The propaganda system is essential for the structure and maintenance of social-class

 
The formalized technical languages of peer-review, can and do fail, but there is an alternative, ie similar to the ideas of Copernicus challenging the authorities of his day, and this demonstrates that there is not any aspect of the highly controlled channels of communication which is capable of presenting any truth what-so-ever, but it only serves the interests of the ruling-few of a world empire. The down-fall of this empire can be accomplished by an intellectual revolution, throw-out the intellectual basis of the empire (materialism and fundamental randomness), and transcending the idea that science must be based on the idea of materialism.
See scribd.com search m concoyle (books pertaining to m concoyle’s talk at 2013 San Diego math conference)

Summary

Much of propaganda depends on people perceiving the media as carrying a reliable truth, this is allowed by peer-review, ie the news may be manipulated but peer-review is sure to be true, especially in regard to physics and math, wherein truth (since the 1910’s) is based on formalized axiomatizing of a technical language, so as to “not allow:” new contexts, or new interpretations, or new ways in which to organize a measurable descriptive language; but this means that that the formalized axioms eventually become irrelevant, and then the technical language possesses no capacity for content, ie a model of an absolute truth but a truth which has no content.
That is, do not count-on any aspect of the highly controlled channels of communication to be capable of presenting any truth, when it serves the ruling-few of an empire.
But there does exist an alternative to the current non-functional science and math formal languages, ie similar to the ideas of Copernicus challenging the authorities of his day.
See scribd,com search m concoyle


The western society does what the rich (ruling-class) want.
Value is not considered to be knowledge and (practical) creativity, rather it is what the ruling-class proclaims “what it is that has value,” ie value is arbitrary.
This proclamation of value is done through the propaganda system which fills the communication channels and the education system, wherein the truth that is studied, is the high-valued knowledge most useful to the ruling-class.
The societal organization of Western civilization was determined by the Roman emperors, where actions and knowledge are narrowly confined (knowledge of the world is limited, while abstract hierarchical symbolic use is the main focus of the most learned members of the culture), and practical knowledge is associated to “certain uses” of practical creativity, ie civil works, about which society is organized. This narrow society is formed and maintained by extreme violence, and because of its narrow definition (or confinement) it is a society which is in need of the consuming processes of exploitation, destruction, and expansion, so that populations grow and more (usually material) “value” confiscated from other societies.
This social hierarchy was taken over by bankers, so as to be based on investments, which are determined within a stable, narrowly defined market. (narrowing allows “educational efficiencies,” easier organizations, and violent expansion and exploitation, and an expanding population who possess the same narrow viewpoint, motivated by selfish interests in a context of materialism)

Though the most energetic and prosperous early British colony was the Quaker colony and it was the same Quaker concern for equality, which was stated in the US Declaration of Independence, as the cause for revolution; but it was the rich colonists, who were most-close to the trade practices of the bankers of Europe, and it was the rich who led the new US, so as to define freedom as “the freedom of bankers to invest,” or as the Puritans state it, “the freedom of the morally superior people to continue to prosper.”
That is, the elitist Puritan (Calvinist) ideal was used by the propaganda system rather than the egalitarian Quaker ideal shortly after the US revolution. (The main point of (Protestant) Calvinism is that the spiritually superior people are identified by God by their material success, ie the rich do not need to buy indulgences from the church, ie one of the main points of M Luther’s reformation)

From the start the US was a society highly dependent on propaganda distorting the ideas of:
Equality and “the freedom to know and create” based on a selfless belief of helping other independent people, who are joined together by life and the commons within which we all live and are nourished, (we are all equal creators),
And
Changing this ideal to:
Inequality, controlling society in very narrow ways, associated to investment, which serve the few, and applying all the necessary violence needed in order to achieve this goal, ie the model of the European-banker-Roman civilization.

In the US there are two sides to a social discussion within the propaganda system, each serving different aspects of the same master. That is, the pairs of “Hegelian dialectic opposites” which, together, define a whole context of an artificially-limited realm of discussion. The point is, that the entire realm of discussion…, in regard to all the pairs of opposites considered…, is far too narrow a realm into which knowledge and (practical) creativity can be confined, so it is confined by violence which is perpetrated against the public and which is mostly implemented social institutions (law, education, investment).

The rational side (the liberal), who believe deeply in scientific truth and progress,
…, where since the middle 1960’s the changes are small; and focused on the telephone, the TV, the computer, the car, nuclear weapons, carbon fuels, and civil engineering similar to the Romans, ie progress and change is mostly an illusion….,
And this side believes in helping others, claiming a “believed to be” novel idea of a collective community…,
but an Empire already is a collective endeavor, in which the public must support the rich ruling-class
…, and the narrow focus of this endeavor is maintained by means of violence, both directly and through institutions eg education, the justice system, the political system, and a careful control over the communication channels of the society.
And
The-other-side (the second side, the conservative) which supports the ruling-class, where the ruling-class is attributed…, by Calvinistic religious views…, to a condition of being superior people, both morally and intellectually, and certainly above the law, where the harsh laws only apply to the public, and this second side also supports the extreme violence, which always must be directed towards both the public and to those who are outside of the Empire,
this violence is necessary because of these other people’s inferior human tendencies.
That is, this second side has the belief that “if one is favored by God then they will become rich.”

Thus, the main form of the society is based on the opposite sides of Calvinism vs. Communism, both materialistic and collectivist viewpoints, but one believing in a divinely ordained superiority of the ruling-class, and their violent opposition to the inferior public, and the other side believing in the golden-rule, and the absolute truth of rational science, and subsequently, a belief-in competition and survival of the fittest.
That is, both of these sides support the ruling-class, and the high-value which they (the ruling-class) proclaim to society.

The scientific viewpoint of materialism is the most damaging idea to society, and to truth, and this harm is possible since the public does not see how the language of science is manipulated.
There is a belief, by the public (since the propaganda system told them that it is true), that peer-reviewed science is (essentially) an absolute truth, but many of the main problems with language (and the idea of a descriptive truth) related to peer-review is that peer-review is a “formalized fixed structure for a precise language” which is associated to the science community, and thus it has limits as to the patterns which it can describe. That is, Copernicus cannot prove his ideas by beginning with the assumptions of the Ptolemaic system.
The knowledge of science, which the ruling-class needs, is related to an ability to adjust and maintain complicated instruments into which the ruling-class has invested.
Investments in knowledge are the most risky, since knowledge can change, and a fixed, formalized axiomatic scientific language tends to lack content, so abstract complications are added to the scientific body of literature, but the knowledge only remains relevant to the (old) knowledge needed for the adjustments of instruments, ie the knowledge content within an axiomatic formalized language stays fixed.

Today (2013) the fixed structure of language is:
In physical science there is:
1. Material geometry (classical) or a function-space and a model of fundamental randomness (quantum), and
2. a derivative (classical) or a set of operators (quantum) (and differential equations (both)) and
3. a domain space for the solution function (classical) or “functions of the function-space” (quantum) within which the material-spectral system is contained (both), where the domain space is a metric-space whose dimension is determined by the idea of materialism (both).
The only useful part is (classical):
1. Material geometry,
2. the derivative (and a differential equation), and
3. the domain space of the solution function, and
4. only the differential equations which are solvable provide the knowledge which is needed to adjust complicated instruments whose controllability is reliable (there are also feedback systems).
{Note: The solvable equations of some very simple quantum systems (H-atom, confinement to a box, etc) can also provide some information, but the quantum methods cannot be generalized, as they can be generalized in classical.}
The rest is irrelevant complications, presented in a formalized axiomatic (or fixed) language (held fixed by peer-review), a language which has (come to have) no content.

The main very big problem, which is so artfully ignored

But there are very stable physical systems, which fit into the general categories of: nuclei, general atoms molecules crystals; which when their components are the same, then in their “process of formation” these quantum systems (which possess the same numbers of similar components) come to possess precisely the same spectral properties…., so this means that the process of their formation is controlled…, and thus it must be a math model which is geometric and solvable.

Fundamental randomness of the (irrelevant) quantum context is wrong.
One can be in a fundamental agreement with Einstein that “God does not throw dice,” ie quantum physics and particle-physics are both (all) wrong.
But, furthermore, general relativity is wrong, though metric-invariance is correct, when a metric-function is based on a linear descriptive context it is a statement about reliable measuring, and this requires that a metric-function be fixed, but when a metric-function is based on a non-linear descriptive context it is a statement about un-reliable measuring, ie determining a general (non-linear) metric-function is not about an invariant form for a differential equation as the idea which is the basis for physical law, and this is because local measuring is not smooth, rather the correct model of a local measuring process is that of a discrete process of change.
Thus technical language is thrown into a context of irrelevance by means of maintaining a fixed formalism, and this is done, at the convenience of the ruling-class, to stabilize the technical context of their investments, ie so that “new knowledge” will not make their instruments irrelevant (and thus bad investments).
Note: axiomatic formalism for the higher education system began around 1910-1920 and this is about the time when controllable-system technologies all became based on electric circuitry and electromagnetism, or on thermal physics, even the rate of (nuclear) reaction is based on 19th century ideas about statistical physics. This is also when general relativity became the standard formal truth for peer-review journals, ie journals published by publishing-houses controlled by the very rich

Do people ever wonder why science stays so irrelevant to issues concerning both
1. clean, cheap energy sources; and
2. many-dimensional models of existence?
Why, in the current many-dimensional models of either elementary-particles or string-theories, do the experts always adjust their model so as to include (or maintain) the idea of materialism, as well as to make their descriptive contexts relevant to large explosions of material (ie nuclear weapons technology)? This is because their interests (the expert’s interests) are about being peer-reviewed and they are competitively concerned about overly authoritative ideas, or more accurately, their ideas are narrowly defined dogmas which are of the greatest interest to the ruling-class, in regard to the business investments of the ruling-class.

Why is modern science only concerned about finding the cross-sections for elementary-particle collisions… and idea which primarily relates to “rates of nuclear reaction” in systems which are carefully set-up to be used to induce nuclear reactions…, yet the cheap, clean energy systems, which were promised long-ago (1950), never materialize…, be it fusion or thermal-solar…,
or
Why is modern science only concerned about unifying models concerning rates of particle-collisions (or reaction rates) with models concerning models of gravitational spherical-symmetry singularity-centers (in a context of materialism)? …, (Is the answer: So as to produce an explosion to rival the formation of a black-hole.)

Can math models of a “many-dimensional existence” transcend the idea of materialism? Yes.
In such a more realistic (non-materialistic and many-dimensional) model of existence, can both the creative range of mankind be extended, as well as a more realistic basis for developing clean, cheap energy sources be determined? (Yes.)

Why are there very stable quantum systems which exist, and which are consistently similar in their spectral-properties when they possess the same number of quantum components, such as in the case of nuclei and general atoms?
These properties suggest both a geometric structure (for these systems) as well as a formation process which exists in a context of being controllable (a solvable, geometric context, which is controlled by initial or boundary conditions).
Yet, the best statement which modern physics and math (which are being based on indefinable randomness and non-linearity) is supplying about these stable and consistent systems is that:
“these systems are too complicated to describe using the (very complicated) laws of physics concerning either quantum physics or particle-physics (laws based on random collisions [or random events] of elementary-particles).”

Then perhaps the laws of physics (and math) are wrong, and the current laws of physics are only focusing on a small area of concern, namely, the relation of small (apparently) random component behaviors to properties which only relate to nuclear reactions.

Why does science and math conform more to (almost exclusively to) business interests, than to independent representations about how precise math methods and various (new) interpretations of scientific data can be used to describe the properties of existence as “it actually is” so that, that existence is not based on the idea of materialism?

Part of this focus on narrow sets of ideas has to do with the complications which get associated to this narrow set of ideas and the ability to behaviorally manipulate people within the public education system, principally through (using a fraudulent idea of) “intelligence-testing” so that autistic-types are distinguished by the test, where these personality types are related to obsessions over memorized complicated strings of symbols. That is, these people are obsessed with narrowly defined complication and they do not consider the obvious way in which the narrow dogmatic and fixed language structures are failing to provide satisfactory answers concerning observed patterns. That is, whole classes of observed very stable spectra associated to these wide sets (nuclei, general atoms, molecules crystals) of fundamental physical systems, a condition which implies both geometry and solvability
(note: string-theory is sort-of a pathetic joke of endless and incomprehensible complications, trying to (do the impossible) couple geometry to random processes)
So that the best statement of modern science is that “these systems are too complicated to describe” …,
…, this certainly suggests that the, so called, “leading intellectuals” are leading us to their own obsessions, concerning complications about the illusions which these “experts” (autistic-types) have been induced to consider, induced by illusions of high-value associated to these types of goals (eg using a language based on both geometry and probability) in a fixed and subsequently irrelevant formal language.

Now that there is an alternative math model for both materialism and the apparent fundamentally random properties of existence….,
namely a many-dimensional containment space of highest-hyperbolic-dimension-11 which is partitioned into a finite set of stable discrete hyperbolic shapes of metric-spaces of various “spatial-dimension” and metric-function signatures with each different signature associated to different physical properties, so that material is a stable metric-space shape which is contained in an adjacent higher-dimensional similar metric-space, but the containing metric-space also possesses a stable shape,
…, so that the main issue before mankind is about determining…
in a language context of different assumptions, new contexts, new interpretations of patterns, and new ways in which to consider containment,
…, the relation between (1) a math context of “reliable measuring based on and describing stable patterns” and (2) a practically useful truth, associated to practical creativity (even in a non-,materialistic and many-dimensional context concerning a descriptive language of existence).

In regard to this fundamental issue facing mankind “the relation that knowledge has to practical creativity” that, now (2013) the social structures of mankind are based on elitism and this elitism is based on an absolute idea about truth and this social structure is opposed to people expressing alternative views and presenting these ideas in an intuitive, but carefully presented, manner.
Currently there are the orthodoxies of quantum physics which has very little relation to practical creative development and particle-physics and general relativity combined in string-theory so as to only be related to an assumed spherically symmetric core of a grand nuclear (or particle) reactions.
That is, modern physics and math are only focused on nuclear weapons.
But this is possible since the ruling-class controls the communication channels so that the education system filters into the top levels autistic types who see reality as memorized sets of complicated related symbols, ie apparently they are not capable of assessing the value which their deep thoughtful considerations have within society, so that these autistic types deal with knowledge in a context of formalized axiomatic structures, ie fixed symbolic structures, which are not capable of describing patterns that have any real content, ideas that can be used for practical creative development, except in the most narrow of nuclear weapon contexts.
The usual narrow context of increasing the range to which a fixed instrument can be applied, ie not developing new contexts within which practical creativity might lead to much more practical creative variety.


The ruling class are in charge of language within an oppressive, “collective society” whose collective purpose is to serve the interests of the ruling-class.


Note: The success of statistics…, in regard to its (so called, former) great accuracy at which a political-election is predictable after a few votes are counted…, is really expressing the idea that in the very limited range of choices are possible in regard to the limited range of symbolism (or language) is allowed to be used within society. Thus, the amount of variation of how people…, who are forced into a narrow viewpoint about life…, adapt to such a limited language usage, ie the vote, is quickly measured by a few samples. The validity of the statistical methods is related to the narrow variation of symbolic (or language) usage within society, since people are trapped in a language which is violently imposed on them (as is their condition of being wage-slaves).

The professional scientists are those who both adjust and gradually advance the range of use of complicated instruments (into which the ruling class has invested), and they have no relation to truth. That is, there is no room for a scientist to identify new ideas…., such as Copernicus, to challenge the scientific dogmas (used by the ruling class for their narrow interests)…., in regard to how information, of all types, is controlled in a very narrow manner by the ruling class.
Academic institutions are organized around sets of narrowly defined languages, in turn, based in (for math and science) axiomatic formalization, so this narrowness requires that the focus of professional science people also be narrow, so the symbolism of knowledge is narrow, and the efforts of a material based knowledge can also be narrowly channeled into the (material) instrumental needs of the ruling class, since material is controllable by violence and by law.
Thus, intelligence was defined to be about obsessive focus on symbolic knowledge.
That is, curiosity, inventiveness, new contexts, new interpretations etc are not considered to be a part of new knowledge.
Rather new knowledge must be derived from the fixed absolute scientific truths held so “dear to the heart” by the professional scientists, who, apparently, love so dearly to support the interests of the ruling class, and the truth the ruling-class provides to society through their control of society’s information channels, and controlling an manipulating personality-types within society by institutions, be it education, prisons, mental health, law, as well as peer-review publishing.
That is, Copernicus must accept the assumptions of the Ptolemaic system and then prove that “the earth travels around the sun” based-on the opposite viewpoint (or opposite assumption).

The notion that trade, and narrowly defined commerce, can be the basis for social organization is nonsense. The trade structures can exist, but they can only exist in a context of equal, free creativity, not in a context of monopolistic domination in regard to a narrowly defined belief in (arbitrary) value, which must be held in place by both propaganda and extreme violence.

Though creativity is the core of what it is to be human, the building and trading of material related: objects, resources, and instruments, is bound to lead to failure, since it is (has come to be) defined so narrowly, so that resource extraction is very fixed and destructive.
The reason for this narrow definition is that monopolistic (and easily controlled social) institutions, eg corporations and the governments which they control, depend for their social power on their narrow relation to resources, and, subsequently, to narrowly defined knowledge, eg oil, and nuclear weapons and electrical circuits, etc.
Thus, control is about maintaining traditions and narrowness, yet promoting an illusion of constant newness and great diversity, eg new circuits or new weapons etc.

Whereas, ancient mankind was more aware of their personal power, and the relation that their life-forces have to existence, and they had a greater diversity of creative avenues to explore.

The point of western civilization is the focus and central theme of the need for extreme violence in both armies and in social institutions, and an extreme control over language and thought within the society, so as to oppress people whose creative directions would interfere with the “collective intent of a civilization” which is ruled (or directed) by a few, so that the conquests and associated trade markets are required to expand, and violence of the society’s social institutions drives the people into a collective viewpoint.

Marx was limited in his viewpoint about the nature of the human life, apparently he believed in inequality (since he believed in oligarchic societies), and he believed in materialism and bought-into the baloney about efficiency of markets and large scale monopolies. Efficiencies are baloney, it has mostly been a story of too-big-to-fail. That is, narrowness is not efficient, rather it concentrates social power.
That is, the war with Marxism is a sham, since Marxism and capitalism are both oligarchical and collective enterprises.
It is like the wars between Christian sects, slight differences in dogma allow new leaders in the oligarchy, and that is the point of the wars (to put in charge a new boss).

The creative range of human life is not confined to the limited idea of materialism.
Yet the religions of the west, ie the Judeo-Christian-Islam (the Abrahamic) religions, are about belief in the material world, and the propaganda needed to focus on living together in a social hierarchy, and to have faith in one’s own community needed to over-throw other material-based tyrants, who rule hierarchical societies, ie the Abrahamic religions are similar to Marxism, in that they believed in materialism and they believe in rule by the few, but they simply want to have a different set of tyrants in place.
Thus, the propaganda was about a particular community possessing a superior God, whereas for Marx it was about a hierarchical society whose propaganda was based on “helping the people.”
When Russian communism collapsed, this meant, in capitalistic societies, that the wage-slave social position of the worker could easily be exploited (or ignored).
China quickly changed its propaganda from “helping people” to narrowly defined trade and controlling markets, but maintaining the same ruling hierarchy.

To look at the native people of the Americas in pre-Columbian times, one sees some cultures where the creativity of mankind is not focused on the material world, there is no need for such a focus on materialism, and this is because “living is easy,” when the people live in a harmonious manner with an abundant earth.

The reproductive patterns of the people revolve around the female, and the society is mostly egalitarian.

But there was also a scientific-religious side to their knowledge (perceiving the world as it really is, in regard to the, true, many-dimensional structure of existence), so that creativity was channeled into the relation that life has to existence, ie life creates existence.
This knowledge (other than the idea of materialism) allows one to understand that “more than 10,000 years in the past” great stone monuments were built, with great precision, but without any apparent relation to material technology.
But one does see a similar history…, since over 10,000 years ago, also in the Americas…, of these communities becoming more violent and more material directed.
Yet, a deep science-spiritual knowledge about existence was maintained…,
as demonstrated by the formation and disappearance of communities in the US southwest so as to not leave a trace,
…, ie a reach of their knowledge which still extended outside the material world.
This shows (or can be so interpreted) that the existence of a (delicate) knowledge beyond the idea of materialism can serve to keep the nature of a social structure more harmonious with a deeper truth and a better society within which to exist.
Also
The living account of “perceiving the world as it really is” and an intricate cosmology of the ancient American cultures, as expressed in the memoirs of C Castaneda, which expresses this science-religious viewpoint about existence of the ancient American cultures. Eg lines-of-the-world (models of both neutrinos and light…,
[in a math model of existence based on the primary role of stable shapes in regard to understanding the stable order which we experience, or which allows us to experience],
…, in the world) experiencing many-worlds communicating with other (intelligent) life-forms, etc.

In the west, the mythology about many gods, who possessed extraordinary powers, with a vague account of their beginnings, and man’s diminutive relation to these Gods, seems to have a similar history in the Americas, since over 10,000 years ago, where the gods of the west were depicted as being domineering and selfish and violent, rather than being creative.
In fact, “experiencing the many-dimensional world, as it really is” also explains that each of us has a relation to existing as “a giant-being,” of the stars, who can move between many-worlds. Perhaps best depicted as a “giant tortoise living on air, freely dispensing creative gifts onto mankind.”

The small community of C Castaneda might have missed this central aspect of existence, which they may have experienced, but mis-interpreted.

Science and math


See m concoyle at scribd.com enter in their search-bar m concoyle

Science is based on:

Classical description is based on:
1. materialism,
2. local linear measures of properties, represented as functions (whose domain spaces contain the material system),
3. where coordinate containment is within a metric-space (metric-invariant), within which there is an external material geometry, which is separated from the material component upon which one is focused (and measuring in a local manner). This relation of local components to distant geometry is realized through force-fields…,
(second-order differential-forms [ie mass modeled as a 2-form in 3-space, while charge is modeled as a 3-form in 4-space])
…, and local inertial properties, ie the laws of Galileo-Newton.
{Thermal physics is about representing energy and entropy functions with their domain spaces (coordinate containment spaces) defined by the thermal measurement properties of: p, T, N, V; in regard to a closed thermal system (in equilibrium, the question is, “How can equilibrium be achieved so quickly?” the answer seems to be about the rigidity of the actual physical constructs physical associated to physical descriptions, and its relation of the operators, eg derivative operators, (newly found) to discrete properties, or discrete processes), and expressing local measures of these functions (energy or entropy) as first-order differential-forms (along with the three laws of thermal physics).}

Quantum description is based on:
1. Random material-particle-spectral events in space and time
(whose probabilities are associated to spectral-values, so that both of these properties are to be determined (or carried) by a wave-function [but for general quantum systems, this dual quantitative structure associated with a wave-function (both probability and spectral-values) seems to not be possible]),
2. local linear measures of spectral properties (ie sets of local operators), where the spectral-random structures are represented as a function-space of global wave-functions
(whose domain spaces contain the material system),
3. where coordinate containment (defined on the wave-function’s domain-space) is within a metric-space (metric-invariant), within which there is an external material geometry, which is separated from the material component {upon which one is focused (ie the random spectral-particle event)}…,
and where the local spectral-property is being measured in a local manner,
…, where this external geometry is represented (in quantum) as a potential-energy function (ie local operators are both derivatives and multiplicative operators [acting on a wave-function as an energy-operator]).

But this type of intrinsic containment, which is necessitated by the idea of materialism, ie existence is determined solely by material properties, (ie local material and distant material properties mediated by local differential operators) is not sufficient to describe the observed stable structures of many-but-few-body systems…,
which are either general (non-commutative) quantum systems, or non-linear global systems of classical physics
…., both (non-linear classical and random quantum) of whose observed properties are very stable.
One needs a containment hierarchy of separate, independent metric-spaces (so that within a metric-space one has an open-closed topology, ie external spatial [or metric-space] structures are unnecessary, and difficult to ascertain (or difficult to observe), thus, leading to the idea of materialism) [of many different dimensions and different metric-function signatures] so that either a metric-space’s shape can influence material orbits (of material contained in the metric-space) or in lower-dimensions a metric-space’s stable spectral properties (or stable shape) can determine the spectral properties of a stable material component.

Both of these math constructs, as well as Einstein’s axiomatic, non-linear characterization of inertia, are either non-linear, or non-commutative, or indefinably random, and subsequently they do not fit into a quantitatively consistent pattern to which math can be applied in a valid manner, ie the descriptions of these unstable and indefinable patterns do not conform to a measurably reliable context, and the patterns described are unstable, and this implies that such descriptions are without any meaning, and thus, without any relation to practical creative developments.
This non-relationship with practical creativity is the proof that these non-linear, indefinably random descriptive contexts are not valid.
That is, there exist fundamental, stable spectral-orbital physical systems which exist at all size-scales but which go without valid descriptions based on physical law: nuclei, general atoms, molecules, crystals, the stable solar system, and now dark matter, etc. The main statement made by the overly authoritative science and math communities is that “these systems are too complicated to describe,” yet they are stable, and they also, apparently, form in a controllable context, since the systems which are of the same type also have the same spectral properties, which are precisely distinguishable.

In regard to the development of practically creative contexts, there is a non-productive aspect of a carefully guarded knowledge, the science-math knowledge of our society, wherein peer-review is supposed to guarantee a reliable truth-value of these descriptions, which are presented to the culture by the professional scientists, a quality-control is placed on truth, but the control is determined by an authoritative dogma, and where these wage-slave scientists compete for the best paying jobs, which in fact are associated to adjusting complicated instruments, ie getting research grants from the corporate-government.
That is, science does not need to be protected from intellectual deceit, rather peer-review is identifying an authoritative dogma within which the investor class wants the professionals to compete so that they will fit into the narrow knowledge-based interests of the investor class.

Integrity in regard to truthfulness is a great hoax, in regard to the nature of the US communication systems.

Consider that the media is considered to be, by the public, the sole authoritative voice of the society, yet all the media does is:
1. mis-represent and
2. mis-direct, and
3. Deceive, and
4. Collude with the fraud perpetrated by our corporate-government, and then
5. Participate in covering-up this fraud, so as to deceive,
the public.

The only truth being protected is the truth into which the investor class is basing its investments, and these issues are about narrowness and domineering monopolies, ie it is about traditional fixedness, eg oil has been fixed as a monopoly for over 100 years, and coupled to coal 200 years, while nuclear is all about nuclear weapons and a willingness to poison the earth for selfish interests.

When a narrow technical level, associated to a set of product types, eg circuitry nuclear weapons etc, is attained and monopolies are built around such products or processes, and then this technical level can be given an axiomatic formalization so as to fix knowledge, by the use of a formal language, which has a limited range of applicability.
Yet the axiomatic formalization is a statement that this viewpoint is to be applied universally.
This is the viewpoint of truth which is derived from a narrow context, and it is the viewpoint which best supports a stable context for an already developed social structure for investment, ie it is an effort to lower investment risk in regard to the development of new knowledge.
Thus, it is a viewpoint which opposes any new technology, where the investors want to oppose any new creative context, since they have already invested in particular types of instruments.

This is noticeable in regard to oil, whose poisonous effects on the earth need to be curtailed.
However, in a justice system…, where law is based on property rights and minority rule…, this means that the oilmen will always be able to block any attempts (by the public) to curtail the use of oil as an energy source.

The technical languages (of the narrow truths which stabilize the investment context) are given an axiomatic formalization, which, in turn, is the basis for the dogmatic authority of a narrow viewpoint of science, despite claims to the contrary, where science is both protected by peer-review and it defines a professional wage-slave scientist.
But these formalized axiomatic truths are very limited in their range of applicability and when they are applied to greater ranges of descriptive contexts they always fail.

This narrow viewpoint about a “descriptive truth” is maintainable, since the education system is so easily manipulability, wherein intelligence is used to manipulate students…,
where intelligence is defined as a personality who is border-line autistic and who obsesses over their own memorized symbolic structures so as to get entrapped by the complications of the generalized application of narrow axiomatic symbolic formalism to a context in which the language does not fit
…, yet because the axioms define the “rules of the game,” which have led to a great amount of irrelevant complications ensue.

The non-productive nature of these peer-reviewed formalized axiomatic descriptions has been born-out by the lack of any relation of the ideas (descriptive patterns) of quantum physics (or particle-physics) for general quantum systems to provide accurate descriptions (or accurate lists) of spectra of the system to sufficient precision, and the utter lack of these (quantum) descriptive structures to any practical creative developments.
Some observed quantum properties can be coupled to classical systems, which are controllable, but only the laser was developed based solely on quantum properties. Micro-chips are made in the context of thermal systems and classical optics.
Non-linear classical descriptions can be related to feedback systems, but this implies that the containment space “for such descriptions” need to always be changed, when a feedback induced system-adjustment is made. The feedback-action is outside of the descriptive structure. Furthermore, the validity of the system-defining differential equation is always to be questioned, ie the focus is not on a chaotic solution-function, but rather on a system’s differential equation (and its associated limit cycles related to dynamic convergences of regions in the system’s domain space), but the chaotic nature, or unreliable measuring context, of the system as a whole, means that the range of applicability of the differential equation cannot be known, ie the feedback mechanism can suddenly no longer be relevant, ie the system (to which the differential equation is applied) has suddenly dissipated.

What is needed is a stable, solvable, controllable descriptive pattern as well as new contexts for creativity. This requires that math language not be formalized, rather, that description stay close to changes in assumptions, always adjusting interpretations of data or of patterns, the use of stable patterns as the basis for description, new contexts identified, and containment sets always re-considered.


The press (the propaganda system) are the enemies of both the public and scientific knowledge.
They view the public with contempt, while they view scientists, whose ideas have little (if any) relation to developing new practical technologies (this is true, despite the hype to the contrary) or to developing a new context for practical creativity (eg a context beyond the idea of materialism) so that their intellectual achievements, other than their irrelevant peer-reviewed literary achievements, are essentially non-existent. Yet the in the media these experts are considered to be an intellectual aristocracy, whose social status is of the highest ranking, they are close to the social-ranking of the ruling-class, but with a more limited domain of power, ie the domain given to them by the ruling-class of adjusting and maintaining the complicated instruments into which the ruling class has invested.
By worshipping a very limited form of knowledge thus causes communication channels to close-down to new ideas. That is, new ideas about science must enter public scrutiny through peer-reviewed journals, but peer-review is built around the authoritative dogmas of a formalized axiomatic language and as such it will exclude any ideas whose assumptions, interpretations, contexts, etc, are not consistent with the viewpoints of the peer-review institutions. That is, Copernicus must assume the beliefs of the Ptolemaic system (the sun goes around the earth) and then prove that the earth goes around the sun. Thus, no one is allowed to challenge the authority of the reigning dogmas of science, and (or because) these dogmas are consistent with the interests of the ruling-class.
This is all based on an endeavor to form an illusion, deceiving the public in an even more substantial way, namely, that the authoritative experts possess an absolute truth, which, because of their superior intellects (Calvinism keeps emerging into the language, ie substitute morality for intellects) these experts must also possess a superior truth, so that possessing such a truth is reason-enough to dominate and destroy both all other people and all other ideas (or thoughts), ie people are essentially their ideas and beliefs.

The role of propaganda is to dominate all language usage and all thoughts of the public, so as to conform to the collective will imposed on the public by the ruling-class.

This is all upheld in a circular and self-serving manner by peer-review, which determines the dogmas of science which in turn determines the content of technical language, ie descriptions which are measurable.
That is, the only way in which the public can determine an absolute truth is through peer-reviewed publications.
But
The media is the sole authoritative voice for all of society. That is, peer-review gets its high-value (in the minds of the public) by the way in which the general media treats peer-reviewed truths and its associated set of authorities.

Thus the following illusion is being presented to the world, Abstract mathematics has mastered the techniques of descriptions of random systems, random systems which often have underlying order, and that order can only be discerned and then used to understand the observed order of the system. This is clearly not the case, as the state of quantum descriptions clearly shows, namely, the order of general quantum systems cannot be explained, rather it is claimed that “the observed order of these random systems is too complicated to describe.”

Nonetheless, this is the claim; so that
1. the relation of DNA to the epi-genome will come to be understood, through the method of being able to distinguish certain molecules and then finding the correlations, which can be used to determine the system’s underlying order (this is far too big of a set to be able to describe in any comprehensible manner)
2. The patterns of random collisions of unstable elementary-particles and their non-linear, covariantly invariant, representations can be coupled with (a covariantly invariant) string-theory, to lead to the descriptions and control of all material systems (despite the fact that thus is far too complicated of a descriptive structure to be able to describe the observed properties of material-spectral-random systems).

That is, all aspects of the wage-slave nature of the society requires that any wage-slave view the public as a set of grossly inferior beings, and this can only lead to great injustices.


The social set-up of US goes something like this:
The top 500 individuals (But it is really, likely, the top five [maybe 10] families)
The 3% psychopaths (manipulated for purposes of extreme violence)
The needed 4% high-level personnel (top experts, and top managers, propagandists)
The 25-30% working in security

So there are 67-70% composing the inferior public , of which all but, say, 2% are deluded

However, there is an alternative, it is carefully thought out, it changes the context of human creativity. The changing of the context of creativity is central to any intellectual revolution of mind.

Does your loyalty side with equal freedom and personal knowledge and creativity, or must you conform to the oppressive world that the tyrants provide for you, where value and truth is well defined for you, ideas to which you must deform your soul, and you must “fight to be liked (or valued) by the ruling families of the world,” the model of heaven-on-earth (which is provided to us by the media).


add a comment on this article