Man and His Isims... in the Social Imagination ~ Part Two!

If you read over the list posted yesterday, I am sure you can find yourself among the isims. How fun, right? What is funny, most people will think that their isim isn't an isim or isn't a problem for someone else or should not be listed among those 'others'; because, theirs is the right one.  Man is always trying to explain himself and his existence. However, its more than that.

Man is trying to identify with something/someone greater than man and man is trying to escape the world around him because it smells of decay ... or entropy to say the least. And, he cannot agree with what he sees because something in him tells him different. What is that? Something in every man tells him that death and decay are a lie or that such inevitable breakdown of his reality is a waste.

Eternity is what makes more sense. The eternal flame 'light' that never languishes. This is much more agreeable to man. Now, for the man who knows the source of that truth that lies within his soul, there is no need for isims. Though one may argue that absolutism is seeking a truth that must be true in all places and in every moment. Why not... it seems to fit with non-locality* and the double silt particle experiment*.

Let's look at eternity. It is anti entropy ... its the quality of eternal light and why not. How much sense does eternal darkness make and could we even imagine it??? Its the one thing we could all agree on and certainly what we all desire to agree on, seek to agree on and are even determined to agree on. But, something seems to get in the way of such agreement.

What is that? Its isims. Excuses for our inability to agree on the one thing that we could all agree on. And, if we do, then what. Yes, then what? Well, that is a problem and our isims perpetuate such a problem. The problem is if we agree then what is the source of such agreement. After all, agreement on anything means that there is a source of information from which our agreement flows.

Of course, over the years, many have agreed on this or that isim even puffing themselves up because of their agreement. But, it was only their agreement on an idea that had and has nothing to do with the truth what they truly seek to agree on.  Even as I write this, I think that people hang onto their isims out of the desperation to agree and the desperation of fighting a losing battle with entropy.

If only they could agree on the truth of all reality the battle would be won...and the isims would halt for what purpose would they serve?




* ~ In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality is a characteristic of some measurements made at a microscopic level that contradict the assumptions of local realism found in classical mechanics. Moreover, quantum nonlocality is a property of the universe that is independent of our description of nature. That sounds like a 'truth' that cannot be subjected to untruth and for me that is an absolute. 

* ~ In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles;

Meaning, Agreement Reality and Boundaries in the Social Imagination!

There is no other reality other than the meaning we gain from our social interaction in the place we were born, live and work. That is because, such a place offers us 'agreement'. We agree that where we are is who we are or at least where we come from. Boundaries give us identity and meaning.

It is meaning that comes from being together and meaning that comes together in our social imagination as an agreed upon picture which we call reality. Our social interactions are grounded in such a place through interaction in a place. Such meaning starts in our mother's womb. It moves out from there as our point of departure grounded in a common among us/agreed on social reality.

Yes, the place we were born and raised is the very beginning of meaning in our social imagination. That kind of meaning that gets written in as a default mode program. Over time in a place, we grow in our social imagination in a place. That growth can be deemed as good, bad and even ugly in terms of information shared in a place and not shared. What is good, bad or ugly comes out of experience in a place and the information shared in a place. It all has meaning.

What the world means, the universe, the cosmos and its creation all come to us in the same way - social interaction; shared information in a place. Information is passed on from one to another, from generation to the next generation. Sometimes, it appears that things have changed but its really that people in the place they are agree that doing this or that can be done differently. Even if it is just slightly different and that is likely the case. But, always agreed on less chaos or discontent ensues.

We can only find ourselves as human beings, people, society, and individuals in the same place through agreement as to who we are in that place, what borders we tolerate both physical and social psychological. We can understand abstract concepts like: justice, liberty/freedom and democracy.  And, we 'people' have traditions, customs, celebrated holidays and religions that solidify them in the place where they are.

Meaning is applied in all those aspects of the social imagination. In the US, what it means to have private property is not the same as it is elsewhere. In some countries, a person has what is called the 'right/freedom to roam'. Here in America, roaming around is frowned on. We have the right to access public parks (State/Federal) but even then we cannot just walk in or walk about doing whatever we want.

We know that in order for this country to function, people have to work and pay taxes. It means something to the American. Working and paying taxes means being a citizen in a very special place with boundaries and such boundaries are supported by law. Its such law that enables a citizen to work/pay taxes and own property.

For anyone to say that boundaries don't matter, they better think again because more than likely that person operates within boundaries either drawn up by themselves or by the place in which they live.

"From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands" ~ NIV Acts 17:26.

Chaos theory in the social imagination...

Its been said that scientists had long turned a blind eye to the unpredictable nature of nature. Why? Because, there was a common idea among a majority of 'scientists' that everything that was observed/happened was due to predictable patterns. 

And, well there are such patterns including those in social behavior an outcome of the social imagination... after all, there is nothing new under the sun. But, some thought they saw unpredictability in nature (wonder what that would be like, observing unpredictability) and so, they said what we thought of as predictable was not really 'real'. That's a slippery slope!

Henri Poincare, a physicist, thought he had turned the scientific world on its head. He observed that even seemingly insignificant (and seemingly simple) systems could produce very complex and confounding behaviors. But, was he really seeing simple systems? Perhaps, those 'simple' systems were more complex than he had initially thought/imagined...socially imagined. One's thought patterns are not isolated but socially complex.  

You see, man's understanding of complexity is limited by his own complexity. The human body appears to be simply an eating/eliminating organic machine bumping around at large negatively effecting most things in its environment; but, it is more than that. At the cell level we discover nano-machines in cells, codes and operations. 

Anyway, later on, scientists invented a name for what Poincare observed: the butterfly effect. This idea says that a small change in one place and moment of time (such as a butterfly flapping its wings) can lead to an outrageous effect at another place and time (such as a typhoon).   

Well, but who could really say that it was a single butterfly flapping that caused such an outcome? They could not and so the butterfly effect is a conversational past time.
Because, if it were true, the world would be so incredible chaotic, we would never be able to say anything about what is happening right in front of our eyes; nor agree on what we see as anything that could be understood as 'real'. 

In social sciences, chaos theory is the study of the way that things and people interact. What they agree on through interaction determines what is real for them ... this takes place in the social imagination. The connections and interactions between people in a place over time is what generates society.  

Chaos theory does not assume that there is an absolute perfection in anything; but it does recognize that there is a complicated order to everything, or that all systems will eventually be made predictable with near complete accuracy. 

This theory aims for finding a general order for social behavior observed through interaction and their outcomes (what is agreed on) which do create patterns of behavior.  

So, effectively, there is no 'chaos' but a complicated order to everything... especially when we consider the social imagination which itself is abstract and abstractly complicated for it is grounded in space and time but only because those who apply it (in the locus of their mind) do so in an agreed upon space which is ultimately information taken in through interaction in a place over time.

*the title of the photo used is: Brain interfacing...

Social Programs in the Social Imagination...

 

What are social programs? Most sociologists will agree that they are, as described in the article titled, Do Federal Social Programs Works?, by David Muhlhausen (put out by the Heritage Foundation), efforts by the federal government that attempt to improve human behavior by increasing skills or awareness, chiefly through noncompensatory services.

These programs engage in social engineering that attempts to enhance the well-being of citizens. Social programs are intended to fix social problems that individuals are assumed to be unable to solve themselves. Do federal social programs work? This is a simple question. While the question may be straightforward, however, finding an answer is complicated.Why?

Because, it is not easy to firstly determine that there is an actually need for them, then determine if the need for them requires 'the' right solution and how to go about arriving at that solution including its funding. Why would it be difficult to determine a need for them? It is based on how you look at it. If you are taking a birds eye view rather than living among those who seem in need, the situation will look quite different.

And, even if the need can be determined, those that need most must be identified and not just one by one but in context of the whole. Why? Because, of social dynamics in the 'social imagination' of agreement reality. Its like this... if you uproot one thing in the forest, you will most likely cause a number of other problems even though you may have been able to determine that such and such bug/fungus is not good for a certain tree or animal.

You see, those at the top, (which would be us in the forest walking about) see things that appear good, bad and ugly. We have no idea just how important the mix of good, bad and ugly might be in the context of the whole workings of the forest... community. Its quite often better to let things in the forest take care of themselves. Wouldn't that be natural and naturally evolutionary?

Now, you can make the argument that intervention is necessary in many cases so that the loss of the forest does not occur, right?  Well, according to evolutionary theory, the loss may likely be part of the process in order that something arrives on the scene or comes on the scene.

And, certainly you could say that a top down view is just as much a part of the social imagination at large and below, right? Yes and no. Yes, because its true that those at the top and bottom and in between are all part of a grand social imagination. But, the social imagination is like an onion if you know what I mean.

There are layers or levels and each is in fact its own 'grand' social imagination. So, no... the top of any 'onion' cannot always recognize nor understand what the lower levels are exactly up to and how they manage to agree (but we imagine they agree in the same way/process) and on what they agree (yet we imagine that they agree on what we would agree on if we were in their place). So, it all somehow works and or comes together in the larger grander social imagination if/when we just let each layer to his/her own.
  
Conclusion
Do federal social programs work? Based on the scientifically rigorous multisite experimental evaluations published since 1990, the answer certainly cannot be in the affirmative. Despite the best social engineering efforts, overwhelming evidence points to the conclusion that federal social programs are ineffective. 

Ameliorating such problems as low academic achievement, poor cognitive ability, poverty, joblessness, low wages, and personal relations appears to be out of reach for federal social programs. The most notable exception is welfare-to-work programs, which increased earnings, but participants still received some government assistance. The evidence clearly shows that federal social programs are ineffective. 

And, now you know why... right?



*And, why the dandelions? Some see weeds and others see future flowers. Its the story of the wheat and the tares... let them grow together until the day of reaping. The Creator knows which are His to be rewarded and which are not. He knows those who have been living for His Glory and not their own.



Online Source ~ https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/do-federal-social-programs-work

The Frayed Ends of the Social Imagination...

What do we find at the frayed ends of the Social Imagination ~ Disagreement and Chaos!

Built into our social imagination is the desire to seek agreement, it provides us with the real and what we think as tangible world around us...sounds too abstract, but it's not. 

At least for now, most people agree that the sun is a star and the earth is round. But even that could change. Some think the earth is flat. Really? Let's say that they are those that are far from the absolute source of information, those at the frayed ends of the social imagination who seek agreement but only find incorrect information to agree on which finds them in disagreement with the absolute truth/source of all true information. 

Without getting a discussion about how misinformed flat earthers are, let's just look at the 'sun is a star'.  Was it ever imagined as something other? Maybe, we have no idea what it was agreed to be before the times of Noah when light was more evenly dispersed all around. We know that because in those times the sun was not directly visible. There was a firmament of heavy mist filling the skies providing an even temperate climate. That is what allowed for huge vegetation as well as huge animals and men.

Consider that the rainbow was only visible to Noah after the flood, suggesting a brighter light than before. Did Noah recognize the sun as a star? It was a light (Job 29:3 ~   His lamp shone above my head, and by His light I walked through the darkness). Noah understood light served the Creator's purpose and that God had a plan to change things from the way they were. 

Consider that when Noah harvested the grapes and made wine, it was a new thing for him. He got drunk and his sons were shocked by this event. We know today that grapevines flourish in warm temperatures as well as plenty of sunlight. The sun is for ripening as well. For the biggest yield, plant your grapevine on the south side of your property.  

Was the sun a star? It was a necessary light. The sun is necessary light and in some places, it is very hot. So hot and potentially a dangerous light that in the last days, that the Creator has a different use for the sun will not beat down on them,' nor any scorching heat ~ Rev. 7:16. 

There was a time when people did not know the position of the sun in relation to the earth. So, let's look back in time. Nickolas Copernicus (1473-1543) was not the first person to claim that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In Western civilization, ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos is credited with being the first person to propose a Sun-centered astronomical hypothesis of the universe (heliocentric).

You see, some thought otherwise to that. But, lets also look at the above statement Copernicus made. It was a claim and he was not the first. So, had he been aware for the Greek astronomer? Likely any educated man would have been. So, Copernicus was in agreement. He probably felt confident in agreement having the Bible as a source of agreement (stories that indicate a sun centered universe) backed by observations of the horizon and other lights (planets too) in the sky.

What's the point of mentioning any of this? To ask if the social imagination, having now so many members living at the frayed ends (farthest from the absolute source), could agree on false information and make it true by agreement and would that change everything we already imagine to be true? Don't we see that happening? Men and women who deny their gender in the social imagination. People that think/imagine we live on a flat earth. People that think man was installed by aliens or that man used to be a slug or sea creature that evolved. 

Make no mistake, the farther we get from the absolute source of the social imagination, the more strange social reality will become. Some will make the argument that if its agreement reality, what does it matter as long as we agree, right? Maybe its change and not strange. Maybe... but who is ready for a social imagination that cannot agree on the absolute truth for its existence? It can only be chaos.


In Him all things hold together ~ COL 1:17. Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them. He remains faithful forever ~  Psalm 146:6 Praise him, sun and moon; praise him all you shining stars ~ Psalm 148:3 Only He can change their information...Sun and moon stood still in the heavens at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your flashing spear ~ Habakkuk 3:11. The sun and moon will be darkened, and the stars no longer shine ~ Joel 3:15.
.

Agreement Reality in the Social Imagination... revisited!

You may wonder why I keep coming back to this topic - the social imagination. Well,  I did write my PhD dissertation on it.  And, because we live in a time of social imagination that is fraught with dysfunction and or disinformation. I am talking about the fact that we find less and less solid useful and long lived (in terms of shelf life) information among us to agree on and the reason behind that is failure to recognize and agree on the absolute source of it/for the social imagination. 

I have stated many times, the social imagination is an information reality and for it to be functioning or implemented/applied the information shared/interacted with must come from a reliable and stable source. A source that lasts the test of time. That is as true today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow.  

A source so vast, so wise, so great that when imagined/contemplated as 'the source' gives the user 'man/woman' a sense of comfort, continuity, joy and hope. It can be trusted! If you were to ask a quantum computer programmer what has to be done in order that a system runs effectively and light speed fast,  he/she will tell you, its the necessity of truth in information ... there can be no doubt, and certainly no disagreement. 

But, how is one able to conclude what is true and or that anything is real? Man has been pondering that for eons. Through the senses, right? Or perhaps one can know what is real by shear mathematical genius, or scientific method or even by philosophical discussion?  What is behind all that, what drives a human being to seek the truth or what can be real? Its the desire (as built in) to agree. Its even necessary so that there is anything at all that we can see, smell, hear, taste and touch.

Many do hold onto what is real through the experience of the senses; sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. But, even in that, there must be agreement for anything to be seen, heard, smelled, touched and tasted. I am talking about meaning of the received information. Because, information just coming into our senses remains only that. It really does not become real until we agree and no one can agree alone on anything... no man is an island and never could be called a man if not for other men to agree with that 'man' is something after all. 

There are those who desperately cling to the senses and think that if a tree falls in the woods it still makes a sound regardless.  Really. Even if we can agree that this is largely true, it is the brain/mind that determines what the senses are, what they can do for us as they serve in determining reality. And, what about the brain, isn't just the housing or apparatus for the mind and what is that. 

Most people consider that the brain and mind two different things. After all, what is meaning to one person is not the same meaning for another. And, there are those who follow Pavlov and Watson, Skinner and the like who say that man is no more than an overrated animal/dog. 

Most those 'experts' leave out the social imagination which is where reality truly exists. How/why? Well, there is no reality outside of agreement reality and that happens in the social imagination and no where else. You see, without agreement among us, there is no reality to even debate. We cannot even call the sun a star!

So, go on about so called facts, go on about your histories, your mathematics, your evolution process and I will tell you its all in the social imagination, its only what we agree on that matters. Even the intelligentsia in Greece would tell you that. For them, history is what you make up and the better it is as in fascinating, the more real it is/was. 

Yes, that is quite different from that of today's historians. You see, the Greeks loved their history stories, they studied it not for the knowledge of  facts. On the contrary, they liked their history to support claims on greatness and to that end liberally added ancient mighty kings and gods to their history. Homer's' Iliad and Odyssey are typical cases in point.

And, yes, we can say that that history goes to the victor and the sun is a star but only because we agree on it. Yes of course, some will be loudly claiming I am wrong... the sun is a star without me/you/them. Really? How do you/they know that? And, if they scream is science tells us so... well, that too is only agreement reality.

If we view social reality as an information reality and we should because there isn't any other reality; we can then say that nothing comes into our 'social' information reality (living in our mind as the social imagination) unless there is an absolute source for it. And, that we must agree on because of the fact that we can agree on anything as information validates the existence of an absolute source of all information. Otherwise, there would be nothing to agree on as fixed... the sun is a star.

In terms of agreement reality - the social imagination, what matters is what compels us to agree. Yes, that is what matters most - what compels. As for the Christian, that would be God and His incarnate - the Creator of all things seen and unseen and Holy Spirit- the essence of all truth ...indestructible. The only absolute source of all agreement reality can only be an absolute and at the same time an incarnate being in whose essence there is no disagreement because there can be no disagreement. 

If you like, a facsimile might be an ultimate quantum computer that understands completely what it is  what is and what we are to it. It is in this sense, what most human beings desire and seek to agree on: an all knowing, compassionate and unconditional loving and merciful source of agreement reality.

Never doubt that we exist in the social imagination, agreement reality and what are we agreeing on? Because if you do, you will no longer exist in agreement reality in the social imagination. Which is in itself all information ever given. But not all information is pure. In a world that has entropy, it looses its purity as it travels around from person to person. So, there has to be an absolute source that can constantly upgrade it, reboot it. For if not, we loose our humanity, our social imagination, our agreement reality. 

That absolute 'information', cannot just exist in our social reality (social imagination) unless there is a cause to enter in and or re-deliver information and in that we agree (Christians) agree that it did enter in.  It is ever present among us. How do we know? The very one thing that tells us this is a fact is that we can agree on anything as a truth especially 'the' absolute truth of what it means to be human, what it means to agree on anything. This is truly supernatural.

Does it matter that all man/people agree on the same things or just some things and disagree on other things or everything? That's a good question. What matters is what compels them to agree in the first place. That is key. Agreement though an outcome of the larger social imagination, it all begins with each and every participant which can agree.

Soren Kierkegaard said that there is no absolute truth in the masses of mere men because real absolute truth exists only in the One created it. As with the game of telephone, who started the information chain holds the absolute truth of it and it weakens as it passing on down the line. And, yet, the holder of the information at the time it is passed believes it is true and agrees with it. Now, as it is passed along as true though even incorrect, its obvious fault is the rate of its decay as it is incorrect.. But, how can we know it is incorrect if we pass it along as if it is true? Because, those who pass it along, agreeing that it is true, pass on a small amount of doubt that it is the absolute truth.

So, the masses start to doubt even though one among them may not. And, those who hold onto the truth are persecuted for it. And, for them who are committed to the absolute truth, they are often rejected as even having received any truth. What is that they say about the absolute truth that scoffers don't like to agree with because they doubt? That there is an absolute source for truth outside of the game of telephone, a source so great that it is the source of all agreement, all social imagination.

2 Corinthians 6:16-17 ~ "And what agreement has the temple of God with idols" [false gods/false information]? None! For we/"you are the temple of the living God". As God has said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their/your God, And they/you shall be My people.” Therefore, “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch"/use/spread "what is unclean" 'information', "And I will receive you.” I will give the command and save you! "Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me" ~ Psalm 71:3.