job complaining that “even then (when he sleeps) you frighten me with dreams, and terrify me with visions.”
  12. Job 20.8 calls dreams “visions.”
  13.  Isaiah 27.9 again equates prophecy (prophetic visions) and dreams. This is extremely important, because it makes all the prophetic corpus of the Bible, the telling and interpreting of dream material (by clear implication)
  14. Daniel 2.28 takes the same view of all dreams as prophetic, and calls his God a revealer of mysteries because he is the “God of heaven,” not merely the God of kings.
  15.  Daniel 1.7 indicates his unique ability to “understand dreams and visions of all kinds.”   The Revelation continues Daniel’s visions material, and John shows obvious parallels to Daniel.
  16.  According to Daniel 2.9, dreams were so important to some kings in the ancient world, that they would be willing to kill all their prophets (seers and diviners) if they proved unable to tell them the meaning of royal dreaming.  This is because bonuses and other corporate incentives were not yet invented.
  17.  This also implies that the New Testament shows the fulfillment of dreams, and so continues to fulfillment the dream material.
  18. The end of the NT confirms this. Matthew has an angel speaking to Joseph in a dream (tells him to return a by a different route than he had planned) at the outset of the NT, and Revelation shows the fulfillment of all the prophets as a kind of dream-vision material.
  19. Matthew 1.20 shows dreams so important that one should follow them to decide to marry even very controversial persons (Joseph is told to take Mary to wife in a dream, and he does).
  20. Finally, Matthew 27.10 improbably suggests that even Pontius Pilate (a Roman Procurator) decided to follow the advice of his wife, “who suffered many things in a dream” because of Jesus, and PP supposedly complies (at first).  Dreams were this important to ancients, even when they were not the dreams of anyone but — dear God — a woman.  The ancient had little respect for them, including the Christians — who lived, and yet live, in a DreamWorld.

DreamWorld: The Thought-World of the West for 2000 Years

“Whenever you are about to find fault with someone, ask yourself the following question: What fault of mine most nearly resembles the one I am about to criticize?” “The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are.”
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Dreams and dreaming have always fascinated the lot of us, from the modern psychologist to the ancient “interpreters” of dreams (among groups called “wise men”). The biblical record is replete with references to dreams and dreaming, from the Genesis crescendo in Egypt (Chapters 37 – 50), which section forms the results of Joseph’s nocturnal insights.

From the Genesis “ dreamer” (his brothers were reported to have called him), to the warning the “other” Joseph supposedly received in Egypt, to return by a different route to his homeland, to those of other prophets, and most notably of Daniel and Revelation’s author, John, dream material seems to form extensive portions of the “canonical narrative.”

I believe that nearly the whole of the Bible’s record came into existence as an oral and written collection of inscripturated dreams, and I think I can give ample evidence from the writings themselves to prove this. These dreams were the dreams of pharaohs, of kings, of “prophets,” and less often, of priests.

They were later edited, trimmed, collated and reshaped to fit together more neatly, with some contemporary details added that were “generally known” about the primary actors in the narratives.

What is the point? The Bible actually creates what I call “Dream World,” a world “alternative” to the harsh realities of the ancient past.  But its primary effect has been to lead us away from the real world, and the study and progress of the sciences and of its benefits to all.

The most noteworthy, and easy to recall dreams are of two kinds – Paradaisical dreams, and night terrors, like those Joseph and Daniel were supposedly called on to interpret. These kinds of awe-inspiring dreams make the world larger than life, where every event carries world-historical (and earth-shaking) importance of the “do-or-die” decision kind.   This is just how the biblical narratives read.

The books of Daniel and Revelation TELL US plainly that their authors fell asleep and saw “night visions” or visions (dream-speak) to learn the material the reader then encounters; other places in the Bible, the dreams of pharaohs and kings are interpreted as VERY IMPORTANT and prophetic.

PLEASE NOTE that the specialized language the visionary-dream texts use – thought forms and idiomatic expressions dot the landscape of the Bible narratives in many places throughout. This shows a pervasive influence of dreams and dream material.

Dreams were considered extremely important by the ancients, and they largely contributed to the magicalistic environment of the ancient dream-world cultures.

Consider this possibility – my view – the whole of the Bible is either directly or indirectly the result of the primary influence of dream material – oral and written traditions built upon the dreams of kings and prophets – and we built an entire civilization upon this dreamscape fiction as “the Word of God” – and never noticed the clear and distinct signs that show us the Bible as DreamWorld.

I shall blog more upon this topic when convenient.