The Multiverse in the Social Imagination... Real or not real, that is the question???

     

    Humans live in a universe; that is a fact. Up for debate, though, is whether that universe lives in a sea of other universes—a multiverse. The idea of a multiverse is the subject of much science fiction—but it’s also a real possibility (or rather a set of many possibilities) that some scientists take seriously and investigate.

    Multiversal concepts pop up in several branches of modern physics. In quantum mechanics, for instance, a particle exists in a superposition of all possible states at once—until, that is, someone tries to make a measurement of it. 

    At that point, the possibilities collapse, and one physical state becomes apparent to the observer. The “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, though, posits that all the possible states the measurement might have shown play out in different universes, each with a different version of the observer. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/the-difficult-birth-of-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics/?]. 

Commentary:  

Because they knew God, yet they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened ~ Romans 1:21. When he died, he died once to break the power of sin. But now that he lives, he lives for the glory of God ~ Romans 6:10. 

Humans, in this fallen world, are by nature are certainly acting out of vain imagination in their social imagination. Thus, they tend to align with others that appear 'like minded' rather than align with with God says about us. But, what about what it says in Romans 6. Maybe one could argue that Jesus died once for all the multiverses. If that could be right, then His death and resurrection are for all scenarios/verses.

Sadly, its seems for many that this world is the end all... hence, they like to fantasize about traversing the multiverse. Perhaps, going to the one where you are rich and famous and glorified as such. The problem with that is would you recognize yourself... probably not. Why? Because, its the other people that you would know or not know and or know differently that would have enabled you in that verse. 

They would see you different and you would be different though likely looking the same; hence, the you that you are here and now, would not be you in another verse.The version of who you think you are and are not is complicated by social pitfalls, i.e. cognitive dissonance.

With that in mind, we can 'imagine' that in the social imagination, who you are and are not is a necessary truth and is one in any verse; because, the you that you are here and now or anywhere is a social composition more than it is anything else. You are agreed on and you are not just agreed on by you but by others. So how could you be 'the you' you think you are in every verse?

Good question, so, who or what is 'the you' or your core you if there is one? Exactly...  Hence, the wise individual leans not on his/her own understanding and certainly not on vain imagination. Its only what the Creator says about you that is true in every social imagination of you... here and now...and there and over there. 

You see, if you really consider what it means to be you its more about who really knows you and who you know in the same way that truly matters. 

There are places in the world right now that haven't a clue about you or that you even exist. Which seems to create a paradox in 'your' reality here and now and for that matter... here and there and over there.

Perhaps, that doesn't really matter since you haven't actually met those people who haven't a clue about you. But, if you consider their not knowing you... do you actually exist? 

Here's the necessary truth about the social reality... you aren't real until you actually meet people... essentially, those that you really want to know and want them to know that you exist... and that isn't possible until you actually meet them. 

Once you do met, hopefully, they will understand you, the language you speak and culture you live in... so that they can fully grasp of who you are in this wide wide world.

However, there are people in your own culture and language who see you differently than you see yourself. Why? Because, of the nature of this fallen world with its social pitfalls like cognitive dissonance complicated by game theory or what I refer to as the unseen laws of governing social dynamics like age, wealth, health, education and set of beliefs. That is why not everyone knows you the way you would like to be known or the you that you think you are.

If anything, this discussion already creates a distortion of you (the you that you think you are) for sure...and not just for you but for everyone else who has considered the multiverse in this manner. Nonetheless, keep in mind, for your own sanity that even though we are not directly connected to everyone in the world we are yet essential for their reality as they are for ours.

A final comment... what can be agreed upon (the social imagination is 'agreement reality'), is what we just read in the article excerpt above - In quantum mechanics, for instance, a particle exists in a superposition of all possible states at once—until, that is, someone tries to make a measurement of it. 

You see, in order to know yourself and to know yourself in another and or any other verse would require you to measure yourself (as we do here and now) which means making a comparison of yourself by using as a reference of the same people who use you as the basis of comparison. And, its not likely they would be the same and neither would you. Hence, it does no good for us here and now to be so vain in our imaginations.

 

 

* It is through faith in Christ, that we are adopted into God's family (Ephesians 1:5) and given a new identity as a child of God (John 1:12-13). In this way, we are His for all time, all verses…

AGREEMENT REALITY IS ALL THERE IS... In the Social Imagination

 

Agreement reality is the place in our social imagination where the information we live. Its the abstract and invisible space/place in our heads; and, especially between us where we receive information that is either agreed on or discarded. 

There is no other place where reality as we know it is formed, processed and or exists... period! That includes everything we think exists outside of it as if it were a thing in itself; i.e. science. Science is man-made, agreed upon but only until someone disagrees and its all re-thought and agreed upon.

That which is agreed on or not is based on our existing in the social imagination where information is exchanged and processed and agreed upon; hence, agreement reality (in the social imagination). Its always up for debate so its never actually solid but fluid. And, yes... we can agree to disagree and that also figures into the agreement reality in the social imagination. 

The entire process begins from conception and continues afterwards in more temporal and even spiritual experiences; first with mother, then father and so on... Mother imparts the information agreement reality she exists in (at that time) and hopefully it is supported and or complimented by father and so on...

So many so-called educated intellectuals: scientists, philosophers, academics as well as theologians, contemplate 'reality'. Those that are scientists and or amateurs, always go for the math, the numbers, the hard core stuff in order to define reality. But, they fail to ever really find it because they agree on the wrong stuff. They fail to grasp that reality is only what we make... what we decide to agree on.

Sure, a lot of math and physics are agreed on and those agreements have supposedly gotten man a lot farther... but farther in what/where? No really anywhere ... unless we agree that farther in terms of agreement reality. 

But, essentially, we really only go farther into questioning and or doubting what is real and if that happens and it does often... then what we agreed on previously is no longer good enough. Once a theory or equation takes us to where we imagine we want to go... someone or something else comes along with a desire toward a different agreement... direction in agreement information reality. 

That 'new' direction only goes somewhere when others fall away from their previous agreements and latch onto the new ones. And, that happens only when their is a social advantage in changing agreement as in a new level of prestige or a new 'euphoric' experience in finding news ways to agree. 

If you want an illustration then think about language. In every language, there is meaning but only because there is agreement. What is agreed on? That the information shared is useful enough that we consider it as meaningful. They names and places and histories within a language are all subject to that process... information agreement reality which takes place only in the social imagination... in the mind of one and many who agree.

Reality is found everywhere for everyone in the place where you can find it... in the social imagination. Each framed by information that is either agreed on or discarded as nonsense or useless. What lasts the longest or 'seems' to work for us in the place where we are does so because its either not challenged in terms of agreement (who/why) and or it satisfies us enough that there is no need to challenge the existing agreements. 

Can what we agree on be manipulated? Yes, by those who want to change what is agreed on and supplant it with an alternate or other agreement which would suit their ability to continue to manipulate the masses thereby retaining their position of power over the ignorant masses ... this is done all the time by politicians and academics.

Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ~ John 6:29. He is the way, the truth and the life!

The Mentality of Hoarding as an Aspect of Social Neglience in the Social Imagination...

 

Before I tackle hoarding as an aspect of social negligence in the social imagination, let's look at what hoarding or the mentality of hoarding is ... What is hoarding?

    According to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, hoarding is a mental health disorder which occurs when a person has difficulty discarding items that have no apparent use or value to them. Essentially, that means a person who has difficulty discarding items that they think they need is the result of a hidden anxiety. 

    Now, you may say or think, "so what, who cares....why don't you just leave them alone?" Well, the retaining of these possessions results in excessive clutter and impairs the functioning of the person’s living space and, as a result, can harm relationships with others, especially those in the home or wanting to visit. 

    Typically, there are three reasons people save these items – sentimental value, an intended use or function, and intrinsic beauty. Although these valuations underlie the rationale for why most people save things, for people with Hoarding Disorder, the value attached to possessions is applied more broadly and experienced more intensely and can reach a point where the individual items are lost within the clutter and the individual’s worry about their possessions has overtaken their ability to live comfortably.

    How is Hoarding Disorder Diagnosed?

    One of the challenges of diagnosing Hoarding Disorder is that it’s rarely an independent, self-motivated decision to seek treatment. There is often encouragement or even intervention from loved ones concerned about the safety, wellbeing, and functioning of the individual. With Hoarding Disorder, there is a higher likelihood than OCD for a person to have poor insight, and that can also be a contributing challenge to proper diagnosis. 

    As compared to other anxiety disorders, there seems to be more shame and embarrassment related to Hoarding Disorder, with a fear of being judged by the community. This can perpetuate a secrecy around hoarding behaviors and deter individuals from seeking assistance.

In the United States, diagnosing Hoarding Disorder is based on criteria set forth by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Its current edition, the DSM 5-TR, sets forth four primary criteria for the diagnosis of Hoarding Disorder – persistent difficulty parting with possessions regardless of value, a perceived need to save items, accumulating of items that has resulted in significant clutter, and that the behavior and/or clutter are time-consuming or cause clinically significant distress or impairment in various areas of functioning, including work, school, or social life. 

    Who Gets Hoarding Disorder?

• Approximately 80%-90% of people with Hoarding Disorder also struggle with excessive acquisition (DSM-5-TR)
• Rates of Hoarding Disorder vary greatly due in part to a lack of self-disclosure and awareness about the disorder, but range from 1.5% to 6% (DSM-5-TR)
• Symptoms often first emerge before the age of 19, although typically do not seek treatment until their 50s, despite the clinically significant impairment often occurring by 30s (DSM-5-TR) 

COMMENTARY: How is hoarding an aspect of social negligence? If you recall, the last blog post concerned the concept of negligence which is the failure to act. In the case of hoarding, the failure to act is the lack of will or mental strength to detach from material objects which possess no social value unto itself (as an object)... other than the use of it by social actors. 

Hoarding is when someone, an individual, acquires things in huge quantities to be used (not always all at once) or stops using an object or possession that could be used by other social actors... thus, it become a social negligence to hoard. Which in my opinion, has a huge social impact in the social imagination. This is one of the worst social pitfalls found in all societies.

There is a question to be posed... which asks whose problem is it? Is it the individual's (the one who hoards) or is it societies? Well, that is the same question we can ask about all social pitfalls... whose to blame. Since, its an anxiety, its likely to be categorized by psychologists as an personal attribute stemming from a lack of correct social engagement. In saying that, it becomes the problem for social psychologists and sociologists like myself. We must address the cause and solution. 

I recommend, stable family life, whereby parents set an example of simply frugality and sustainability of personal and family items and all other possessions including the home containing all things basic and necessary for a satisfactory life. This life should be lived in a stable community which embraces the same attitude.

Largely, my criticism is that Americans have too much and out of guilt they refuse to let go of things that they no longer need or ever needed is more likely the case. Take a look around, logistic centers, corporate and private are everywhere... I am not saying that people should live on basics, but they should be happy with basics and limit their excessive luxury lusts for more.

Sounds like a communist point of view... perhaps. Whatever to say, I strongly think that capitalism is fundamental, if it remains local; that is, in the hands of the people in the place where they are. Thus, such local control (in the hands of the people and condition of local logistics) would naturally regulate the gluttony of products we see today across the country and in our ports and thereby, ease the social negligence of hoarding. 

But, you may say inasmuch as that is to be taken seriously into consideration... I am not truly addressing the problem or root cause of the said mental health issue of 'hoarding' which stems from acute anxiety regardless of the political environment.

Yes, hoarding is the result of anxiety and thus is a mental health disorder. Anxiety involves persistent and excessive worry in the mind of an individual so much so that interferes with daily activities. This ongoing worry and tension may be accompanied by physical symptoms, such as restlessness which gives way to more hoarding. And, this may not be directly related to politics or economics. But, maybe hoarding (the result behavior from anxiety) can stem from negative experiences within certain social frameworks given the amount of security or 'promise' that is ingrained or written into certain systems.

Maybe, the answer is that people don't feel secure in the place where they are and therefore hoarding makes them feel secure. Could their social imagination be damaged by family dysfunction? Or perhaps by being trapped by a lack of positive social interaction over time in a secure environment? 

Could hoarding be solved by any larger imposed political system? Rather not... I hardly doubt that an extensive study of communism could show such a system providing the necessary feeling of security needed to assure hoarding is not to be practiced. Nor would such a study prove that such an ism would guarantee a sense of security that it would eliminate anxiety in citizens nor could it be proven to solve the problem hoarding period. 

On the other hand capitalism would certainly give people a reason to be productive and start acting and or start behaving that would be beneficial for their own good rather than depending on the state... which at the end of the day gives so few basics, one would probably start to hoard out of fear (increased insecurity) of never having... 

Please post your comments on this topic below if you know a hoarder and what solutions were put forward. 

 

Online source:

 https://adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/obsessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd/hoarding-basics

Everyday Negligence Committed by Members of Society... in the Social Imagination!

 

Negligence, for a basic definition, is the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. Either a person’s actions or omissions of actions can be found negligent. The omission of actions is considered negligent only when the person had a duty to act (e.g., a duty to help someone because of one’s own previous conduct)... [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligenc].

Now, let us take note of what negligence is in context of a formed society whereby we expect individuals to be held accountable for their failure to behave. Negligence is a tort that is a major focus point in how people and organizations interact with each other in a society. How the tort of negligence developed is critical for understanding who is held accountable when a civil wrong has occurred. Negligence focuses on three basic elements: a duty of care, a breach of said duty, and causation of damage... [https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Negligence-And-Its-Impact-On-Society].

Having sorted out the basic concept of negligence, we must ask what is a tort since its not a cake in this respect? Just go online and you will learn that torts are legal wrongs that one party suffers at the hands of another. Negligence is a form of tort which evolved because some types of loss or damage occur between parties that have no contract between them; and therefore, there is nothing for one party to sue the other over. 

Also, you will learn or perhaps already know, from first hand experience, that there are numerous specific torts including: trespassing, assault, batter, products liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are also separate areas of tort law including: nuisance, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a category of economic torts. 

In reference to the later above mentioned, I think that 'economic torts' should cover any loss of value to private property due to an 'eye sore nuisance' which if I am not mistaken usually falls under most county/township laws or ordinances against anyone who is and or has been dumping garbage illegally or setting up house 'squatting' illegally. 

Most people have no idea that their everyday behavior has a negative impact on society. Most people think that they do no wrong, no harm, and or do not create problems for society. Until, they get a knock on the door, a letter in the mail and a fine to pay. 

I imagine that everyone reading this post has had an encounter with everyday negligence committed by someone or that they themselves committed. There are whistle blowers out there (do good neighbors) and they are right to do so. If you are going to talk to the talk then walk the walk and clean up your act. 

Stop using more than you need, stop driving too fast, stop throwing garbage out your car window, stop playing loud music thinking everyone wants to hear it... and, stop texting as you drive. Start picking up what you left laying around in the yard since last week and start attending local municipal meetings, and attending church. 

Start mowing your lawn rather than park on it. Start taking in your garbage cans after they have been emptied, and try keeping your dog on its leash. Try using a turn signal, and start fixing what needs to be fixed when it breaks down. Start putting things in their proper place, and stop wasting food, water, gas, and electricity... the list can go on. 

Stop thinking you are entitled to be whoever you want to be and be who you were born to be. Stop eating junk food, stop drinking too much, stop smoking period, stop taking drugs, and stop thinking animals are people. Remember, negligence is the failure to act/behave in a way that reasonable people would; people who actually think first then act accordingly.

Also, do not procrastinate, and stop applauding and enabling mediocrity. Stop being lazy and stop cheating on tests and taxes, stop stop stop...Stop hoarding, stop bragging, stop jay walking, stop pissing and pooping in public, and stop passing the buck. Stop failing in relationships: spouses toward spouses, parents to children and neighbors toward neighbors.

 

EVERYDAY STOP BEING CARELESS AND START BEING CAREFUL... STOP TORTING! WHY? WHY NOT!

And, thank God He sent His Son!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ONLINE SOURCES:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence

https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Negligence-And-Its-Impact-On-Society-FK2NKJ9W3PT8X 

The Road to "Nowheresville" in the Social Imagination...

 

 

Utopia – literally “nowheresville” – was the name of an imaginary republic described by Thomas More in which all social conflict and distress has been overcome. There have been many versions of Utopia over the years, many of them visions of socialist society. Although Marx and Engels defined their own socialism in opposition to Utopian Socialism (which had many advocates in the early nineteenth century), they had immense respect for the great Utopian socialists like Charles Fourier and Robert Owen.

 

The problems with Utopian socialism are that it does not concern itself with how to get there, presuming that the power of its own vision is sufficient, or with who the agent of the struggle for socialism may be, and, instead of deriving its ideal from criticism of existing conditions, it plucks its vision ready-made from the creator’s own mind. Further, it gives no guidance as to how we should act here and now, in the really existing world, confining itself to telling us how to act as if everyone were to recognize the same ethical principles [Thomas Moore pictured].

Plato wrote The Republic in 360 BCE, an idealization of a slave society with a rigid class system, divided between philosophers, warriors and commoners. Justice and social stability were ensured because everyone was assigned to a station in life appropriate to their interests and virtues. The structure of the Republic was an image of Plato’s conception of the structure of the human being: Reason, Spirit and Desire. The above excerpts were taken from ~ https://www.marxists.org/subject/utopian/index.htm

 

 

COMMENTARY: Over 40 versions of Utopia were published between 1700 and 1850. So, a good question to ask why the social imagination of some or maybe a majority of human beings is 'hell bent' on Utopia and it always seem to necessarily become socialist ... communist? Well, Plato was right, the necessary structure of the 'created' human being has built in reason, spirit and desire (indeed, 'created' as I could not possibly think/believe that an evolving ape would ever possess reason/spirit/desire). The problem is that most writers and thinkers or dreamers have not embraced the fact that this is a fallen condition. This 'program' is corrupt but it will be rebooted by the Creator not by the creation. 

For non-believers, evolutionist atheists all I can say is this... Reiterating, Thomas Moore, the problem with Utopian socialism is that it does not concern itself with how to get there, presuming that the power of its own vision is sufficient, or with who the agent of the struggle for socialism may be, and, instead of deriving its ideal from criticism of existing conditions, it plucks its vision ready-made ... TM

Do you know why proponents of socialism do that? Because, the truth in any 'organized' society regarding actual means and ways needs real capital. And, capital flow controls waste as much as it controls outcomes. Get it? With any kind of socialism, there is no fair or just way forward or sustainability. Why? As Roman Emperor Claudius said, "When the money runs out you better look out". Indeed, that's about capital. Socialism does not generate capital. It takes and consumes capital until there is nothing left. You may tell me there is no fair or just way forward or sustainability in a free market... the answer is that in a FREE market there is always a way forward for everyone who is willing to partake. Socialism is the road to "Nowheresville" ~ Thomas Moore.

 

Higher Education... a Waste of Time and Money in the Social Imagination!

    

                                         College is for clowns...

    Famed former Wall Street broker Jordan Belfort commented on the diminishing value of a college education, after a new report found some college students learned less than high school graduates a decade after their enrollment. College is a "complete waste of time" for most students, he believes.

"If you want to be a professional, a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant or something that really requires a degree then yes, you should go to college, and you should try to go to the best school you can and make the most of it," Belfort said while on "Varney & Company" on Tuesday. 

"But all of these other sort of softer subjects like gender studies and all this other stuff, what are you going to do with that stuff, honestly? So I think it’s a complete waste of time," he added [https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/wolf-of-wall-street-says-college-complete-waste-time-students-avoid-plague].

    As we age and begin to ponder what we want to do when we “grow up,” higher education soon enters into the equation. But in the 21st century, would it be ridiculous to contemplate that there is more than one path? Sentiments that college is a waste of time have slowly bubbled up into the mainstream.

    Perhaps you’ve even encountered such a perspective yourself. Organizations like Praxis and Mike Rowe have long asserted that college isn’t synonymous with success. And that a good living is possible without the burden of time and money that college requires... If I asked you to list people from the last 50 years whom you’d consider to be the wealthiest, who would come to mind?

    I’m betting you’d name people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, whose products run the world. Or maybe Mark Zuckerberg, whose company possesses the world’s greatest contact database. What about the late Walt Disney, a name that represents one of the largest media empires in existence. There’s Michael Dell, who made computing affordable for the massess. And Richard Branson, with a business model that permeates droves of different verticals.

    If that’s not good enough, how about someone in our own industry? Indeed, you can find many who come from various places on the spectrum of life, there is one thing that is true for them all. Every single one of them were college dropouts. That is, if they even went to college at all [https://careeroncommand.com/college-is-a-waste-of-time/].

 

COMMENTARY: College education is a racket, always has been. Sure, a lot of people think that college gives a person a leg up in life. Speaking as a sociologist, its only the circle of friends and acquaintances that you create at college that actually gives you that 'leg up', if you are clever about it. What about doctors and surgeons? They can be trained the same as a car mechanic. And, that goes for lawyers too and engineers.

Thousands of intelligent people (college grad and not) have been passed by for someone who 'knew someone' on the inside or through similar circles of 'butt kissing'. No, I don't have a chip on my shoulder like you want to think I do. I just despise nepotism and the who's who crap along with all the politically correct virtue signally one has to do in order to get noticed or appreciated let alone ahead. 

Those people named above in the article excerpts, who were not college grads, still became incredibly successful because they were smart, bold risk takers and they made sure that they were in the right place at the right time in order to get noticed. If they did not, they still persevered rather than blame anyone or anything.