Any reader that is with me up to this point understands clearly that there are ergio energies that transcribe who and what we are throughout humanity and on even to sentient beings here and elsewhere in the universe, and the Akashic record historically apprehends all vices and actions into the sentient archive for all beings to source and inherit.
A device like the internet is a web of these associations and is equally the result of them. When peoples seek to communicate they will divine a way, the internet protocols however mundane are an urged result by a desire for our mass of humanity to interact; the need for speed in aircraft and even the need for aircraft is the need to reduce the time to reach a loved one or to greet a stranger, and thus humanity seeks through varying methods, with relative success, to reach out onto all parts of itself.
The reason why we seek interaction via a tool like the internet or an airplane is because we either have not learnt how to use our psychic abilities, or because we do not conceive the possibility of metaphysical astro-hopping our soul form one place to another. A phone call might be more evidence of the limitations that we impose upon ourselves and than we overcome with the very phone call that dials up our limitations.
The reason why we invented science was to circumnavigate the wall we built by falling in love with material happenings; and the ever dangerous love of rationalization of events so as to explain that which is impossible to comprehend: the universe and our relationship to it.
In a sense we can be aware of the universe but we cannot know it, and if we attempt to know it then we cancel our awareness. The two are mutually exclusive, awareness and understanding don’t get alone, scientists understand, gods are aware. A god is capable of instant on action, a scientist has to have a lot things in place to turn on the lights.
When you look at a science such as is the science of statistics you have to ask yourself are there facts in statistics? Even as facts can not be a part of something that is a mere approximation. Yet the truth be told there are only approximations to reality which harden when we put a name to them, was Samuel Clements Samuel Clements or was he Mark Twain? He was for sure both, or was he, could Samuel Clements be Mark Twain or could the reverse of that be true too?
We know Samuel Clements because of Mark Twain, and Mark Twain was a person that Samuel Clements could never be, could never be as the real world person that he was; personification implied that his name had to change to represent what he was to society as a whole. It was however Mr. Clements that intuited that such would be the correct expression of his Twain essence; Mark Twain rings true to the writings, rings true to the sensibilities of the man, and either through suggestion or by his own initiative Samuel got the name right.
This is also true for those magnificently hardworking and yet seemingly frivolous movie starts, the name Hollywood carries with it all the symbolizing energies of the place. “Holly” of course is a religious term, which immediately dazzles with spiritual connotations and mass appeal; while wood is grounded on reality and burns up. The ease of the tone has enough superficiality on it that you will not let your mind be arrested by it; the word “syllogisms” could have never been the name for “Hollywood”, this is because “syllogism” has to carry a lot of intellectual heft and so it will not meet with your expectations, of lighthearted entrainment suspended in a reality of accurate disbelief.
And so “statistics” might themselves insinuate to take a snap of something, to hold the meaning static for a second, to stack up something so that it clicks, so that it pronounces meaning, where there might be a lot of dynamic stats are halting. The picture immediately generated by stats allows you to conjure a reality, it allows you to think of a possible reality, and it allows you to modify your thinking process and your actions. If for instance, you know that a candidate is statistically projected to win by a considerable majority you might not bother to vote. And if others think just like you, due in fact to the statistics, and so you and the others end up not voting, this may cause the wrong political candidate to win but for the wrong reason; because the statistics were in fact correct, even as they will be seen as wrong due to the outcome of the election.
And so you can see that it is not easy being right even for the staticians, as the very statistics by virtue of projecting change human behavior, and so become an added burden to any equation. Still what I have shown above is that statistics can no be objective as their very reading of a political process makes them immediate participants in the process. An intelligent statistician will want to correct his mistake and so will refine the data collecting process, use more varied sources, change the method of compilation, but in all honesty the stats cannot be taken out of the process, as they are tagged by it, the process defines the stats, the stats have to tune to the process, and yet when they refine themselves they will equally change the outcome in an uncertain manner.
The cruel reality is that the statistics and their corresponding professionals have now become so much a part of the campaign that they are in fact not an alternate source of information but rather part of the process, used by either side, to seemingly objectively justify its particular inclinations.
This is why statistics will tend to work better from hindsight, it is easier to know how many households had television in the 1950s because in the fifties most of the televisions sold were sold to households as businesses did not see any need for televisions. However here another truth is also telling, teenagers in the 1950s had a fad, they liked to grease their hair. Now project that to today, what do we have before us, teenagers are using gel to grease their hair, and they are wearing baggy pants, which was also true in the fifties, back then boys wore baggy pants; still we don’t know what the connection is, maybe it is a comfort zone thing, but why the grease on the hair? Are they looking for certainty of looks? Have they found some modicum of rectitude in the ability to control their hair and know its precise location, and know thus, how they will be seen by their friends?
We can speculate for ever but we are not going to do that, the reality doesn’t have anything to do with the grease in the hair or the baggy pants, the reality is that these generations are demonstrating that they do synchronize swimming. If they are all into a particular fad what they are defining is the communication that that generation will share across the passing years, hence the name given to generations, Y, X, called them what you will the reality is that generations speak to each other with a silent agreement.
People from the baby boom generation will be the happiest seniors the world has ever known. Why? Because it is the single largest most massive generation ever to retire, that means that they will hold the world hostage with their conservative vote and their vote for senior entitlement programs! That sense of communality however is accident, it is generational, that is to say that their sense of shared agreement is not based on the fact that they are seniors but based on their communal generational statistical sense and value. They intuit and perceive the world in an intrinsic manner as experienced by their generation. And their fads, when they were teenagers, and the global acceptance of their fads tells us how well the are subconsciously integrated and perhaps how successful they will be in living and changing their times.
This is enough for now.
RC
No comments:
Post a Comment