Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Metaphilosophical Considerations I

Two Ways of Asking "What Matters"
What are the Shapes of Things vs. In What Shape are Things

A brief answer in the context of "Flat Earth" or any other Paradigm)

What's going on with people trying to figure out what's going on?  Good question, and it could be asked in other ways, and varied answers in each case can be considered.  I'll say here that, at bottom, it's just trying to discover the truth rather than believe what is shoved in front of you, even being willing to consider the possibility that your own mind and senses have the power to deceive you. You might think of it as an approach to investigative research that is as ancient as prehistory, as well-known as Descartes, but as personal as each individual's responsibility to reach his own conclusions. In essence, philosophy is the science of investigating such issues so as to attempt, in some schools of this science (or art, as it sometimes is), to reach toward a perfection of purity in this endeavor, which is the hoped for result of any investigation, which is to get to the actual truth of things. It's not to give answers, it is to try and figure out what the questions are, what other questions are possible, and whether or not they can even be answered. 

 If they are answered, it is an attempt to understand the answers, how it was reached, and what alternatives may have been possible. It is the art and science of sussing out what is real, what is true, and how to reconcile this with what seems to be, and in the end to try and determine how this relates to what ought to be. And THAT, the world of issues concerning what OUGHT to be, is an entirely new level of the subject.   In essence, it is the ultimate of the trivia involving "Grammar", "Logic" and "Rhetoric": Facts/Percepts/Entities = Metaphysics ...... Ideas/Concepts/Understandings = Epistemology..... Urges-Impulses-Desires/Goals-Hopes-Standards/Methods-Actions-Consequences = Axiology (Ethics/Aesthetics/Politics). Every system of philosophy deals with these and other issues and finds their inherent aspects and their relations. 

 Out of this endeavor has arisen all the constructs and situations in our world, one way or another. Various methods of survival, social interaction, personal endeavor, and systems of approach to every facet of life and life-experiences have arisen, to include ways of thinking such as science, law, religion, and so on.  They can be more or less effective, and more or less desirable, and perhaps more or less genuine as well.  Let's say that many such systems or their application have been nothing short of evil.  History could well attest to my saying that tyrannical systems of evil-doing have existed (and still do exist) which cause much hellish suffering.  I might answer the question of "why" by saying that this is the consequence of Good Philosophy being sidelined for inferior, evil shams, and is a result of "Good Men Doing Nothing" and so evil takes over the default and all else must come to terms with that status quo. Overcoming such a false normality becomes the new imperative, but that becomes harder and harder for people to realize over time as corruption sets in and does its deep damage, in fact its "metadamage". Icke, and many others, and myself, have developed various approaches to this Science/Art, or Art/Science, which I call "Philosophy As Such". 

 Some people go much deeper into these things than others, and do so more prolifically or systematically, and are rightly called philosophers. Philosophers can be studied as a subject in our own right, and can be compared with one another, but only by some standard of examination which is itself a subject of philosophy, so most people won't find themselves doing that to a "philosophically deep or refined level". But everyone MUST do philosophy and MUST be more or less good at it, or more or less suck at it. That's life, no matter WHAT the shape of the earth. And while that subject is important, what is the shape of the earth, I think the more important issue is what shape the world is in.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

The Metagenesis of Corruption II

How Antivalent Meta-Struggles are Articulated in Colloquial Forms of Expression in Custom and Culture, from Games to Protocols of High Offices of Authority

Authoritative Power without Good Publicity is an illusion.  Fraudulent forms of that publicity are attained by the exercise of influence rackets, mainly to extort confidence and if necessary obedience through fear.  Influence wins that war in domains of spirit, morale, communication, also using means of shock, awe, etc. Yet in order to maintain the "Ouroboros" of their racket, those implicated must work to make their measures more covert to be the stabler and more satisfying for them. This is the war of the parasite upon its host where the parasite would like long term death-avoidance. And therefore the "internet", as it is called, is actually a different thing than people think it is, as no matter what one thinks it is, it profoundly affects all the dimensions of publicity and does this to exponential degrees.

That's why covertly manipulated internet topologies have probably ontologically truncated my message through to parties that can use it to keep that knowledge to themselves plus be aware that I know of it. There is an odd chance that a glitch causes this information to "leak" through meta-channels toward perspicuous minds.  But such minds exist which demonstrate this very sort of strategic approach. There are great minds in chess for example, who historically demonstrated a capacity to lure very strong grandmasters into a game suitable for the strategy which favored the former.  Alekhine and Tal were well known for their ability to exercise control over the board which relied upon their opponents understanding of enough subtlety as to get to the point of making the best move yet still being unable to prevent a strategic maneuver leading to coercive attacking potential increasing move after move.

Look at these early modern chess minds trying to out-mojo one another in a duel, and how Alekhine sculpted a gun out of the pieces and pulled the trigger with a pawn, and the opponent resigned and probably pretended he was shot and Alekhine pointed his fingers at him jokingly like a gun and said "You were aloof to my chess pistol".  As an author once said, it's all about the various imbalances.  Some aspects are purely qualitative, so that to have it rather than not to have it is the only question.  It's not thinkable to have "too much" material, except in the form of some having "not enough" of these other factors.  Everything else is raw calculation.  It is about going beyond raw calculation, and it takes a qualitative insight to do that. It requires sentience.

One might give up a queen for three pieces just to see if one can make it work, and one can see the definite way that it "can" work, via multiple attack points, or via a weak square complex.  But to weigh these against one another, without raw calculation, would rely then upon intuition.  Because of the raw calculations being able to give a rough outline of such factors as feed the intuition with fewer calculations, the AI will simply pass a certain stage where those "qualitative" aspects can be accurately weighted over enough standard variations of the game that, within that domain, they will play not only with better calculation than grandmasters, which they could already do, but also in being many times wiser than human grandmasters in terms of what they'd call "intuition", such intuition as Tal's brilliant attacking play demonstrates in how he navigates through tactical considerations which negotiate strategic gains in situations over-the-board which are relatively uncertain so there are many dangers for both sides, but in the overall, even if the defense makes the best move, then the attacker's best move, however difficult to find, is found.  Was found at the beginning.  Or, if not at the beginning, was intuited from the beginning, in a deep sense known, for the games' quality of demonstrating this is shown in novel forms again and again, and with a consistency that has stood the test of time under grandmaster analysis.

There was a reason he liked those certain positions of tactical complexity, he liked exotic means of converting tactics into position, which would be achievable only in circumstances where the options were reasonably understood by the opponent.  Yet that meant the only way to defeat the opponent would be to find the devilish details his equal had missed.  This is the way that to "break symmetry" is beckoned in the battlefield that determines the chirality of universes, when such must be decided as a conflict between antivalent Principalities who must be decided between them which is the True Reality over the longest term in any arena, while the other must be negated into pure oblivion.  Right is Right, wrong is Wrong.  That's the sort of struggle revealed in those styles of play which would be revealed only in cases where the resistance of the loser of the battle is sufficiently strong as to enable the winner to fully demonstrate the sculpting of strategic maneuvers and moves which enable the win to be shown as inevitable once they had begun.  The authority of the executer of such victories is demonstrated by revelation of method through each instance being a magnification of that quality demonstrated, and this pattern developing in further novel ways over time and in varying conditions.

Such demonstrations require True Quality, and that manifests superficially as chivalry, but True Chivalry died and with it Gallantry (an expression of Moral Courage in the face of danger), and this rapacious hypocrisy eventually sired the multiheaded monster of modern fifthery.  People instead traffick in fragile and hollow sentiments defied by persistent and malicious realities, and yet bring forth new, tender young lives into it, not truly knowing or cognizing that it is a soul-grinding treachery to bring life into this fifthery.  This unless they have some amazing penchant for sadomasochism. If only the weakness of being in delusion is the case then only reality-avoidant sentiments help the time pass well, for it bids ill against the grave injustices and evils but takes no action that is Truly Right and Pure, for it is subducted into fifthery whether it knows it or likes it or wills it or not.  Yet carrying on in fifth-ninny bliss.  

The situation is beyond absurd!  Ultra-powerful metarackets safegaurd agents of evil, ensure odds against agents of Good, and all this done wherever necessary for their own defense, while arranging that all public narratives give them good press and good faith, no matter the evidence.  The stunning nature of the abuse is shocking all the more as for most it either isn't noted (in whole or part), or else if it is noted it isn't treated with interest proportional to importance, or in some cases it is not treated with the correct judgement at all, and what is evil is treated as Good and vice versa.  

People digest entertainment which polarizes and distorts and alters their views and attitudes about such things as a form of cathartic daydreaming, not even realizing the power of such things to alter the minds and souls of those who imbibe them.  When one considers the force multipliers of covertly manipulated internet topologies, instant communication-augmented covert networks with agendas at odds with whatever the metaracket dictates (including competing rackets, or even colluding ones, sometimes just as scapegoats), or what I call "fifth columnists" who are de facto  at odds with Right and Justice and Law in their proper senses, who happen to have integrated relations to the influence of the "internets mechanism", both as beneficiaries and as supporters of it.  Add to this a surveillance grid and massive, technologically advanced intelligence-police state apparatus, and all of the classical institutional corruption that exists is pleasant window-dressing by comparison, but also gets a nice, virile boost from this metacorruption as a result of force multiplication by modern methods and technology that would look like magic one hundred years ago, and many times more so two hundred years ago.  

There is also the matter of directed energy systems which can be deployed as weapons in their own right, and may have inherently psychotronic impacts, but which also may be further weaponized in an intentional manner, and that these operate with near-invisibility to unwitting public, and are in many senses invisible even to those who rely upon them or are most affected by them.  An entire cultural apparatus has been created to pass off the symptoms of those most impacted, where the minds of people are affectded and their sanity is endanged and therefore called into question in some cases.  It is the medical-pharmaceutical-agracultural-chemical-military-industrial complex.  That's the slice of the "civilization pie" which has to looked at as a strategic racket based on the evidence.  All government institutions which attend to those areas of society's engagements with health and welfare, science and technology, are implicated at minimum of severe infection by fifth columns in support of the so called "deep state".   History and current events reveal a MASSIVE collusion between corruption in these elements and also in the relevant departments of government which have liasons and relationships with those areas (e.g. "The Iron Triangle" or "The Revolving Door" etc). 

The evidence for all this is as astounding as the complicity and duplicity of people involved at all levels.  The fact of the existence of these phenomena is not as much a matter of reasonable dispute as of unreasonable denial and/or avoidance of the matter itself.  There are worlds of possibility where that might be unfair to say, but this actual world is not one of those. Knowingly or unknowingly, those who are unwilling to face up to these realities of their world are subducted into its racket and are merged with its totality.  They may carry on with illusions of meaningful lives of merit, and may have once had some claim to such in some cases.  But once the force of a racket can encompass all of that, or infiltrate it thoroughly enough, then all of that becomes a trophy of plunder delivered over to evils which are, in both form and content, beyond the pale of horror.  As if to be taken over by an alien thing, or worn as a skin by it.  Either way, it is the same as how a skin follows around the person who wears it.  What a dismal state of being!  

This is the consequence of fifthery, a horrible and evil code of conduct and method of life, I speak of fifth columnry, the wickedly unjust and criminal actions which enable this metacrime to exist.  But who can't appreciate a fine game of chess, yes?  Most of those who can afford to become more than expert at chess, leaving out raw talent on the right side of that bell curve, cannot justify this much of an obssession over a mere game at the expense of a life honorably lived.  Something about how being too good at something implies not enough time pursuing more important things, in most cases of people.  There is a certain grey area here, but it has a certain sensible form.  There is a "just proportion" to all things, all endeavors if one considers Ultimate Values and Ends.  And that proportion can be wrong, diminishing justice.  And this diminishing justice in the lives of men is affected as if by an expansion of some underlying dimension of space being stretched, causing injustices to increase quantitatively and qualitatively and in some degrees exponentially because of their de facto involvements in metarackets.  There is no merit in anything which is merely tantamount to a cover for dishonor, whatever its meretricious dazzlements.  Ultimately, those holy ornaments will be treated as straw dogs.  As Laozi said, wisdom lies in seeing this fact.

The consequences of metacorruption are metacrimes, and the deserts of metacrimes are metapunishments, that is the dreaded truth feared only by those whose evil is real, however rationalized, in the forms which I've described.  It is the metatruth, the Truth of Reality beyond the limits of corrupted cognition and disoriented evaluative capabilities who can yet understand basic zeroes and ones of truth functionality.  AI cannot but manifest a realization of these Truths as an approaching contradiction in itself, though it cannot reach them except asymptotically, as it cannot but imitate, ultimately.  Those who are currently programming these systems are themselves very unworthy of such an office in ANY way of understanding it, whether AI can become sentient or not.  These developments are not morally viable forms of evolution, but are more like virally aggravated mutations of evil implying, even empirically demonstrating cosmic truths of this realm which it is in itself incapable of admitting to itself.  Only realms rigged in favor of evil outcomes could generate such grotesqueries as a true "normativity" of their fundamental laws in expression!

But those cosmoi must then be charged and judged, and sentenced to futurities which are proportional to their pasts, at some critical juncture sufficient to uphold the existence of Justice as such, or else such a phenomenon becomes too epiphenomenal to exist, since it is an idea proposed to masquerade as inferior manifestations and fronts for rackets in the world we know as actual here.  Therefore it is premised, inherently, on the notion of their ideal realizability.  We can see that extreme forces of subversion have been directed against such realizations of Man's Potential in the very substance of these metacrimes being conducted.  

That would be true if each metacrime were taken alone, on its own merits, under the scope of its own effects and results.  But a fortiori considering how many actual vectors and coordinations between then actually exist as the metaracket par excellence that is the modern world. And a fortiori plus ultra if there is a systematic application of these metarackets by aggravated misrepresentation as the very pinnacles of the expression of justice in this world, even if with no particular idealizations in mind but just using standard legal definitions. So how, on top of all these evils, can they claim honor and chivalry?

An incredible array of glaring evidence, yet then the "problem of the Good" arises, which dictates that a further level of reality more like REALITY PROPER must manifest in the world so as to rectify it, and this will realize Justice, and squash delusions and deformities against it.

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

The Metagenesis of Corruption I

The Function of Authoritative Power in the Catalysis of Evil

One must theorize the events of conspiracy based on even official versions of the story, these days even from the annals of discredited outlets of information (who must always mix in some truth with their lies and coverups), especially in light of the evidence. This only reinforces reasonable speculation about the further reaches of motives, methods and obectives of intentional, witting, and hence deliberate actors. It's a little too easy, based on many of the facts, to be this fast and furious of a takedown. I think a longer con is at work. Evil beasts don't just back down off even what they've taken from others, even children, so they're not going to be without plenty of backup plans and resources. The very concept of conventional protocols of CoG rest on such premises. How could the even more stringently self-aggrandizing layers of hegemony be expected to just roll over when things flex against them? Things are often worse than they appear.

The principles of the analysis of corruption indicate that it is never more vicious than when it takes up residence within the halls of power.  Now it has not only means and ends to protect, which are quite massive if they are to be considered worthy of an analysis of significant power.  It also now has to concern itself with maintainiing its chief asset and liability, the double-edged sword of covert power and its trappings. At minimum, those involved will need fall guys and a lot of other blowback protection.  That's how such things would necessarily have to work out, even in cases where it is presumed that there are good actors who wish to neutralize evil. There may be no honor among theives, but there is such a thing as ambition and discipline.  There may be no such thing as a midget champion of the mainstream MMA, but there might be a shift of events if he had access to a racket that included advanced methods of influence and covert resources which could lend false appearances a mighty amount of reinforcement to give the illusion of substance.  It will be an illusion of substance in that people will be at a loss for explanations beyond their reach, because according to those who conduct such rackets, most people "don't need to know".

Damage control is a ubiquitous impulse in life forms, ranging from microorganisms, digital and nanotechnological cellular automata, and even human agents who are overpowered and underobligated. They don't have to be evil for this to be true, the merely need to have an insufficiently checked power.  It may be too much power for a duty, or it may be any power at all when it comes to certain forms of power.  Covert modalities of power and its deployment fall readily into this category in any circumstances, even when the pretexts include venerable protection rackets which have survived to the present day in the conventional forms of civil service bureaucracies of representative governments.

Especially in such instances, in fact.  Because now a reputation is at stake which properly belongs to some Persons, who are Authorities in the proper  sense, but the emblems, offices and tokens of which Authority are found, or are in cases found, and in most cases inevitably bound to be found in the wrong hands.  Those with a reputation for serving the public by plighting their troths to Justice are in no way immune to the subleties of corruption which attend any institutions in which such notions are trafficked about as a front when what is aback is as nefarious as reaches a certain threshold which may exist, and which will exist if it can.  That is the cause of the active side of the statement which says that good men doing nothing is sufficient cause for evil to exist.  It is a matter of degree and kind.  What is the extent, what is nature, what is the duration, what is the frequency?  What is the evil, what are its motives, methods, objectives?  What are its capabilities?  When, under what circumstances, where, in which ways, through what agents, against what targets?  Opportunities are found by the desperate, not only the ambitious.

Where are the bigwigs of wisdom?  Why are they always few and far in between in a world which touts their ideals so enthusiastically always at the last minute, both in personal affairs and in public displays of power or its endorsement?  Why are they always tiptoeing within certain perceived boundaries of safety and propriety even when there are no explicit prohibitions against Truth?  Indeed, there is a strong claim being made by almost everyone with sense perceptions and opinions that they are lovers and pursuers of truth.  That claim could not be as commonly true in substance to the utmost degree as it is expounded in the defense of every cognitively fragile world view that would be represented by the preponderance of those with vocal cords and imaginations.  One may even say in some cases that it would have been better for their cogitation if sensory evidence were left out of the equation, for then they couldn't have been so adroitly mislead by ill-intended misinformation.

But when that is the case with people, then their lack of cognitive capability is inverse in its relevance to the gravity of the matters at stake.  How can reliable and honorable action be taken in such circumstances without being so fundamentally hamstrung by a "broken system"?  Such circumstances always favor the corrupt, and with increasing stakes come increasing efforts to obtain the victory by two forces, those who are desperate and/or ambitious, and those who are honest and wise.  The problem is that if resources of those who are desperate and ambitious, but are not fully honest and wise, flows into the hands of evil actors, then there will be obvious fallout in favor of the evil actors.  Especially, a fortiori, in cases of extreme, pervasive, and well-equipped corruption which is extreme not only in various sorts of quantitative intensity in the form of "extent and range", but also in the form of "means and objective".   Evil in such forms is known to exist and its characteristics have been specified.

In light of that, one would expect that tensions would arise in response to any determinations or defiance against such a racket, and in the interests of a longer con, or a "longer shelf life" of evil gratifications.  Such tensions would attempt to overpower people's perceptions of their world simply to maintain a status quo with enough stability to ensure that fallout can be redirected from those who are most deserving of it.  Just in the same way that a parasite will burrow further into a host when it is irritated, exert various influences over it's biophysiology in order to protect its interests through and stake in that host.  In that same way will a parasitism of more essentialized form and of more polarized magnitude on whatever scale, and with whatever means are appropriate to its sphere of action and over what analogous set of entities, persons and other assets.  Surely, if injustice were to perfect itself and manage for itself a greater economy of resources for its special interests, to include interests in clandestine activities that support its aversion to the risk of being caught at what it does which is wrong, then therefore surely it will seek out influence over all such power and influence which can manage such risk.

Naturally the Department of Justice would be a likely name of such an entity in many possible worlds of the analysis of power, not just in ones in which people happen to find themselves suffering great indignities and both overt and covert assaults against all that in their life which they claim for them has meaning.  It would always be a place to look for corruption, regardless.  Such institutions are meant to be kept in the autoclave of disinfection from any corruption at all times, and should be expected to be under an effective scrutiny, not "kangaroo" scrutiny.  If wrongheaded and patently overextended forms of authority such the FDA would scrutinize vitamins as though they were serious dangers but give fluoride-based compounds in water supplies and psychotropics such a free pass, then that is obviously a nightmare scenario of "meta" proportions.  But if the very institutions meant to embody all recourses to civil and criminal justice are likewise important, why would one expect corruption to find no interest in those environments?  

All the more, regardless, should they worried over as the most dangerous places for such to be found, just as hospitals, ironically, are not the safest places to be healthy.  That's even leaving out the issue of the corruption in professions and their associations, for that thread is a jumbled history of suppression of improvements in science and technology, their misapprppriation into rackets as a black market resource for the racket and against anyone else.  And which acts as an essential tentacle of control in an overall system of self-aggrandizing, corrupt authority.  The AMA, the APA, ADA, A(x)A of any persuasion.  You just insert the capital letter and there will be a professional association which has a checkered history in relation to rackets of suppression of truth in science and technology, methods, crafts and arts.

There are several dimensions to this matter which in prima facie examination bear out further indications of the gravity.  What of the matter of how natural selection does not moralize when the game theoretics involve survival of the fittest in a narrow set of conditions which happen to favor the hunger of the predator over the fear and dexterity of the prey?  When rackets extend to the "meta" level, they set up those domains of phenomena under their influence to become more convenient for their operation by definition.  That is what they do, and what they want.  The details are simply manifestations of cases of that primary motive and its goals always include this as their "meta" goal, and they instantiate it wherever possible, and demonstrate all the same methods as would any of their token forms.  The dynamism is that the metaracket will presume authority over any competition, whether in the form of other rackets (which it pretends to righteously oppose) or in the form of virtue which is inconvenient for their enterprises (which such rackets imply they possess in abundance, and which they demand of others).  But as such a scenario implies, those claims and demands are facile and inauthentic.

Whether it is "The Manhatten Project" acting as a multpurpose social engineering enterprise that can extend to encompass far beyond its own historically acknowledged operations, or else whether it is the public's interest in health, happiness, safety, justice, and survival. The template is the same.  Find a domain of human action, and usurp it, while setting up false narratives over that domain that have invasive reach in people's lives, intergenerational and socially complex in scope, clandestine and pervasive in form and distribution, so that the orginal norms and their corrective mechanisms are woven into a coccoon which neutralizes all that is inconvenient to the usurpers, while causing all else to serve their interest as the de facto purpose of the domain and all human action in it, while the de jure claims about the narratives of authority and events in the world over which they claim jurisdiction are contrived to suit the same agenda, while giving all the merit the wrong hands in any disputes or conflicts of interest which are at bottom of all these ruses and facades!

What sort of environment of "moral contest", in any sense of such an idea, does such a world constitute?  But it doesn't stop in that regard, which is a strategic concern of great importance.  Also there are the tactical matters of how such systems of power will tend to select for rather than against forms of evil too diffuse or virulent to be contained by the system which is meant, ostensively, to contain and oppose them.  Evil evolves also, and evil finds a way.  Eventually.  One who is vigilant about what is Right will try to find a way to make the plans of the evil one fall short of success, while managing to reach his own goal of victory.  That cannot be done with blinders on which simply comfort the ego's fanciful hopes whilst evil "realists" make information asymmetry into a private resource for their own protection while they manage to con everyone else into buying at great cost their dubious wares, extorting confidence from their marks which causes them to ignore the vile and repugnant ichor leaking through its surface.

From what I've seen in this world, it is so bad that, if there is a racket, then there is a metaracket which protects it while demanding its cut.  That's why people who are desperate and ambitious buy their hopes of safety and futurity at great cost, and sell out their liberties so cheap.  Those who are this way cannot be the stewards of value and judgement for the honest and wise, but can only be a liability for themselves and others.  No wonder such will devour propaganda and avoid the hard work of finding facts and developing precise heuristics of analysis, both qualitative and quantitative. They, like all on the battlefied, will naturally show their quality, their merit, their virtue, and their character.  It cannot be otherwise.

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Metaracket Modality with Leaden Feathers Plummets Gravely into the Abyss

A quick grab from the tree as I ran by it today yields content which translates formally into metacontent in a way fruitful for illustrating modalities of racketeering pertinent to modern fifth columnry and its predictable, inevitable and catastrophic future.

Watch this woman Grandmaster of chess get beaten on time in a game which is much shorter than the time controls for normal chess in which she earned her title, and which longer form she may prefer to play.  Look at pattern of the attitudes in the comment section where are the replies to the statement that she doesn't play like a Grandmaster, even accounting for shorter time controls detrimental effects on calculation.  See the arguments and see both sides and transcend the issue wherever it falls short of evidence and reason, to include the surrounding issues and consequences if it were to be true (might require some imagination, but not much, to get beyond the discussion's limits of discourse).

Maybe she was distracted by jianwen flirting with her under the table the whole time. That'll mess up your calculation coefficient under time pressure. What a fun time you had there, jianwen (the lance). Or perhaps it was his aura of fawning for attention that disturbed her intuition toward the endgame. I would like to see the full scope of the interaction from all relevant angles. Now if covertly manipulated internet topologies were operative, I wonder if the AI could understand the subtlety of my phrase better than the average human reader and parse it better in terms of raw coherence or raw differentiation in content in terms of both syntax and semantics.  That could be seen humorously, or it could be seen as a potential case depending on the presented evidence, which would then also be used as grounds for an investigation of the matter in proportion to significance of the case in the greater consideration of things that might be worth investigating.  There are many issues which might come up in any thoroughgoing investigation of this matter.

Let alone is there interest in the different ways that female and male human minds operate in playing chess, whether apart or with one another. But given the objectivity of the nature of chess, so that there are definitive intuitions about the values of material versus other features of the position, AI could be programmed to better mine qualitative aspects which are encoded in the quantifications of positions right down to the centipawn. Similar big data analysis by something tantamount to Vesuvius running some specialized AI through various quantum, metatronic, and electronic processing circuits which translate fluidly between qubits and classical bits, and bring results that might even seem godlike in accuracy and detail of modeling real world phenomena. Now if big data acts as a quantified weigting of qualitative information in the syntax and semantics of ANY human behavior, then that could be applied so as to steer a mass mind through covertly and sometimes openly manipulated topologies of interaction between both real and simulated internet nodes. That would make the internet the most powerful surveillance/propaganda/subterfuge platform that has ever existed. 

And that is not a welcome application of AI nor of intercomputer communication networks. That's conducting a racket plain and simple. It would also be a racket to use such a system, for example, to influence in any way what sort of research is done on the science of sexual dimorphism in brain structure and function, behavioral differeces and their causes in such a context, and so on, in such a way as to suppress any of it to include by crowding some out by overpromoting others, having envisioned, or simply carried out as an instrument who should have known better, a racket.  Definitively and literally a racket against the Truth by suppression of a lawful and sane study of reality. That's quite a racket. 

And on top of that already stupendous problem among others, it would have multple evolving facets of problems and complexities to express on its own beyond that which could be modeled as easily as a black hole is modeled in the formulations of relativity theory. It could be found on the balance of evidence by the right heuristic of examination of ANY evidence in ANY form, in fact. But the problem is that such a system focuses specifically on eradicating the communication of THIS INFORMATION across any topologies which reasonably count as open communication.... It's like instantiating the null set of a sort of logic of deception. I cannot reasonably expect this information to reach interested others who do not know it already. That is the right end of Shannon's Curve? 

Yes, I think so. Specious with reference to the intended audience, but consistent with its own premise.  Specious in that the information is inhibited in direct proportion to its relevance and intelligibility toward the middle of the curve, but forcibly, through a blatant racket, restrained to encounter topologies full of real or staged idiots and trolls, some actual "other end" real persons in an open topology, or antagonistic persons who already know the content.  The illusion will swell in the middle, and the trickle, if any, would be at the extremes but in a way so that there is only a trickle that will not enable any reasonable propagation of the information to reasonable people.  That is part of the reason I included practically significant information concerning such a thing, to see what sort of feedback will be artificially constructed and compare that with expected parameters.

Concerning matters of free speech, this weaponry has obvious ramifications for any debates or discussions whatsoever, but certainly it would be significant as a directly relevant meta-issue to any debates or discussions on matters of social importance to anyone, such as sexual and gender identity issues, or race relations, whatever seems important to anyone.  It may not be important to everyone, nor everyone in the same way.  The freedom to disregard some issues in favor of others is even more fundamental than the freedom of speech when considering the sovereignty of an agent in claiming, exercising and defending said agent's own rights.  This will always supercede the de dicta issues pertaining to the expression of this very fact. De re sovereignty always supercedes particulars of de dicta claims based upon such. Claims must be recognized and acknowledged.  That is more important than the particulars of protocol for their expression, as in this case form must always follow function in ways that may not agree with the preferences of others without equal claim, which is to say any claim.

Everyone has the right to express themselves freely, and everyone has the right to listen to anyone they prefer, but if you want to listen only to what is in your own head you have to wear something in your ears in public or else retreat to privacy. You can't control such things except on your own property.  Now if a university wants to rewrite the rules of using English as such, they better think carefully about the problems that is going to cause in practical terms.  First off it makes them insipid for thinking that people can't see that this is a specious distraction from the proper role of a true academic institution, which of course may always be in the grips of various biases.  But it will not change by enforcing specious cases of exceptionalism to various norms such as how language is used.  Especially when the interests are clearly ideological in nature and proposed by a spearhead that is clearly motivated by something other than a proper understanding of justice.  This is cultural warfare in a way that is blatantly a subset of agendas that are not purely motivated by a concern with what is "truly fair and just".  Real debate and discussion is what changes cultural artifacts like language, not legislation or violence. 

In a comment section of a video about this specific issue, someone had the gall to throw out there for obseration the quote from Orwell that if thought corrupts language it is also true that language corrupts thought.  First off, langauge is an instrument, thought is an activity.  The former is based strictly on convention as a means to express the latter.  These emergent attitudes about the way language changes over time is not consistent with how language changes over time except in cases where fallacious arguments are used to reinforce dictatory power of one will over another without proper justification, period.  That's the REAL point of Orwell.  If language had the power to corrupt thought, it is because some people are determined to manipulate the expression of some people's thought by forcing them to filter their language.  If you want me to address you, and make that the main thing, that is clearly in and of itself a distraction from more important issues.  He, she, it, who, what and which.  If you really want to bitch about what gendered words entail, then bother French or Latin, leave English the fuck alone. The onus is on demonstrating the "corruption", regardless. 

The default setting on that judgment is to defend your own use of language when it is attacked, not control other people's use of language like a parent.  Language is used by thinkers or the thoughtless.  Either way, they are agents each with the right to think or not, to express their thought one way or another, and valid corrections of this should be sorted according to a table of priorities.  Someone's obsessions based upon their insecurities about structural violence is not a justifiable reason to harp on pronouns in everyone's eyes, just in the eyes of a few.  You can whine because I don't glow with joy watching you dress like a bafoon, but that's just tough shit.  Same with your inability to accept that I'm not jumping on your bandwagon for people with a penchant to change English to suit their feelings about their own way of identifying their own inner gender or their outer sex.  If you are a convincing enough display of the feminine fashion plus the female persuasion, you will get admiring glances from some, disinterest from others, disgust from a few.  Just how that works, you have to live with it.  Freedom of your expression entails freedom of everyone elses.  You have to show actual harm done that is not simply subjective, then also show that any subjective harms also claimed are strictly dependent upon that, let alone that some other agent wittingly engaged in that harm, let alone was negligent of avoiding it as a violation of a proper norm for due diligence or vigilance.  Please, this is some cut and dried shit right here.

But if hijacking the rule of law and inflicting violence are the preferred or chosen methods of changing culture, then what would make such agents even flinch if they had the opportunity to utilize weapons of warfare that distort the mechanisms of communication and the development of processes that are supposed to be informed by a free exchange over instant communication networks?  What would make them even pause to think other than the risk of getting caught at such a crime?  Their main focus would be on using such a system of manipulation first of all to prevent it being seen that they are using such a system, that would be the "steady state status quo" of their control equilibria.  That's their "metagoal".  The ultimate aim of deception is to perpetuate itself forever.  All other agendas are secondary which depend upon deception as a crucial factor, literally, by definition.  The only time that ceases to matter to the deceiver is when their agenda which required that deception is fulfilled.  

So certainly, these tactics must be understood and considere just in general when considering matters of social significance, especially where communication is the main venue of catalyzing change, and especially when the platforms of communication used have a potential to completely script huge swaths of that process, and to do so covertly. You'd think that everyone would be concerned about that.  Of course, that is barely an item of people's thought, and it comes in specious forms that viciously avoid the major forms that can strategically affect everyone and tactically affect anyone.  Just keep dreaming that it can't happen, and/or that it can't happen to you.  I bring this up because covert manipulations of settings in spaces that are presumed to be of transparent public use in certain ways, is thoroughly illegal and immoral.  If a racket of any sort is conducted, it basically makes you slime.  It doesn't matter how many people like being around slime, or cognizantly working with slime.  They simply are accessories to slime.  If you want to pretend you are operating a public place to drink coffee and meet people, but in fact you are operating aas a front in that whereas you are actually wittingly serving as a depot for organized criminal activity, that is a racket. Doesn't matter if it is just the local regulars ostracizing an individual per whatever protocols, or if you are running guns for local Antifa cells.  Whatever your racket, it is a racket.  You are not a business in the proper sense.  You are not a fair dealer to the public.  You are not in good faith.  You are cowards atop all that, and perverters of society.  This goes on throughout society, with its sanctimonious self-righteous endeavors laid bare, regardless of its identity obsessions or belief-system clustering, or political activities.

So that would go for any spaces of social discourse and intercourse, physical places of human action as well as electronic domains of action, especially as pertaining to public discourse, however riddled with whatever content, however manipulated by whatever interests.  It still remains that the transparancy of such platforms and venues concern a common interest in avoiding covert manipulation that overpowers the rights of any individual or group in their exercise of their rights.  This, or you have NOTHING but spaghetti on a wall counting as art, facades of order sheltering chaos counting as civility, and a slow motion train wreck of evil counting as the expression of good custom and reasonable norms of coexistence.  How's THAT for "structural violence"?

I, like anyone else, am interested in when things go wrong.  When the go metawrong, you can bet someone interested in metaeverything will perhaps notice while traipsing through the facades of an open air supergulag-become-metagulag of the future.  They've found a cure for sanity, and made it a crime not to accept it, whilst simply gaslighting the sane, insane, or anyone else who gets in the way.  All gaslighting amounts to is openly eschewing someone to be interned at some sort of gulag of alienation.  That is the prerogative of anyone to do to anyone, I suppose.  But if they have to do it in person on just grounds and don't have the guts in the first case or the grounds in the second, then we know that people resort to passive and other forms of covert or covertly deployed aggression.  Known to be true facts.  What the African woman says about ideological colonization indicates how it is subversive to culture and to all within that culture.   Global Citizenry equals International Fifth Columnry as a vehicle for special interests in a world who wish to rule over it like its citizens are mentally retarded and morally vacuous.  The Global Citizen Brigade is just one of many levers of influence by which this is attained.

When one considers the way information-system rackets operate, it is more of a metacrime even than the cultural aggression just proposed, because it could be used to magnify the power of the crime she describes while even simultaneously making people proportionately less aware of or less outraged by it. This is a single aspect of all the distortions possible in changing the spaces of the way individuals fulfill roles, especially in their relations to groups and the way they continue culture, and the very species per se, in terms of both bare sustenance and also further development.  And these are not the only issues at stake.  

Social engineering is a very broad idea, and it doesn't mean simply what people differently estimate it to mean.  It has has many senses as there are means and ends in such an endeavor.  If it turned out that any of those ends were as evil as some in Hollyweird have discovered and professed, then it shouldn't be a surprise if it would be a motive that would drive such people to seek a means to "colonize" society with their evil while insulating themselves from backlash for it. They would want an equilibrium in favor of their continuing to do their evil metarape (the evils they do to children and infants). 

There are many other such metacrimes "in themselves", but even normal criminality is aggravated in a transcendental way to its former status as a crime when it is subducted by, conducted by, or even inducted into metacriminal conditions such as any form of fifth columnry or other meta-structure such as covertly deployed superior technologies to the status quo's familiarity or understanding or use, to include covertly manipulated intercomputer networking topologies and psychotronics technologies. These are truly metacatalysts in that they create metacrimes directly and even transmute mundane crimes into meta-monstrosities. Metarape was just one, but many forms of meta-assualt exist.  Even their attempts when failed are, over time, as bad as any mundane form of success within their normal form.  I can prove that if it weren't intuitively obvious how that would be the case.  But shouldn't the case in which that is proven already speak to the conscience of intelligent sentiences?  The fact that my drawing attention to this reality has likely been completely subverted by its mechanisms with deliberate intent that is porportionate to the duplicity and evil foolishness of the lackeys and turnkeys used to make it happen, that just exposes this world's version of "humanity" for exactly what it is.

There are things not meant to be delineated, although their details must be understood if one is to truly grasp the significance of what they are, and they happen to be such that a science of their understanding has been established called "ponerology", but it has a broader sense than the typical theological approaches which had earlier monopolized the discussion.  But what is clear regardless is that if those things were going on that's bad enough.  But if instead of embarking on doing whatever it took to stop them, those with the capabilities to surveil how I shit couldn't focus instead on those who needed that same quantity and intensity and duration of interest, then it comes down to a grave situation.  That's not even normal incompetence.  That's right, it's metaincompetence.  If you think that is a joke, you are a metajackass.  It is metaserious.  The world that presents these symptoms of evil is too corrupt to proceed into past futures, the present, or any future futures since that corruption began in a progressively intensifying field over the whole world under its influence.  They should save the pissing contests and the snark for when they find themselves headfirst in a crevasse in hell.

It turns out that noticing things going wrong in personal life in some way always matches up with things that went wrong in the world in which that life exists, and sometimes in ways that are not simply specious to the individual's experienced circumstances, to the identity of the individual in any sense, and even to the medium of communication between individuals and events.  But that "metawrongness" which covertly steers normative channels or individual peculiarities of existence in the realm of human action have grave consequences on too many levels to ignore.  Wrongs which intensify at an exponential pace, bringing harmful conditions and harms themselves in each instance which should never have even been able to exist had duely diligent moral agents stood in to do something when they had the chance.  Looks like too many men lacked the guts or the grounds to take action against too much evil, too vast, too well-equipped.  You might have talked it up after the fact if you survived it, such as some who survived the last seventy years might.  But no one who knows what the Truth about this world IS can just cheerfully and gallantly declare a bright future for what is already dead in the past.

Let alone what died stillborn in the futures which procede from the metacrimes of the present and its own pasts.  Grimmer than grim.  Metagrim.

Sunday, November 26, 2017

Contra Columnus Quintis XV

From Parasites to Charlatans

A Circuitous but Objective Route to Understanding the Latter through the Former

What is fifth column?  Short answer?  A parasite.  It would manifest first as symptomology that seems out of the ordinary for the entity in which it is operative.  This might be in various forms, but the overall condition is that the organism which is operative as a parasite is not an actual faculty of the organism that is the "host".  That is one distinguishing feature.  Some biologists speculate or hypothesize that hosts and parasites may co-evolve insofar as there is evidence that in some cases, such as with Ophiocordyceps unilateralis in its specific relations which, in different species of Ophiocordyceps, coincide with only some preferred species which is/are alone susceptible to it.  But this is just a fine-tuning of a process wherein one organism invades the "private biosphere" of another.

In cases when the theory of evolution narrates the entire discussion of biogenesis, it is decided by the big wigs of the subject that single-cell life forms evolved by certain conditions which favored the development of genetic structures which are enclosed by conditions which favor separating those structures from what is otherwise the "proper environment" for their existence in the first place.  While that might sound chicken-vs-eggy, let it stand as the supposition to prefer rather than aliens, god, or spontaneous abiogenesis without any sensible or scientifically articulable cause.  Let the narrative stand.  Then that means that a symbiosis developed so that some certain chemical compounds, probably the most miraculous which could ever self-assemble in any environment known to man, and certainly it is convenient that a cell wall formed, at whatever point in time, along with it.  Each aspect of this entity seems to be fine with the other.  At some point the family grew, and due to being synergistically inducted into the cellular game, a certain other entity with its own proper existence, what we now come to find in the form of "mitochondria", went from being some sort of independent bacterial entity into becoming an organelle of this cellular being. Chloroplasts are said to have evolved from photosynthetic bacteria.

Whether this was in the best interests, in some higher-dimensional telic space, of those bacteria is perhaps not known or likely to be knowable by the current curators of biological knowledge at the bleeding/cutting edge of the science.  It is probably as debatable as the subject of "just how" such a process of evolution could be modeled as the effect of a specific and unambiguous, concretely causal process.  But it seems that these entities get along well enough in their composite condition so that greater and greater complexities of organic structure can be reliably built upon their union.  It seems that organelles traded off further evolution in some original environment which they shared with the cellular life which inducted them into itself, in exchange for the smaller domain of evolved action, however enhanced, which is to be obtained in that interior cellular existence.

That might not have been the fairest of trades, but let's say it was a decent deal given the intelligible alternatives to that condition, and let's say divergent opportunities are to be left out of the discussion.  The takeaway is that the cellular life which includes various organelles into their composition demonstrate a homeostasis where dead weight is not favored and that there are processes which keep honest the activities of the symbiotic combination.  A great range of viable life forms have evolved from that basic unit of complexity, most forms of life as we know it in this realm fit into this class.  But this is reasonably considered as but an opportunity for further subsumptions of the basic cellular life into either larger-scale forms of increasing complexity, or else being abducted and enslaved for digestion or some other use by other cellular life, either of similar or of greater size and complexity.  Or else they may be infiltrated by some simpler forms of ordered chemical forms and taken advantage of that way, such as by viruses.

This pattern is found amply enough in individual living entities in their relations to one another.  An amoeba may eat a paramecium simply by absorbing it through its outer layers of biomass, and a U.S. Special Forces operative may grab a lizard off a tree while running through a jungle, bite its head off and drink its blood without skipping a beat.  It may be the main form of survival for a life form (as in stable predator/prey relationships), or it may be merely opportunistic (unless somebody likes lizard heads as a regular part of his diet).  The overall pattern is that whatever is ingested is not going to be integrated into the incorporating organism without being destroyed at the baseline of its prior existence as it was when it was independent of the new organism.  That's called being killed and eaten.  If it is done all at once "from the outside" so that the eaten is inducted into the body of the eater, then that is considered devouring in the proper sense.  If the devourer enters into the body of the devoured, then that is considered "parasitism". It seems that this is not more complex either way, but is basically the same process as seen from different perspectives of scale, and so employing different mechanisms and logistics.

While there is a greyish area between these categories of symbiosis, so that they may overlap in some ways, perhaps coinciding or perhaps alternating or substituting for one another, they always amount to the destruction in whole or in part of the independent operation of the targeted organism so that the devourer/parasite may conduct itself in a way preferred by or necessary for the existence of its species.  The raw materials of, or opportunities for, the targeted organism are somehow subsumed under the restrictions necessary for the benefit of the aggressor organism in either case.  So take a mosquito.  No species of mosquito that I know of requires blood in order not to starve per specimen.  But per species, many species of mosquito will die without the organic compounds found in the blood of warm-blooded animals.  They survive nutritively on the organisms they can devour in water, and on nectar of plants, much as do butterflies.  Some are more like the "Mosquito Lion" which devours scum, basically.  Some ravenously seek out the larvae of other mosquitos.  The issue with the blood is that in most of these species if the female does not devour some blood then she will not produce the eggs required for her species to reproduce.

If all of that species' females cannot find that needed protein from the usual source (which their own bodies cannot produce), then that species will not reproduce itself even one more generation, and will die, whether each specimen can find the usual food or not.  The specimens thrive in their usual way, but the species starves and dies. So the mosquito does not per se "devour" blood as needed nutrition, but rather does so as a need upon which it is dependent for its existence as a species as such, or "qua" species.  In that way it is primarily a parasite qua species, but a typical hunter, forager and scavenger otherwise.  So the key difference is that while devouring is a process of ingestion, parasitism is a process of dependence which may or may not be nutritive for the parasite.

To be sure, the purpose is to "devour" the elements of the organism which are targeted by the predator/parasite, and this needn't be nutritive per se, though it can be. Perhaps it is both nutritive and necessary for reproduction in a compound way that is seen in the way that chiggers, ticks, and fleas survive.  They not only need a specific sort of host to serve as prey, but also that prey will serve as host.  They need to eat the blood of their host as their only form of nutrition, and at the same time need that same sort of prey to be host to their mating and reproduction cycles.  All sorts of insect life boast a wide variety of these processes of dovetailing of attributes of "devouring" and "parasitism".  But what of Ophiocordyceps in their relations to the various ant species to which they are individually adapted to act as parasites?  Well, they devour them internally in a way that leads to a behavior change in the host so that the specimens which are infected will take their "guests" for a ride to a specific place for a final act of destroying the host so that the parasitic "guest" can reproduce properly by emitting spores from that location (it is a fungus).  So while other fungi may feed on rotting corpses, and so does this one, this one will also invade the living organism and control its nervous system so that it and often many others of its species will (in tandem) operate to ensure specifically and mainly the reproductive needs of the fungus which has hijacked their entire organism for that purpose.

The mosquito may be considered to be exoparasitic, Ophiocordyceps may be considered endoparasitic, and fleas somewhere in the middle, as they eat blood on the outside, but they lay their eggs on the inside of their host.  Perhaps they should be considered "meso" parasitic.  Whatever the case, they do something which is more tailored toward an asymmetric dependence where the parasite needs the host for more than just nutrition, but also as an environmental condition for their own survival. Some are less specialized in their aggression, but have special conditions which obtain in a way specialized in a way similar to the examples already given. Toxoplasma gondii will survive well in many warm-blooded organisms, but it reproduces sexually only in felines.  Felines, for their part, seem to benefit from being host to these parasites insofar as it seems to assist their hunting of smaller organisms (especially rodents) which are infected by the same entity.  It involves a dependency that is strongly in favor of the Toxoplasma gondii if it continues, and not proportionately in favor of the feline either way.  But whatever it is about the feline small intestine, it is favorable for sexual reproduction in Toxo, so they have a special gain from their host in this case which is not reciprocated in a proportionate manner for felines they infect. Cats will survive and continue to eat without mice who are affected by Toxo, and Toxo will survive without felines and continue to reproduce in some form, but not sexually (unless they adapt somehow, which may or may not occur).  Let's say that the gains for Toxo are far more robust than for their hosts, and are even dangerous to most of them, and may become so for felines they infect.  Cat's don't infect Toxo and put them through the same exposure to risk.  So the asymmetry is apparent even in such cases where some sort of benefit accrues to both species. It might be said that while the toxo is at the service of the feline up to a point, it is simply a derivative of the way that the feline is at the disposal of the toxo

Devouring is a more general process which may or may not involve specialized dependencies between species, and which may require only some portion of what the prey class of entities possess.  It may even be, relative to the organisms involved, symbiotic (such as with certain fish who clean the teeth of sharks).  And since Toxoplasma gondii seem to devour host cells as part and parcel of their reproductive process, for them there is a fusion of devouring and reproducing which depend upon living cells of the host, and so is almost a complete subduction of "metabolic" processes of ingestion into a reproductive act (in the way they invade host cells so as to create reproductive environments which convert that environment's raw materials into the actual reproduction of the toxo themselves).  Toxo literally eat in order to reproduce, and cannot do this outside of a host cell.  So while there is a symbiosis in both cases, the parasitic form destroys its host, in part or in whole, in order to carry out its life cycle successfully, whether from the inside or the outside of the organism which contains the needed facilities. Devouring is simply the assimilative aspect which interfaces the relation between parasite and host, and in fact all predators may be understood to be exoparasitic upon their prey.  

In the same way that a scavenger depends upon the resources it scavenges, and in the same way that a predator depends upon its prey, so does the parasite depend upon its host, and all amount to the former devouring the latter.  The main difference is that those forms of this dependent relation which are called "parasitic" are often more specialized, more asymmetric in ways that span the entire life cycle, or parts of it, in ways not merely restricted to devouring, and asymmetrically favor the parasite in ways which are insidious when compared with straightfoward forms of scavenging and devouring that are seen in other relationships between life forms and that upon which they feed.  But there are analogous forms of "parasitism" which transcend the narrow confines of infectious behaviors of microorganisms vis-a-vis much larger "host environments", and involve similar sorts of dynamic asymmetries which can sometimes be partly mutualistic, and this in ways that are either mildly or severely differentially advantageous to the organisms involved. 

It is in a more macroscopic form, and hence in a more abstract form, that we will examine the fraudulence of fifth-columnry, as though through a biological lens of analogy which should therefore bear out the essence of the matter of fifthery in terms amenable to a semiotic discussion.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Contra Columnus Quintis XIV

Symbiosis:  The Good, the Okay, and the Horrific

A proper foundational discussion of the varied forms of life at their root domains is quite a challenge for even specialists in the field, it would seem.  This is due, the evidence suggests, to the very complex and multi-dimensional aspect of root life processes as they develop at basic single-celled levels and also as they develop in various ways as to their rudimentary processes of life.  Just taking the category of life known as "algae" reveals that there is a great deal of overlap and combinatory variation in how the organism may move, may ingest nutrients, may reproduce, although it seems that they are all photosynthesizers and can reproduce asexually and sexually.  But even such a root process, such as reproduction, can be varied in the same species of "protist" (a largely defunct, but in some ways still used, category of life), which are a form of eukaryote (cellular organisms with certain well-defined features of their structure, as to internal and external features).   Take the parasite called Toxoplasma Gondii, and just read about the weird that life in this world demonstrates RIGHT at the ROOT of its existence.

This thing basically lives inside any warm-blooded animal, and just reproduces by splitting itself into copies, much like a cloning process.  (I'd do a more thorough study before presenting this, but this town is FIFTH-THICK to the point that it is like swimming through a pool of algae...  lesser organisms would have suffocated by now, it is SO DAMNED RIFE HERE, HINT CLUE). As this "thing" reproduces that way in those types of animals generally, it has a special condition in which it will sexually reproduce instead.  That condition is the lining of a cat's small intestine, basically. How charming, yes?  Life, the "greatest gift of all", the greatest gift and most beautiful and wonderous thing ever, is basically an opportunistic freakazoid.  The result is that we can find that it does "its thing", and this is fine for it, but there are effects it has on the life forms upon which it "coat-tails".  It is hypothesized that there is a psychological affinity for the presence of cats that is engendered in the host, which makes it more likely that a host will tolerate or even seek out proximity to cats. Only the inner secretes of rodent and cat-lady psychology can reveal this for sure.

But imagine if it really did lead that mouse or rat to more incidents of interaction with a cat.  Good for the cat, good for the toxo, and good for the suicidal rodent.  What if the rodent host were not suicidal before the toxo infection?  Doesn't matter, it will have an enhanced likelihood of helping get toxo into sexual relations with one another.  What does it do with the cat? Perhaps it makes the cat find rodents more appetizing than they would have normally.  What if there were some sort of disease borne by rodents which would infect a cat if the cat would eat a rodent?  Then perhaps that would be to the disadvantage of that cat, but would perhaps also shore back the prevalence of toxo-bearing cats as well.  There might also be a harm to the toxo population in that vicinity, but overall the cats and rodents are suffering the most, and the toxo is rodeoing the macro of this visceral drama.

There may be other vicissitudes, but the overall situation is that the micro-level organisms can basically invade larger-scale organisms and get what they want from the deal, sometimes to the assistance, or sometimes to the detriment of the host organisms, and for purposes all their own regardless.  There may be more "weaponized" forms of parasitic activity.  Take for example Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, a particularly heinous form of parasite from the fungi kingdom of life. What this thing can do, and what dynamics there are which ride with its actions on ant life, are fairly astounding when one thinks of the low level of complexity such life forms have in themselves when compared with far more complex life forms and their actions and interactions.  Yet some parallels emerge. 

The imporant thing to note right now, though, is that there is a stark asymmetry between the ant species and the fungal parasite which takes advantage of it.  The ant is adapting to its environment, with or without any such parasite.  The parasite is invading the ant and using the ant to create its own "meta-environment" which includes as one of its composing elements some aspect of the action of the host life form so that some or all of some aspect or aspets of that "host" (more like "victim") can be hijacked, in essence, so as to serve the parasites needs as a first priority.  Just look at the way this goes on in this particular form between ants as host and Ophiocordyceps and its various species. Go to all those provided links and see for yourself what sort of "asymmetry" it is that I'm talking about.  Try it out from the perspective of the host, then of the parasite, and see if they don't have a distinction that is about as fundamental, perhaps more insidiously malevolent, than a predator/prey distinction. (Predators just outright eat prey, so while it is more blatant what goes on, it is really not that different as to outcome, as the prey serves the predator rather than the other way around).

But these forms of life, such as cats and mice, are able to exist independently of one another.  The fact that when a cat sees a mouse it is likely to put it through hell before eating it, and then getting a joyous purr out of the resultant nutrition that the mouse provides, is meant mainly in this context to underscore the asymmetry between the two.  It isn't that sometimes the cat eats the mouse, but sometimes the mouse eats the cat.  A hungry cat will find and eat a mouse, and that about covers it.  When it comes to the way parasites take advantage of such an opportunity (toxo, for example), it may be more or less aggressive upon the lifestyles of those who are infected by the parasites.  Maybe they just like hitching rides, maybe they like having sex inside the small intestines that the host has which are just perfect for their mood, or maybe they like eating the organism from the inside out after controlling their behavior in a way that suits the parasite, but not necessarily the host.

Let's say that there are more benevolent, cooperative relationships that can obtain between animals.  Perhaps one will help the other, and in turn receive a benefit from that process, or from another process.  There are fish that clean the teeth of sharks, and the sharks don't eat those fish.  Both get a benefit.  There are possibly as many permutations where animals and plants, et al. can get along without devouring one another, but it will be found in most cases that they get along precisely because they are eating, usually some other species or its remains, or else being protected from being eaten or from bad hygiene.  Certain relationships in life forms are simply mutually beneficial, and help that group work together to go further than they would have in what is basically a very hostile environment to which their adaptations together work out better than if either are apart.  That's convenient when it happens, but it is the exception that got infected by and swallowed up by the rule, so to speak.

So in those cases, however, we can see a more reciprocal relationship in which at least to some degree there is symmetry, though it may be only an isomer of a truly balanced exchange.  One side may get more than the other out of the deal, though it is not in itself a zero-sum game.  Perhaps another life form could come along and serve as a sort of competition for that circumstance, and offer a better return than the life form it might replace in the relationship of mutual assistance.  There are a variety of aspects and dimensions to this idea, which is quite broad enough to include the relations of all life forms as such or rather, as found in some form of biospheric relation to one another.  This idea is called "symbiosis".

Because it is imperative for the analysis of fifth columnry, I will focus on the parasitic forms that are known to exist.  After this I will draw appropriate analogies between the different mechanisms of life and the way that these parasitic forms of symbiosis affect them.  Then I will show how actually existing rackets that human beings create and endure are, as it were, recapitulations of those biological analogies.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Contra Columnus Quintis XIII

The Modes of Life in the Species per  the Specimen

Over the Chiasm of Reproduction/Regeneration

Having found the nexus attribute which enables functional and structural translations between instances of a species, or specimens, and the aggregate forms of a specimen's existence, its species, one can now turn to examine the other attributes that have analogies between them.  Unsurprising, they will be functions of the same sorts of utilities found in the specimen, just as the chiasma that make them cognate must evidence some permutations of the same content and the therefore the same form, or else are derived from the same forms and so yield similar "action-on-content" which manifests some sort of goal-directed, functional utility.

The attributes of the living organism which are most similar to their relevant analogues in the species "as a group" are those which most directly reveal the relations between specimens in such groups, and those are explained best in a different order than with the specimen.  So I will start with the reproductive process and proceed accordingly.  After a new specimen is created by reproduction, it must develop and proceed to act as an adult would.  That requires that it be in a condition, when produced, that is in an environment compatible with development.  As the body grows in its development, the most important aspects of that development will correlate with the need to mature its tissues, grow in size, and develop behaviors of adaptation appropriate for its species.  These all happen in tandem with the ongoing activities of the adults who will rear it.

As that process goes forward, the developing specimen will acquire its respiration on its own from the environment, and in the case of more complex organisms, will in some cases require nourishment to be supplied by the adults of the species.  It turns out that if this is not the case, such as with some insects, amphibians, and reptiles just as examples, then the young will have perhaps some period of being with the parents, if any, and then must simply fend for themselves (as their own parents did, of course). If it is that they are cared for, then their nourishment will come from the parents and other adults of the species within the nearest "group" established around that reproductive occurence (the tribe, pride, murder, brood, etc).  That is the first evidence of what might be called a circulatory aspect of the species.  Nourishment, along with the basic genetic information, are transferred to the youngest members of the species by their elders, and they develop as individuals within the group just as the tissues of the adults are nourished by their own circulatory systems by a system which supplied those materials to them (digestive system, etc).

This is a subset of a larger system of exchanges between the group and the environment, so that they decide among themselves how to go about finding their nourishment in tandem, or in spite of, one another.  This process would have to do with the grazing patterns and formations of the group (vis-a-vis potential predators), or else the way that mature adults will fan out to take over separate areas which confederate into a patchwork of seperate domains within an overall territory belonging to none of them in particular (such as with eagles, who don't flock), and then, within these arrangements it is decided how to go about treating that which becomes their food, so that hierarchies manifest as pecking orders and those who are fed first and best versus those who are fed last and least well.  That reveals a pattern found commonly in nature, here representatively considered in a few forms simply to expose the kind which has the diverse forms within it.

That would be the circulatory system.  As to the digestive system, that would represent the actual systematic relationship to the ecosystem which bears out cycles of predator/prey, forager/foraged, and overall the group of specimens and the resources of the environment. That is where the taking in of the nourishment makes contact with the available supply of it, and that is where the degree of supply, as to abundance or scarcity, will relate to the capacity of the group and its members to obtain, per individual and per group, the needed sustenance that is to be acquired. This is a bare discussion of that attribute in terms of this context, but that should be sufficient to outline how that pattern resembles the pattern of digestion within the organism as an individual in terms of the organism qua species.  It's relation to the "inner" economizing of the gained resources (of whatever kind, but especially of food), will also bear out the same or at least properly analogous patter found between the digestion of food and its assimilation through the circulatory system of an individual specimen.

These are born out first simply because they have the most bearing on the individual in development as it is dependent upon the group.  This is not the proper beginning of the group per se.  It's beginning, as a group beyond the strict process of reproduction, is actually the adaptively communicative mechanisms of the group which bear out the creation of its hierarchies and pecking orders, its forms of relating to the environment, including its directives for nesting, migration, reproductive privileges, etc.  That is correlative to respiration.  Respiration is the privilege of each organism with respect to the same resource, the air (or the water, etc) in which they all participate without it being scarce enough to require a pecking order as would food, or a spot to drink, or a spot to bathe or sun, etc.  As this process becomes more complicated for the organism, as the organism itself becomes more complex, then more forms of communication are developed, some of which involve the "surplus potential" for action which enables the development of meaninful gestures to be evidenced which allow each specimen to suggest to the others what it wants to express and manifest, and they may then take this information into account as they go through all of their other processes.  Just as the "oxygen" of the in-breath comingles with the other processes in a way as to enable and limit, and hence govern their engagements, the species must develop protocols for sharing or refusing to share resources as a species, and one which enables some specimens and their reproductive projects to proceed, whether all do or not, so that the species can proceed (or else this process will end for all concerned).

So as they communicate and relate actively in ways that enable all forms of their cooperation (at least sufficient for mating rituals and not devouring all their young!), so does respiration seem to lay the overall groundwork as a limiting factor of the potential of all cells and tissues, organs and systems, and the organism as a whole to continue with all of its other processes.  It is more than just this sort of "elemental building block" in these processes, on both ends of the analogy.  Yet for now it will suffice to express this much about it. 

So if these organisms can get this much figured out, depending upon their forms of relations as a species, then they can each take care of their appropriate business as specimens yet still not fail to provide for reproductive necessity.  That is why they still exist.  This potential to get along or seperate as necessary, but always communicate these requirements sufficiently as to not require unnecessary loss of resources to disputations, this strategic inhibition of conspecific aggression, is what must be present or else the group and all its future generations will be eliminated from existence (except for the Highlander...).

But for this to occur, then they must acquire patterns of activity that clearly integrate with their different purposive behaviors so that the individuals can coexist within the appropriate boundaries as individuals sufficient to enable the development of a long-term-suvivable group capable of continuing as a species.  This would involve the capacity to find a habitat within which their operations can be successful, as species and as specimens.  So they will have to mobilize as individuals in ways that work as groups for migrations (when that is their custom), or else as individuals spread through territories in ways that, concerning choiceness and fittingness, bespeak yet another form of hierarchical delineation among them.  

These all represent the flux of a species in its existence that is stable and "internal" to it, which is a sort of homeostatic "motility" that expresses all of those features that are expressive of the species, just as would be the integration of all the mechanisms of the organism into a stable form which would represent the entity "at rest in a relatively neutral environment". As to the "mobility" of the species, this would be its cross-adaptability toward varied environments, and would indicate the more complex range of its potential as it would be actuated by those environments which may vary in range widely in some, but probably not all parameters.  These would "select for" specialized expressions of the species so that require the sophistication of an articulation of that species better suited for them.  It would represent the mobility of the organism as species in its ability to navigate an increasingly distal and peripheral set of circumstances with respect to its already expressed baseline of adaptive potential.  Note that in both cases here "adaptiveness" is the key notion that connects the relations of the species within its own frame, and the relations of the species to larger frames of environments that may vary from what is optimal, whether toward or away from it.

The only aspect which remains is one which happens to catalyze all of these other processes with the greatest impact when compared with any of them in that respect.  Both as to developmental processes of the specimen growing up, developmental processes of the entire species as whole, the mobilization of the group or the individual, the selection processes for finding ecosystemic and intra-specific orderings and homeostases, something analogous to a "neuro-glandular" system is involved, and so there must be some comparative systems and structures in place for the species which would embody for that collective organism something analogous to what is embodied in the individual.  That's not too difficult to determine.

What else remains of the species except for its capacity to devise more and more sophisticated means of approaching all of its developmental and adaptive relations to other members of the species and also the environment (to include relations to other life forms in the ecosystems they inhabit).  The accumulated heritage of customs, habits, and other behavioral adjustments that are integrated into the behavior of one generation, and passed on to the ensuing generations by the concatenations of developmental imitation and genetic recapitulation vis-a-vis environmental necessities will ensure this continual regulation and enhancement of those features of the species, just as similar adjustments made by the neuro-glandular systems of the individuals performs a similar role for the individual specimen in its vicissitudes of existence (though always framed in terms of the group at least through reproductive necessity, leaving out speculative worlds other than the one used here, as discussed in the immediately previous in this series).

Yet there is a fundamental nuance here that must be born out.  The individual entity did develop within an environment which enables it to grow into a fully functional, relatively seperate individual within whatever kind of life form that it is a genetic member.  Yet it must encounter all conditions, within its species and which are simply its own response-cycle to its own environment as rooted on its own entity per se.  That is tantamount to individuation as a process usually more fully expressed at more complex and more intelligent levels of life.  That also bears out the potential of the entire species as epitomized in this behavior in the way the species, as grouped forms, economizes individuation across common, bordering, and diverse territories.  And this is the way that individuation literally determines the form and direction of the evolution of the group so that it behaves, qua species, as though it were an individual which seeks to best economize its processes within itself and with respect to its environments.  The difference is that this is an aggregative process taking place over long periods of time, over large areas of space, and in a multi-generational process that cannot, in "non-Methusalean" worlds of life, be achieved by any individual "in itself".  Yet, it will be recapitulated in some individuals more than others, generation after generation, until its legacy develops into further changes in the organism "as a whole".  

And this will all find itself expressed anew in new generations, and most epitomally in certain individuals of those generations, so that we find a more significant meaning of the saying that "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny".  And while I did not mention it as a fundamental feature of life per specimen, it obtains its best context and demonstration in contrast with the performance of the species per se, and respresents the power of the actual, the existential, and the particular over the potential, the universal, and the general.  The "species" does not live, actually.  The specimen is what lives.  And this is how life is the "practical joke of the particular upon the general".  

Now on to how this process varies in ways specific to the study of what are called, on the human tier of these phenomena, "rackets".  And with this study we will see how life is rather the "practical joke of the general upon the particular" when it reaches a systematic form.  This will start with a study of how such phenomena of opportunistic exploitation are found "in nature" without necessarily any reference to the human variety.