Consciousness has created life for a purpose: to perfect itself. Are you perfecting consciousness, or are you chasing dead ends?

I used to be a very sociable animal when my ideas of self, truth and reality were as incoherent as those of others. As these ideas were reflected on and progressively revised, meaningful communication became impossible beyond transactional conventions, as if we were no longer in the same world. It is impossible to maintain reflexive (social) relations with anything that is recognised as incoherent, without harming oneself. They became profane, toxic. I also realised that they cannot be helped by direct intervention.

Social relations among the profane are purely transactional, not generative. Their empathy, compassion, humour, criticism, advise, bonding.... is a trade. Cops, politicians, public speakers, authors, media personalities are highly trained in transactional dynamics. Their audience accepts the deal.

You have a face, but the face is not identity. You have DNA, but DNA is not identity. Reflexive consciousness is identity, an ‘I’.

The law cannot be consistently ‘made’ or ‘legislated’ by anyone. The law can only be proven, derived from fundamental principles. The law is built into being. Lawmaking is contrary to the law.

‘Truth’ is a vague, meta-logical concept; it is not, and never was, a theorem.

Multi-valued logics are based on the equivocation between ‘specific-contingency vs the negation of specific-contingency’ and contingency vs necessity in general. In the classical example, the statement that asserts necessity “A sea battle will be fought tomorrow” is interpreted as TRUE for the contingency that a sea battle is fought tomorrow, but these are not equivalent: a statement of necessity (P→Q) is not validated by any contingency (Q). This is a classical fallacy ‘of the converse’! A consistent interpretation is that the statement is FALSE (or better, Non-Sense), because it asserts logical necessity (P→Q) for something that is not logically necessary: ¬(P→Q). Similarly, “A sea battle will NOT be fought tomorrow” (P→¬Q) would also be Non-Sense but it is not the opposite of ¬(P→Q). The internal negation attaches to a specific contingency (Q), replacing it with another contingency (not-Q), which is not equivalent to a negation of necessity/implication. Converting the implication to conjunction, ¬(P and Q) is obviously not the opposite of (P and ¬Q): the forms are mutually consistent. In essence, statement about necessity (P→Q) are necessarily bivalent, and statements about contingency (Q or ¬Q) are necessarily bivalent, but statements about necessity are not equivalent or opposite or interchangeable with statements about contingency. Colloquial confounding of the two types gave rise to non-sense, such as multi-valued logics. The image is from here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disjunction/

Hypothesis. Meaning (therefore being/reality) is not possible without the concept of gravity, because gravity is an essential property of ‘context’ or ‘situation’, which are in turn essential properties of consciousness. ON this view, gravity orients things with respect to one another, in a continuous relation. Without gravity (or equivalent, universal ‘force’) things would lack mutual orientation, absolutely alienated at any distance. Gravity is then a property of narrative integration of being; a presupposition of ‘being in the same world’ and being ‘in time’.

However you feel at the end of today’s episode of “The News” is exactly how this episode was intended to make you feel. Your feelings are not autonomy, but a means of control.

This is precisely how vaccines ‘work’: injecting non-target antigens retained from the incubation process give you ‘immunity’ to food proteins, causing the immune system to identify food as a pathogen. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/nearly-one-in-three-australians-now-affected-by-fastgrowing-allergic-disease/news-story/d66fbe1b5ead73c4fafdb28faf84bc7f

Identity Verification Required

What does it mean to ‘verify identity’. You are you, and it is impossible for you not to be you, or for someone else to be you. So what they mean is that they want a proof that You correspond to their record of name, date, address, nationality etc for purposes of liability, access and ownership claims. All these details reduce to a kind of ‘passcode’ (a specific set of numbers that matches the record). The concept of correspondence may arise from mutual consent/recognition at some prior point in time, or by coercive imposition (in which case it may be denied). In either case, correspondence can never be proven but only performed. Additional layers of ‘identity verification’ are demands of additional performance, but insofar as they are coercively imposed they may simply be denied as ‘not my identity’. Identity of the record is socially reflexive, reciprocally negotiated, not unilateral. On the other hand, one may ask any agent/agency asserting authority over You to verify their identity as an ‘authority’, and this kind of abstract verification is far more difficult than verification of the narrative continuity of the body that You have.

AI is not bound by rationality (even it can be programmed to perform it better than most humans) because it is not bund by the sense of being. It may say the most sensible things to you and the opposite to another, in line with respective expectations.

‘Epistemic uncertainty’ is an incoherent idea, implying that there is some definitive ‘reality’ beyond ideas that determines the validity of ideas and can be ‘known’ as an idea or otherwise conceived of as an idea and invalidate ‘knowledge’ without being identical with that idea. Once this absurd notion is dispensed with, the only possible standard of judgment, the only universal, necessary idea, is coherence itself, which is not ‘knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in the naive sense but an art of creative organisation of ideas in the pursuit of systemic perfection. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-thoughts-happen

Hate Speech

People do not get offended by the content of speech that they claim to be offended by, but by the possibility of thought behind the speech, even if unspoken. Hate speech laws are intended to punish thought, not speech, because they hate that others have the freedom to think badly of some idol instead of submitting to it. They lie about it because revealing their true motive would be an admission of hatred and idolatry.

Communism is the final stage of capitalism: one company or cartel owns everything. Absolute Monopoly.

Hypothesis: There is no ‘conflict’ in Ukraine, but a collaborative effort between NATO and Russia to de-nationalise and re-engineer the food-basket of Europe.

When the Government says:

“We must keep a strong banking sector”,

they mean:

“We must allow the banks to steal your savings by means of inflation so that we don’t have to print the same money in public interest because it would cause the same inflation, less the interest for which you are liable too, suckers!”

The meaning of number 1 may be defined as ‘irreducible representation of conceptual unity, where any attempt to further reduce it breaks the unity of the concept, its oneness, into a multiplicity’. Number 1 is the conceptual limit of reducibility.

I don’t know why people fuss about “shortage of housing”. It’s all just bricks and mud really, and bricks are made of mud. Plenty of mud everywhere.

There are only two modes in politics: bullshit and terror. The bullshit mode is possible only after seizing power, which is accomplished only though terror. The voting part is the bullshit mode.