THE VOLTARIAN SHINES LIGHT UPON.... MISCELLANEA

The Voltarian

shines  Light Upon...

miscellanea

Who is your foe?
When your governments and religious or any other institutions tell you who to hate, how often do you stop to wonder whether these said people are truly your enemies? Ah! But what of all those indiscriminate terrorists who kill countless innocents around the world? What of all those innocents that are killed in our names by these institutions that you never here about ? Don’t you think these so-called “terrorists” consider us in Britain, U.S.A , Europe as the terrorists against them and their people? Don’t you think they’ve tried to reconcile with those belligerent toward them in whatever way they perceive ? So, there are obstinate people. But they’re all over the world, not restricted to certain regions as our media wish us to believe so. And yes, these people’s media organs are just as blindly prejudiced as ours. “We all know this” , you cry with a patronizing air of superiority. Then why do you allow your governmental and religious organs to convince you that they are justified in bombing millions of children around the world to satisfy their blood lust, yet rage at the so-called “terrorists” for their retaliation at what they believe is justification for the trespasses we commit against them.What can we do about it?Think first before you share your governmental and religious media’s blind hatred. Fish out the story from the other sides of the argument at hand. Of course not all the facts are going to come out at first, trust must be built up and this needs time to accumulate. If we refuse to allow this due to our obstinate prejudices and sanctimony's, we remain stagnated, embroiled as we are in eternal strife and misery.

It appears to me, and quite a few others, that we have only evolved our technologies, and these only due to the exigencies of war, but not ourselves. On this account we have stagnated.
How many of us believe, from our cosy armchairs or local public houses that we could do a better job than those in government, given the opportunity to do so? I for one but none of us can do it alone, this is obvious enough. I have asked members of the Islamic community whether they would be prepared to bury their religious and political hatchets to join forces with fellow community members of other faiths and political persuasions but they claim it impossible, yet "London Citizens" are doing so. The prevailing conflict between Israel and Palestine is also testimony to man’s obstinacy when all believe they are right beyond any doubts. So can we ever evolve, thus dissolve this impasse?
Can local communities around the world club together to override or bypass their non-serving councils and M.P’. s that drag their heels using bureaucracy as an excuse to evade their responsibilities to their respective communities? Are they even prepared to?
Faced with this apathy I can at present only consider creating new communities from those of us who won’t share this apathy, and so allow those who choose to persist in wallowing in the stew of their miseries and petty hatreds to continue.
Should I be so callow? Should I not consider that like myself many of the world’s population have been denied the adequate standard of education those in government have been blessed with yet abuse in order to control and manipulate to further theirs and their masters’ agendas?
This I do consider and also believe should be tackled only the presiding system will not allow it for the obvious reasons. Allowing people to govern themselves! Whatever next?
Yes, whatever next indeed. Peace on Earth, eventually ; global wealth distributed evenly and fairly ; egalitarian justice for all. Pipe dreams you say. Yes, while we do nothing about it. While we continue to allow the global elitists to tell us who we should hate or ally ourselves to in hatred of others we had no animosity toward the day before.
I’m sure there are many other factors involved that I have not explored here due to ignorance or forgetfulness on my part, so I invite you to send your feed back and further insights on this issue so I can add them to this page.

The Enigma of Plurality of Gods in Monotheistic Religions
"Let Us Make Man In OUR Own Image"
This has puzzled me for ages until I read that we are the creation of reptilian beings passing themselves off as gods to ignorant folk of past ages who knew no better. 
If this be so, we are either the slaves of the Annanuki or Nephilim, or the more benevolent Watchers or Eloihim.I haven't discovered enough evidence to persuade me of either camp, but both notions seem equally probable.I have discovered that according to some sources the Elohim are creator beings creaying on the physical spectrum on behalf  of the Infinite Creator At least, if we were not created by them, we are influenced by both their positive and negative energies Please note that energy in itself is neither good or bad only positively or negatively charged, so I use the terms positive and negative here in a theological context of good or bad..The Infinite Creator source, having created them both beforehand, has left us to unravel the conundrum for ourselves, it seems.
Meanwhile, the Nephilim wish to keep us enslaved to them through our violence and hatred of each other and sense of seperation-to believe we are seperate from our Creator source and ourselves ,indoctrinated,as we are,by religon, politics and other issues of seemingly genetic differences.The Elohim wish us to evolve with a little helping hand once in a while when we empasse ourselves to the brink of auto destruction and extinction. So what's in it for these Elohim? Their own spiritual evolution through aiding us and possibly other lesser evolved species in the universe.The Nephilim will only keep us from annihilation to save themselves from their own-.A lack of negative energy to suck on, our negativity being their oxygen. Think on this. As mentioned elsewhere on these pages, there are beings and ideas in Creation far beyond our normal scope of thinking. However, this knowledge is not inaccessable unless you prefer to remain ignorant. The ingestion of psychoactive vegetation and fungi are a door to other perceptions. This, the governments of the world fuelled by greed and hatred know only too well, and so outlaw the use of such psychoactive agents, yet the main ingrediant of many,D.M.T., is produced by the peneal gland in the brain of almost every mammal including homo sapien .We could not dream without it, or visualize whilst in the waking state. These psychoactive agents open recepters in the brain, thus releasing hormones to release certain filters thus allowing more accesss to our D.N.A. profile.This does not occur with narcotics.
If you ignore the media vilification of Dr. Timothy Leary, and read his work, notably The Politics of Ecstacy, you will discover that he proposed well supervised and responsible attitudes to L.S.D and other psychedelic sessions,so people would not need to "freak out" on the streets disturbing other people and endangering themselves or others around them. He preferred sessions in nature or at home with responsible experienced explorers/voyagers as guides. He even proposed pilot licenses for such voyages into the mind as the whole knowledge of Creation is there, in our D.N.A molecules, just waiting our readiness to explore it all. But as I said earlier, you don't have to. It's no big deal to remain as you are, we only ask that you refrain from preventing us who do, from doing so and stop dismissing what we see as fantasy or delusion when it can be as real for you if you choose it to.       

A Little Piece On Time

Do you find there’s always never enough?
Or have you discovered you can control time for your own needs?
Of course time is relative to the individuated and collective mind of not only man but all species.
Is this all too obvious? Then I’ll shut up and leave you to your own devices, only I thought I might give you readers the benefit of my experiences hard earned by many mishaps.
Needing to get somewhere fast but finding yourself getting nowhere fast?
You obviously know why you need to pick up speed, but is speed a necessity?
I find contingency planning an obvious remedy to frustration when transport facilities fail you. This involves, for me at least, a plan a, b, & c plus affirmative thinking, I shall get there in time.
Stop fretting at the time. Constantly checking your watch adds to your frustration, thus making the possibility of your late arrival all the more likely.
You are in fact affirming to the Universe that you want to be late. Don’t be so silly, you’re probably saying right now. Bear me out here.
It being obvious to you that the Universe is made of atoms incorporating particles of differing vibrations and frequencies, it may not be obvious, due to our western paradigm that the
entire Universe is a conscious Being/Entity . It “listens” to us on a higher level than our egos will allow Us to believe and responds accordingly. So, worrying about not arriving at your destination is affirming to the Universe that you do want to be late. Affirming that all will be o.k. is doing just that.
Now, when you’re travelling at leisure, does the intended destination mean the beginning of your
adventure or does it, like for myself, begin when I lock the door to my home behind me and ends when I return? If the former, then I say you’re missing out on a huge chunk of your experience.
This I have noticed with so many of the younger student generation on my travels. In Asia, for instance, they will often opt for the overnight comfy leisure bus showing irritatingly loud martial arts movies, the windows of course blacked out or curtained over. Call me old fashioned but I much prefer a rickety old bus that bumps over the potholes all the way, rubbing shoulders with natives that are interested in talking with you than silently minding their own business. You also
get to see the country you’re travelling through with it’s small villages and towns that the bus will often stop at for a short tea or meal break as opposed to the inevitable motorway pit stops. For me time is of no real consequence now that I have learned these valuable lessons. It neither drags or flies whilst at leisure since having to be nowhere at any particular time [ I never make reservations just turn up and search for vacant accommodation ,whilst travelling].
If certain signposts on nature walks or forest trails state an approximate time of arrival at a chosen destination, do you try to beat, it thus racing past all you should be watching? This I have discovered to my dismay of the youth of today.
Even commuting to work has become virtually hassle free, thinking this way [ but this could be more thanks to my boss’s flexibility with time keeping].


DRIVING THE SLOW LANE OF LIFE
Those habituated  to living in the fast lane of life  usually either envy or cannot abide those of us who do opposite. They have been indoctrinated  to the philosophy of 'time is money' and 'tempis fugit' since primary school, as was I. They sneer down their noses at those they presume  to be 'worse off than they, due to the stereotyping they have been spoonfed in order to measure their pecuniary and materialistic successes by.
Now, if these people who do so to me , bothered to speak to me in order to discover why I am so content with ambling along with my barrow, sweeping the streets at my own pace, they would find the reason I can do so with head  and back held upright  is because I am successful in following my own path instead of others. They would discover that this service I perform, along with previous services since leaving school 30 years ago, have taken me around the globe three times, so far. Not that I have visited every country or continent, that's not the point. The point is, that I have visited every country I have ever wanted to as well as others, though not initially intended, when opportunity arose, I took it and learned from the experiences, pleasant and unpleasant, even if years after the event. Some event occurs or somebody triggers off the memory, and so I am more able to deal with the  present situation or offer advice to that person etc.
An analogy comes to mind of driving the motorway. The motorist has no time to admire the scenery unfolding either side because he/she has to focus attention on the road ahead and behind. The passenger, however, has plenty of scope to enjoy the scenery, converse with the motorist, navigate, feed etc. Taking the A or better still B  country roads, the motorist can  slow down and so take in the scope of the scenery and focus on the road simultaneously.
Now the normal philosophy presume passengers  in business circles to be parasites. This is a fallacy, as I have proved to myself, many times. Just because you have no interest in making big fat profits for your bosses, yet wish to serve the customer fairly instead of ripping them off with 'dodgy sounding' meal deals, designed to hoodwink them into spending far more than they intended, I do not consider that being a parasite passenger. To inform the prospective customer that an item is presently unavailable before wasting their time waiting in a  lengthy cue, is far more customer service  orientated than disappointing them, when having reached the front, and then attempting to offer them an unsatisfactory alternative . This leaves them understandably frustrated and angry and so far less likely to visit your  shop next time they pass by. An apologetic notice will, however, tempt them back if they happen to pass your vicinity again. If you are again temporarily out of stock, you have lost them for good.
Another example being the difference in customer service provided by bosses of the 'old school' and the 'milking the customer for all they can' school of today.  Upon leaving school, I worked as a warehouse assistant in a small shop that had big customers, selling window display decor to all the well known department stores and chains. The little old man  of  Russian descent, who owned this shop, started out as I did, as a warehouse assistant  but in Selfridges, in 1926. His personal passion was to start his business, slowly, but surely, using the 'old school' philosophy of the customer being always right, he collected his huge clientele. Although I disagree with the customer being always right, I do believe some form of diplomacy that neither abuses the customer or compromises you, the business by fawning to them should be exercised. Unfortunately, upon my boss' death, the company was sold off to the first bidders. These people turned out not only to have no respect for their inherited staff, but none to their inherited customers. Corners were cut in the quality of stock being bought as well as packing materials for shipping to said clientele. My own position was being compromised by the 'new old man', who thought he could do my job better than me because he had command of the computer, but had no idea of the nature of the warehouse system I had set up to run smoothly, so decided it time to move on in life and let him get on with it .
To return to motorized passengers, my experience of hitch-hiking has proved a valuable experience in co-operative service. A motorist will stop to pick me up if they are bored and need the company and conversation. Some only need the company and so are not chatty, this is fine as you are providing this service to them.Either way, one serves the other equibly. Those who choose not to stop have their personal reasons and that's perfectly fine too, no need to take umbridge, just wave them pleasantly and await the appropriate motorist. With patience, they will arrive in due course.
These experiences have been a factor setting me on the path to discover how serving each other can once again take the place of pure money grubbing ethics in the  market economy.Which values can we ,as a global community, set ourselves, in order to measure wealth, health and happiness to an agreeable standard?
Do we actually need money as cash in our pockets, or only need to adjust our values in order to use the present tools of commerce responsibly, independent of greed in all it's manifestations?
So, how can we  begin to live in the slow lane of life you propose?, I hear being asked. Why do you need to make more money to feel satisfied  or successful, especially when it always results in a higher cost of living for everyone? Others want pay rises, the government slaps on more V.A.T. on goods and services,then you demand more pay increases to stay ahead of the game. Isn't it all a bit 'Alice in Wonderland' ? So when will we ever learn? 
Suppose that everyone in the world earned a minimum salary of £30,000, equivalent in their respective currencies.Those who wish to earn more should pay the proportionate level in taxation to the natural resources they consume over the standard average. in order to replenish the resources and/or offer reasonable alternatives. Taxes indexed to increases in pollution due to increases in consumption is already in the pipeline.This could be the 'green tax'. Should we be taxed on our earnings or products and services consumed? I would favour  taxing our consumption  than our earnings, but would this prevent fat cats hiding their consumption as they hide their earnings in tax havens?Would £30,000 cover the cost of living if all taxes were linked to retail consumption? Do we tax at source or at retail outlets? But which source, manufacuring/processing or  set a standard tax level for  global environmental clean-up that can be indexed to consumption level of individual ?This would mean taxing individual earnings though, or are there other measures available?
What if our newly realized values prove that we can live for less?Do we lower the minimum salary to prevent impending resource waste, or keep to £30,000 until values change with succeeding generations yet raise the consumption tax level to compensate?  
Of course, in this present  state of social hierarchy paradigm with the need to feel superior to others in order to measure success by, such a scheme would be disagreeable .We need to be re-educated in all areas of modern life  to discover how we can live at a slower pace yet still remain  economically solvent, yet also be spiritually solvent. Can we bring our blind conspicuous consumerism to a halt in favour of a modest ,responsible consumption? Expect less manufactured  produce in favour of more homespun ,handcrafted produce that takes time and skillful dedication to produce, and services that take just as much to perform. Isn't there enough manufactured produce in the world today without producing more with the advertising hype to hoodwink you into believing you are somehow inferior if you do not purchase said product? Auto manufacturers, I find to be the biggest culprits at this game. Every other. ad on T.V. and drama presentation is sponsored by auto manufacturers. Couldn't they delay this  senseless greed by waiting until some designer has come up with something truly revolutionary in reliability and environmentally friendly than a few extra gadgets? Meanwhile, produce less of current models until they wear out in due course, and maybe return to the more traditional composition of engine to allow those motorists who love to tinker with their vehicles  to do so rather than hand them over to cowboy'fixers' .
Ditto for household appliances. Wait until they are on their last legs before rushing out to buy the latest model that will probably last half as long anyway.
Also the high price set upon repairing goods has skyrocketed since the 80's This obviously to force us to buy new by  manufacturers reducing or ceasing the availability of spare parts ,and extra necessary worktime spent on repairs. All this and more has added to consumption pollution. So should we tax these manufacturers or us , the retail consumer? Since the manufacturer  will obviously offset this tax onto their prices, I believe it should give us the opportunity to practice our responsibility as environmentally savvy consumers,  to boycott such wasteful consumption. One author of such issues, Neale Donald Walsh, suggested that we partake in share scheme of domestic appliances, such as vacuum cleaners and electric irons, as they are not always in use. This, however could lead to neighbour hood arguments as some unscruperlous persons are likely to hog said appliances, sell them off and blame other neighbours for the loss or breakage etc. However, local drycleaners and landerettes could provide a hire service  for such appliances [ I know some do, but a wider application of such a scheme could be helpful] with a deposit paid to cover loss or damage, returned less hire fee upon safe return of appliances. Of course, the appliance should be tested before and after, to save arguments of obvious natures. This would put the onus on repairing and replacing worn out appliances on the laundrette or drycleaners and save the consumer credit indebtedness if  appliance needs replacement at a financially awkward time.
Would it work just aswell for office equipment?
By taking government into our own hands, not by violent revolution, which has done nothing in the past but create a coup d'etat change of dictatoral  rule, but by practicing Gandhi's  method of peaceful non co-operation - Ahimsa, we could halt the payment of taxes to superferlous government whims , cut their expenses, their lavish and extravagant banquets, held at our expense,make them commute to work with the rest of us so they can experience for themselves what a farce and shambles the  public transport system is due to thier greed for share dividends resulting in cuts to maintainance and service. Taking  also account of all the other cuts they intend to cover their stockmarket bulls ups. Discover how much we should be charged, and do so ourselves. Is this viable, would the, say, energy bosses, side with the government by refusing to be paid for said energy and services unless it be through government? If so, it looks as though we are fucked! But are we? Anybody out there know of a viable scheme?
No intention of starving them or their ambassadorial chums, I propose a modest buffet many of us could afford our guests at a party, should suffice, along with  a banner to the effect of 'Feed your country's poor before stuffing your own faces' , to remind them of their true service to their respective nations.
Cut the Ministry of Death budget to reform it as a Ministry of Life. As I have mentioned elsewhere on this blogsite, we should turn the armed forces into a peace, rescue and aid corp.They could keep their  organizations, ranking and disciplines, only work as a more united cooperative force The diverse arms of the military should be redeployed in order to use their  expert logistics skills , knowledge and experiences to supplement the world's existng rescue and aid services. In the coming decades of Earth changes, we shall be sorely  in need  of them. Isn't this alreasdy in action via the UN? What with guns and missiles, I answer. Instead of killing our percieved opponents, why not sleep gas them , then round them up for 'debriefing' as we did with the Nazis after WWII, in order to assess their individual level of extremism or fundamentalism.Could this be done with  extremists everywhere, in  the so-called civilized western societyalso, but without branding anyone a CRIMINAL, not even P.O.W.s  ?Ask a vetrean P.O.W. of World War I & II whether they considered themselves CRIMINAL for the circumstances they found themselves in. For, if Saddam Hussain and Osa Bin Laden are to be labeled criminals, so then are G.W.Bush, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, among a list of others too lengthy to mention here.
Our taxes could be much better utilized paying for the necessary medical and rescue/aid equipment that allows for a force to persue their new global role of life giving  instead of taking.
Freeing taxes from killing we could support our schools to be more educationally minded, than the usual indoctrination of merely teaching them to pass exams, and pretending that is enough of an education for them, as was demonstrated on John Humphries' B.B.C.2 programe, broadcast on Sept. 20th.  Discover what the pupils themselves want from life and help them pursue those aims.,instead of government statistics bent on cutting costs by closing schools. Of course , many children have no idea what they want to do when leaving school, but  at least ask them what interests them, so the teacher can weave it into a curriculum for their educational advancement until they have decided for themselves which career or vocation they wish to persue.
But how can we persuade the extremists in established western governments to be re-educated? Am I being naive or patronizing?
We could refuse to vote for them if they refuse to co-operate in a re-educational scheme of holistic government and economics.Yes, empower ourselves to choose which civil servants to serve us by proportional representation and a system of accountability to US, the nation, not only to their 'School tie 'chums.
Should scientific research be halted until we reach a state of global equality? We should , of course choose which areas of research are necessary to continual growth, such as medicine, but do we truly need  more electronic gadgetry and toys?Do we really need to spend so much money on space projects while there is still so much want and strife here on Earth. Do we really need to litter our Moon and Mars with McDonald's and K.F.C.? Isn't there enough  of our junk floating aimlessly about  space already? If the shortsighted politicians and financiers bothered to consider the cost of neglecting obsolete sattelites and space stations, byinvesting in methods of dismantling and recycling them, a lot of money and hassle would have been saved  in dodging the debris  from these discarded hunks of  machinery today.
I believe such savings would serve us much better if invested in the education of potential young minds on Earth in a way that allows them to think beyond our present  academic paradigms, no matter their social or economic backgrounds, thus allowing them to unlock their own potentials for the benefit of us all.
This leads me to another proposition, that may be in force today. Refuse to award  patents to inventors and designers who do not provide sufficient methods of recycling or responsible disposal of their products. All too often now I see the wheely-bin crossed out logo on electronic/electrical items but no instructions on how to dispose  of  them responsibly.
Now, let us move forward to an age of economic security for the services we perform to our community. How do we gain sou; satisfaction by this? Previous articles on this blog have answered this, I believe. Achievement is not percieved in quantative terms, but qualiative. Recognition and  respect  from our peers [colleages and management] in the work place for our endevours, when merit is warranted. Positive encouragement to do better instead of taunts and  undeserved beratement do much more to increase productivity. One experiment  in an office block was to change the level of lighting. Even though the original lighting was restored, that somebody cared enough to try, counted with the staff and so productivity increased for a time. Did the management ask the staff which lightng they preffered, I  cannot say. Maybe you could ask the management of your office to adjust the lighting at certain times of the day, along with heating and air conditioning to see which of them encourages more productivity, for you all.
How we invest in our elders by including them in our social life  instead of locking them away in homes when they still have so much to contribute. In Native American society, it is the elders that raise the children whilst the parents work As labels for indigenous peoples change so frequently these days I have decided to stick to Native Americans in this case, they know who I mean, and blow the political correctness fascists!
How can we slow the pace of life yet deal with unemployment?
 As we do not progress, as individuals, at the same rate, yet the government insist we should, as we have discussed earlier, there need not be a forced glut upon the workplace, if we allow those adults amongst us ,who are prepared  to take up full-time holistic re-education, to do so. Those who are not yet prepared can remain in the workplace until they realize the advantages of doing so, thus freeing up space for youth leaving school, roundly educated and prepared to do justice in the workplace.
Some scheme, more economically viable method for maintaining the schools and students should be sought ,of course. The present system of enslaving students to the banks before they've even left education is purely INSANE!!!
One proposal I have thought of to defer malingerers, is a non-interest fee to be charged on all students until they graduate with the required qualifications. The fee will then be re-imbursed to them. Those who choose to drop-out or fail to turn up for exams will have to pay the full cost of the course plus inconvieniance costs for wasting tutor time and  depriving other dtudents of places on courses.Who agrees, and how can it be financed? How was it financed before New Labour [I read  New Fascism] scrapped free further education [or indoctrination]? Could we free university professors and lecturers from obligatory text bookwritimg to supplement their salaries and so concentrate their energies  to serving their students, or is this what they need to spur themselves on? Can cutting superfluous government spending really pay for all this?
Howabout taxation on harmful products such as tobacco and  dubious quality alcohol ? How many of the taxes on these products actually find their way to funding the N.H.S? Do we tax tobacco  and alcohol out of the reach of the many? After all, the rich are just as susceptable to cancers and  organ diseases as the poor.To abolish and criminalize smokrs and drinkers is obviously not the way. How about taxing the individuals for treating their tobacco and alcohol based diseases, instead of penalising us all?It has been considered but is it viable?
Re  Developing  independant currency and banking systems
Concerning possible abuse of your currency and banking system, a transparent accounting system could be used ,allowing community members to discover who is abusing  your system and so boycott any further credit allowance until a solution can be found to deal with the solution equibly, assuming the guilty party are willing to comply. Those who refuse to allow this transparency can also be boycotted, being permitted to use only cash in notes or coin for transactions within the community as they would in normal society. This would allow for more interest free transactions due to comunity trust .
Set a flexible credit allowance that relieves guilt stress for those that find themselves over drawn but  condidered as safe 'risk'  members of the community, such as local businesses that serve value to the community. They could be supported by an upfront credit account.E.G customers could deposit a managable sum with their grocer, who would take account of the credit spent, thus allownig the grocer to meet unexpected overheads, whilst the customer benefits by the choice of paying from the deposit account or with ready community cash.
Decide on what criteria you set your local currency. Do you set a n hourly rate for everybody irrespective of their service to the community. Does it correspond with the nation's currency values, or your own? If the community  owns the land ,who pays the rent and how?How does the community set  rate for energy consumption?
If everybody in the community agrees on hours worked for their goods and services, does this create more or less difficulties? Some deem this too radical approach while others may find it feasible who agree on a wage at par with other community members
Trust seems to be the major factor here. Can we trust our neighbour has put in X hours work to justify Y hours credit? How can we prove to our neighbour that we have done likewise? Is it really, on the otherhand, down to how much you are willing to pay for produce and services? You can do with out a new dining table so long as your present one sill serves its purpose, but for how long can you survive without food if the only grocer in town is charging too much? Will he/she buckle in to your boycott before you starve? Obviously you create healthy competition by allowing a rival grocer.
When there are no financial organizations to fall back on or measure by,how do we justify an economic rate of exchange having no trust among community members?
Do we boycott sales and services to those who refuse to work or otherwise contribute to the community? Do we show them the community gate or escort them outta town?
It seeems that a currency based on hours worked is too radical for some to be feasible for others who agree to serve on a wage parity with everyone else in the community. multi-dimensional curenciescould be a way forward, however, as people acceptvouchers for air and sea miles. Supermarkets reward loyal customers with credit points towards discounts on further shopping.
One idea is poly capitalism, based on normal manufactured capital, social capital and natural capital If  we are to believe in other currencies, we must accept money is not a fixed commodity as the traditionaly minded wish to believe. It has a conciousness, much like water and atomic particles; it behaves according to how you think about it.So let's think about how we can behave differently about money.
If £ sc are paid to care workers and other voluntary services as well as those caring for aged or sick relatives and allowed to circulate on par with £ sterling, the local community will acknowledge  those who pay with £ sc, so long as they are not recirculated amongst the rest of us. To allieviate this, shops and  other businesseses will have to be able to exchange the £ sc or have them credited to their accounts. But doesn't that entail several different acccounts? Well maybe, but aren't many of us running multiple bank accounts anyway? Are banks willing to co-operate in this way, or is this what we should be creating our own banks for? We could pay our council taxes in £ sc which could then circulate amongst those who work in non profit sectors of local councils. Does this mean we should be paid in £ sc and £ sterling? Why not? If we know how much we pay to municipal council taxes regular;ly, we could demand this amount to be credited to our £ sc account, the remainder in £ sterling and £ ntl accounts. This would mean that our councils would not be able to syphon off taxes for their own ends behind our backs.
To do this effectively we should employ , as mentioned elsewhere,trusted auditors to calculate how much is spent by our local councils againdt how much actually utilizes the services we demand and expect. We can then asertain from the results how much to boycott from the council taxes, thus paying the currect amount in £sc to the respective services and  if any left over to reasonable funding for projects benefacting the community. But why not go further, if we cannot trust our local councillors anymore than the ministers in Whitehall and Downing Street, by taking controll of how we pay relevant suppliers and servers such as gas, water, electricity boards et.al. Should we call  them Social accountants and Auditors?Again the need for transparancy of transactions. TRUST
Could £sc be used for donations?If a reputable system of  pooling all donations into one 'pot' to be divided equally amongst all registered charities by the social administrators  who could be paid  in £sc as oposed to £ sterling, thus averting the greedy administrators who only wish to turn a quick  profit. Am I being naive here in believing that charities  should not have to pay administration costs out of the donations people freely give?
It ha been suggested that companies and corporations can gain/aquiore £sc by accepting payment for goods and services from customers in £sc. E.G.  a company supplies schools with equipmentat a discount. If doing so, they can recieve tax discounts If a solicitor provides legal aid to a non profit organization, making out part invoice in £sc. Meanwhile employees, take timr off work to carry out voluntary or charity work of their choice. Advertisers could  pay a social fee for using public space for their ads. After all, we the public don't demand these ads thrust upon us whilst youth art is condemned as criminal graffittti. I suppose because they pay no tax on it, it is deeemed illegal. Read 'Blessed Are The Chalk Markers'  on my misscellania page. In India, billboard ads are painted as are ads on brick and concrete walls. Maybe if British advertisers sponsered these youths by employing them as ad artists. Paying them in £sc, tax discounts could be furnished or fee wavered for using public spaces to promote youth artistic talent .Why should only university trained  youth get all the plum advertisng jobs?  After all they are courting Banksy now. But then these young artists may not want to suck up to corporate advertisment. But then, they could  create a demand for less greed guzzling approach  to advertising.ASBO the idea that you are somehow inferior or lacking if you don't buy the desired product being advertised. Cut out useless, blind consumerism. ASBO ads that tell you yesterday's cleaning agent does not clean as effectively as the new product from the same brand company. They all say their product kills 99% germs, so what's so new about the new product except maybe the aroma which is supposed to be lemony or rosey white etc!
If the economic market , as we are told to believe, runs on  the assumption of scarcity,is it to be presumed there is no alternative?
Of course there is an alternative. Those who are running the scarcity assumption, obviously wish to keep themselves  pecunairy wealthy if not spiritually so ,and so deny any alternative. So how can we turn this around to a wealth of abundance? Answer: Slow down consumption.to decrease carbon footprinting. Invest in the handcrafted produce of developing countries thus enabling them to produce quality goods at a fair price for ALL. Lower the demand for poor quality manufactured produce  quaranteed to break down after two or less years after you've been conned into taking out a five year warranty that cancels out  your   free one years' standard  guarantee. The more people in developed countries engage in handcrafted production, the more able are we to judge the correct price  to pay for others' handcrafted produce. Reliance on factory manufactured produce has made us forget the true value of our neighbour's produce, I feel, myself included. When we haggle in the markets of the developing world, are we depriving the market traders of a meal by demanding such a low price?Are they acqueasing because they are despirate for a sale, or is the lowest price they are willing to come down to the true value of the goods, profit margin included?
But when the natural resourses  are owned  by  global stock exchange  businesses, how can the smaller craftsman make a decent profit  margin when they have no  ownership over those natural resources. No controlover which trees to fell or how many, for instance, how can they successfully manage their own enviroment. so there is enough to hand down to future generations to use but not abuse?
Of course time spent on engaging in handcrafted produce  and then selling, demands we spend less time money-grubbing for the  corporate bosses. So how do we demand this time from them?Refuse to work overtime [usually unpaid for executives] whilst commuting from work and then at home without risking the sack? Could you afford to sacrifice that bonus for NOT securing that multi-million pound deal? Would doing so too often lead you to recieving your P45 at the end of the week/month?
What does your family time really mean to you?
you may argue that if I don't work harder  or longer, I won't have enough cash to supply my family's needs. Ask 5your family whether family time is more important than material wealth? Teenagers would  probably answer the latter whilst younger children the former. So judge for yourselves upon their responses  whether your time is better spent slaving for the boss or 'giving' to your family.

Multi-dimensional currencies could be a way forward, however,as people do accept vouchers for air and sea miles. Supermarkets and other brand name chainstores reward their customer's loyalty with points toward discounts.  During the Englih Civil War of the 1640's silver plate was cut up to suppliment the lack of silver coinage During W.W.II we used ration cards and in U.S.A during the 1930's depression, a variety of local currencies evolved  Today,there are other forms of local currencey within businesses and among hyperspace communities, butnothing ,as yet, on a more global  or national scale. One option could be poly-capitalism based on three tiers of "Manufactured Capital", "Social capital" and  "Natural capital". If we are to believe in other currencies, we must accept that money is not a fixed concept as the traditional economists would have us believe. It has a conciousness, much like particles that collude to form living matter such as water. Yes water has a conciouness. It reads the intent of the beholder and acts accordingly. So, if you think and feel negatively whilst handling and drinking water, it will not nourish you as well as if you  were thinking positvely or showed it gratitude. So, as we should be thinking and feeling about not only water, but our food also, we should do likewise with money. So let's think about how we can behave differently about money. Use our imagination to fuel  diverse responses from money to allow it to work for the benefit of the Earth as an complete entity.
The Native Americans believe that if you don't use  something, you lose it.. As a lad,  my dad told me that indians will present a gift to you and then reclaim it when they wanted it back.. The connotation of this ,from my dad's point of view, was one of either trickery or meanness. Now, I didn't think to ask whether he meant American indians or those from India. I assumed the latter. Now, three decades later, becoming interested in the minds of Native Americans, I discovered that if you don 't  use the gift given to you, you are dishonouring the gift, or any item, in fact. So they feel they have the right and duty to reclaim it and pass it on to someone who will. Should we have the right and duty to do this to those who hoard or otherwise abuse currencies? I believe we should.
Ancient cultures gave votive offerings of monefrom the atmosphere per anny to the deities, but these were of small denominations, possibly a useful way of disposing of worn currencies, as opposed to wasting it as the Bank of England  burns worn bank notes. Could those notes be better utilized  by pulping and recycling them? What I am stressing here is, that we should be taking a more responsible attitude, thus honouring money as a concious energy, not a lifeless thing., to be strangled and twisted to our will, as Sir Francis Bacon advised  about nature, back in the 17th century. 
 Above I mentioned poly-capitalism. What is meant by it , or should I say how can it be applied and utilized? Along with the normal GBP or £ sterling, suppose we add  SBP = Social Britsh Pound  =£sc and NBP = Natural British Pound = £ntl.These can only operate and circulate within their specified markets. £sc to service labour and social  and municipal services, £ntl to service enviromental concerns and  £ sterling for the usual capitalist commodities markets. But is this realistic? How can diverse currencies service diverse sectors in this manner?
Let's then look at the £sc. Why should our social services be manipulated by the stock exchange or political party whims? Why shouldn't we as citizens, decide how our council taxes are used to service us, as living cities?.Why not look at it this way. Since we are concious souls and without us, as city concious beings, there would be no need of cities, we are the cities.The concrete, steel and glass, bricks and mortar, are the  more solid representations of how we think of our selves as living spaces. Similar with money. If the credit we use for consumption is 96% of all recorded world's currency circulation leaving only 4% in cash coin and notes; U.K. circulation being £1.6 trillion in credit :£960million cash according to 2006 figures, what does this say then about who we think we are?

So, then, haven't we the right and duty to take back the governing and funding of our living spaces from the abusers?By instituting the £sc as a currency for paying us wages so that we can fund the maintenance of us, living cities, we can regain honour and respect for our fellow citizens by being responsible for how we do so. Undo the damage Margaret Thatcher unleashed with her 'everybody for themselves '  attitude. Slap an ASBO on isolation! Prevent old people from dying alone and uncared for because the state finds no reason to keep them alive, and so cut welfare.services. Fund the proper education of our children so they can make appropriate life choices for themselves instead of having jobs thrust upon them by uncaring school career advisors. 'Advisors' being a sick joke in itself. Incentives for school pupils to work for. Not to stop them misbehaving in class. This I believe to be counter productive, but to encourage them to help those in their class who are slower to catch up, for example. The aim being to make them feel important, but not arrogantly so,but necessary, needed. Self respect in a sense of fullfilment engendering a community spirit that dispenses with the need to kill to gain respect in their  youth community. Need I continue with examples, there are so many? So how can it work with the usual banks and corporations in control of supply of  £ sterling? By creating our own banks, could we recycle £ sterling into £sc for our use? Would this not be mixing the currencies' circulation? Maybe, maybe not. Do we need to create our own banks ,or engender pressure  on the existing financial instutions to  change their  scruples? Encourage them to deepen/widen the dimensions of who they are, as we as citizens should about who we are?
 
Let's now look at carbon currency.
Gaia managesto remove 13bn tonnes of CO2  from the atmosphere per year. Humans exhume 33tonnes CO2 per year.@ 6.5bn population=2 tonnes per person.
Suppose 1 climate change curency unit {C.C.C}= 1Kg CO2, each quota per head=2000 CCC credited to a climate account in £ntl ea year. Since we in the E.U. would have used up our quota at present rate of fossil fuel consumption by spring, we will have to buy up from those who have surplus credit in CCCThey would then acquire £sc or £ sterling equivelants for their countries to suppliment their small earnings.
This of course will allow us , as individuals, to realise how much we are a ctually consuming vs. other societies and so kerb our consumption so a not to be in the 'ecological red', since we only pay attention to such issues when it hits our pockets.But what of the fuel guzzling giants such as oil companies? Hundreds of thousands of £'s or $'s mean little to them when they make millions per day. Green taxes have been mentioned earlier, but how can they be implmented so as to make a consideable hole in their bank accounts if they continue to guzzle so much fuel? How can a tax be levied that cannot be off loaded onto the consumer?Could payment  in £sc  or £ntl be appropriate?
Can we calcuate the £sc rate on what  social services would cost if  those who give voluntarily were paid as well as all hidden overheads such fuel , tax and insurance for minibuses or rental of church/community premises for social functions are considered . What about all the health issues that are not covered by the state that could be serviced by £sc?I'm thinking that enviromental and socialm concerns should be linkedby £sc and £ntl or C.C.C. and pure commerce by £sterling and euros. As mentioned earlier, our taxes to the state could be paid in £sterling whilst taxes to local councils in £sc or  £ntl to pay for local fuel consumption, social services and shopping. But what of petrol and diesel for vehicles, £sc or £ntl? I  think £ntl / C.C.C.
So how can we cut our indebtedness to the £ntl/C.C.C. economy at our present rate of consumption?Well, an idea  I mentioned above could be for employers alowing their emplyees time out to contribute ecologically or socially in exchange for £sc and £ntl/C.C.C.The employers couldgain in tax credit, if that could be feasible, to encourage them to do more for the enviromentby lowering consumption based products like cars and Hi-Fi -DVD-i-pod players, as wellas 'white goods' unless they are manufactured to last more than 10 years. An extra dividend in C.C.C's could be paid for each year over the expected life span of the product. Also a return to the repair services at affordable rates that discourage throwing the product away because buying a new one is more financially economical. Repairing would be enviromentally economical if subsidized by C.C.C credits.The customer pays for repairs in £ntl /C.C.C.'s. But am I missing the point here, if £sc and £ntl can be exchanged with £sterlng? This is natural since I am no economist, only a novice that at present hasn't  yet gathered all the relevant statistics to percieve  the overview clearly. But this will be amended as I evolve this blogsite. Stay tuned. 
To be cont.
Power v Powerlessness

There are many definitions of power concerning those who truly have it and those who only think they do. For me, those who only think they do are the ones, I find, who either bellow and bawl down their employees’ necks thus goading production with threats and coercion, or use small minded tactics to make their employees feel small and insignificant. Reggie Perrin’s boss C. J. in both the original series and present remake illustrate this perfectly. Both are powerless, lacking true leadership and so compensating for their own inadequacies with bluster and berating. Result: Well, many of us know how we feel and react to such measures and the lack of interest in quality production, the bare minimum standard ensuing. This, I feel, as I’m sure many of us do, is one of, if not the major factor, in the wholesale shoddy quality of produce and services in the world today. Since it is those who demand high profit margins and share dividends by manipulating production and service with ridiculous, irritating , hindering product quota targets who set such shoddy quality standards, in hopes of duping unsuspecting investment clients, hold such power over us, are we not the powerless also?
In contrast, I think you all feel, is the employer of true leadership who inspires leadership qualities in you, the employee. Who listens to your grievances and helpful input to increase productivity and smoother running of company or department. The employer who treats staff as prodigies, managers in the making, who can successfully take the reins whenever the employer decides to move on, holds true power. In contrast, the employer who fears being past over by powerful employees thus engaging coercion to keep their position, are bereft of such power.
So, how can we turn this around to everybody in the world’s advantage?
The most drastic, even though on the surface seeming perfectly logical, action would be to stop consuming all sub quality produce until it meets the quality we demand. Drastic, as this will entail the loss of jobs to many in the world who can ill afford the loss of income, how can we remedy the situation? How can we empower ourselves as well as those less financially situated without increasing the economic imbalance? How can we create our own companies using our collective skills and knowledge in order to produce quality goods and services yet compete on the same level as the big guys without resorting to share holding, especially when the banks refuse to lend to small concerns with little chance of repaying the loans at the present high rate of interest as well as other strings attached?
I have suggested independent small community banks/building societies to raise capital so long as the investors, you the community businesses, expect no interest nor charge it to each other.
The object being, a pool of resource, to tide yourselves over your respective slump periods and so paying back as well as investing more spare capital when business picks up. Of course this is a tall order to accept /expect since trust is such a rare commodity in the world, so I ask, for how much longer do you want to be enslaved to the bankers of greed and selfishness?
An idea has come to me recently that an interest charge could be levied by you the investers and clients of your own banks on your selves in order to help other small businesses or worthy charities get off the ground. They could then pay the reasonably agreed interest to help more businesses or charities of their choice and so on. Another way out idea could be for a system in the future, whereby all the world's financially stable population could pay a percentage of their salaries into an international fund to fund. This could put an end to organizations accosting us on the streets or spam leafletting, cold calling upon us etc.Yes it has been done by many civilizations before and present, but they don't seem to be effective. Why has OXFAM never eliminated global poverty over the past 70 years? Probably because the funds have been syphoned off by dubious channels.And how can my propsal not be also corrupted likewise? Who can we trust to distribute this fund to the worthy charities that deserve them? I don't trust the UN or other governmental institutions, do you? Any suggestions?     
Assuming then that your days of such enslavement you wish to be rid of as soon as possible, I recommend that you seriously consider trusting your fellow community partners. Bury your political, religious and economic hatchets, come together in new found trust and harmony and so dig yourselves out of your collective economic holes. Sufficient capital accumulated, a market needs to be sought for such quality goods and services who are prepared to pay the initial high cost with reasonable assurances that product costs will fall once demand has increased and a reasonable profit margin found to cover overheads and keep business flourishing, having freed yourselves from shareholding corporations and other cooperatives and organizations. keeping workforce at home and abroad well catered for should be of prime importance, as discussed above. Empower them to seek the high standards of living and working/servicing you expect for yourselves. Quality will then return to you. I know schemes like this are in practice in some small way elsewhere in the world, Fair Trade chocolate and coffee for instance, but the system is most probably still enslaved to the banks. Can we truly empower ourselves economically or am I just too naive? Are there legal clauses prohibiting such motives I’m unaware of?

Education Is Power; But What Exactly Is Education?

Education is power, or so I’ve read and heard, but what exactly is education?
Not what the governments of the world dish out, that’s for sure. Do you academically tutored ones believe you are really educated because you’ve passed some qualifications? I don’t mean to undermine you only encourage those who think it enough that you have your desired academic qualifications to think again. What have your text books, written by your professors tutors and dons to meet their economic ends, neglected to inform you of in their haste to be published, thus keeping their posts and /or grants?
I suggest independent research, not rehashing online, those sources are usually incorrect or incomplete also. Search out those whose work has been vilified by the press and university authorities as well as others. I know this may sound naive and presumptuous but I have met quite a few students unwilling to look further into their chosen field of study than the indoctrination state and public funded institutions have presented to them.
The present curriculum in use over the past 130 years is stale, ineffectual and above all irrelevant to today’s children. In fact it was irrelevant 40 years ago when I started school. It’s not that the subjects themselves are irrelevant, it’s their application. I believe that schools should devise projects relevant to how we wish and expect the future of our world to be shaped. Not by imposing our ideals on the children but working with them, sharing our thoughts and feelings about the world we prefer to live in . This way we can devise a program of suitable class or school projects that encompass all the relevant subjects and more in a more dynamic, exciting and fruitful manner. Drop the old “I’m the teacher who knows better than you mere children” and embrace the “I have the experience of age but you also have insight I have either forgotten or not yet realized”.
Do we want prolific, responsible, just world leaders? Then let us help our children become those leaders we so need right now.
Do you believe we can cut crime drastically by offering the youth of the world the opportunity for meaningful contribution to their communities of their choice, not jobs thrust upon them by corporate government “Incentives” under coercion.E.g. No job, no dole or benefits?
I do, as the above discussion on education has shown.
But what about equal wages for all, no matter what the occupation or wherever in the world?
Preposterous?
Well consider the quantity of real hard cash as opposed to electronically contrived credit. Dismissing for the moment illusive credit, how could this tangible cash be equally and responsibly distributed?
A change of values is obviously needed, but how?

I propose, for example, that if the orthodox churches wish to reclaim their lost folds, they could consider redemption for past transgressions against those they have robbed, enslaved, tortured and murdered around the world in their misguided missions to proselytise at the point of a sword. Now, I don't believe Jesus ever advocated such murder and plunder that has taken place in his name over the past five centuries of colonialism, both political and religous and neither should they. Nor did he advocate the accumalation of such extravagant wealth, to be displayed in self aggrandizement or hoarded in vaults only to be viewed by a select few illuminati.
So how about returning this unecessary wealth, that goes beyond the general maintenance costs of the churches. I include neglected land whose resources are not being implimented effectively, if at all. Rather than merely churning this wealth into hard cash and credit for redistribution, sending it off to third world governments, who most probably will syphon or malapropriate said funds to fulfill their own agendas, I propose the wealth to be entrusted to honest aid and charity organisations that do not spirit donations away under the dubious euphanism of "administrative costs". I believe charities should be administered free of charge. So, whoever out there knows why they are not, please do comment . These responsible organizations, knowing who truly deserve this redistribution of wealth and how it can be most effectively implimented to empower the descendents, for it being obvious that evidence of their ancestors rights to their lost property has long been obliterated, to share in an equal redistribution of resources in the appropriate forms, thus allowing them to prosper for themselves with correct informative education relevant to their communities' prosperity, instead of forever enslaving themselves to corporate greed. I believe in a truly holistic approach to their economies, education, health and nutrition, business of all nature, creative and recreative persuits, and any other concerns I have neglected to mention. But this is already in practice, some of you may be screaming at me. So why are there so many still in the grip of poverty in all its manifestations? If this were possible with the cooperation of the orthodox churches, their popularity could be reclaimed

    Balinski, Young, and Arrow's Theorems On Choice And Creative Decision-making
                                                                    vs.
                                                 Karl Popper's Criterion

               Has Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also been at work here?



This is the second half of David Deutsch's Chapter 13- Choices, but not verbatum, as I have added some comments here and there and abbreviated some of David's paragraphs.

 Balinski and Youngs Theorem
Every apportionment rule that stays within the quota suffers from the population paradox

This work has a much broader context than the apportionment problem. During the 20th century, especially following the Second World War, a consensus had emerged amongst most major political movements that the future welfare of humankind would depend on an increase in society-wide [preferably worldwide] planning and decision-making. The Western consensus differed from its totalitarian counterparts in that it expected the object of the exercise to be the satisfaction of individual citizens' preferences. So Western advocates of society-wide planning were forced to address a fundamental question that totalitarians do not encounter: when society as a whole faces a choice, and citizens differ in their preferences among the options of which is best for society to choose? If people are unaminous, no problem arises, so  no need for a planner either. If not, which option can be rationally defended as being 'the will of the people'- the option that society wants? Which raises a second question:  how should a society organize its decision-making so that it does choose the options that it wants? These two questions had been raised, at least implicitly, from the beginning of modern democracy. For instance, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution both speak of the right of 'the people' to do certain things such as remove governments. Now they become the central questions of a branch of mathematical game theory known as 'social- choice theory'.Thus game theory-formely an obscure and somewhat whimsical branch of mathematics- was suddenly thrust to the centre of human affairs, just as rocketry and nuclear physics had been. Many of the world's finest mathematical minds, including von Neuman, rose to the challenge of developing the theory to support the needs of the countless institutions of collective decision-making that were being made up. They would create new mathematical tools which, given what all the individuals in a society want or need , or prefer, would destil what that society wants to do, thus implementing the aspiration of 'the will of the people'. They would also determine which systems of voting and legislation would give society what it wants. Some interesting mathematics was discovered. But little, if any, of it ever met those aspirations. On the contrary,time and again the assumptions behind social choice theory were proved to be incoherent or inconsistent by 'no go' theorums like that of Balinsky and Young.
Thus it turned out that the apportionment problem, which had absorbed so much legislative time, effort and passion was the tip of the ice berg. The problem is a lot less parochial than it looks. For instance, rounding errors are proportionally smaller with a larger legislature. So why not make the legislature very big, say ten thousand members , would be trivial? One reason is that such a legislature would have to organise itself internally to make any decisions.The factions within the legislature would themselves have to choose leaders, policies, strategies, and so on. Consequently all the problems of social choice would arise within the litle 'society' of a party's contingent in the legislature. So it is not really about rounding errors.Alas it is not about people's top preferences: once we are considering the details of decision-making in large groups-how legislatures, parties and factions within parties organize themselves to contribute their wishes to 'society's  wishes' - we have to take into account their second and third choices, because people still have a right to contribute to the decision-making if they cannot persuade a majority to agree to their first choice. Yet electorial systems designed to take such factors into account invariably introduce more paradoxes and no-go theorems.
One of the first no-go theorems was proved in 1951 by the economist, Kenneth Arrow, and it contributed to him winning the Nobel Prize in 1972. Arrow's theorem appears to deny he very existance of  social choice - and strike a the very principle of  representative government, apportionment, and  democracy itself This is what Arrow did. He first laid down five elementary axioms that any rule defining the 'will of the people' - preferences of a group - should satisfy, and these axioms seem ,at first sight, so reasonable as to be hardly worth stating .One of them is that the rule should define a group's preferences only in terms of the preferences of that group's members. Another is that the rule must not simply designate the views of one particular person to be  'the preferences of the group' regardless of what the others want. That is called the 'no-dictator axiom'. A third is that if the members of the group are unaminous about somehing - in that sense that they all have identical preferences about it - then the rule must deem the group to have those preferences too. Those three axioms are all expressions, in this situation, of the principle of representative government. Arrows fourth axiom is this. Suppose that under a given definition of 'the preferences of the group', the rule deems the group to have a particular preference - say for pizza over hamburgers.Then it must still deem that to be the group's preference if some members who previously disagreed with the group, preferring hamburgers, change their mind to pizza. This constraint is similar to ruling out a population paradox. A group would be irrational if it changed it's 'mind' in the opposite direction to it's members.
The last axiom is that if the group has some preference, and then some members changed their minds about something else, then the rule must continue to assign the group that original preference. For instance, if some members have changed their minds about the relative merits of strawberries and raspberries, but none of their relative merits of pizza or hamburgers have changed, then the group's preference between pizza and hamburgers must not be deemed to have changed either. This constraint can again be regarded as a matter of rationality: if no members of the group change any of their opinions about a particular comparison, nor can the group.
Arrow proved that the axioms that I have just listed are, despite their reasonable appearance , logically inconsistent with each other. No way of conceiving of 'the will of the people' can satisfy all five. This strikes at the assumptions behind social-choice theory at an arguably deeper level than the theorems of Young and Balinski. First ,Arrow's axioms are not about the parochial issue of apportionment, but about any situation in which we want to conceive of a group of preferences. Second ,all of these five  axioms are intuitively not just desirable to make a system fair, but essential for it to be rational. Yet they are inconsistent.
It seems to follow that a group of people jointly making decisions is necessarily irrational in one way or another. It may be a dictatorship, or under some arbitrary rule, or, if it meets all of these representativeness, then it must sometimes change its 'mind' in a direction opposite to that in  which criticism and persuasion have been effective So it will make perverse choices, no matter how wise and benevolent the people who interpret and enforce its preferences-unless, possibly,one of them is a dictator. So there is no such thing as 'the will of the people'. There is no way to regard 'society' as a decision-maker with self-consistant preferences. This is hardly the conclusion that social-choice theory was suppose to report back to the world.
As with the apportionment problem, there were attempts to fix the implications of Arrow's theorem with 'why don't they just...?' ideas. For instance why not take into account how intense people's preferences are? For if barely half of the electorate prefers X to Y , while the rest consider it a matter of life and death that Y should be done, then most intuitive conceptions of representative government would designate Y as 'the will of the people'. But intensities of preferences and especially the differences in intensities among different people, or between the same person but at different times, are notoriously difficult to define, let alone measure- like happiness. And, in any case, including such things makes no difference, there are still no-go theorems.
As with the apportionment problem, it seems that whenever one patches up a decision-making system in  one way it becomes  paradoxical in another.
Another serious problem that has been identified in many decision-making institutions is that they create incentives for participants to lie about their preferences. For instance  if there are two options of which you mildly prefer one, you have an incentive to register it as 'strong' instead. Perhaps you are persuaded out of some sense of public responsibility The Voltarian senses this with multiple choice questionnaires sent out by government  or market researchers, the nature of which are carefully designed to give them the answers they prefer to receive, not your true opinions or preferences.
But a decision-making moderated by civic responsibility has the defect that it gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of  people who lack civic responsibility and are willing to lie . On the other hand a society where everyone knows each other  pretty well , there is no need of a secret ballot just a show of hands this way or other yet the system will give disproportionate weight to those who can intimidate waverers.
One perinially controversial social-choice  problem is that of devising an electorial system. Such a system is mathematically similar to the apportionment problem, but instead of allocating seats to states on basis of population, it allocates them to candidates [or parties] on the basis of votes.apparently it is more paradoxical than apportionment and has more serious consequences, because in the case of elections the element of persuasion is central to the whole exercise: an election is suppose to determine what the voters have become persuaded of. The Voltarian calls this colour coded fascism /co-ercion  . Consequently an electorial system can contribute to, or can inhibit, traditions of criticism in the society concerned .The Voltarian calls this democracy if it contributes.For example, an electorial system in which seats are allocated wholly or partly in proportion to the number of votes received by each party is called proportional representation. We know from Balinski and Young that, if an electorial system is too proportional, it will be subject to the analogue of
the population paradox and other paradoxes. And indeed the political scientist Peter Klitgard in a study of the most recent eight elections in Denmark [under its proportional representation system] showed that every one of them manifested paradoxes. The Voltarian wonders whether this is a factor of The Heisenberg 'Paradox 'Principle on  a human society scale.  These included the 'More-preferred-Less-Seats-paradox', in which a majority of voters prefer party X to party Y but party Y receives more seats than X.
But that is really the least of the irrational attributes of proportional representation. A more important one - which is shared by even the mildest of proportional systems- is that they assign disproportionate power in the legislature to the third largest party,Z, and even to even smaller parties. It works like this. It is rare [in any system] for a single party to receive an overall majorityof votes. Hence, if votes  are reflected proportionately in the legislature ,no legislation can be passed unless some of the parties co-operate to pass it, and no government be formed unless some of them form a coalition. The Voltarian finds this the reason for U.K. Government's position since 2010 election. Because most of the major  parties are so bland in the policies they offer the nation, i.e more or less the same, whatever caters for corporate industry and banking but not the welfare of the nation a coalition had to be formed with Cameron as the P.M. and Clegg as the junior partner.The common outcome to this is that the leader of the third largest party holds the balance of power [could this be the UKIP leader rather than the Labour leader?] and decides which two parties  it shall join in government, and which shall be sidelined, and for how long, which means that it is correspondingly harder for the electorate to decide which party, and which policies  will be removed from power.
In Germany between 1949  and 1998 the Free Democratic Party  was the third largest after the Christian Democrat C.D.U. and C.S.U although it never received more than 12.8% of the vote but usually much less, the country's proportional representation gave it power that was insensitive to changes in the voter's opinions. On several occasions it chose which of the two largest parties would govern, twice changing sides and three times choosing the less popular of he two [as measured by votes] into power. The F.D.P.'s leader was usually made a cabinet minister as part of the coalition deal, with the result being ,that from 1969-1998, Germany had only two weeks without an F.D.P foreign minister. In 1998, when the F.D.P. was pushed into fourth place by the Green Party, it was immeadiately ousted from government, and the Greens assumed the mantle of kingmakers, taking charge of the Foreign Ministry as well. This disproportionate power that proportional representation gives the third largest party is an embarrassing feature of the system whose whole raison d'etre, and supposed moral justification is to allocate political influence proportionately.
Arrow's theorem applies not only to collective decision-making but also to individuals as follows. Consider a single, rational person faced with a choice between several options. If the decision requires thought, then each option must be associated with an explanation- at least a tentative one -for why it may be the best. To choose an option is to choose its explanation. So how does one choose which explanation to adopt?
Common sense says that one 'weighs' them, or weighs the evidence that their arguments present. This is an ancient metaphor. Statues of justice have carried scales since antiquity. more recently, inductivism has cast scientific thinking in the same mould, saying that scientific theories are chosen ,justified and believed- and even somehow even formed in the first place -  according to 'the weight of evidence' in their favour.
Consider that supposed weighing process. Each piece of evidence, including each feeling, prejudice, value, axiom, argument, and so on, depending on what 'weight' it had to that person's mind, would contribute that amount to that person's  preferences between various explanations. Hence, for the purposes of Arrow's theorem each piece of evidence can be regarded as an 'individual' participating in the decision-making process, where the person as a whole would be the 'group'.
Now the process that adjudicates between he different explanations would have to justify certain constraints if it were to be rational. For instance, if, having decided that one option was the best, the person received  further evidence that gave additional weight to that option, then the person's overall preference would still be for that option. Arrow says that those requirements are inconsistant with each other, and so seem to imply that all decision-making-all thinking-must be irrational. Unless, perhaps,one of the internal agents is a dictator, empowered to override the combined opinions of all the other agents. But this is an infinite regress: how does the dictator itself choose between rival explanations about which other agents it would be best to override?
There is something very wrong with the conventional model of decision-making, both within single minds and for groups as assumed in social-choice theory. It conceives of decision-making as a process of selecting from existing options according to a fixed formula [such as apportionment rule or electorial system]. In fact that is what happens at the end of decision-making- the phase that does not require creative thought. In terms of Edison's metaphor , the model only refers to perspiration phase without realizing that decision-making is problem-solving, and without the inspiration phase, nothing is ever solved and there is nothing to choose from. At the heart of decision-making is the creation of new options and the abandonment of modification of existing ones.To choose an option, rationally, is to choose the associated explanation. Therefore decision-making consists not of weighing evidence but of explaining it, in the course of explaining the world. One judges arguments as explanations , not justifications, and one does this creatively, using conjecture, tempered by every kind of criticism..........During the course of a creative process , one is not struggling to distinguish between countless different explanations of near equal merit; typically one is struggling even to create one good explanation, and once succeeded, one is glad to be rid of the rest.
Another misconception  to which the idea of decision-making by weighing sometimes leads is that problems can be solved by weighing- in particular, that disputes between advocates of rival explanations can be resolved by a weighted average of their proposals........ Something halfway between them
is usually worse than mixing two explanations to create a 'better' one , which needs more creativity. That is why good explanations are discrete- seperated from each other by bad explanations - and why, when choosing between explanations, we are  faced with discrete options.
It is not true that decision-making suffers from crude irrationalities, not that there is anything wrong with Arrow's theorem or any other no-go theorems, but because social-choice theory is itself based on false assumptions about what thinking and decision-making consists of. Similarly, a dictator in Arrow's sense is not the same as the normal definition consisting of secret police, torure and concentration camps for dissenters. It is simply an agent to whom society's decision-making  rules assign to make a  particular decision regardless of the preferences of anyone else.Thus every law that requires an individual's consent for something -such as a law against rape, or involuntary surgery or euthanasia-establishes a 'dictatorship' in the technical sense of Arrow's theorem. Everyone is a dictator over their own body. The law against theft establishes a dictatorship over one's own possessions, just as one is a dictator over one's ballot paper until posting it in the polling box. Arrow's theorem assumes that all participants are in sole control of their contribution to the decision-making process. Freedom of thought and speech, tolerance of dissent, and self determination of individuals, all require dictatorships in Arrow's mathematical sense.
Virtually all commentators have responded to these paradoxes and no-go theorems in a mistaken and rather revealing way in that they regret them. This illustrates the confusion to which I am referring. They wish all these theorems of pure mathematics were false. If only mathematics would permit it, they comlpain, we human beings could set up a just society that makes its decisions rationally. but faced with the impossiblility of that, there is nothing more we can do but decide which injustices and irrationalities we like best, and enshrine them in law. 'Hardly the best of all possible worlds' Leibniz would advocate,  says The Voltarian. As Webster wrote of the apportionment problem "That which cannot be done perfectly must be done in a manner as near perfection as can be " .
But what sort of perfection is a logical contradiction? A logical contradiction is a nonsense, as Edward Lear made so obviously clear in the 19th century. The truth is simpler: if your conception of justice conflicts with the demands of logic or rationality then it is unjust. If your concept of rationality conflicts with a mathematical theorem[ or many others] then your conception of rationality is irrational, unless you live beyond Lewis Carrol's looking glass, where everything to those who live there is normal, you are just as rational as they, unlike Alice, who IS the irrational one.To stick stubbornly to logically impossible values, this side of the looking glass, one rejects optimism, which is the norm in Wonderland, but nihilistic on our side, as it deprives one of the means to make progress. This, The Voltarian means by our civilization at present in a state of
stagnation. So few wish to change the order of things , government and economy especially, because it entails having to think  creatively. Let me now allow David to continue:
We need something better to wish for. Something that is not incompatible with logic, reason and progress. We have already encountered it as the basic condition for a political system to be capable of making sustained progress:Popper's criterion that the system faciliate the removal of bad policies and bad governments without violence. That entails abandoning 'who should rule?' as a criterion for judging political systems. The entire controversy about apportionment rules and all other issues in social-choice theory has traditionally been framed by all concerned in terms of 'who should rule?': What is the right number of seats for each state, for each political party? What do the groups want and what institutions will get what they want [presuming  they are entitled to rule over subgroups and individuals-Arrow's dictators?]?
So let's reconsider collective decision-making in terms of Popper's criterion. Instead of wondering earnestly which of the self evident yet mutually inconsistent criteria of fairness , representativeness etc are the most self-evident, so that they can be entrenched, we judge such criteria, along with all other actual or proposed political institutions, according to how well they promote the removal of bad  rulers and/or their policies.To do this, they must embody traditions of peaceful, critical discussion-of rulers, policies and the political institutions themselves.
In this view, any interpretation of the democratic process as merely a way of consulting the people to find out who should rule or what policies to implement misses the point of what is happening. An election does not play the same role in a rational society as consulting an oracle or priest, or obeying orders from the king as in earlier societies The essence of democratic decision-making is not the choice made by the system at elections , but by the ideas created between elections. And elections are merely one of the many institutions whose function is to allow such ideas to be created ,tested, modified and rejected. The voters are not a fount of wisdom from which the right policies can be imperically 'derived'. They are attempting, fallibly, to explain  the world and thereby to improve it .They are both individually and collectively seeking the truth- or should be, if they are rational. And there is an objective truth of the matter. Problems are soluble. Society is not a zero-sum game: the civilization of the Enlightenment did not get where it is today by cleverly sharing out wealth, votes or anything else that was in dispute when it began [Great!, Super!]. It got here by creating ex nihilo. {eh?!] In particular, what voters are doing in elections is not synhesizing a decision of a superhuman being 'society'. They are choosing which experiments are to be attempted next, and [principally] which are to be abandoned because there is no longer a good explanation for why they are best. Politicians and their policies are those experiments.
When one uses no-go theorems such as Arrow's to model real decision-making, one has to assume-quite unrealistically-that none of he decision-makers in the group is able to persuade others to modify their preferences, or to create new preferences that are easier to agree on.The realistic case is that neither the preferences or the options available need to be the same after as they were in the beginning.
Why don't they just ......fix social-choice theory by creating processes such as explanation and persuasion in its mathematical model of decision-making? Because it is not known how to  model a creative  process. such a model would be an A.I.
The conditions of 'fairness' as conceived in the various social-choice problems  are misconceptions analogous to empiricism: they are all about input to the decision-making process- who participates, and how their opinions are integrated  to form the 'preference of the group'. A rational analysis must concentrate instead on how the rules and institutions contribute to the removal of bad policies and rulers, and to the creation of new options.
Sometimes such an analysis does endorse one of the traditional requirements, at least in part. For instance , it is indeed important that no member of the group be privileged or deprived of representation. But this is not so that all members can contribute to the answer. It is because such discrimination entrenches in the system a preference among their potential criticisms. It does not make sense to include everyone's favoured policies, or parts of them, in the new decision: what is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.
Proportional representation is often defended on the grounds that it leads to coalition  governments and compromise policies. But compromises-amalgams-of the policies of the contributors-have an undeservedly high reputation. Although they are certainly better than immeadiate violence, they are generally, as I have explained, bad policies. If a policy is no one's idea of what will work ,then why should it? But that is not the worst of it. The key defect of compromise policies is that when one of them is implemented  and fails, no one learns from it as no one agreed upon it. Thus compromise policies shield the underlying explanations which do at least seem good to some faction from being criticized and abandoned.
The system used to elect members of the legislatures of most countries in the British political tradition is that each district/constituancy in the country is entitled to one seat in the legislature and the seat goes to the candidate with the majority votes in that district. This, as earlier mentioned, is called 'plurarity voting system' or 'first-past-the-post' as there is no prize for the runner-up. This typically over represents the two largest parties, compared to the proportion of votes they receive. more-over, it is not guarenteed to avoid the population paradox.
These features are often cited as arguments against plurality voting in favour of proportional representation or other similar systems. However, under Popper's criterion, all is insignificant in comparison with the greater effectiveness of plurality voting at removing bad governments and policies.
Let me trace the mechanism of that advantage more explicitly. Following a plurality voting election, the usual outcome is that the largest majority, has the largest representation in he legislature[ Parliament in U.K.], thus taking sole charge. The losers sit  facing the winners in Parliament proceedings. This is rare under proportional representation, because some of the parties in the old coalition are usually needed in the new. The plurality system gives politicians the incentive to create new policies to persuade the electorate to vote for them next time.
 Is four years enough, or too much time? The Voltarian wonders.  He has elsewhere suggested that two may be adequate to prove to the nation the successful candidate's true intentions,.If policies promised  in those two years have come to pass or have failed, the choice is 'the will of the people' as to whether that party stay for a further two or more years.
In the plurality system, the winning explanations are then exposed to criticism and testing, because they can be implemented without mixing them with the important claims of opposing agendas. similarly the winning politicians are solely responsible for the choices they make, so they have the least possible scope to make excuses later if they have been deemed to be bad choices. [unfortunately, too many M.P.'s like to blame the last party's bad policies well into their  own tenure instead of changing them around as promised at election time.]  and so no scope for re-election next time, uless the election is "fixed" by  lobbying of big corporations and industries who side with the bad choices that suit them.
 Under proportional representation, small changes in public opinion seldom count for anything, and power can easily shift in  the opposite direction
to public opinion. What counts most is changes in the opinion of the leader of  third largest party, Z. This shields not only that leader but most of the incumbant politicians and policies from being removed from power through voting, yet often more likely to be removed by losing support from their own party members, or shifting alliances between or within parties. So in this respect, the system badly fails Popper's criterion. The all or nothing nature of the constituency elections, and consequent low representation of small parties, makes the overall out come sensitive to small changes in opinion. When there is a small shift away from  the ruling party, it is usually in real danger of losing power completely.
Under proportional representation there are strong incentives for the system's characteristic  unfairness to persist or worsen over time. For example, if a small faction defects from a large party, it may end up with more chance of having its policies tried out than if its supporters remained with the original party. This results in a proliferation of small parties in the legislature, which in turn increases the necessity for coalitions- including coalitions with the smaller parties, which further increases their disproportionate power. In Israel, the country with the world's most proportional electoral system, the effect has been so severe that, at the time of writing, [prior 2011/12]  even the two largest parties combined cannot muster an overall majority.  And yet under that system - which has sacrificed all other considerations in favour of the supposed fairness of proportionality - even proportionality itself is not always achieved: in the election of 1992, the right-wing parties as a whole received a majority of the popular vote, but left-wing  had a majority of the seats, because the greater majority of the fringe parties failing to reach the threshold for receiving only one seat were right-wing.
In contrast, the error-correcting attributes of the plurality voting system have a tendency to avoid the paradoxes to which the system is theoretically prone, and quickly to undo them when they do occur, because all the incentives are the other way round . For instance, in the Canadian province of Manitoba in 1926, the Conservative Party received twice as many votes as any other party, but won none of the 17 seats allocated to that province. As a result, it lost power in the  national Parliament even though it received the most votes nationally too. And yet, even in that rare extreme case the disproportion between the two main parties' representation in Parliament was not all that great. The average Liberal voter received 1.31 x as many members of Parliament as the average Conservative. And what happened next? The following election the Conservatives again  won on the most votes, nationally but gained the overall majority in Parliament. Its vote had increased by 3% of the electorate, but it's representation had increased by 17% of total seats, bringing the parties' shares of seats back into rough proportionality so satisfying Popper's criterion with flying colours.
This is partly due to yet another beneficial feature of plurality voting, namely that elections are very close, in terms of votes as well as that all members of the government are at serious risk of being removed. In proportional systems, elections are rarely close in either sense. What's the point of giving the party  the most seats if the third largest party can put the second in power? Unfortunately there are political phenomena that can violate Popper's criterion even more strongly. E.G entrenched racial divisions, or various traditions of political violence. Hence I do not intend the above discussion to constitute a blanket endorsement of plurality voting as 'The One True System ' of democracy suitable for all polities under all circumstances,[The Voltarian adds: after all democracy brought Hitler to power, skillful, or unskillful maneovering on his part did all the rest]. But in the advanced political cultures of the Enlightenment tradition the creation of knowledge  can and should be paramount, and the opposite is a mistake.
In the United States' system of government, the Senate is required to be the representative in a different sense to the House of Representatives: states are represented equally in the Senate but no always in the House of Representatives, as demonstrated above and in the main piece on apportionment.
Each are entitled to two Senate seats, regardless of population size. So why not do the same for the House of Representatives and have done with the apportionment problem? asks The Voltarian. Because the states differ so greatly in their populations, [currently California's population is 70x that of Wyoming's], the Senate's apportionment rule creates enormous deviations from population based proportionality- much larger than those disputed in  regard to the House of Representatives. And yet historically, after elections, it is rare for the Senate and the House of Representatives to be controlled by different parties. This suggests that there is more going on in this vast process of apportionments and elections than merely representation - the mirroring of the population by the legislature. Could it be that the problem-solving that is promoted by the plurality voting system is continually changing the options of the voters, and also their preferences among the options through persuasion?And so opinions and preferences, despite appearances are converging- not in the sense of there being less disagreement, but in the sense creating ever more shared knowledge.
In science, we do not consider it surprising that a community of scientists with different initial hopes and expectations, continually in dispute about their rival theories, gradually come into near-unanimous agreement over a steady stream of issues [yet still continue to disagree all the time]. It is not surprising because, in their case, there are observable facts that they can use to test their theories. They converge with each other on given issues because they are all converging on objective truth. In politics it is customary to be cynical about that sort of convergence being possible.
The Voltarian asks, whether more convergence on projects of national importance as well as importance to human  kind would be possible in Popper's Open Society, instead of jealousies due to fear of losing government funding for projects in  the present as well as future  ?
Throughout the West, a great deal of philosophical knowledge that is nowadays taken for granted by almost everyone- say that slavery is an abomination, or that women should be free to go out to work or that autopsies should be legal, or that promotion in the armed forces should not     depend on skin colour [ but does still depend on social class in U.K for higher ranks above Colonel and monetary-social in U.S. above N.C.O. level as well as age] -were highly controversial matters only decades ago when the opposite positions were taken for granted .A successful truth-seeking system works its way towards broad consensus or near- unanimity- the one state of public opinion that is not subject to decision-theoretic paradoxes and where the' will of the people' makes sense. So convergence in the broad consensus over time is made possible by the fact that all concerned are gradually eliminating errors in their positions and converging on objective truths. Faciliating that process - by meeting Popper's criterion as well as possible - is more important than which of the two contending factions with near equal support get's its way at a particular election.
In regard to the apportionment issue too, since the United States' Constitution was instituted, there have been enormous changes in the prevailing conception of what it means for a government to be representative . Recognizing the right of women to vote, for instance doubled the amount of voters - and implicitly admitted that in every previous election half the population had been disenfranchised whilst the other half were over represented compared with just representation, which in numerical terms dwarfed the injustices of the apportionment problem that has absorbed much of the political energy over the past two centuries. But it is to the credit of the political system, and of the people of the Western political world, that while they were fiercely debating the fairness of shifting a few percentage points' worth of representation between one state and another, they were also debating, and making, these momentous improvements, which too became uncontroversial.
The growth of the body of knowledge about which there is unanimous agreement does not entail a dying down of controversy: on the contrary, we will never cease to disagree on any issue until truth about it has been agreed upon and of course new issues and problems arise for us to disagree and debate upon. It is our, shall we say, genetic destiny to do so?

 Jayson
To Steven stewart
From: Jayson (jayson@deism.com)
Sent: 09 August 2012 19:02:08
To:  Steven stewart (theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk)
Hopefully, we will both end up in the best universe forever once we take a dirt nap.

--- On Wed, 8/8/12, Steven stewart wrote:


    From: Steven stewart 
    Subject: RE: Long time no contact
    To: "jayson@deism.com" 
    Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 4:14 PM

    Hi Jayson,
    Here, here! Just to add to multiverses you mentioned, I don't rule out your possibility either.
    Peace and long lie to you also
    Steven

    Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:47:35 -0700
    From: jayson@deism.com
    Subject: RE: Long time no contact
    To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

    Hi Steven,

    I agree with you that there will probably be a higher percentage of Atheists who go directly to Heaven than "Revealed" Religionists.  I believe that Atheists tend to be more honest, reasonable, and generally virtuous people than "Revealed" Religionists.

    Peace and long life,

    Jayson

    --- On Tue, 8/7/12, Steven stewart wrote:


        From: Steven stewart 
        Subject: RE: Long time no contact
        To: "jayson@deism.com" 
        Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 4:25 PM

        Hi Jayson,
        I believe all those Universes are what is normally refered to as the "Other Side". Being infinite and out of time there is room for it all and more .I've never heard of these authors
        but they sound interesting. I have a notion that there is more chance for an atheist to reach heaven than a dogmatic religonist  who inists on paving his/her own path to hell for sins imagined or impressed upon by their priesthoods. Of course we all sin but they are attoned for in one
        of those Universes you've mentioned or the requisite area on the Other Side.
        [Excuse this break in line continuity. my keyboard refuses to join them for some reason]
        Live long and prosper
        Steven
        Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:36:33 -0700
        From: jayson@deism.com
        Subject: RE: Long time no contact
        To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

        Hi Steven,

        Yes, Britain is doing very well in the Olympics, especially when one considers its size compared to the United States and China.

        Maybe God did create many universes.  I think that God should have created at least four:  This universe to teach and test rational creatures for the next life, Heaven to reward relatively good rational creatures, Reformatory to fix relatively evil rational creatures, and Other Place to teach and test rational creatures who were not adequately taught and tested in this universe.  Other Place would probably be good for people who died when they were babies.

        I've heard of Leibnitz, but I have not read much (if anything) written by him.  This summer, I read There Is a God:  How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, written by Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese.  Are you familiar with it?  Overall, it was a good book.  Flew lived most of his life as an outspoken Atheist and died an outspoken Deist.

        Go for the gold!

        Jayson

        --- On Mon, 8/6/12, Steven stewart wrote:


            From: Steven stewart 
            Subject: RE: Long time no contact
            To: "jayson@deism.com" 
            Date: Monday, August 6, 2012, 5:07 PM

            Hi Jayson,
            Apologies for the tardy reply as internet connection has been poor this past week. Could be due to influx of visitors for the Olympics all wanting to use the net  I'm not a keen sports fan but, I'm impressed with Britain's successes so far. My mum says it's because our teams have been adequately sponsored by lottery funds which were not forth coming from Blair's  or previous governments. I hear U.S.A and China are out in the lead medal wise.
            I don't believe laboratory conditions will sufffice, but if some top western scientists could observe acoustic levitation for themselves on Tibetan "turf" to discover whether or not any strings are attached, that would impress me as to their ready open mindedness. However I find Mr. Randi too skeptical,especially against homeothapy,water holding information even though the agent has been diluted out of existance, yet the healing potency has multiplied.I do know these things take a generation or two to be generally accepted, but two centuries!  Has he read Masuri Emoto concerning the healing power of water that "reads" the vibration of human intent? But then each to his/her taste for incredulity. You may think me credulous, but as mentioned before,I prefer to keep possibilities open rather than closed until finality has proven either way.
            I've been re-reading Leibnitz this past week to remind myself how advanced his view on the nature of the universe was. It is remarkably close to quantum physics. He also believed in multiverses; why should God create only one universe when he has the capacity to create many possibles each with its own laws of nature?, was his argument against his contemporaries of the 17th century. Until next email,
            Live long and prosper,
            The Voltarian
            Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:24:09 -0700
            From: jayson@deism.com
            Subject: RE: Long time no contact
            To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

            Hi Steven,

            The color of the day is pink.

            --- On Sun, 7/22/12, Steven stewart wrote:


                From: Steven stewart 
                Subject: RE: Long time no contact
                To: "jayson@deism.com" 
                Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012, 9:03 AM

                Hi Jayson,
                Good to find you're doing fine.I haven't read The Communist Manifesto myself, but have read that Marx had strong issues concerning man's struggle with history, or something like that.My response is that is how he wanted to view history, a struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeois that could only be won by bloody revolutions. I differ, but then I'm writing with 21st century hindsight, so what the diddly sqwat do I know.

                Although you have not read "The Communist Manifesto" and I am only about two-thirds finished, I think that you understand it well.

                Apart from scientific tinkering, if you are perpared to consider the possibility that The Infinite Creator Being is an infinite conciousness, and that It has many ways of evolving, that evolution occurs throughout the Universe/Multiverses, then I think we should wait and see rather than dismiss out of hand.Atomic behaviour at the quantum level is totally unpredictable to mainstream scientists, but if they are prepared to humble themselves to consider factors outside their normal paradigm, they may just find the answers a whole lot quicker and less expensive than building gigantic hadron colliders.and condemning minds that are prepared to reach further than analytical science allows. If it turns out to be rubbish, at least we'll have learned so through experience,for the mind is far more than we have been given to believe.

                I think that most scientists are aware of many answers to fundamental questions.  They just use tools like the large hadron collider to determine which answer is correct.  The problem is not so much a lack of answers/hypotheses as it is a lack of empirical verification.  One should not believe anything without sufficient proof and/or logic.

                Watching a T.V. program last month on the brain, Neurosurgeons,Neurologists ,Neuro-psychologists, I discovered ,see the brain purely as a machine instead of a living organ. The same goes for cardiologists, for them, the heart,is merely a pump. Have they forgotten Einstein's words about science without heart Here's a quote from a short chapter called The laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics in his own Einstein Reader chapter 15;
                "There is something like the puritan's restraint in the scientis nwho seeks the truth: he keeps away from everything voluntaristic or emotional. Incidentally, this trait is the result of a slow development, peculiar to modern western thought." Next paragraph begins "From this it might seem as if logical thinking were irrevelant for ethics.Scientific statements of facts and relations ,indeed ,cannot produce ethical directives.however,ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge". Well, since the scientific world lords him to the skies, why not quote him back at them.

                Different types of thinking are helpful for different issues.  Sometimes it is helpful to limit one's thinking to that which is most obvious so that one fully accepts what is obviously true and rejects that which is likely to be false.  For example, suppose a cardiologist wants to heal a patient with a clogged artery.  It is obviously true that the human heart is a pump which does not work well when it is clogged.  It is not obviously true--in fact, it is likely to be false--that the human heart contains the incorporeal spirit of a human being.  In this case, by focusing on obvious truths and ignoring other assertions regarding the human heart, the cardiologist is more likely to heal the patient, because in this case, the heart is just an organic pump that needs to be fixed.

                You ask who has been  silenced  or murdered for believing Kepler and his geometrical shapes within the earth's core. I did not say this. Scientists have only recently discovered this to be true, however ,many inventors, scientists and freethinkers have been silenced with threats of death or inpisonment if they revealed their work to the public, especially concerning flying craft and anti-gravity devices that do not deprend on expensive fossil or nuclear fuels. likewise in the medical world where any,medicine, nutritional diet or invention that cures cancer and other diseases without the need of extortionately priced pharmecuticals, is either scotched or ridiculed out of the practice of mainstream medicine.

                Unfortunately, these above assertions are likely to be true.  People do all sorts of evil deeds for money, and there are probably many technological breakthroughs which are not generally known.  However, I will not accept such assertions as true without more proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

                I'll give one example, an italian named Pere Leonardo Ighina, a student of Marconi, harnessed the energy that passed between earth and the sun applying it to rejuvenate diseased cells. He discovered that atoms do not oscillate, but vibrate, which led toone of his most brilliant, if curious inventions, the magnetic field oscillator. by changing the vibrationary state of a group of particles, material itself could transform. After several experiments, he tried larger species, an apricot tree was exposed to his field oscillator,altering the atomic vibration to that of an apple tree. After 16 days, yes, you've guessed it the tree's apricots had transformed into apples. It doesn't stop there. Experimenting with diseaed cells within rabbits , change of vibrational rate healed the damaged tissue,so long as the vibrational index was correctly calibrated .Simultaneously,other russian scientists were experimenting with laser strobes ,transforming D.N.A. codes of frogs eggs into salamander eggs. Is this the scientific tinkering you mean? Of course all this was kept tightly under raps by the Soviet authorites , yet allowed to continue whereas, Ighina's oscillator was quietly scotched ,removed from hospitals, after his death in 1941. So threse guys were not bumped off, but many have disappeared without trace for refusing to "collaberate" with the authorities.

                I wish that a qualified group of scientists would openly continue such experiments to proof or disproof these assertions to the general public, which includes me.

                As to the monks and their levitations, it's a case of if first you don't succeed, try ,try again.Just as mainstream scientist have to when their experiments fail. It appears that Tibetan monks have more stamina than western scientists, or is it no pressure of funds, siince the instruments they use are probably centuries old, being no doubt hidden well from the Chinese authorities.

                Have you heard of The Amazing Randi Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge?  Basically, the foundation will pay anyone one million dollars if he or she can do something miraculous (impressive, mystifying, and scientifically unexplainable) under laboratory conditions.  See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html for details.  One of those levitating monks should take the challenge, win the million dollars, and give the money to the poor.

                And yes mainstream geologists do despute it,but then why should the monks hurl pearls before swine?

                Skepticism is wiser than credulity.

                Live long and prosper,
                The Voltarian

                Be excellent to one another, and party on, dude!

                Jayson X

                Deputy Director
                World Union of Deists
                Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:30:08 -0700
                From: jayson@deism.com
                Subject: Re: Long time no contact
                To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

                Hi Steven,

                It's nice to hear from you again.  I will respond to your email with yellow highlighted words like these below.

                --- On Sat, 7/21/12, Steven stewart wrote:


                    From: Steven stewart 
                    Subject: Long time no contact
                    To: "jayson@deism.com" 
                    Date: Saturday, July 21, 2012, 4:35 PM

                    Hi Jayson,
                    Long time no contact. How have you been?

                    I am fine.  My son and I are having a wonderful visit with my family in upstate New York.

                    I returned from Scotland last September and have been back at work since November, saving up to return for a longer stay, but have bogged myself down with spending sprees on electrical goods. A new Digital T.V. to turn off all those repeats I don't want to watch, a D.V.D/video recorder, I haven't the time to record programs and films with because i'm reading all the new books I just can't put down. So what does that say about me?

                    You're busy.  I'm reading The Communist Manifesto right now.

                    I'm strongly telling myself that the printed word and image means more to me than electronically generated info. Which brings me to the impetus for emailing you.
                    Some of these books have been revealing fascinating insights into how the Universe works that mainstream science forbids, such as time travel possibilities, levitation of huge stones using sound and mental focus of hundreds of people in Neolithic times, this also witnessed  in 20th century by a Swedish aircraft designer in Tibet in the 90's, Henry Kjellson.

                    Scientifically verified phenomena are repeatable.

                    A New Zealand researcher, Bruce Cathie wrote a detailed analysis of it in a book called Anti-Gravity and The World Grid by David Hatcher Childress.Others had heard of this before, but kjellson was the first westerner to witness it. I could go into detail if you wish. How about previously believed extinct species experiencing a come back, as well as modern species regrowing limbs and organs of their extinct ancesters?

                    That reminds me of an episode of Star Trek:  The Next Generation, when the crew of the USS Enterprise began to de-evolve.  I believe that de-evolution is possible but unlikely, without scientific tinkering.

                    I believe the latter to be more probable. Dormant D.N.A. within present species awakening. I've also discovered pretty fascinating stuff about the Maya and their enigmatic Tzolkin calender and many time cycles that match other ancient civilizations' time cycles.
                     Also that Johannes Kepler was correct in supposing the Earth's core to be an onion layered sequence of geometrical shapes. These shapes turn out to be the configurations of proton structure in the elements; each proton coresponds to a vortex of the geometry, cubic, octrahedron, icosahedron, dodecahedron (although tetrahedron is also one, two normally combine  back to back to form an octahedron). The cube is the first shell of 8 protons-oxygen-62.55% of atoms comprising Earth's crust.Second, octahedron with 14 protons-silicon-21.22% which is just important to biological life as carbon on  Earth. Icosahedron with 26 protons-iron-1.2% which still add upto 5% of total weight. Then dodecahedron with 46 protons-palladium (used in cold fusion another power source kiboshed by the greedy powers that be who falsified data to show cold fusion to be inaffectual)

                    I don't think that the majority of geologists agree with you and Kepler yet on that assertion.

                    Am I rambling on somewhat? Please excuse, it just fascinates me so. You are probably asking what credence have I for it all. Well anything kiboshed by the powers that be must have something they wish to hide from us. If not, then why go to the effort of coercing people to" clam up" and  "wasting" those who won't?

                    Who has been silenced or murdered for asserting that the "Earth's core . . . [is] an onion layered sequence of geometrical shapes"?

                    Most of it makes sense to me considering my understanding of quantum physics. I'm pepared to think furthe rbut also prepared to retract and rethink when sufficient evidence proves correct to the contrary And there's more, if you're interested ,but for no w
                    Live long and prosper,
                    Regards, The Voltarian

                    Peace and long life,

                    Jayson X

                    Deputy Director
                    World Union of Deists



This maybe forgotten extract from previous  correspondence session

Hi  Jayson,
Having found time to retrieve those Opinions I told you about, I have discovered that those I copied were of Thomas Jefferson  and James Madison only. I have discovered a different website called Religious Tolerance Org-Ontario consultants on Religious Tolerance ,says it all concerning Jefferson's defence of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in his Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom originally drafted 1777.  for the state of Virginia. I could send you those I copied  if  you like. or wait until I have done further research from the books I have yet to read on the period .
The original essay /website I have now lost track of ,debated over who and how many of the co-signatures of the Constitution were deists.A lengthy forum discussion ,that at first I found intriguing, until it slid into a mudslinging contest for atheism vs. deism.. However, it appears officially, that only three were confessed deists,  Jefferson, Madison and Franklin,World of Deism believes there were more, Washington included. Am I correct?
It appears that the majority; co-signers  and general populace, favoured religious tolerance in  that no one religon should enforce its doctrines upon the beliefs of  others  through the passing of illegal enactments against  their consent.
 This is what Washington himself  quoted on the matter;
"If I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution... [E]very man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity
according to the dictates of his own conscience." (Stokes, supra, p. 495.)
I shall continue my researches on  these and other opinions, as I find your era of Independance as fascinating an aspect of the Age of Enlightenment ,as that of Europe. At present I'm studying the Scottish perspective, which as you know ,has much relevance to America's revolution as well as Europe's, then as now.

In Bob Johnson's essay Communusm in the Bible, he does not acknowedge the Essenes who practiced socialist principles of shared property without fear.

 I can’t help but find it darkly humorous that people like Mohandas Gandhi, a mere human, could see and partake in selfless love against his enemies but our supposed “God” could not. Gandhi would directly contradict Yahweh’s teachings when he proclaimed “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” He knew that doing the right thing wasn’t always easy, and he still gladly died in order to do it. Yet according to the Bible, Gandhi (a Hindu unbeliever) is cast ablaze in hell to this day. The quote “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker?” from the Book of Job seems particularly fitting.
Is the passage about Elisha ordering bears to tear forty-two children to shreds for calling him "Bald head" some mortal's hatemail/propoganda ?for this makes The Lord an extremely weak god, even by biblical standards.
Divine intervention is not needed for the workings in nature because God has already put all the gears in place to make the clock of the universe run. Is this meant metaphorically?Only I believe Creator and Creation to be organic life , not  inanimate machine.


Atheists still have a way to offset God of course. They assert that if we can presuppose that God can exist outside of time and space then why can’t the same be said for random volatile energy. Indeed if a God can spark the big bang then can’t the unintelligible energy do so too? Yet this is effortlessly countered using the fine-tuned universe (universal constant) argument. Ah, God’s existence seems conclusive then doesn’t it? Well, in the field of experimental physics there dwells the fringiest of fringe theories dubbed the “Multiverse” theory. Under this entirely hypothetical theory (no hint of it has ever been tangibly validated) there exists billions upon billions of parallel universes. Granted, the chances of any life forming without God in one particular universe may be atomically miniscule, but if there’s billions then it becomes much more plausible. So it comes down to two choices then doesn’t it? Either I’m to believe that there are hundreds of billions of parallel universes all around us that just so happen that they can’t be observed, and that we are the byproducts of random bits of mindless energy that just happened to be thrashing around in the right place, or I can take credence in a conscious entity. Using reason, I choose the God factor.
I choose the God factor that includes these multiverses as much within it's essence  as the one we experience, comprised of  concious energy
 ""To me it’s evident that our cosmic creator has some semblance of affection toward us, for if he was apathetic to us why did he create the universe in the first place? If he had bloodlust, why would he allow  any modicum of happiness whatsoever in this realm, and not instead mold it into a festering breeding ground for torture and pain? Therefore, since I exist, have not seen or heard of any credible “miracles,” live in a world where love is possible, and all revealed religions are frauds, I then conclude that the Supreme Being is a loving entity that wishes the best for us, but cannot intervene lest he take away our freedom."
This I fully concur with

IS THIS PART OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH JAYSON X ??

TO BE E-MAILED TO JAYSON THEN PASTED ONTO RELEVANT BLOG PAGE
BI-LOCALITY; SCIENTIFIC  REASON FOR IT

Hello Jayson,
Again,long time, no correspondence. How are you and your world doing? I,ve  been taking a cerebial  sabbatical since last we corresponded, indulging in DVD's of 60's /70's T.V. drama and  comedy as well as contemporary T.V. quiz shows ,the odd drama and comedy along with documentaries.We have a show here called Embarrassing Bodies. Paradoxically, people who are  too embarrassed to consult their family G.P.'s on embarrassing health issues, appear on this show  to bare all to the  world. Do you find that amusing? I 'm also in the process of re-arranging and streamlining my library,i.e. chucking stuff out. Do you find it difficult to throw stuff out you believe you won't need but that nagging mind  says  "Don't be too sure you won't need it in future"?

Some time ago,you asked me whether I believed in bi-locality and if I had proof for it. My recent  research into quantum particle physics that I  previously presented to you concerning Tibetan  acoustic levitation  ceremonies and anti-gravity experiments by russian scientists in the 1940's and 50's had not I believe, entirely convinced you. What I have rececntly been reading may not do so either, but I felt I ought to inform you anyway.
I had been rereading a book entitled The Divine Matrix# by Gregg Braden;you may or may not know of him. Evenso, he reminded me of Padre Pio, the Italian theolgian , who , during WWII, appeared before  a squadron of U.S Airforce bombers on a mission to bomb his city, San Giovanni Rotondo, having come under the control of the Nazis.,  and so containing miitary srongholds He  appeared before them ,whilst in mid flight imploring them to cease their mission. Obviously bewildered and confused, they decided  to turn back to base. Simultaneously, at ground level, Padre Pio was witnessed  in his chapel at the altar, praying. This was verified by the timing of the mass and the time recorded by the aiforce crew upon witnessing Padre Pio "in the sky". So, how was this possible?
You may or may not of read/heard or remembered of a globally publicised experiment  performed in 1997,under the leadership of Nicholas Gisin . This was an experiment previously undertaken by Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in 1935,only they didn't believe the results they recieved from the quantum realm, Einstein  famously called it "Spooky action at a distance"  Dividing a photon into two identical  particles the Gisin team blasted them in totally opposite directions. Having reached a distance of 14 miles between them, forced to choose random pathways of continuance, they chose  identical pathways in the direction each was travelling at 20,000 x speed of light [previous experiments of the same nature  in the 1980's produced speeds  20x light.] Maybe this,is along with the apparant randomness of particles ,is what Einstein, also famous for his "God doesn't play dice " quotation, Podosky and Rosen could not accept. So what has this all to do with bi-location? Previously, you stated that verified experiments are repeatable. Now, what if on a sucessive experiment, the protons identically chose a different direction to the previous experiment.Would that render the whole experiment void, in your eyes?,
Considering the mind is of a greater capacity than our Newtonian based physical paradigm allows us to believe, and that mind is also composed of energy particles spinning at high frequencies and speeds some orthodox scientists are still unwilling to accept, I propose that a trained  mind such as that of Padre Pio and other bi-locators can send or allow the force of Creation to send temporarily, a number of particles of themselves, clothing included, to other desired  locations. This I believe works on the same principle  as the Tibetan acoustic  levitation.,thus flitting between other dimensions, modern scientists such as  Michio Kaku call membranes or simply "branes", Padre Pio's prayers and intentions being the  key sacrament for the bi-location to occur.
Excuse I  being pedantic,yourself, having expressed to me that you prefer to believe in empirical science than  mere philosophical supposition, do you believe we and the Universe are mere mechanical automatons as Newton's "theories" propose? Or are we an Infinite organic mind  influenced by and influencing everything/one within an infinite ocean of fluctuating energy? Why do we hold onto Newtonian  and Einsteinian theories  and ideas as if they are God given testaments whilst Creation has been showing us a totally wider  aspect to it's nature? I don't propose to throw Newton or Einstein out with the bath water, only realise that some of their  impractical theories should be consigned  to the history books whilst the still practical remain as valid science.The most elemental  level of living things can no longer be considered as chemical reactions  alone but as energy of which chemical reactions are a factor

#The Divine Matrix, mentioned above, as you are probably aware ,has gone by a plethoria of names by as many scientists and authors throughout history. The electro-magnetic theory of light considered as electro-magnetic vibration in the ether and that electro-magnetic and luminiferous ethers were the same ,proposed by James Clerk Maxwell, is the theory I prefer. although Nikola Tesla's ether is tempting; the Universe as a kinetic ether from which energies could be harnesed, including electricity.This of course upset the fossil fuel  tycoons and their buddies in government and commerce who ,upon his death ,confiscated and classified as top secret all his papers,which remain so today.Remember , we discussed this also? So which  ether do you prefer, if any?
Some would argue that the electro-magnetic ether could never work due to Bohr's belief that electrons can only lose  energy when they jump from one orbit to another- electro-dynamics says so, yet  an English physicist ,Timothy Boyer proposed and later, Hal Puthoff proved mathematically, that ths is not so, electrons are being refueled by tapping into fluctuations within the ether field, maintaining dynamic equilibrium, balanced at exactly the right orbit. .This could account for the temporary presence of Padre Pio in the sky until his mission suceeded in halting the airforce squadron's mission
Apparantly, Hal Puthoff has come up with a unified theory of physics to explain gravity and non-locality within this field..Recieving polite applause for his theory, it is obviously not warmly welcomed, upsetting ,as it does, the bedrock of 20th century physics . Using his field theory, he has invented mauch condensed charged technology, including flat screen T.V,. The Pentagon has only recently started to take him seriously.Two of his collaborators, Alfonso Rueda and Bernard Haisch during the 1990's produced two new papers which mathematicaly proved, using Einstein's relativistic physics,vs Newtonian physics, that the ancients were correct, that we are indeed all beings of light .Having typed all this, I have a nagging feeling that Newton was not altogether wrong, only has been misread by modern standards.He did after all propose that degrees of densityare subject to ratios of space or void to matter. So I leave it here awaiting your response.
 Having re-read my gnostic gospels recently I have decided to postpone sending a paragraph concerning Christ's teachings and "miracles" that  sound  more feasible in the light of recent quantum physics mentioned above , until I recieve your response to this
Live long and prosper
The Voltarian



MAYBE PASTE ONTO PAINE PAGE OF BLOG
 On Deism and the Writings of Thomas Paine

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)    Balinski, Young, and Arrow's Theorems On Choice And Creative Decision-making

                                                                    vs.

                                                 Karl Popper's Criterion

               Has Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also been at work here?

This is the second half of David Deutsch's Chapter 13- Choices, but not verbatum, as I have added some comments here and there and abbreviated some of David's paragraphs.

 Balinski and Youngs Theorem

Every apportionment rule that stays within the quota suffers from the population paradox

This work has a much broader context than the apportionment problem. During the 20th century, especially following the Second World War, a consensus had emerged amongst most major political movements that the future welfare of humankind would depend on an increase in society-wide [preferably worldwide] planning and decision-making. The Western consensus differed from its totalitarian counterparts in that it expected the object of the exercise to be the satisfaction of individual citizens' preferences. So Western advocates of society-wide planning were forced to address a fundamental question that totalitarians do not encounter: when society as a whole faces a choice, and citizens differ in their preferences among the options of which is best for society to choose? If people are unaminous, no problem arises, so  no need for a planner either. If not, which option can be rationally defended as being 'the will of the people'- the option that society wants? Which raises a second question:  how should a society organize its decision-making so that it does choose the options that it wants? These two questions had been raised, at least implicitly, from the beginning of modern democracy. For instance, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution both speak of the right of 'the people' to do certain things such as remove governments. Now they become the central questions of a branch of mathematical game theory known as 'social- choice theory'.Thus game theory-formely an obscure and somewhat whimsical branch of mathematics- was suddenly thrust to the centre of human affairs, just as rocketry and nuclear physics had been. Many of the world's finest mathematical minds, including von Neuman, rose to the challenge of developing the theory to support the needs of the countless institutions of collective decision-making that were being made up. They would create new mathematical tools which, given what all the individuals in a society want or need , or prefer, would destil what that society wants to do, thus implementing the aspiration of 'the will of the people'. They would also determine which systems of voting and legislation would give society what it wants. Some interesting mathematics was discovered. But little, if any, of it ever met those aspirations. On the contrary,time and again the assumptions behind social choice theory were proved to be incoherent or inconsistent by 'no go' theorums like that of Balinsky and Young. 

Thus it turned out that the apportionment problem, which had absorbed so much legislative time, effort and passion was the tip of the ice berg. The problem is a lot less parochial than it looks. For instance, rounding errors are proportionally smaller with a larger legislature. So why not make the legislature very big, say ten thousand members , would be trivial? One reason is that such a legislature would have to organise itself internally to make any decisions.The factions within the legislature would themselves have to choose leaders, policies, strategies, and so on. Consequently all the problems of social choice would arise within the litle 'society' of a party's contingent in the legislature. So it is not really about rounding errors.Alas it is not about people's top preferences: once we are considering the details of decision-making in large groups-how legislatures, parties and factions within parties organize themselves to contribute their wishes to 'society's  wishes' - we have to take into account their second and third choices, because people still have a right to contribute to the decision-making if they cannot persuade a majority to agree to their first choice. Yet electorial systems designed to take such factors into account invariably introduce more paradoxes and no-go theorems.

One of the first no-go theorems was proved in 1951 by the economist, Kenneth Arrow, and it contributed to him winning the Nobel Prize in 1972. Arrow's theorem appears to deny he very existance of  social choice - and strike a the very principle of  representative government, apportionment, and  democracy itself This is what Arrow did. He first laid down five elementary axioms that any rule defining the 'will of the people' - preferences of a group - should satisfy, and these axioms seem ,at first sight, so reasonable as to be hardly worth stating .One of them is that the rule should define a group's preferences only in terms of the preferences of that group's members. Another is that the rule must not simply designate the views of one particular person to be  'the preferences of the group' regardless of what the others want. That is called the 'no-dictator axiom'. A third is that if the members of the group are unaminous about somehing - in that sense that they all have identical preferences about it - then the rule must deem the group to have those preferences too. Those three axioms are all expressions, in this situation, of the principle of representative government. Arrows fourth axiom is this. Suppose that under a given definition of 'the preferences of the group', the rule deems the group to have a particular preference - say for pizza over hamburgers.Then it must still deem that to be the group's preference if some members who previously disagreed with the group, preferring hamburgers, change their mind to pizza. This constraint is similar to ruling out a population paradox. A group would be irrational if it changed it's 'mind' in the opposite direction to it's members.

The last axiom is that if the group has some preference, and then some members changed their minds about something else, then the rule must continue to assign the group that original preference. For instance, if some members have changed their minds about the relative merits of strawberries and raspberries, but none of their relative merits of pizza or hamburgers have changed, then the group's preference between pizza and hamburgers must not be deemed to have changed either. This constraint can again be regarded as a matter of rationality: if no members of the group change any of their opinions about a particular comparison, nor can the group.

Arrow proved that the axioms that I have just listed are, despite their reasonable appearance , logically inconsistent with each other. No way of conceiving of 'the will of the people' can satisfy all five. This strikes at the assumptions behind social-choice theory at an arguably deeper level than the theorems of Young and Balinski. First ,Arrow's axioms are not about the parochial issue of apportionment, but about any situation in which we want to conceive of a group of preferences. Second ,all of these five  axioms are intuitively not just desirable to make a system fair, but essential for it to be rational. Yet they are inconsistent.

It seems to follow that a group of people jointly making decisions is necessarily irrational in one way or another. It may be a dictatorship, or under some arbitrary rule, or, if it meets all of these representativeness, then it must sometimes change its 'mind' in a direction opposite to that in  which criticism and persuasion have been effective So it will make perverse choices, no matter how wise and benevolent the people who interpret and enforce its preferences-unless, possibly,one of them is a dictator. So there is no such thing as 'the will of the people'. There is no way to regard 'society' as a decision-maker with self-consistant preferences. This is hardly the conclusion that social-choice theory was suppose to report back to the world.

As with the apportionment problem, there were attempts to fix the implications of Arrow's theorem with 'why don't they just...?' ideas. For instance why not take into account how intense people's preferences are? For if barely half of the electorate prefers X to Y , while the rest consider it a matter of life and death that Y should be done, then most intuitive conceptions of representative government would designate Y as 'the will of the people'. But intensities of preferences and especially the differences in intensities among different people, or between the same person but at different times, are notoriously difficult to define, let alone measure- like happiness. And, in any case, including such things makes no difference, there are still no-go theorems.

As with the apportionment problem, it seems that whenever one patches up a decision-making system in  one way it becomes  paradoxical in another.

Another serious problem that has been identified in many decision-making institutions is that they create incentives for participants to lie about their preferences. For instance  if there are two options of which you mildly prefer one, you have an incentive to register it as 'strong' instead. Perhaps you are persuaded out of some sense of public responsibility The Voltarian senses this with multiple choice questionnaires sent out by government  or market researchers, the nature of which are carefully designed to give them the answers they prefer to receive, not your true opinions or preferences.

But a decision-making moderated by civic responsibility has the defect that it gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of  people who lack civic responsibility and are willing to lie . On the other hand a society where everyone knows each other  pretty well , there is no need of a secret ballot just a show of hands this way or other yet the system will give disproportionate weight to those who can intimidate waverers.

One perinially controversial social-choice  problem is that of devising an electorial system. Such a system is mathematically similar to the apportionment problem, but instead of allocating seats to states on basis of population, it allocates them to candidates [or parties] on the basis of votes.apparently it is more paradoxical than apportionment and has more serious consequences, because in the case of elections the element of persuasion is central to the whole exercise: an election is suppose to determine what the voters have become persuaded of. The Voltarian calls this colour coded fascism /co-ercion  . Consequently an electorial system can contribute to, or can inhibit, traditions of criticism in the society concerned .The Voltarian calls this democracy if it contributes.For example, an electorial system in which seats are allocated wholly or partly in proportion to the number of votes received by each party is called proportional representation. We know from Balinski and Young that, if an electorial system is too proportional, it will be subject to the analogue of

the population paradox and other paradoxes. And indeed the political scientist Peter Klitgard in a study of the most recent eight elections in Denmark [under its proportional representation system] showed that every one of them manifested paradoxes. The Voltarian wonders whether this is a factor of The Heisenberg 'Paradox 'Principle on  a human society scale.  These included the 'More-preferred-Less-Seats-paradox', in which a majority of voters prefer party X to party Y but party Y receives more seats than X.

But that is really the least of the irrational attributes of proportional representation. A more important one - which is shared by even the mildest of proportional systems- is that they assign disproportionate power in the legislature to the third largest party,Z, and even to even smaller parties. It works like this. It is rare [in any system] for a single party to receive an overall majorityof votes. Hence, if votes  are reflected proportionately in the legislature ,no legislation can be passed unless some of the parties co-operate to pass it, and no government be formed unless some of them form a coalition. The Voltarian finds this the reason for U.K. Government's position since 2010 election. Because most of the major  parties are so bland in the policies they offer the nation, i.e more or less the same, whatever caters for corporate industry and banking but not the welfare of the nation a coalition had to be formed with Cameron as the P.M. and Clegg as the junior partner.The common outcome to this is that the leader of the third largest party holds the balance of power [could this be the UKIP leader rather than the Labour leader?] and decides which two parties  it shall join in government, and which shall be sidelined, and for how long, which means that it is correspondingly harder for the electorate to decide which party, and which policies  will be removed from power.

In Germany between 1949  and 1998 the Free Democratic Party  was the third largest after the Christian Democrat C.D.U. and C.S.U although it never received more than 12.8% of the vote but usually much less, the country's proportional representation gave it power that was insensitive to changes in the voter's opinions. On several occasions it chose which of the two largest parties would govern, twice changing sides and three times choosing the less popular of he two [as measured by votes] into power. The F.D.P.'s leader was usually made a cabinet minister as part of the coalition deal, with the result being ,that from 1969-1998, Germany had only two weeks without an F.D.P foreign minister. In 1998, when the F.D.P. was pushed into fourth place by the Green Party, it was immeadiately ousted from government, and the Greens assumed the mantle of kingmakers, taking charge of the Foreign Ministry as well. This disproportionate power that proportional representation gives the third largest party is an embarrassing feature of the system whose whole raison d'etre, and supposed moral justification is to allocate political influence proportionately.

Arrow's theorem applies not only to collective decision-making but also to individuals as follows. Consider a single, rational person faced with a choice between several options. If the decision requires thought, then each option must be associated with an explanation- at least a tentative one -for why it may be the best. To choose an option is to choose its explanation. So how does one choose which explanation to adopt?

Common sense says that one 'weighs' them, or weighs the evidence that their arguments present. This is an ancient metaphor. Statues of justice have carried scales since antiquity. more recently, inductivism has cast scientific thinking in the same mould, saying that scientific theories are chosen ,justified and believed- and even somehow even formed in the first place -  according to 'the weight of evidence' in their favour.

Consider that supposed weighing process. Each piece of evidence, including each feeling, prejudice, value, axiom, argument, and so on, depending on what 'weight' it had to that person's mind, would contribute that amount to that person's  preferences between various explanations. Hence, for the purposes of Arrow's theorem each piece of evidence can be regarded as an 'individual' participating in the decision-making process, where the person as a whole would be the 'group'.

Now the process that adjudicates between he different explanations would have to justify certain constraints if it were to be rational. For instance, if, having decided that one option was the best, the person received  further evidence that gave additional weight to that option, then the person's overall preference would still be for that option. Arrow says that those requirements are inconsistant with each other, and so seem to imply that all decision-making-all thinking-must be irrational. Unless, perhaps,one of the internal agents is a dictator, empowered to override the combined opinions of all the other agents. But this is an infinite regress: how does the dictator itself choose between rival explanations about which other agents it would be best to override?

There is something very wrong with the conventional model of decision-making, both within single minds and for groups as assumed in social-choice theory. It conceives of decision-making as a process of selecting from existing options according to a fixed formula [such as apportionment rule or electorial system]. In fact that is what happens at the end of decision-making- the phase that does not require creative thought. In terms of Edison's metaphor , the model only refers to perspiration phase without realizing that decision-making is problem-solving, and without the inspiration phase, nothing is ever solved and there is nothing to choose from. At the heart of decision-making is the creation of new options and the abandonment of modification of existing ones.To choose an option, rationally, is to choose the associated explanation. Therefore decision-making consists not of weighing evidence but of explaining it, in the course of explaining the world. One judges arguments as explanations , not justifications, and one does this creatively, using conjecture, tempered by every kind of criticism..........During the course of a creative process , one is not struggling to distinguish between countless different explanations of near equal merit; typically one is struggling even to create one good explanation, and once succeeded, one is glad to be rid of the rest.

Another misconception  to which the idea of decision-making by weighing sometimes leads is that problems can be solved by weighing- in particular, that disputes between advocates of rival explanations can be resolved by a weighted average of their proposals........ Something halfway between them

is usually worse than mixing two explanations to create a 'better' one , which needs more creativity. That is why good explanations are discrete- seperated from each other by bad explanations - and why, when choosing between explanations, we are  faced with discrete options.

It is not true that decision-making suffers from crude irrationalities, not that there is anything wrong with Arrow's theorem or any other no-go theorems, but because social-choice theory is itself based on false assumptions about what thinking and decision-making consists of. Similarly, a dictator in Arrow's sense is not the same as the normal definition consisting of secret police, torure and concentration camps for dissenters. It is simply an agent to whom society's decision-making  rules assign to make a  particular decision regardless of the preferences of anyone else.Thus every law that requires an individual's consent for something -such as a law against rape, or involuntary surgery or euthanasia-establishes a 'dictatorship' in the technical sense of Arrow's theorem. Everyone is a dictator over their own body. The law against theft establishes a dictatorship over one's own possessions, just as one is a dictator over one's ballot paper until posting it in the polling box. Arrow's theorem assumes that all participants are in sole control of their contribution to the decision-making process. Freedom of thought and speech, tolerance of dissent, and self determination of individuals, all require dictatorships in Arrow's mathematical sense.

Virtually all commentators have responded to these paradoxes and no-go theorems in a mistaken and rather revealing way in that they regret them. This illustrates the confusion to which I am referring. They wish all these theorems of pure mathematics were false. If only mathematics would permit it, they comlpain, we human beings could set up a just society that makes its decisions rationally. but faced with the impossiblility of that, there is nothing more we can do but decide which injustices and irrationalities we like best, and enshrine them in law. 'Hardly the best of all possible worlds' Leibniz would advocate,  says The Voltarian. As Webster wrote of the apportionment problem "That which cannot be done perfectly must be done in a manner as near perfection as can be " .

But what sort of perfection is a logical contradiction? A logical contradiction is a nonsense, as Edward Lear made so obviously clear in the 19th century. The truth is simpler: if your conception of justice conflicts with the demands of logic or rationality then it is unjust. If your concept of rationality conflicts with a mathematical theorem[ or many others] then your conception of rationality is irrational, unless you live beyond Lewis Carrol's looking glass, where everything to those who live there is normal, you are just as rational as they, unlike Alice, who IS the irrational one.To stick stubbornly to logically impossible values, this side of the looking glass, one rejects optimism, which is the norm in Wonderland, but nihilistic on our side, as it deprives one of the means to make progress. This, The Voltarian means by our civilization at present in a state of

stagnation. So few wish to change the order of things , government and economy especially, because it entails having to think  creatively. Let me now allow David to continue:

We need something better to wish for. Something that is not incompatible with logic, reason and progress. We have already encountered it as the basic condition for a political system to be capable of making sustained progress:Popper's criterion that the system faciliate the removal of bad policies and bad governments without violence. That entails abandoning 'who should rule?' as a criterion for judging political systems. The entire controversy about apportionment rules and all other issues in social-choice theory has traditionally been framed by all concerned in terms of 'who should rule?': What is the right number of seats for each state, for each political party? What do the groups want and what institutions will get what they want [presuming  they are entitled to rule over subgroups and individuals-Arrow's dictators?]?

So let's reconsider collective decision-making in terms of Popper's criterion. Instead of wondering earnestly which of the self evident yet mutually inconsistent criteria of fairness , representativeness etc are the most self-evident, so that they can be entrenched, we judge such criteria, along with all other actual or proposed political institutions, according to how well they promote the removal of bad  rulers and/or their policies.To do this, they must embody traditions of peaceful, critical discussion-of rulers, policies and the political institutions themselves.

In this view, any interpretation of the democratic process as merely a way of consulting the people to find out who should rule or what policies to implement misses the point of what is happening. An election does not play the same role in a rational society as consulting an oracle or priest, or obeying orders from the king as in earlier societies The essence of democratic decision-making is not the choice made by the system at elections , but by the ideas created between elections. And elections are merely one of the many institutions whose function is to allow such ideas to be created ,tested, modified and rejected. The voters are not a fount of wisdom from which the right policies can be imperically 'derived'. They are attempting, fallibly, to explain  the world and thereby to improve it .They are both individually and collectively seeking the truth- or should be, if they are rational. And there is an objective truth of the matter. Problems are soluble. Society is not a zero-sum game: the civilization of the Enlightenment did not get where it is today by cleverly sharing out wealth, votes or anything else that was in dispute when it began [Great!, Super!]. It got here by creating ex nihilo. {eh?!] In particular, what voters are doing in elections is not synhesizing a decision of a superhuman being 'society'. They are choosing which experiments are to be attempted next, and [principally] which are to be abandoned because there is no longer a good explanation for why they are best. Politicians and their policies are those experiments.

When one uses no-go theorems such as Arrow's to model real decision-making, one has to assume-quite unrealistically-that none of he decision-makers in the group is able to persuade others to modify their preferences, or to create new preferences that are easier to agree on.The realistic case is that neither the preferences or the options available need to be the same after as they were in the beginning.

Why don't they just ......fix social-choice theory by creating processes such as explanation and persuasion in its mathematical model of decision-making? Because it is not known how to  model a creative  process. such a model would be an A.I.

The conditions of 'fairness' as conceived in the various social-choice problems  are misconceptions analogous to empiricism: they are all about input to the decision-making process- who participates, and how their opinions are integrated  to form the 'preference of the group'. A rational analysis must concentrate instead on how the rules and institutions contribute to the removal of bad policies and rulers, and to the creation of new options.

Sometimes such an analysis does endorse one of the traditional requirements, at least in part. For instance , it is indeed important that no member of the group be privileged or deprived of representation. But this is not so that all members can contribute to the answer. It is because such discrimination entrenches in the system a preference among their potential criticisms. It does not make sense to include everyone's favoured policies, or parts of them, in the new decision: what is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.

Proportional representation is often defended on the grounds that it leads to coalition  governments and compromise policies. But compromises-amalgams-of the policies of the contributors-have an undeservedly high reputation. Although they are certainly better than immeadiate violence, they are generally, as I have explained, bad policies. If a policy is no one's idea of what will work ,then why should it? But that is not the worst of it. The key defect of compromise policies is that when one of them is implemented  and fails, no one learns from it as no one agreed upon it. Thus compromise policies shield the underlying explanations which do at least seem good to some faction from being criticized and abandoned.

The system used to elect members of the legislatures of most countries in the British political tradition is that each district/constituancy in the country is entitled to one seat in the legislature and the seat goes to the candidate with the majority votes in that district. This, as earlier mentioned, is called 'plurarity voting system' or 'first-past-the-post' as there is no prize for the runner-up. This typically over represents the two largest parties, compared to the proportion of votes they receive. more-over, it is not guarenteed to avoid the population paradox.

These features are often cited as arguments against plurality voting in favour of proportional representation or other similar systems. However, under Popper's criterion, all is insignificant in comparison with the greater effectiveness of plurality voting at removing bad governments and policies.

Let me trace the mechanism of that advantage more explicitly. Following a plurality voting election, the usual outcome is that the largest majority, has the largest representation in he legislature[ Parliament in U.K.], thus taking sole charge. The losers sit  facing the winners in Parliament proceedings. This is rare under proportional representation, because some of the parties in the old coalition are usually needed in the new. The plurality system gives politicians the incentive to create new policies to persuade the electorate to vote for them next time.

 Is four years enough, or too much time? The Voltarian wonders.  He has elsewhere suggested that two may be adequate to prove to the nation the successful candidate's true intentions,.If policies promised  in those two years have come to pass or have failed, the choice is 'the will of the people' as to whether that party stay for a further two or more years.

In the plurality system, the winning explanations are then exposed to criticism and testing, because they can be implemented without mixing them with the important claims of opposing agendas. similarly the winning politicians are solely responsible for the choices they make, so they have the least possible scope to make excuses later if they have been deemed to be bad choices. [unfortunately, too many M.P.'s like to blame the last party's bad policies well into their  own tenure instead of changing them around as promised at election time.]  and so no scope for re-election next time, uless the election is "fixed" by  lobbying of big corporations and industries who side with the bad choices that suit them.

 Under proportional representation, small changes in public opinion seldom count for anything, and power can easily shift in  the opposite direction

to public opinion. What counts most is changes in the opinion of the leader of  third largest party, Z. This shields not only that leader but most of the incumbant politicians and policies from being removed from power through voting, yet often more likely to be removed by losing support from their own party members, or shifting alliances between or within parties. So in this respect, the system badly fails Popper's criterion. The all or nothing nature of the constituency elections, and consequent low representation of small parties, makes the overall out come sensitive to small changes in opinion. When there is a small shift away from  the ruling party, it is usually in real danger of losing power completely.

Under proportional representation there are strong incentives for the system's characteristic  unfairness to persist or worsen over time. For example, if a small faction defects from a large party, it may end up with more chance of having its policies tried out than if its supporters remained with the original party. This results in a proliferation of small parties in the legislature, which in turn increases the necessity for coalitions- including coalitions with the smaller parties, which further increases their disproportionate power. In Israel, the country with the world's most proportional electoral system, the effect has been so severe that, at the time of writing, [prior 2011/12]  even the two largest parties combined cannot muster an overall majority.  And yet under that system - which has sacrificed all other considerations in favour of the supposed fairness of proportionality - even proportionality itself is not always achieved: in the election of 1992, the right-wing parties as a whole received a majority of the popular vote, but left-wing  had a majority of the seats, because the greater majority of the fringe parties failing to reach the threshold for receiving only one seat were right-wing.

In contrast, the error-correcting attributes of the plurality voting system have a tendency to avoid the paradoxes to which the system is theoretically prone, and quickly to undo them when they do occur, because all the incentives are the other way round . For instance, in the Canadian province of Manitoba in 1926, the Conservative Party received twice as many votes as any other party, but won none of the 17 seats allocated to that province. As a result, it lost power in the  national Parliament even though it received the most votes nationally too. And yet, even in that rare extreme case the disproportion between the two main parties' representation in Parliament was not all that great. The average Liberal voter received 1.31 x as many members of Parliament as the average Conservative. And what happened next? The following election the Conservatives again  won on the most votes, nationally but gained the overall majority in Parliament. Its vote had increased by 3% of the electorate, but it's representation had increased by 17% of total seats, bringing the parties' shares of seats back into rough proportionality so satisfying Popper's criterion with flying colours.

This is partly due to yet another beneficial feature of plurality voting, namely that elections are very close, in terms of votes as well as that all members of the government are at serious risk of being removed. In proportional systems, elections are rarely close in either sense. What's the point of giving the party  the most seats if the third largest party can put the second in power? Unfortunately there are political phenomena that can violate Popper's criterion even more strongly. E.G entrenched racial divisions, or various traditions of political violence. Hence I do not intend the above discussion to constitute a blanket endorsement of plurality voting as 'The One True System ' of democracy suitable for all polities under all circumstances,[The Voltarian adds: after all democracy brought Hitler to power, skillful, or unskillful maneovering on his part did all the rest]. But in the advanced political cultures of the Enlightenment tradition the creation of knowledge  can and should be paramount, and the opposite is a mistake.

In the United States' system of government, the Senate is required to be the representative in a different sense to the House of Representatives: states are represented equally in the Senate but no always in the House of Representatives, as demonstrated above and in the main piece on apportionment. 

Each are entitled to two Senate seats, regardless of population size. So why not do the same for the House of Representatives and have done with the apportionment problem? asks The Voltarian. Because the states differ so greatly in their populations, [currently California's population is 70x that of Wyoming's], the Senate's apportionment rule creates enormous deviations from population based proportionality- much larger than those disputed in  regard to the House of Representatives. And yet historically, after elections, it is rare for the Senate and the House of Representatives to be controlled by different parties. This suggests that there is more going on in this vast process of apportionments and elections than merely representation - the mirroring of the population by the legislature. Could it be that the problem-solving that is promoted by the plurality voting system is continually changing the options of the voters, and also their preferences among the options through persuasion?And so opinions and preferences, despite appearances are converging- not in the sense of there being less disagreement, but in the sense creating ever more shared knowledge.

In science, we do not consider it surprising that a community of scientists with different initial hopes and expectations, continually in dispute about their rival theories, gradually come into near-unanimous agreement over a steady stream of issues [yet still continue to disagree all the time]. It is not surprising because, in their case, there are observable facts that they can use to test their theories. They converge with each other on given issues because they are all converging on objective truth. In politics it is customary to be cynical about that sort of convergence being possible.

The Voltarian asks, whether more convergence on projects of national importance as well as importance to human  kind would be possible in Popper's Open Society, instead of jealousies due to fear of losing government funding for projects in  the present as well as future  ?

Throughout the West, a great deal of philosophical knowledge that is nowadays taken for granted by almost everyone- say that slavery is an abomination, or that women should be free to go out to work or that autopsies should be legal, or that promotion in the armed forces should not     depend on skin colour [ but does still depend on social class in U.K for higher ranks above Colonel and monetary-social in U.S. above N.C.O. level as well as age] -were highly controversial matters only decades ago when the opposite positions were taken for granted .A successful truth-seeking system works its way towards broad consensus or near- unanimity- the one state of public opinion that is not subject to decision-theoretic paradoxes and where the' will of the people' makes sense. So convergence in the broad consensus over time is made possible by the fact that all concerned are gradually eliminating errors in their positions and converging on objective truths. Faciliating that process - by meeting Popper's criterion as well as possible - is more important than which of the two contending factions with near equal support get's its way at a particular election.

In regard to the apportionment issue too, since the United States' Constitution was instituted, there have been enormous changes in the prevailing conception of what it means for a government to be representative . Recognizing the right of women to vote, for instance doubled the amount of voters - and implicitly admitted that in every previous election half the population had been disenfranchised whilst the other half were over represented compared with just representation, which in numerical terms dwarfed the injustices of the apportionment problem that has absorbed much of the political energy over the past two centuries. But it is to the credit of the political system, and of the people of the Western political world, that while they were fiercely debating the fairness of shifting a few percentage points' worth of representation between one state and another, they were also debating, and making, these momentous improvements, which too became uncontroversial.

The growth of the body of knowledge about which there is unanimous agreement does not entail a dying down of controversy: on the contrary, we will never cease to disagree on any issue until truth about it has been agreed upon and of course new issues and problems arise for us to disagree and debate upon. It is our, shall we say, genetic destiny to do so? 

 Jayson

To Steven stewart

From: Jayson (jayson@deism.com)

Sent: 09 August 2012 19:02:08

To:  Steven stewart (theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk)

Hopefully, we will both end up in the best universe forever once we take a dirt nap.

--- On Wed, 8/8/12, Steven stewart wrote:

    From: Steven stewart 

    Subject: RE: Long time no contact

    To: "jayson@deism.com" 

    Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 4:14 PM

    Hi Jayson,

    Here, here! Just to add to multiverses you mentioned, I don't rule out your possibility either.

    Peace and long lie to you also

    Steven

    Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:47:35 -0700

    From: jayson@deism.com

    Subject: RE: Long time no contact

    To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

    Hi Steven,

    I agree with you that there will probably be a higher percentage of Atheists who go directly to Heaven than "Revealed" Religionists.  I believe that Atheists tend to be more honest, reasonable, and generally virtuous people than "Revealed" Religionists.

    Peace and long life,

    Jayson

    --- On Tue, 8/7/12, Steven stewart wrote:

        From: Steven stewart 

        Subject: RE: Long time no contact

        To: "jayson@deism.com" 

        Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 4:25 PM

        Hi Jayson,

        I believe all those Universes are what is normally refered to as the "Other Side". Being infinite and out of time there is room for it all and more .I've never heard of these authors

        but they sound interesting. I have a notion that there is more chance for an atheist to reach heaven than a dogmatic religonist  who inists on paving his/her own path to hell for sins imagined or impressed upon by their priesthoods. Of course we all sin but they are attoned for in one

        of those Universes you've mentioned or the requisite area on the Other Side.

        [Excuse this break in line continuity. my keyboard refuses to join them for some reason]

        Live long and prosper

        Steven

        Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:36:33 -0700

        From: jayson@deism.com

        Subject: RE: Long time no contact

        To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

        Hi Steven,

        Yes, Britain is doing very well in the Olympics, especially when one considers its size compared to the United States and China.

        Maybe God did create many universes.  I think that God should have created at least four:  This universe to teach and test rational creatures for the next life, Heaven to reward relatively good rational creatures, Reformatory to fix relatively evil rational creatures, and Other Place to teach and test rational creatures who were not adequately taught and tested in this universe.  Other Place would probably be good for people who died when they were babies.

        I've heard of Leibnitz, but I have not read much (if anything) written by him.  This summer, I read There Is a God:  How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, written by Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese.  Are you familiar with it?  Overall, it was a good book.  Flew lived most of his life as an outspoken Atheist and died an outspoken Deist.

        Go for the gold!

        Jayson

        --- On Mon, 8/6/12, Steven stewart wrote:

            From: Steven stewart 

            Subject: RE: Long time no contact

            To: "jayson@deism.com" 

            Date: Monday, August 6, 2012, 5:07 PM

            Hi Jayson,

            Apologies for the tardy reply as internet connection has been poor this past week. Could be due to influx of visitors for the Olympics all wanting to use the net  I'm not a keen sports fan but, I'm impressed with Britain's successes so far. My mum says it's because our teams have been adequately sponsored by lottery funds which were not forth coming from Blair's  or previous governments. I hear U.S.A and China are out in the lead medal wise.

            I don't believe laboratory conditions will sufffice, but if some top western scientists could observe acoustic levitation for themselves on Tibetan "turf" to discover whether or not any strings are attached, that would impress me as to their ready open mindedness. However I find Mr. Randi too skeptical,especially against homeothapy,water holding information even though the agent has been diluted out of existance, yet the healing potency has multiplied.I do know these things take a generation or two to be generally accepted, but two centuries!  Has he read Masuri Emoto concerning the healing power of water that "reads" the vibration of human intent? But then each to his/her taste for incredulity. You may think me credulous, but as mentioned before,I prefer to keep possibilities open rather than closed until finality has proven either way.

            I've been re-reading Leibnitz this past week to remind myself how advanced his view on the nature of the universe was. It is remarkably close to quantum physics. He also believed in multiverses; why should God create only one universe when he has the capacity to create many possibles each with its own laws of nature?, was his argument against his contemporaries of the 17th century. Until next email,

            Live long and prosper,

            The Voltarian 

            Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 05:24:09 -0700

            From: jayson@deism.com

            Subject: RE: Long time no contact

            To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

            Hi Steven,

            The color of the day is pink.

            --- On Sun, 7/22/12, Steven stewart wrote:

                From: Steven stewart 

                Subject: RE: Long time no contact

                To: "jayson@deism.com" 

                Date: Sunday, July 22, 2012, 9:03 AM

                Hi Jayson,

                Good to find you're doing fine.I haven't read The Communist Manifesto myself, but have read that Marx had strong issues concerning man's struggle with history, or something like that.My response is that is how he wanted to view history, a struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeois that could only be won by bloody revolutions. I differ, but then I'm writing with 21st century hindsight, so what the diddly sqwat do I know.

                Although you have not read "The Communist Manifesto" and I am only about two-thirds finished, I think that you understand it well.

                Apart from scientific tinkering, if you are perpared to consider the possibility that The Infinite Creator Being is an infinite conciousness, and that It has many ways of evolving, that evolution occurs throughout the Universe/Multiverses, then I think we should wait and see rather than dismiss out of hand.Atomic behaviour at the quantum level is totally unpredictable to mainstream scientists, but if they are prepared to humble themselves to consider factors outside their normal paradigm, they may just find the answers a whole lot quicker and less expensive than building gigantic hadron colliders.and condemning minds that are prepared to reach further than analytical science allows. If it turns out to be rubbish, at least we'll have learned so through experience,for the mind is far more than we have been given to believe.

                I think that most scientists are aware of many answers to fundamental questions.  They just use tools like the large hadron collider to determine which answer is correct.  The problem is not so much a lack of answers/hypotheses as it is a lack of empirical verification.  One should not believe anything without sufficient proof and/or logic.

                Watching a T.V. program last month on the brain, Neurosurgeons,Neurologists ,Neuro-psychologists, I discovered ,see the brain purely as a machine instead of a living organ. The same goes for cardiologists, for them, the heart,is merely a pump. Have they forgotten Einstein's words about science without heart Here's a quote from a short chapter called The laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics in his own Einstein Reader chapter 15;

                "There is something like the puritan's restraint in the scientis nwho seeks the truth: he keeps away from everything voluntaristic or emotional. Incidentally, this trait is the result of a slow development, peculiar to modern western thought." Next paragraph begins "From this it might seem as if logical thinking were irrevelant for ethics.Scientific statements of facts and relations ,indeed ,cannot produce ethical directives.however,ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge". Well, since the scientific world lords him to the skies, why not quote him back at them.

                Different types of thinking are helpful for different issues.  Sometimes it is helpful to limit one's thinking to that which is most obvious so that one fully accepts what is obviously true and rejects that which is likely to be false.  For example, suppose a cardiologist wants to heal a patient with a clogged artery.  It is obviously true that the human heart is a pump which does not work well when it is clogged.  It is not obviously true--in fact, it is likely to be false--that the human heart contains the incorporeal spirit of a human being.  In this case, by focusing on obvious truths and ignoring other assertions regarding the human heart, the cardiologist is more likely to heal the patient, because in this case, the heart is just an organic pump that needs to be fixed.

                You ask who has been  silenced  or murdered for believing Kepler and his geometrical shapes within the earth's core. I did not say this. Scientists have only recently discovered this to be true, however ,many inventors, scientists and freethinkers have been silenced with threats of death or inpisonment if they revealed their work to the public, especially concerning flying craft and anti-gravity devices that do not deprend on expensive fossil or nuclear fuels. likewise in the medical world where any,medicine, nutritional diet or invention that cures cancer and other diseases without the need of extortionately priced pharmecuticals, is either scotched or ridiculed out of the practice of mainstream medicine.

                Unfortunately, these above assertions are likely to be true.  People do all sorts of evil deeds for money, and there are probably many technological breakthroughs which are not generally known.  However, I will not accept such assertions as true without more proof.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

                I'll give one example, an italian named Pere Leonardo Ighina, a student of Marconi, harnessed the energy that passed between earth and the sun applying it to rejuvenate diseased cells. He discovered that atoms do not oscillate, but vibrate, which led toone of his most brilliant, if curious inventions, the magnetic field oscillator. by changing the vibrationary state of a group of particles, material itself could transform. After several experiments, he tried larger species, an apricot tree was exposed to his field oscillator,altering the atomic vibration to that of an apple tree. After 16 days, yes, you've guessed it the tree's apricots had transformed into apples. It doesn't stop there. Experimenting with diseaed cells within rabbits , change of vibrational rate healed the damaged tissue,so long as the vibrational index was correctly calibrated .Simultaneously,other russian scientists were experimenting with laser strobes ,transforming D.N.A. codes of frogs eggs into salamander eggs. Is this the scientific tinkering you mean? Of course all this was kept tightly under raps by the Soviet authorites , yet allowed to continue whereas, Ighina's oscillator was quietly scotched ,removed from hospitals, after his death in 1941. So threse guys were not bumped off, but many have disappeared without trace for refusing to "collaberate" with the authorities.

                I wish that a qualified group of scientists would openly continue such experiments to proof or disproof these assertions to the general public, which includes me.

                As to the monks and their levitations, it's a case of if first you don't succeed, try ,try again.Just as mainstream scientist have to when their experiments fail. It appears that Tibetan monks have more stamina than western scientists, or is it no pressure of funds, siince the instruments they use are probably centuries old, being no doubt hidden well from the Chinese authorities.

                Have you heard of The Amazing Randi Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge?  Basically, the foundation will pay anyone one million dollars if he or she can do something miraculous (impressive, mystifying, and scientifically unexplainable) under laboratory conditions.  See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html for details.  One of those levitating monks should take the challenge, win the million dollars, and give the money to the poor.

                And yes mainstream geologists do despute it,but then why should the monks hurl pearls before swine?

                Skepticism is wiser than credulity.

                Live long and prosper,

                The Voltarian 

                Be excellent to one another, and party on, dude!

                Jayson X

                Deputy Director

                World Union of Deists

                Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:30:08 -0700

                From: jayson@deism.com

                Subject: Re: Long time no contact

                To: theswiftian1667@hotmail.co.uk

                Hi Steven,

                It's nice to hear from you again.  I will respond to your email with yellow highlighted words like these below.

                --- On Sat, 7/21/12, Steven stewart wrote:

                    From: Steven stewart 

                    Subject: Long time no contact

                    To: "jayson@deism.com" 

                    Date: Saturday, July 21, 2012, 4:35 PM

                    Hi Jayson,

                    Long time no contact. How have you been?

                    I am fine.  My son and I are having a wonderful visit with my family in upstate New York.

                    I returned from Scotland last September and have been back at work since November, saving up to return for a longer stay, but have bogged myself down with spending sprees on electrical goods. A new Digital T.V. to turn off all those repeats I don't want to watch, a D.V.D/video recorder, I haven't the time to record programs and films with because i'm reading all the new books I just can't put down. So what does that say about me?

                    You're busy.  I'm reading The Communist Manifesto right now.

                    I'm strongly telling myself that the printed word and image means more to me than electronically generated info. Which brings me to the impetus for emailing you.

                    Some of these books have been revealing fascinating insights into how the Universe works that mainstream science forbids, such as time travel possibilities, levitation of huge stones using sound and mental focus of hundreds of people in Neolithic times, this also witnessed  in 20th century by a Swedish aircraft designer in Tibet in the 90's, Henry Kjellson.

                    Scientifically verified phenomena are repeatable.

                    A New Zealand researcher, Bruce Cathie wrote a detailed analysis of it in a book called Anti-Gravity and The World Grid by David Hatcher Childress.Others had heard of this before, but kjellson was the first westerner to witness it. I could go into detail if you wish. How about previously believed extinct species experiencing a come back, as well as modern species regrowing limbs and organs of their extinct ancesters?

                    That reminds me of an episode of Star Trek:  The Next Generation, when the crew of the USS Enterprise began to de-evolve.  I believe that de-evolution is possible but unlikely, without scientific tinkering.

                    I believe the latter to be more probable. Dormant D.N.A. within present species awakening. I've also discovered pretty fascinating stuff about the Maya and their enigmatic Tzolkin calender and many time cycles that match other ancient civilizations' time cycles.

                     Also that Johannes Kepler was correct in supposing the Earth's core to be an onion layered sequence of geometrical shapes. These shapes turn out to be the configurations of proton structure in the elements; each proton coresponds to a vortex of the geometry, cubic, octrahedron, icosahedron, dodecahedron (although tetrahedron is also one, two normally combine  back to back to form an octahedron). The cube is the first shell of 8 protons-oxygen-62.55% of atoms comprising Earth's crust.Second, octahedron with 14 protons-silicon-21.22% which is just important to biological life as carbon on  Earth. Icosahedron with 26 protons-iron-1.2% which still add upto 5% of total weight. Then dodecahedron with 46 protons-palladium (used in cold fusion another power source kiboshed by the greedy powers that be who falsified data to show cold fusion to be inaffectual)

                    I don't think that the majority of geologists agree with you and Kepler yet on that assertion.

                    Am I rambling on somewhat? Please excuse, it just fascinates me so. You are probably asking what credence have I for it all. Well anything kiboshed by the powers that be must have something they wish to hide from us. If not, then why go to the effort of coercing people to" clam up" and  "wasting" those who won't?

                    Who has been silenced or murdered for asserting that the "Earth's core . . . [is] an onion layered sequence of geometrical shapes"?

                    Most of it makes sense to me considering my understanding of quantum physics. I'm pepared to think furthe rbut also prepared to retract and rethink when sufficient evidence proves correct to the contrary And there's more, if you're interested ,but for no w

                    Live long and prosper,

                    Regards, The Voltarian

                    Peace and long life,

                    Jayson X

                    Deputy Director

                    World Union of Deists

This maybe forgotten extract from previous  correspondence session

Hi  Jayson,

Having found time to retrieve those Opinions I told you about, I have discovered that those I copied were of Thomas Jefferson  and James Madison only. I have discovered a different website called Religious Tolerance Org-Ontario consultants on Religious Tolerance ,says it all concerning Jefferson's defence of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in his Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom originally drafted 1777.  for the state of Virginia. I could send you those I copied  if  you like. or wait until I have done further research from the books I have yet to read on the period .

The original essay /website I have now lost track of ,debated over who and how many of the co-signatures of the Constitution were deists.A lengthy forum discussion ,that at first I found intriguing, until it slid into a mudslinging contest for atheism vs. deism.. However, it appears officially, that only three were confessed deists,  Jefferson, Madison and Franklin,World of Deism believes there were more, Washington included. Am I correct?

It appears that the majority; co-signers  and general populace, favoured religious tolerance in  that no one religon should enforce its doctrines upon the beliefs of  others  through the passing of illegal enactments against  their consent.

 This is what Washington himself  quoted on the matter;

"If I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution... [E]very man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity

according to the dictates of his own conscience." (Stokes, supra, p. 495.)

I shall continue my researches on  these and other opinions, as I find your era of Independance as fascinating an aspect of the Age of Enlightenment ,as that of Europe. At present I'm studying the Scottish perspective, which as you know ,has much relevance to America's revolution as well as Europe's, then as now.

In Bob Johnson's essay Communusm in the Bible, he does not acknowedge the Essenes who practiced socialist principles of shared property without fear.

 I can’t help but find it darkly humorous that people like Mohandas Gandhi, a mere human, could see and partake in selfless love against his enemies but our supposed “God” could not. Gandhi would directly contradict Yahweh’s teachings when he proclaimed “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” He knew that doing the right thing wasn’t always easy, and he still gladly died in order to do it. Yet according to the Bible, Gandhi (a Hindu unbeliever) is cast ablaze in hell to this day. The quote “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker?” from the Book of Job seems particularly fitting.

Is the passage about Elisha ordering bears to tear forty-two children to shreds for calling him "Bald head" some mortal's hatemail/propoganda ?for this makes The Lord an extremely weak god, even by biblical standards.

Divine intervention is not needed for the workings in nature because God has already put all the gears in place to make the clock of the universe run. Is this meant metaphorically?Only I believe Creator and Creation to be organic life , not  inanimate machine.

Atheists still have a way to offset God of course. They assert that if we can presuppose that God can exist outside of time and space then why can’t the same be said for random volatile energy. Indeed if a God can spark the big bang then can’t the unintelligible energy do so too? Yet this is effortlessly countered using the fine-tuned universe (universal constant) argument. Ah, God’s existence seems conclusive then doesn’t it? Well, in the field of experimental physics there dwells the fringiest of fringe theories dubbed the “Multiverse” theory. Under this entirely hypothetical theory (no hint of it has ever been tangibly validated) there exists billions upon billions of parallel universes. Granted, the chances of any life forming without God in one particular universe may be atomically miniscule, but if there’s billions then it becomes much more plausible. So it comes down to two choices then doesn’t it? Either I’m to believe that there are hundreds of billions of parallel universes all around us that just so happen that they can’t be observed, and that we are the byproducts of random bits of mindless energy that just happened to be thrashing around in the right place, or I can take credence in a conscious entity. Using reason, I choose the God factor.

I choose the God factor that includes these multiverses as much within it's essence  as the one we experience, comprised of  concious energy

 ""To me it’s evident that our cosmic creator has some semblance of affection toward us, for if he was apathetic to us why did he create the universe in the first place? If he had bloodlust, why would he allow  any modicum of happiness whatsoever in this realm, and not instead mold it into a festering breeding ground for torture and pain? Therefore, since I exist, have not seen or heard of any credible “miracles,” live in a world where love is possible, and all revealed religions are frauds, I then conclude that the Supreme Being is a loving entity that wishes the best for us, but cannot intervene lest he take away our freedom."

This I fully concur with

IS THIS PART OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH JAYSON X ??

TO BE E-MAILED TO JAYSON THEN PASTED ONTO RELEVANT BLOG PAGE

BI-LOCALITY; SCIENTIFIC  REASON FOR IT

Hello Jayson,

Again,long time, no correspondence. How are you and your world doing? I,ve  been taking a cerebial  sabbatical since last we corresponded, indulging in DVD's of 60's /70's T.V. drama and  comedy as well as contemporary T.V. quiz shows ,the odd drama and comedy along with documentaries.We have a show here called Embarrassing Bodies. Paradoxically, people who are  too embarrassed to consult their family G.P.'s on embarrassing health issues, appear on this show  to bare all to the  world. Do you find that amusing? I 'm also in the process of re-arranging and streamlining my library,i.e. chucking stuff out. Do you find it difficult to throw stuff out you believe you won't need but that nagging mind  says  "Don't be too sure you won't need it in future"? 

Some time ago,you asked me whether I believed in bi-locality and if I had proof for it. My recent  research into quantum particle physics that I  previously presented to you concerning Tibetan  acoustic levitation  ceremonies and anti-gravity experiments by russian scientists in the 1940's and 50's had not I believe, entirely convinced you. What I have rececntly been reading may not do so either, but I felt I ought to inform you anyway.

I had been rereading a book entitled The Divine Matrix# by Gregg Braden;you may or may not know of him. Evenso, he reminded me of Padre Pio, the Italian theolgian , who , during WWII, appeared before  a squadron of U.S Airforce bombers on a mission to bomb his city, San Giovanni Rotondo, having come under the control of the Nazis.,  and so containing miitary srongholds He  appeared before them ,whilst in mid flight imploring them to cease their mission. Obviously bewildered and confused, they decided  to turn back to base. Simultaneously, at ground level, Padre Pio was witnessed  in his chapel at the altar, praying. This was verified by the timing of the mass and the time recorded by the aiforce crew upon witnessing Padre Pio "in the sky". So, how was this possible?

You may or may not of read/heard or remembered of a globally publicised experiment  performed in 1997,under the leadership of Nicholas Gisin . This was an experiment previously undertaken by Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in 1935,only they didn't believe the results they recieved from the quantum realm, Einstein  famously called it "Spooky action at a distance"  Dividing a photon into two identical  particles the Gisin team blasted them in totally opposite directions. Having reached a distance of 14 miles between them, forced to choose random pathways of continuance, they chose  identical pathways in the direction each was travelling at 20,000 x speed of light [previous experiments of the same nature  in the 1980's produced speeds  20x light.] Maybe this,is along with the apparant randomness of particles ,is what Einstein, also famous for his "God doesn't play dice " quotation, Podosky and Rosen could not accept. So what has this all to do with bi-location? Previously, you stated that verified experiments are repeatable. Now, what if on a sucessive experiment, the protons identically chose a different direction to the previous experiment.Would that render the whole experiment void, in your eyes?,

Considering the mind is of a greater capacity than our Newtonian based physical paradigm allows us to believe, and that mind is also composed of energy particles spinning at high frequencies and speeds some orthodox scientists are still unwilling to accept, I propose that a trained  mind such as that of Padre Pio and other bi-locators can send or allow the force of Creation to send temporarily, a number of particles of themselves, clothing included, to other desired  locations. This I believe works on the same principle  as the Tibetan acoustic  levitation.,thus flitting between other dimensions, modern scientists such as  Michio Kaku call membranes or simply "branes", Padre Pio's prayers and intentions being the  key sacrament for the bi-location to occur.

Excuse I  being pedantic,yourself, having expressed to me that you prefer to believe in empirical science than  mere philosophical supposition, do you believe we and the Universe are mere mechanical automatons as Newton's "theories" propose? Or are we an Infinite organic mind  influenced by and influencing everything/one within an infinite ocean of fluctuating energy? Why do we hold onto Newtonian  and Einsteinian theories  and ideas as if they are God given testaments whilst Creation has been showing us a totally wider  aspect to it's nature? I don't propose to throw Newton or Einstein out with the bath water, only realise that some of their  impractical theories should be consigned  to the history books whilst the still practical remain as valid science.The most elemental  level of living things can no longer be considered as chemical reactions  alone but as energy of which chemical reactions are a factor

#The Divine Matrix, mentioned above, as you are probably aware ,has gone by a plethoria of names by as many scientists and authors throughout history. The electro-magnetic theory of light considered as electro-magnetic vibration in the ether and that electro-magnetic and luminiferous ethers were the same ,proposed by James Clerk Maxwell, is the theory I prefer. although Nikola Tesla's ether is tempting; the Universe as a kinetic ether from which energies could be harnesed, including electricity.This of course upset the fossil fuel  tycoons and their buddies in government and commerce who ,upon his death ,confiscated and classified as top secret all his papers,which remain so today.Remember , we discussed this also? So which  ether do you prefer, if any?

Some would argue that the electro-magnetic ether could never work due to Bohr's belief that electrons can only lose  energy when they jump from one orbit to another- electro-dynamics says so, yet  an English physicist ,Timothy Boyer proposed and later, Hal Puthoff proved mathematically, that ths is not so, electrons are being refueled by tapping into fluctuations within the ether field, maintaining dynamic equilibrium, balanced at exactly the right orbit. .This could account for the temporary presence of Padre Pio in the sky until his mission suceeded in halting the airforce squadron's mission

Apparantly, Hal Puthoff has come up with a unified theory of physics to explain gravity and non-locality within this field..Recieving polite applause for his theory, it is obviously not warmly welcomed, upsetting ,as it does, the bedrock of 20th century physics . Using his field theory, he has invented mauch condensed charged technology, including flat screen T.V,. The Pentagon has only recently started to take him seriously.Two of his collaborators, Alfonso Rueda and Bernard Haisch during the 1990's produced two new papers which mathematicaly proved, using Einstein's relativistic physics,vs Newtonian physics, that the ancients were correct, that we are indeed all beings of light .Having typed all this, I have a nagging feeling that Newton was not altogether wrong, only has been misread by modern standards.He did after all propose that degrees of densityare subject to ratios of space or void to matter. So I leave it here awaiting your response.

 Having re-read my gnostic gospels recently I have decided to postpone sending a paragraph concerning Christ's teachings and "miracles" that  sound  more feasible in the light of recent quantum physics mentioned above , until I recieve your response to this

Live long and prosper

The Voltarian

MAYBE PASTE ONTO PAINE PAGE OF BLOG

 On Deism and the Writings of Thomas Paine 

POSTED BY THE VOLTARIAN SHINES IT'S LIGHT ON... AT 09:03   

NO COMMENTS:

POST A COMMENT

Newer Post Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

FOLLOWERS

BLOG ARCHIVE

 2012 (3)

 August (1)

 July (2)

JOSEPH BLENDING HEADS LEE QUO SCHOOLS

Gravity Is Now The Unifying Force and Time Trave...

 2010 (1)

WHAT DOES THE VOLTARIAN SHINE ITS LIGHT ON?..

My Photo

THE VOLTARIAN SHINES IT'S LIGHT ON...

VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE

FOLLOWERS

BLOG ARCHIVE

•  2012 (3)
  •  August (1)
  •  July (2)
    • JOSEPH BLENDING HEADS LEE QUO SCHOOLS
    • Gravity Is Now The Unifying Force and Time Trave...

•  2010 (1)

WHAT DOES THE VOLTARIAN SHINE ITS LIGHT ON?..

THE VOLTARIAN SHINES IT'S LIGHT ON...

VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Balinski, Young, and Arrow's Theorems On Choice And Creative Decision-making
                                                                                                                          vs.
                                                                                                  Karl Popper's Criterion

                                                                  Has Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also been at work here?



This is the second half of David Deutsch's Chapter 13- Choices, but not verbatum, as I have added some comments here and here and abreviated some of David's paragraphs.

 Balinski and Youngs Theorem
Every apportionment rule that stays within the quota suffers from the population paradox

This work has a much broader context than the apportionment problem. During the 20th century, especially following the Second World War, a

consensus had emerged amongst most major political movements that the future welfare of humankind would depend on an increase in society-wide

[preferably worldwide] planning and decision-making. The Western consensus differed from its totalitarian counterparts in that it expected the object

of the exercise to be the satisfaction of individual citizens' preferences. So Western advocates of society-wide planning were forced to address a

fundamental question that totalitarians do not encounter: when society as a whole faces a choice, and citizens differ in their preferences among the

options of which is best for society to choose? If people are unaminous, no problem arises, so  no need for a planner either. If not, which option can be

rationally defended as being 'the will of the people'- the option that society wants? Which raises a second question:  how should a society organize its

decision-making so that it does choose the options that it wants? These two questions had been raised, at least implicitly, from the beginning of

modern democracy. For instance, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution both speak of the right of 'the people' to do certain

things such as remove governments. Now they become the central questions of a branch of mathematical game theory known as 'social- choice theory'.Thus game theory-formely an obscure and somewhat whimsical branch of mathematics- was suddenly thrust to the centre of human affairs, just as rocketry and nuclear physics had been. Many of the world's finest mathematical minds, including von Neuman, rose to the challenge of developing the theory to support the needs of the countless institutions of collective decision-making that were being made up. They would create new mathematical tools which, given what all the individuals in a society want or need , or prefer, would destil what that society wants to do, thus implementing the aspiration of 'the will of the people'. They would also determine which systems of voting and legislation would give society what it wants. Some interesting mathematics was discovered. But little, if any, of it ever met those aspirations. On the contrary,time and again the assumptions behind social choice theory were proved to be incoherent or inconsistent by 'no go' theorums like that of Balinsky and Young.
Thus it turned out that the apportionment problem, which had absorbed so much legislative time, effort and passion was the tip of the ice berg. The

problem is a lot less parochial than it looks. For instance, rounding errors are proportionally smaller with a larger legislature. So why not make the

legislature very big, say ten thousand members , would be trivial? One reason is that such a legislature would have to organise itself internally to make

any decisions.The factions within the legislature would themselves have to choose leaders, policies, strategies, and so on. Consequently all the

problems of social choice would arise within the litle 'society' of a party's contingent in the legislature. So it is not really about rounding errors.Alas it

is not about people's top preferences: once we are considering the details of decision-making in large groups-how legislatures, parties and factions

within parties organize themselves to contribute their wishes to 'society's  wishes' - we have to take into account their second and third choices,

because people still have a right to contribute to the decision-making if they cannot persuade a majority to agree to their first choice. Yet elactorial

systems designed to take such factors into account invariably introduce more paradoxes and no-go theorems.
One of the first no-go theorems was proved in 1951 by the economist, Kenneth Arrow, and it contributed to him winning the Nobel Prize in 1972.

Arrow's theorem appears to deny he very existance of  social choice - and strike a the very principle of  representative government, apportionment,

and  democracy itself
This is what Arrow did. He first laid down five elementary axioms that any rule defining the 'will of the people' - preferences of a group - should

satisfy, and these axioms seem ,at first sight, so reasonable as to be hardly worth stating .One of them is that the rule should define a group's preferences only in terms of the preferences of that group's members. Another is that the rule must not simply designate the views of one particular person to be  'the preferences of the group' regardless of what the others want. That is called the 'no-dictator axiom'. A third is that if the members of the group are unaminous about somehing - in that sense that they all have identical preferences about it - then the rule must deem the group to have those preferences too. Those three axioms are all expressions, in this situation, of the principle of representative government. Arrows fourth axiom is this. Suppose that under a given definition of 'the preferences of the group', the rule deems the group to have a particular preference - say for pizza over hamburgers.Then it must still deem that to be the group's preference if some members who previously disagreed with the group, preferring

hamburgers, change their mind to pizza. This constraint is similar to ruling out a population paradox. A group would be irrattional if it changed it's

'mind' in the opposite direction to it's members.
The last axiom is that if the group has some preference, and then some members changed their minds about something else, then the rule must

continue to assign the group that original preference. For instance, if some members have changed their minds about the relative merits of strawberries

and raspberries, but none of their relative merits of pizza or hamburgers have changed, then the group's preference between pizza and hamburgers

must not be deemed to have changed either. This constraint can again be regarded as a matter of rationality: if no members of the group change any of

their opinions about a particular comparison, nor can the group.
Arrow proved that the axioms that I have just listed are, despite their reasonable appearance , logically inconsistant with each other. No way of con -

ceiving of 'the will of the people' can satisfy all five. This strikes at the assumptions behind social-choice theory at an arguably deeper level than the

theorems of Young and Balinski. First ,Arrow's axioms are not about the parochial issue of apportionment, but about any situation in which we want

to concieve of a group of preferences. Second ,all of these five  axioms are intuitively not just desirable to make a system fair, but essential for it to be

rational. Yet they are inconsistant.
It seems to follow that a group of people jointly making decisions is neccesarily irrational in one way or another . It may be a dictatorship , or under

some arbitary rule, or, if it meets all of these representativeness, then it must sometimes change its 'mind' in a direction opposite to that in  which

criticism and persuasion have been effective. So it will make perverse choices, no matter how wise and benevolent the people who interpre tand

enforce its preferences-unless, possibly,one of them is a dictator. So there is no such thing as 'the will of the people'. There is no way to regard 'society' as a decision-maker with self-consistant preferences. This is hardly the conclusion that social-choice theory was suppose to report back to the

world.
As with the apportionment problem, there were attempts to fix the implications of Arrow's theorem with 'why don't they just...?' ideas. For instance

why not take into account how intense people's preferences are? For if barely half of the electorate prefers X to Y , while the rest consider it a matter of

life and death that Y should be done, then most intuitive conceptions of representative government would designate Y as 'the will of the people'. But

intensities of preferences and especially the differences in intensities among different people, or between the same person but at different times, are

notoriously difficult to define, let alone measure- like happiness. And, in any case, including such things makes no difference, there are still no-go

theorems.
As with the apportionment problem, it seems that whenever one patches up a decision-making system in  one way it becomes  paradoxical in another.

Another serious problem that has been identified in many decision-making institutions is that they create incentives for participents to lie about

their preferences. For instance  if there are two options of which you mildly prefer one, you have an incentive to register it as 'strong' instead. Perhaps

you are persuaded out of some sense of public responsibilty The Voltarian senses this with multiple choice questionaires sent out by government  or

market researchers, the nature of which are carefully designed to give them the answers they prefer to receive, not your true opinions or preferences.
But a decision-making moderated by civic responsibility has the defect that it gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of  people who lack civic

responsibility and are willing to lie . On the other hand a society where everyone knows each other  pretty well , there is no need of a secret ballot just a

show of hands this way or other yet the system will give disproprtionate weight to those who can intimidate waverers.
One perinnially controversial social-choice  problem is that of devising an electorial system. Such a system is mathematicaly similar to the

apportionment problem, but instead of allocating seats to states on basis of population, it allocates them to candidates [or parties] on the basis of votes.

apparently it is more paradoxical than apportionment and has more serious consequences, because in the case of elections the element of persuasion is

 central to the whole exercise: an election is suppose to determine what the voters have become persuaded of. The Voltarian calls this colour coded

fascism /co-ercion  . Consequently an electorial system can contribute to, or can inhibit, traditions of criticism in the society concerned .The Voltarian

calls this democracy if it contributes.
For example, an electorial system in which seats are allocated wholly or partly in proportion to the number of votes received by each party is called

proportional representation. We know from Balinski and Young that, if an electorial system is too proportional, it will be subject to the analogue of

the population paradox and other paradoxes. And indeed the political scientist Peter Klitgard in a study of the most recent eight elections in Denmark

[under its proportional representation system] showed that every one of them manfested paradoxes. The Voltarian wonders whether this is a factor of

The Heisenburg 'Paradox 'Principle on  a human society scale.   These included the 'More-preferred-Less-Seats-paradox', in which a majority of

voters prefer party X to party Y but party Y receives more seats than X.
But that is really the least of the irrational attributes of proportional representation. A more important one - which is shared by even the mildest of

proportional systems- is that they assign disproportionate power in the legislature to the third largest party,Z, and even to even smaller parties. It

works like this. It is rare [in any system] for a single party to receive an overall majorityof votes. Hence, if votes  are reflected proportionately in the

legislature ,no legislation can be passed unless some of the parties co-operate to pass it, and no government be formed unless some of them form a

coalition. The Voltarian finds this the reason for U.K. Government's position since 2010 election. Because most of the major  parties are so bland in the

policies they offer the nation, i.e more or less the same, whatever caters for corporate industry and banking but not the welfare of the nation a coalition

had to be formed with Cameron as the P.M. and Clegg as the junior partner.The common outcome to this is that the leader of the third largest party

holds the balance of power [could this be the UKIP leader rather than the Labour leader?] and decides which two parties  it shall join in government, and which shall be sidelined, and for how long, which means that it is correspondingly harder for the electorate to decide which party, and which policies  will be removed from power.
In Germanybetween 1949  and 1998 the Free Democratic Party  was the third largest after the Christian Democrat C.D.U. and C.S.U although it never

reeived more than 12.8% of the vote but usually much less, the country's proportional representation gave it power that was insensitive to changes in

the voter's opinions. On several occasions it chose which of the two largest parties would govern, twice changing sides and three times choosing the

less popular of he two [as measured by votes] into power. The F.D.P.'s leader was usually made a cabinet minister as part of the coalition deal, with the

result being ,that from 1969-1998, Germany had only two weeks without an F.D.P foreign minister. In 1998, when the F.D.P. was pushed into fourth place by the Green Party, it was immeadiately ousted from government, and the Greens assumed the mantle of kingmakers, taking charge of the Foreign Ministry as well. This disproportionate power that proportional representation gives the third largest party is an embarrassing feature of the system whose whole raison d'etre, and supposed moral justification is to allocate political influence proportionately.
Arrow's theorem applies not only to collective decision-making but also to individuals as follows. Consider a single, rational person faced with a

choice between several options. If the decision requires thought, then each option must be associated with an explanation- at least a tentative one -for

why it may be the best. To choose an option is to choose its explanation. So how does one choose which explanation to adopt?
Common sense says that one 'weighs' them, or weighs the evidence that their arguments present. This is an ancient metaphor. Statues of justice have

carried scales since antiquity. more recently, inductivism has cast scientific thinking in the same mould, saying that scientific theories are chosen ,

justified and believed- and even somehow even formed in the first place -  according to 'the weight of evidence' in their favour.
Consider that supposed weighing process. Each piece of evidence, including each feeling, prejudice, value, axiom, argument, and so on, depending

on what 'weight' it had to that person's mind, would contribute that amount to that person's  preferences between various explanations. Hence, for the

purposes of Arrow's theorem each piece of evidence can be regarded as an 'individual' participating in the decision-making process, where the person

as a whole would be the 'group'.
Now the process that adjudicates between he different explanations would have to justify certain constraints if it were to be rational. For instance, if,

having decided that one option was the best, the person received  further evidence that gave additional weight to that option, then the person's overall

preference would still be for that option. Arrow says that those requirements are inconsistant with each other, and so seem to imply that all decision-

making-all thinking-must be irrational. Unless, perhaps,one of the internal agents is a dictator, empowered to override the combined opinions of all

the other agents. But this is an infinite regress: how does the dictator itself choose between rival explanations about which other agents it would be

best to override?
There is something very wrong with the conventional model of decision-making, both within single minds and for groups as assumed in social-

choice theory. It conceives of decision-making as a process of selecting from existing options according to a fixed formula [such as apportionment rule or electorial system]. In fact that is what happens at the end of decision-making- the phase that does not require creative thought. In terms of Edison's metaphor , the model only refers to perspiration phase without realizing that decision-making is problem-solving, and without the inspiration phase, nothing is ever solved and there is nothing to choose from. At the heart of decision-making is the creation of new options and the abandonment of modification of existing ones.To choose an option, rationally, is to choose the associated explanation. Therefore decision-making consists not of weighing evidence but of explaining it, in the course of explaining the world. One judges arguments as explanations , not justifications, and one does this creatively, using conjecture, tempered by every kind of criticism..........During the course of a creative process , one is not struggling to distinguish between countless different explanations of near equal merit; typically one is struggling even to create one good explanation, and once succeeded, one is glad to be rid of the rest.
Another misconception  to which the idea of decision-making by weighing sometimes leads is that problems can be solved by weighing- in particular,

that disputes between advocates of rival explanations can be resolved by a weighted average of their proposals........ Something halfway between them

is usually worse than mixing two explanations to create a 'better' one , which needs more creativity. That is why good explanations are discrete-

seperated from each other by bad explanations - and why, when choosing between explanations, we are  faced with discrete options.
It is not true that decision-making suffers from crude irrationalites, not that there is anything wrong with Arrow's theorem or any other no-go

theorems, but because social-choice theory is itself based on false assumptions about what thinking and decision-making consists of. Similarly, a

dictator in Arrow's sense is not the same as the normal definition consisting of secret police, torure and concentration camps for dissenters. It is

simply an agent to whom society's decision-making  rules assign to make a  particular decision regardless of the preferences of anyone else.Thus

every law that requires an individual's consent for something -such as a law against rape, or involuntary surgery or euthanasia-establishes a

'dictatorship' in the technical sense of Arrow's theorem. Everyone is a dictator over their own body. The law against theft establishes a dictatorship

over one's own possessions, just as one is a dictator over one's ballot paper until posting it in the polling box. Arrow's theorem assumes that all

participants are in sole control of their contribution to the decision-making process. Freedom of thought and speech, tolerance of dissent, and self

determinaion of individuals, all require dictatorships in Arrow's mathematical sense.
Virtually all commentators have responded to these paradoxes and no-go theorems in a mistaken and rather revealing way in that they regret them. This illustrates the confusion to which I am referring. They wish all these theorems of pure mathematics were false. If only mathematics would permit it, they compain, we human beings could set up a just society that makes its decisions rationally. but faced with the impossiblilty of that, there is nothing more we can do but decide which injustices and irrationalities we like best, and enshrine them in law. 'Hardly the best of all possible worlds' Leibniz would advocate,  says The Voltarian. As Webster wrote of the apportionment problem "That which cannot be done perfectly must be done in a manner as near perfection as can be " .
But what sort of perfection is a logical contradiction? A logical contradiction is a nonsense, as Edward Lear made so obviously clear in the 19th

century. The truth is simpler: if your conception of justice conflicts with the demands of logic or rationality then it is unjust. If your concept of

rationality conflicts with a mathematical theorem[ or many others] then your conception of rationality is irrational, unless you live beyond Lewis

Carrol's looking glass, where everything to those who live there is normal, you are just as rational as they, unlike Alice, who IS the irrational one.

To stick stubbornly to logically impossible values, this side of the looking glass, one rejects optimism, which is the norm in Wonderland,

but nihilisic on our side, as it deprives one of the means to make progress. This, The Voltarian means by our civilization at present in a state of

stagnation. So few wish to change the order of things , government and economy especially, because it entails having to think  creatively. Let me now

allow David to continue:
We need something better to wish for. Something that is not incompatible with logic, reason and progress. We have already encountered it as the basic

condition for a political system to be capable of making sustained progress:Popper's criterion that the system faciliate the removal of bad policies and

bad governments without violence. That entails abandoning 'who should rule?' as a criterion for judging political systems. The entire controversy

about apportionment rules and all other issues in social-choice theory has tradiionally been framed by all concerned in terms of 'who should rule?':

What is the right number of seats for each state, for each political party? What do the groups want and what institutions will get what they want

[presuming  they are entitled to rule over subgroups and individuals-Arrow's dictators?]?
So let's reconsider collective decision-making in terms of Popper's criterion. Instead of wondering earnestly which of the self evident yet mutually

inconsistent criteria of fairness , representativeness etc are the most self-evident, so that they can be entrenched, we judge such criteria, along with all

other actual or proposed political institutions, according to how well they promote the removal of bad  rulers and/or their policies.To do this, they

must embody traditions of peaceful , critical discussion-of rulers, policies and the political institutions themselves.
In this view, any interpretation of the democratic process as merely a way of consulting the people to find out who should rule or what policies to

implement misses the point of what is happening. An election does not play the same role in a rational society as consulting an oracle or priest, or

obeying orders from the king as in earlier societies The essence of demcratic decision-making is not the choice made by the system at elections , but by

the ideas created between elections. And elections are merely one of the many institutions whose function is to allow such ideas to be created ,tested, modified and rejected. The voters are not a fount of wisdom from which the right policies can be imperically 'derived'. They are attempting, fallibly, to explain  the world and thereby to improve it .They are both individually and collectively seeking the truth- or should be, if they are rational. And there is an objective truth of the matter. Problems are soluble. Society is not a zero-sum game: the civilization of the Enlightenment did not get where it is today by cleverly sharing out wealth, votes or anything else that was in dispute when it began [Great!, Super!]. It got here by creating ex nihilo. {eh?!] In particular, what voters are doing in elections is not synhesizing a decision of a superhuman being 'society'. They are choosing which experiments are to be attempted next, and [principally] which are to be abandoned because there is no longer a good explanation for why they are best. Politicians and their policies are those experiments.
When one uses no-go theorems such as Arrow's to model real decision-making, one has to assume-quite unrealistically-that none of he decision-makers in the group is able to persuade others to modify their preferences, or to create new preferences that are easier to agree on.The realistic case is that neither the preferences or the options available need to be the same afer as they were in the beginning.
Why don't they just ......fix social-choice theory by creating processes such as explanation and persuasion in its mathematical model of decision-making? Because it is not known how to  model a creative  process. such a model would be an A.I.
The conditions of 'fairness' as concieved in the various social-choice problems  are misconceptions anologous to empiricism: they are all about input to the decision-making process- who participates, and how their opinions are integrated  to form the 'preference of the group'. A rational analysis must concentrate instead on how the rules and institutions contribute to the removal of bad policies and rulers, and to the creation of new options.
Sometimes such an analysis does endorse one of the traditional requirements, at least in part. For instance , it is indeed important that no member of the group be privileged or deprived of representation. But this is not so that all members can contribute to the answer. It is because such discrimination entrenches in the system a preference among their potential criticisms. It does not make sense to include everyone's favoured policies, or parts of them, in the new deccision: what is neccessary for progress is to evclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.
Proportional representation is often defended on the grounds that it leads to coalition  governments and compromise policies. But compromises-amalgams-of the policies of the contributors-have an undeservedly high reputation. Although they are certainly better than immeadiate violence, they are generally, as I have explained, bad policies. If a policy is no one's idea of what will work ,then why should it? But that is not the worst of it. The key defect of compromise policies is that when one of them is implemented  and fails, no one learns from it as no one agreed upon it. Thus compromise policies shield the underlying explanations which do at least seem good to some faction from being criticized and abandoned.
The system used to elect members of the legislatures of most countries in the British political tradition is that each district/constituancy in the country is entitled to one seat in the legislature and the seat goes to the candidate with the majority votes in that district. This, as earlier mentioned, is called 'plurarity voting system' or 'first-past-the-post' as there is no prize for the runner-up. This typically over represents the two largest parties, compared to the proportion of votes they receive. more-over, it is not guarenteed to avoid the population paradox.
These features are often cited as arguments against plurality voting in favour of proportional representation or other similar systems. However, under Popper's criterion, all is insignificant in comparison with the greater effectiveness of plurality voting at removing bad governments and policies.
Let me trace the mechanism of that advantage more explicitly. Following a plurality voting election, the usual outcome is that the largest majority, has the largest representation in he legislature[ Parliament in U.K.], thus taking sole charge. The losers sit  facing the winners in Parliament proceedings. This is rare under proportional representation, because some of the parties in the old coalition are usually needed in the new. The plurality system gives politicians the incentive to create new policies to persuade the electorate to vote for them next time.
 Is four years enough, or too much time? The Voltarian wonders.  He has elsewhere suggested that two may be adequate to prove to the nation the successful candidate's true intentions,.If policies promised  in those two years have come to pass or have failed, the choice is 'the will of the people' as to whether that party stay for a further two or more years.
In the plurality system, the winning explanations are then exposed to criticism and testing, because they can be implemented without mixing them with the important claims of opposing agendas. similarly the winning politicians are solely responsible for the choices they make, so they have the least possible scope to make excuses later if they have been deemed to be bad choices. [unfortunately, too many M.P.'s like to blame the last party's bad policies well into their  own tenure instead of changing them around as promised at election time.]  and so no scope for re-election next time, uless the election is "fixed" by  lobbying of big corporations and industries who side with the bad choices that suit them.
 Under proportional representation, small changes in public opinion seldom count for anything, and power can easily shift in  the opposite direction
to public opinion. What counts most is changes in the opinion of the leader of  third largest party, Z. This shields not only that leader but most of the incumbant politicians and policies from being removed from power through voting, yet often more likely to be removed by losing support from their own party members, or shifting alliances between or within parties. So in this respect, the system badly fails Popper's criterion. The all or nothing nature of the constituency elections, and consequent low representation of small parties, makes the overall out come sensitive to small changes in opinion. When there is a small shift away from  the ruling party, it is usually in real danger of losing power completely.
Under proportional representation there are strong incentives for the system's characteristic  unfairness to persist or worsen over time. For example, if a small faction defects from a large party, it may end up with more chance of having its policies tried out than if its supporters remained with the original party. This results in a proliferation of small parties in the legislature, which in turn increases the neccessity for coalitions- including coalitions with the smaller parties, which furher increases their disproportionate power. In Israel, the country with the world's most proportional electoral system, the effect has been so severe that, at the time of writing, [prior 2011/12]  even the two largest parties combined cannot muster an overall majority.  And yet under that system - which has sacrificed all other considerations in favour of the supposed fairness of proportionality - even proportionality itself is not always achieved: in the election of 1992, the right-wing parties as a whole received a majority of the popular vote, but left-wing  had a majority of the seats, because the greater majority of the fringe parties failing to reach the threshold for receiving only one seat were right-wing.
In contrast, the error-correcting attributes of the plurality voting system have a tendency to avoid the paradoxes to which the system is theoretically prone, and quickly to undo them when they do occur, because all the incentives are the other way round . For instance, in the Canadian province of Manitoba in 1926, the Conservative Party received twice as many votes as any other party, but won none of the 17 seats allocated to that province. As a result, it lost power in the  national Parliament even though it received the most votes nationally too. And yet, even in that rare extreme case the disproportion between the two main parties' representation in Parliament was not all that great. The average Liberal voter received1.31 x as many members of Parliament as the average Conservative. And what happened next? The following election the Conservatives again  won on the most votes, nationally but gained the overall majority in Parliament. Its vote had increased by 3% of the electorate, but it's representation had increased by 17% of total seats, bringing the parties' shares of seats back into rough proportionality so satisfying Popper's criterion with flying colours.
This is partly due to yet another benefical feature of plurality voting, namely that elections are very close, in terms of votes as well as that all members of the government are at serious risk of being removed. In proportional systems, elections are rarely close in either sense. What's the point of giving the party  the most seats if the third largest party can put the second in power? Unfortunately there are political phenomena that can violate Popper's criterion even more strongly. E.G entrenched racial divisions, or various traditions of political violence. Hence I do not intend the above discussion to constitute a blanket endorsement of plurality voting as 'The One True System ' of democracy suitable for all polities under all circumstances,[The Voltarian adds: after all democracy brought Hitler to power, skillful, or unskillful maneovering on his part did all the rest]. But in the advanced political cultures of the Enlightenment tradition the creation of knowledge  can and should be paramount, and the opposite is a mistake.
In the United States' system of government, the Senate is required to be the represntative in a different sense to the House of Representatives: states are represented equally in the Senate but no always in the House of Representatives, as demonstrated above and in the main piece on apportionment.
Each are entitled to two Senate seats, regardless of population size. So why not do the same for the House of Representatives and have done with the apportionment problem? asks The Voltarian. Because the states differ so greatly in their populations, [currently California's population is 70x that of Wyoming's], the Senate's apportionment rule creates enormous deviations from population based proportionality- much larger than those disputed in  regard to the House of Representatives. And yet historically, after elections, it is rare for the Senate and the House of Representatives to be controlled by different parties. This suggests that there is more going on in this vast process of apportionments and elections than merely representation - the mirroring of the population by the legislature. Could it be that the problem-solving that is promoted by the plurality voting system is continually changing the options of the voters, and also their preferences among the options through persuasion?And so opinions and preferences, despite appearances are converging- not in the sense of there being less disagreement, but in the sense creating ever more shared knowledge.
In science, we do not consider it surprising that a community of scientists with diffrent initial hopes and expectations, continually in dispute about their rival theories, gradually come into near-unaminous agreement over a steady stream of issues [yet still continue to disagree all the time]. It is not surprising because, in their case, there are observable facts that they can use to test their theories. They converge with each other on given issues because they are all converging on objective truth. In politics it is customary to be cynical about that sort of convergence being possible.
The Voltarian asks, whether more convergence on projects of national importance as well as importance to human  kind would be possible in Popper's Open Society, instead of jealousies due to fear of losing government funding for projects in  the present as well as future  ?
Throughout the West, a great deal of philosophical knowledge that is nowadays taken for granted by almost everyone- say that slavery is an abomination, or that women should be free to go out to work or that autopsies should be legal, or that promotion in the armed forces should not     depend on skin colour [ but does still depend on social class in U.K for higher ranks above Colonel and monetary-social in U.S. above N.C.O. level as well as age] -were highly controversial matters only decades ago when the opposite positions were taken for granted .A successful truth-seeking system works its way towards broad consensus or near- unaminity- the one state of public opinion that is not subject to decision-theoretic paradoxes and where the' will of the people' makes sense. So convergence in the broad consensus over time is made possible by the fact that all concerned are gradually eliminating errors in their positions and converging on objective truths. Facilliating that process - by meeting Popper's criterion as well as possible - is more important than which of the two contending factions with near equal support get's its way at a particular election.
In regard to the apportionment issue too, since the United States' Constitution was instituted, there have been enormous changes in the prevailing conception of what it means for a government to be representative . Recognizing the right of women to vote, for instance doubled the amount of voters - and implicitly admitted that in every previous election half the population had been disenfranchised whilst the other half were over represented compared with just representation, which in numerical terms dwarfed the injustices of the apportionment problem that has absorbed much of the political energy over the past two centuries. But it is to the credit of the political system, and of the people of the Western political world, that while they were fiercely debating the fairness of shifting a few percentage points' worth of representation between one state and another, they were also debating, and making, these momentous improvements, which too became uncontroversial.
The growth of the body of knowledge about which there is unaminous agreement does not entail a dying down of controversy: on the contrary, we will never cease to disagree on any issue until truth about it has been agreed upon and of course new issues and problems arise for us to disagree and debate upon. It is our, shall we say, genetic destiny to do so?

Flexability about who our Creator is could wax their popularity.

All the faiths of the world confess their belief in an Infinite Creator. Unfortunately their doctrines and dogmas bely such confession. Do they not realize that by constricting our Creator to their limiting dogmas, they hinder our own evolution? To say that God never changes is tantamount to saying we cannot change. Why? Well, consider that if there was nothing but God before Creation, all that issues from God must be of It's esssence, so must be God. Now many will argue that God cannot be flesh only spirit. I answer by asking, from where then comes the flesh and other material things if there were initially nothing but a God consisting purely of spirit?
And what is spirit other than energy we cannot see with the naked eye as opposed to energy we can see? We can feel the effects of spirit, yet many disbelieve in ghosts.cold spots, poltergiests; thoughts that move objects, prayers that are answered by healing people as well as other healing techniques. Who believes that Jesus was probably practicing Reiki and other similar practices? Applying the human mind to our other senses, beyond the five normal by exercising our imagination can produce amazing healing results, so long as the patient wishes to be well. All of us have been born with this capacity, only religons and analytical western based science has dismissed this,deriding with ridiculing us, and so many of us loose it by the age of five or seven.
Those who refuse to relinquish and fear not the ridicule and vilification do see energy in and around the body and so can see into the body of a patient by creating a visual hologram in the mind. This done they can manipulate the diseased energy by directing it out or dissolving it whilst still in the body, using various images created in the imagination.And did Jesus not also claim that what he could do, we could do also,and much more? This is in the bible, so why have the orthodox churches ignored it for so long?  
Islam believes God is seperate from it's creation. I disagree for the same reason. Now since we generally believe in evolution, despite some faiths hold on Creationism, if we can why cannot our Creator?
Of course all this is of the highest blasphemy, but whose blasphemy? Our Creator? I don't believe so. If Jesus Christ came to earth to preach punitive control, why did he save the adulteress from stoning? Why did he absolve others of their sins with only the reccomendation that they atone in a servicable manner? Atonement means at-one-ment with the law of the Universe. So was Christ power greedy? So why then the Church of the Romans and not as Christ advocated to his disciples? Because his male disciples were power greedy. They chose to depart from the law of the Universe, the Law of Creation and it's living force, vilifying both Marys, thus undermining their true contribution to Christ's Church. Needing to cover for their inequities, these disciples corrupted the truth and the Roman and Anglican churches followed suit. But what if the disciples were really none of this, but the corruption of the churches to fulfill their own power greedy agendas? Remember, the bible was collated and compiled over centuries, before and after Jesus and his disciples. But I believe you know all this hence the present empasse we experience at present.
Now back to my main point. I am not here advocating the dissolution of churches and faiths but the expansion of their beliefs about the Infinite nature of Our Creator. That all possibilities are valid until unequivably proven not to be. Not by reductionist scientific paradigms but by personal experience. But I feel I have opened myself up to ridicule here for you may be shouting "how can we trust the testimonies of schizophrenics or those on drugs etc.?" I answer that one by asking how can you refute the validity of what you are not experiencing yourselves? Further, do you not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, take asprin, codiene, Nurufen etc.etc. There is a thin line between all these "drugs" legality or illegality and it is the law. Since this is not the appropriate article to discuss drugs I shall create one later. I have discovered, however, that many children today that we label autistic, aspergic, ADHD, ADD etc, are not abnormal but the emergance of our evolution. Jesus stated that the meek shall inherit the earth. From what I have learned from autistics, they appear to me to be those meek as 1 in 15O being born in U.S.A today [according to2007 staistics] have some form of autism.  If we estimate this ratio as global we have approxiamately 40-50 million autistic people out of approxiamately 7 billion .Statistics released from a telephone survey taken in 2007 by the National Survey of Children's Health, supported by U.S Department of Health and Human Services, yet published 2009, estimates that 1 in 63 babies have the prbability of being born with some form of autism A July 2008 report from the Vaccine Autoimmune Project suggests 1in 67..Other surveys suggest between 1 in 100 and 1 in 110 globally.for each nation  When we all experience the same phenomena, then we can safely say it is irrifutable. As noted in my intro 'What does The Voltarian shine it's light on', I mentioned that we are influenced by many other forces in the Universe than we have been told to believe. Likewise we influence others because we are all linked, weblike to the Universal Source, our Creator. Since Creation fluxuates at diverse frequencies it takes on diverse forms and mind enabling an infinite dimensional quality to itself. Yet, those Beings far advanced than us now were once as us, in the Cosmological frame of evolution, just as there are those evolving to our state. So for me, the Idea of limiting our Creator with such dogmas of fear and control is plainly ridiculous. If, however, you wish to remain limited, at least allow us who do wish to evolve, to expand our conciousnesses however we feel appropriate to our spiritual paths without censure.

Could  the Atlanteans of Yucatan be the ancestors of the Toltecs?
Noah's flood c.7640B.C or  c.9000 B.C.? multiple meteor strike as Lomas and Knight propose or siesmic activity occurring in 13,000 year cycles as astro astronomers and psychic mediums propose/believe?
Giants are recorded by Spanish conquistadors and more recently witnessed in Tibet lte 19th/early20th cen. app.8-12ft tall and blonde haired  on both continents. This bares ouy David Eicke's research
Technocracy the ruin of Atlantis as it could be for us? Could Atlanteans be from other star systems as suspected? My research of diverse  authors, independant of each other on Atlantis , propose very similar scenarios that convince me of the reasonable probability, unwise to dismiss out of hand. Could those surviving the cataclysm that ruined Atlantis, have taught the neolithic Europeans  of c.5-9000 years ago the technology to shift such heavy stones with electro-magnetic equipment or levitation techniques lost to us due to the Roman and christian persecution of the druids? If so, were neolithic peoples of Orkney's , Shetlands and Outer Hebredies  and other Gallic European societies more sophisticated than the stone and animal remains attest to, or were the surviving Atlanteans choosey about who they imparted  their knowledge to ?
Lemuria, the spiritual antithesis to technocratic Atlantis. The spring from which Shambala was created , Sanskrit evolved and Gnosticism?Lemurians usually dresssed in monklike robes, were interested in astronomy and horticulture, wellbeing of society as  a whole  of more interest than rank prestige  and materialism of technology.
Could the Native American ideal of medicine wheel come from Lemuria, especially since they were interested in holistic herbal and elemental medicine ? Advancedtechnology did exist on Lemuria  but it was not revered above spiritual values. Lemuria existed for c.10-12000 years ending approx. time of Atlantis c.9-11000 B.C.
If  the polar tilt does occur every c.12-13000 years [half the solar system's orbit around the Milky way] will Atlantians and Lemurians re-appear c. 2020-2030? Are the children of the 21st century the new Atlanteans and Lemurians that only need  guiding in the appropriate direction? I like to believe so.

Crystal Skulls, according to Sylvia Browne's spirit guide Francine, came from an explicit  mold  made from a substance close to Earth's tintanium. The quartz heated in some way, poured into the mold then gently cooled. 15 molded skulls were distributed widely across the Andes, then further across Latin America through migration and war booty. The skulls are  of  diverse crystal which will move kinetic energy because of the skulls' energetic conductivity. Francine  states  that much ancient information was stored in these skulls to be tapped by those with sufficient knowledge to do so, such as scrying, as the crystal holds cell memory.
The carving and polishing was performed using a white powdery sand. The message  revealed to Francine 's  ancestors  was that life is fleeting and to honour dead ancestors who shall be met again in the afterlife /otherside. The original skulls do harbour healing energy patterns as many who believe have felt their benefitcial effects

Stone discs found in China have ancient knowledge of extraterrestial civilization stored within along with 22 more crystal skulls found in caves . 716 discs have been found  upto 2005, but due to secrecy of Chinese government , not much nore is known of them.

Ica stones found in caves in the Pampa Colorada of Peru depict images of Earth some 23million years ago, records left by an extraterrestial , possibly from the Pliedies, according to Francine , knowledge within the stones themselves will  be able to be able to be tapped c. 2020+ functioning as computor data bases, unlocking the mysteries of the extraordinary  carvings upon them.

Peri Ries map of Antartica, a segment of an atlas using spheroid trigonometry c.12000 years ago? Francine and Sylvia Browne believe it to be executed  by extraterrestials from Andromeda galaxy.Francine also corroberates with Grahame Hancock's estimated age of the pyramids at  c.12-15000years old, that the stones were lifted by anti-gravity rods [levitated] and that each stone harbours specific ancient knowledge impregnated by beings far more advanced than humans of c.15000 years ago, but like the ica stones , their secrets will be revealed in the near future Sylvia found upon the walls of the inner chambers depictions of man's journey through life , as much symbolism  in the pyramids' structure that revealed similar revelations of man's 'lot' and place in the divine Cosmos.Not only Sylvia but others who enter the pyramids experience life changing energetic experiences, exiting the pyramids reveal a reverberation of positive psychic energy , thoughts, songs, rituals and prayers.
Some of this I experience walking through forests, uo mountains and other natural  places. Others experience healings of long term illnesses.
www.worldmysteries.com
The Ark of the Covenant . Is it beneath the Sphinx or beneath Roslyn chapel? Are we searching for an artifact or scrolls of parchment?
Francine believes, and corroborates with Hancock, that the world's pyramids do form a triangle. That they were communication stations topped by recieving crystals like our radio masts today. Francine believes this knowledge of  how to build pyramids that has confounded  acadamies for at least 200 years, is certainly from the Andromeda galaxy. Also, the vehicles depicted in the bible and Sanskrit scriptures defy the acadamicians who deny any intelligence in technology before the Egyptians, Babylonians or Sumerians. That souls who choose to come to Earth in a reincarnation have chosen the fast learning lane of cosmic evolution of the spirit. They are the bravest of the brave on this insane asylum of the Universe. so what kind of a pilgrim does that make me?
Francine says that Black Holes are cosmic vacuum cleaners as well as portals for re-incarnated life . That they connect  parrallel  universes of which there are 44 .
We never leave our universe /cosmos. After crossing over we can visit other universes many of which differ in configuration. [This helps my theory of Descartes' meditations on the universe]
Both Sylvia and Francine deny the Big Bang theory as they believe as they believe Creation always existed along with its Creator. my theory being that of the Creator becoming bored of one configuration  only to reconfigure it in the manner theorized by David Bohm of an expanded ripple forming infinite implicate/explicate order, having collapsed the former configuration
Surely an expanding universe needs 'somewhere ' to expand into and contract from. What happens to all the space that was once expanded into when the Universe ,according to Big Bang theory, contracts?Should I be thinking otherwise than in space as we know it?
Although Sylvia and Francine believe in underground cities  such as Shangri-la  and Shambala, they don't hold with a hollow centred Earth theory,as none of her past life regression cliemts have revealed lives in Earth centred cities. But then this shouldn't rule the possibility definitely void.
Sylvia and Francine both disagree with Knight and Lomas that Jesus was a revolutionary ready to bear arms [swords etc] and that he died in Jeruselum but not crucified, or was that James. Anyway, James or Jesus, he lived to approx. 80 in France  with Mary Magdalene. That he did travel to Kasmir, to learn healing techniques and more about beliefs. Could Knight and Lomas be framing Jesus into their favoured  picture falling into their masonic researches? Possibly so, but then I could be falling into the same trap by believing Sylvia and Francine.
So, the Elohim are creators on behalf of The Infinite Creator of life on the physical spectrum?Also, Nazareth, did not exist whilst, Jesus the Christ, whilst on Earth This anomoly has raised the head as to whether the Clare Prophets are for real or faking these messages purporting to be coming from Jesus, the Christ Another anomoly concerns the character of moses From what I have gathered from the old Testament, Our Creator in the form of Jehovah is a spiteful, bloodthirsty,greedy entitybelies all that Christ  and  his ascended brotherhood claim Our Creator  to be, and that Moses was prepared to commit genocide on a scale comparable to the Nazis, if not worse at the mere word of Jehovah.
Now why should Our Infinite Creator neeed to demand tribute and animal sacrifice since It has supposed to have Created everything from Itself  , including mankind, via these Elohim? Now, I suspect all this to be a lie written by politically coerced scibes if  not The Church  for  reasons of power monopoly This I have  written of on my Paine page
If Alexander Huddle of Orkney's  account of souls wallowing in a pit of slurry of their sins upon Earth for an undetermined period are so, does this mean that church persecutors as well as monarchs are subjugated tom the same torture on the other side Hiddle certanly had it in for drug barons  and financial swindlers , but did he reckon on banks and politicians being the biggest swindlers of the lot ? I have difficulty with this denial of sin proposed Take StGermain in his embodiment as Christopher Colombus. He killed hundereds of thousands and enslaved thousands more indigenous inhabitants of tge Americas, yet he is forgiven his crimes against humanityand awarded a new cloak as Sir Francis Bacon who advocates acts against naturefor the glory of man's arrogance and pride over all the other manifestations of the Infinite Creator's Creation. How do the unfortunates who were slain benefit in the loss of their lives to serve St Germain's agenda? His saving grace in my mind, being his endevour to unite 18th century Europe intom a peace loving state as the EU should be at present, and thus transfer to the New World  Even though he was ignored by the sovereign powers of Europe as well as the Federalost powers of the U.S.A, also airbrushed from orthodox  history books, he deserves  his position of service to mankind in the spirit world. Yet Columbus did alienate souls and prevent the tender sprouts of truth
So, Cuthbert did travel far into Scotland ,even though the Orkney's were not mentioned in the source I read
Would I be correct in believing that the anti-christ sent out the serpent in the form of Orthodox religon with it's condemnation of other religons? And what of the highest representatives of companies, organizationsand governments that are puffed up with their own sense of self-importance and greed for profits at the expense of their clients, their citizens the nations  at large.  Have they not the right to be indignant at these corruptors?Should we riot cause damage when confronted  with their lies and corruption? I believe not, Peaceful demonstration, indeed, but violence only shows us to be no better than they We should unite with our diverse skills and experienced knowledge/wisdom to combat corruption and suppression of rights by creating our own financial and governng systems, free of individual greed for pestigious and, may bI say, dubious power and material gain. As mentioned elsewhere,  on this blogsite, true power enlightens, encourages,, respects The true master creates many masters  and need not go in search of of pupils as they will seek them out.
  
Autistics Do Not Wish To Be "Fixed"

For many of us on the "normal" frequency or neuro-typical brainwave pattern of life,  who experience people on the Autistic spectrum of brainwave frequencies, that experience can be frustrating, for us as well as the autistic person[s]. This I believe, is due to our percieved medical paradigm that has not experiencced such a phenomenum before the  latter half of 20th century.and so finds it difficult to cope with such a diversity of brainwave frequency patterns, most involving behaviours in children,never before realized yet alone diagnosed. So now we have a plethoria of diagnostic terminology most of us are naturally baffled by, the medical and educational instituions included.
Now, I'm no expert, but from what I've read from these people, I can empathise with them from my own personal experience of my childhood, growing up with a thyroid deficancy now called Myxoedema, but fifty years ago was termed Cretinism.What an embarrassing label to be pinned on anyone who has the conciousness to know that they are not stupid or backward just misunderstood by many and bored to tears with the so-called educational system, thus relying on my own imagination and day dreaming for stimulation.
In hindsight, I wish I had learned of G.B. Shaw, George Orwell and other like minds whilst school age and  so truanted from school to persue my own studies instead of boring myself silly in classsroom. They shunned the restrictions of their middle and upper class moralities and went their own way,eventually becoming world reknown figures.
Now I don't expect to be so, and many autistics have their own agendas for bettering the world that do not necessitate such celibrity, but acknowledgement of their talents and  publicty of their truths as opposed to media and establishment's half baked assumptions of who they should be. I hope to squash such assumptions here, armed only with my aforesaid empathy with some of these children's thoughts, ideas and feelings, although not sharing their physical conditions.
An extract of a conversation between a seven year old boy, Tanner and his mother. Tanner is drawing in the living room. His parents and sister were busy with their activities;
Tanner: We are who we are and that is the way life should be.Do you know what this means, mom?
Mom: I'm not sure...why don't you explain it to me?
T; It means you should be who you are, not try to be someone else just to get friends. You'll get friends for being who you are, sooner or later. The wise frog will be still while waiting for the fly.The wise frog does not seek out the fly. It means with patience comes rewards.
Extracted from The Autism Prophecies by William Stillman, an aspergic author of many books on autism.

Most of us at some time in our lives, or still at present, are influenced by peer pressure to perform beyond or against our present capabilities, to keep our jobs, or to masqurade as what we hope our so-called friends will admire in us but is not truly there.So when we are caught out we lose the respect of these so-called friends anyway, as we straggle to justify ourselves to match their demands. I, as a teenager, craved such acceptance by my peers, who wouldn't? I found I compromised myself by agrreing to opinions they shared but I disagreed with, either nodding affirmatively when asked for my opinion, or keeping stumm for fear of ridicule.It was not until I had been out in the world of adults for some time and traveled to India on my own [many relatives and people of my parents generation thought this,travelling alone, a feat in itself,] that I gained the self confidence to openly disagree with my peers. Those peers of my teenage and early adult hood have now fallen away, or should I say I have drifted away from them, as I have found them too depressing and insular. They have never been interested in travel beyond the shores of Britain, and so I find I have little in common with them. now.Even so, I have to attribute my interest in surrealist art and thought as well as my diverse musical taste to their influence  
So where has Tanner, at only seven, recieved such wisdom?
Is he somehow connected to a higher wisdom? I reply, yes.His neurological pathways appear to allow him to connect to that universal wisdom that Christ taught we could access if we put our minds to it. Like Einstein professed, it was not until he relaxed his academic mind from the problem he was trying to solve and took himself off into the woods, or wherever, that his neurological pathways linked with the Universal wisdom giving him the answers he was searching. The frog does not seek out the fly.

Many of these people are non verbal, some involuntary due to their individual condition, others voluntarily so. This does not invalid them, however, as they can communicate telepathically or use facilliating communicators. I haven't seen one of these, but I imagine, from a desciption in one of William Stillman's books, they look and operate something akin to the machine Prof. Stephen Hawking uses.This allows them to express themselves either verbally or literally. According to some, who have their own  mind language, they have to translate into a spoken language.This is difficult for them because human spoken language has such a limited vocabulary,and so translation is time consuming for them.The frustration I mentioned at the head of this piece, can arise in the form of impatience concerning the  neuro-typical person awaiting a  vocab-response, and the autistic attempting to dumb down whatever he wishes to convey to the neuro-typical on his communicator.The frustration can, however be abated by the patience of both or all parties in the conversation.The neuro-typical must slow down, the autistic be more resourseful
The neuro-typical, most of us at present, could start learning image telepathy so as to able to communicate. Since some of us think in words, others in images,we may have to attempt both to facilliate healthy communication in the future. Back in the 70's, there was a children's T.V. serial called The Tomorrow People.
A small group of teens who "jaunted" themselves from the future to commuicate with the people of 20th century. They spoke to themselves telepathically. I believe now, that they were from early-mid 21st century. 
Their method of "jaunting", pressing some kind of device on their belts, may not be how 21st century mankind will transport themselves , whether through time or to distant places, but the possibility of doing so is possible if we open our minds to it. Just as holy men in the past, could  bi-locate themselves as well as other cultures still in touch with their ancestral knowledge.in the present.
There are others who although non-verbal in their "mother tongues" nevertheless communicate in other, either modern or ancient Earth languages, or other worldly. These can be translated by those versed in them to reveal their authenticity. ie not gibberish
Another trait many have witnessed with autistics is an extraordinary attention to detail in an area/topic that fascinates them. Here I empathize also.My academic passion  is history, but I had no interest in school's idea of history.so I decided not to follow up to examination with it. At the age of seven or eight, I avidly watched the war films and documentaries on sunday afternoons and gained, contrary to accepted wisdom of the 1960/70's an admiration of the Germans. Now, the adults would discourage this fascination by telling me that Nazis were evil, but no one would tell me why Hitler and his Nazis were so, or more to my curiosty, how they came to be so. I eventually took it upon myself to persue my own research, leaving no aspect of their ideology untouched. Today even, my curiosity is unsatiated as ever new information is being unravelled about that time. I follow other aspects  and peoples of history that interest me with an equal zeal. I'm not a Nazi, I'm just fascinated by the phenomenum I still hold a healthy admiration for the Germans,which does not condone their attitudes and behaviour under Hitler,but we must acknowledge their intellect and contribution to society. After all, many of the nuclear phisicists that have pioneered our technolgy have been and are German[including Einstien and Heisenburg,],  and  they are my racial cousins. And hasn't the British Empire been found guilty of  colonial atrocities that the schools are keen to  "whitewash"?
I have also other interests I find  I'm equally zealous about but find myself bogged down in resarch with little space for putting into writting.in my desired format, dramatic dialouge. 
I have also discovered that those on the autistic spectrum have a rapour with animals many neuro-typical dismiss in themselves. Easily enough surmised when we remember the ridicule heaped on those of us who claim to speak with animals. I don't mean the normal human conversations we have with our pets but in depth philosophical  telepathic conversations.On the higher soul plane of existance, anmals are just as intelligent or more so, than human souls, depending on the human and animal soul's evolutionary development.
Some of you may be ridiculing me as you read this, but don't dismiss me until you have researched yourselves.
The information animals can impart to us when we show them due respect, is astounding. most of it deals with how we can stop polluting the planet and start reversing the unhealthy lifedstyles we are acccustomed to that ae killing us with symptoms that are manifesting themselves.as diseases. Again, the ancient cultures understood this and acted accordingly. The Native Americans were coerced into forgetting this when the white europeans introduced them to "fire water" and  oppressed them with "whiteman paper" i.e . european education. Only since WWII have they remembered their ancestors council ways and medicine wheel.thus taking their destiny into their own hands.
Has autism popped up in people through history?
Two personalities with severe ticks come to mind, Dr. Samuel Johnson and Claudius, the Roman Emperor, who came to the throne by default due to the sick humour of the Pretorian Guard who had just murderd his nephew,Caligula. All  but a few close friends in Rome, took Claudius to be an idiot because of his stammers, ticks and club foot, but he was an able historian also dedicated to detail. The parting advice his friend King Herod imparted to him was to keep up the illusion of being an idiot to stay alive. If it wasn't for the 20th century historian Robert Graves uncovering such details in his books, we wouldn't of heard anything about him. Both with lucid minds, yet impaired by annoying bodily twiches ,vocal sounds and stammers.I wonder how much or which aspects of Johnson's behaviour were the tics and which were stimming .For those who don't know, "stimming" is the odd behaviour autistics portray to lessen the effects of their ticks or distracting neurological behaviour. In Johnson's case this involved twiddling of thumbs, shuflling of feet, rocking to and fro or in circles, whistling or exuding verbal sounds or puffs of breath. Obssessive habits such as retracing his steps if he felt he did not enter a room in the usual manner, i.e. if left foot entered before right, he would retrace to make sure right foot entered first. This would probably never have come to light if his friend James Boswell had not been such a stickler for such characteristic detail in his Life of Johnson or his own Journals. How many more can you think of?

.So why do they not wish to be fixed if they suffer all these ticks?
They would rather not have to deal with them, but they also understand that their condition is a puposeful challenge on a soul level. They also want to be correctly interpreted as an intelligent being. Not being so usually results in agressive behaviour as they tackle their frustrations. Let's put it this way. You have been found by strangers, bound and gagged. with invisible tape. Naturally they can't understand your inability to speak or  your seemingly eratic bodily movements, so they use their worldly paradigm to presume you are somehow inferior to them and so they treat you like wise. How frustrated should you feel?
I found myself in a similar predicament when I was a small boy with a slight stammer and inarticulate speach,
not having sufficient command of english vocabulary.The bigger boys would taunt me with names inferring backwardness and stupidity. I knew it to be my thyroid condition, the thyroid gland being instumental to communication. Of course I didn't know that much, only that the conditon impaired my speach. So how could I explain this to a bunch of ignorant kids, as wellas some teachers, who were only looking for an excuse to ridicule me? This is how I empatize with autistics.
William Stillman also suggests stimming to be equal to mantras, Gregorian chants, reciting the rosary, whirling of sufi Dervishers and other repetitive rituals to stimulate states of alternate conciousnesses This being verified by famous neurologist Oliver Sacks. One of his patients , showing symptoms of dyskinesia, showed similar stimming behaviour, but who found it beneficial and rewarding, not debilitating. So, it appears obvious, that directed appropriately, according to the individual's inclinations, the tics are not so debilitating after all. It needs only for parents, medical staff and the general neuro-typical public to understand this and accept rather than ridicule or misguidedly want to "fix"
Autistics can also be emotionaly emphatic with animals. As mentioned earlier, animals are far more intelligent than we have been led to believe,.so autistics pick up on these animal communications and so may become distraught, unhappy, sleepless or delirioius happy or hyperactive, for no apparant reason to us. Ask the child why they feel this way and accept the answer given.It may not be a family pet in anguish or deliriously happy, but  a neighbour's, friends' relative's,or any animal the child has contacted empathically. This is true for humans also whether near or far, ill or dying.This mainly occurs with children with healing gifts. They often do not understand how to  correctly control or apply this energy and so find themselves drained of energy. A specialist healer can help them do so.
These children can "hit out" unexpectantly and seemingly erratically at a human with a condition needing healing. They may have no idea of the persons' condition but intuitively know where to strike and how much presure to bear. When quizzed by adults they will likely say an angel, spirit, Jesus or God  told me to do it. Accept this and seek medical correlation and confirmation from your G.P Of curse it could relate to something else, so ask the child in a non threatening manner before chastising them
So why do I keep banging on about these children?
Because it appears to me that they are saying something fundamental to us as a species on the brink of auto-anhilation.S-L-O-W D-O-W-N!
.    
To be continued



DANCING YOUR DREAM
by The Voltarian. Jan.2009

Dreaming, I don't want to be here.
Dreaming, I'd rather be elsewhere.
Spending more of Life's span creating,
instead of contributing to government's
insatiable war machining,
keeping the elite few in their accustomed spirit,
gnawing away at the remainder
of the World's Divine spirit.

It has frequently been voiced,
from Dr. Johnson's lips, they say,
that those who tire of London,
tire of Life, per se.
Hear ye this from mine.
It's neither Life or London I tire of
but Londoners and their projected strife.
I am aware they dream of being elsewhere also,
or even someone else, or living their lifestyle.

Blank visages shuffling their spirit weary way
along London's thoroughfares, crookedly paved,
dog-ended and matchstick filled, cracked,
beverage stained, puke puddled, piss streamed, shit caked streets.
Grimacing against the the weather,
their fate unchangable' til the day they retire,
or die, if not redundant before their time expended.
For this is how they've been told it must be so
by religon, printed media, T.V. and radio.
They tell you the weather's miserable, ghastly,terrible, gloomy.
Or else it's blistering, parched and dry, so humid there's
drought on the way with the inevitable hose pipe ban
that never appears to be revoked.
All this to keep you aggravated, listless or broody.
The frame of mind they want you to move in.

Then they scare you with time,
there's always never enough.
Understand the quantum Universe,
it's all relative stuff.
Someone's minute is an hour,
another's eternity a second.
Learn how to use it well,
and it's yours to beckon.

Yes, I used to believe in the capitalist dream.
The house, the car, family, you know what I mean.
I was naive, I listened to those who told me to "grow- up".
Six years of it left me morose, unfulfilled, fed-up!
I dreamed of being an academic, an historian.
I became Hesse's Steppenwolf, serious, brooding.
Enough is enough I screamed,
it's time now to let heart play.
So I ditched my unfulfilling job
boarded a plane and jetted away.
Remembered there are millions far worse off than I
Took stock of what I had, now I plan a different destiny.

Dreaming the ancient wisdom, as relevant today
as dreamed by the first humans, back far away.
Only needing fresh application,
from modern man's fertile imagination.
It is there, amongst the infinity within each human cell.
The Divine code we are told we never use, 95% of it,
hidden well.
Awaiting only for us to open out further,
connecting heart to brain once more,
lain dormant for centuries, maybe more.

Not that sweeping is a bad thing, far from it.
Only the system convinces many that it should be so.
Only a yardstick, though a phoney one I say,
for others in society to measure their material successes,
this or that way.
But whom from the mass of white collared visages
can truly claim happiness has come their way?
So, they earn far more than me.
Their grimaces bely their boasted successes,
that my eyes can see.

Stevie Smith was drowning, not waving happily.
The same could be said of these city folks,
as I bob along the surface waving, craving,
a spark of a smile upon their faces.
Not many appear to notice, wrapped up as they are
in their dreaming.
Forlorn hearts weeping.
Only those who dream as I do say good morning,
exchange a few words or a "how you doing".

There are those who, lofty seated upon their wealthy thrones
that believe all those below them should be their cringing drones.
Those with the "right" school ties, the "right" social "breeding",
firm in their belief they are loftier in their judgements and social ideals.
Unfortinately it filters down.
Those in white collars despise those in blue,
no matter their backgound or skin's hue.
It seems evident to me, that man can bear the loss of his possessions
far more than the loss of his power over other men.

From the same eternal source we came to be.
The nearest material form of this source
that plays its part in emanating us all
was previously emanated from the cosmic dust
of other firey balls.
So remember when sniffing at folks such as I.
Your crap we sweep up is also you and I,
only formed to differing ratios, yet bonded by the same glue.
Electro-magnetic attraction keeps all bodies in place.
Atoms to galaxies we are all hewn,
from quantum particles dancing to diverse tunes.
For diversity is the Law of One, expressed infinitely.
Adhere to this and we can obtain eternal harmony.
The Tao calls it the Wu Wei.
This is the grand universe at play.

So now I dance the Wu Wei,
dreaming this is the way
to dance your dream body
creating wherever you be.
The world is not stable,
changes must occur.
The inevitable stance,
I Ching in Being
the Infinite Creator.

So make your changes folks
as not all is set in stone.
The past, present, future you create
from the mistakes learned and rectified.
Dream another dance, let that be fortified.
It's your free will, use it so,
stop allowing others to convince you no.
Things are sent to try us,
this I believe is true.
Stop believing life a burden,
use it to challenge and maximize your soul.

What of the city's buildings, tarmacadam roads and streets?
What of lamp posts, benches, neon signs, trees, bushes, weeds,
feasting pigeons at your feet, in parks, gardens, sequestered squares;
perched atop parking meters?
The traffic upon wheels, rails or waterbourne.
Father Thames quietly rolling under spanning bridges.
Subways, flyovers and viaducts, rail terminals, bus and underground stations.
Airports, seaports, M25 and its service stations.
Do they dream of being elsewhere?
Would they prefer ferrying people in sunnier climes?
Maybe, unlike us dissatisfied folks , they are fulfilled,
serving us by moving with the Divine agenda,
instead of, as is our want.

Yes, you probably snigger. Things harbouring conciousness!
Surely he's touched.
But allow me to remind you of what's normally kept under wraps.
There are many more things at large than meet mere mortal imaginings.
Yet not entirely impossible for anyone to grasp,
provided we keep an opened mind and heart to the last.
You've heard it all before, you cry.
Then why aren't you acting upon it?, is my reply.
You say you all know of global corruption et al.
Then why aren't you acting, considering you say,
you're sick of the whole damn farce?

What of me? What am I acting upon?
Seeking like minded folk who share my values and ideals.
To begin anew, elsewhere, to nurture future leaders from our loins.
To evolve, as we should be doing.
Instead we stagnate in hatred, fuming.
We evolve our technology but not ourselves, it seems.

The age of reason had conned us well.
We were told by the likes of Sir Francis Bacon
to make only our brain muscles swell,
whilst strangling nature, binding it to our control.
Heart sense pumping still, yet largely ignored
except for those bards whose heart conciousness' soared
above the stinking pall of dark satanic mill clouds.
Yet only the wealthier, vibrant hearts and creative imaginations,
had time on their hands to fulfill hidden dreams,
sadly all but forgotten nowadays.
Their craft's value hammered under auctioneers' gavels.
Do these bidders with seemingly bottomless coffers
truly know the price of everything, yet the value of nothing (at all)?
These arts and crafts were meant to be utilised well.
Many instead lay in vaults of banks or private mansions deep,
only a selected few are invited to peep.
Market forces have all but driven beauty out of modern usage.
Exchanged for bare functionality, excused as minimalization.
What a short change!

Twentieth century's nuclear physicists
procured us an alternative source to apply.
Pearls before swine they unwittingly threw
to political leaders that offer us nothing new
but more blood sweat and tears.
Nature programs on T.V. tell us that nature strangles us now,
whilst catastrophy mongers believe it's the Universe, but wait, how!
Are we not the destroyers of Earth and its neighbourhood?
I believe nature has tired of awaiting our evolution
and so has programed it's own preservation.


BOUNDARIES AND SPACES
By The Voltarian. Feb.2010

We busy ourselves with walls and fences.
Enforce their validity with rubber stamped papers.
This is ours, that is yours,
We belong here, you, there.
In times past we even painted our drainpipes.
That's your half, this mine.
Yet our filthy waters mingle still,
in common as they flow.

The rigidity with which we erect our cities,
mark, delineate, seperate us from our Creator Source
and our potential creative force.
Yet nature encroaches despite ourselves.
She holds no bounds, no matter how we manipulate her.
Besmudging the land with rows of hedge and stone,
prim leafed avenues, ditches, dykes and moats,
She still encroaches with time.
Bramble and ivy bore through mortar on their ascent.
Tree roots crack open tarmac, upheave stone.
Weeds fill the cracks in and between the paving,
of the neglected canal towpath, aerodrome runway,
and railway track sleepers.

She reveals her own spaces.
Patterns the space we call sky
with her naked twigged boughs, coppiced Knobs,
and vaporous plumes that reflect in our window panes.
Tapping at the glass.
"Hello! We're still here",
as they remind us we are ALL ONE.
Our boundaries but delusions
for spaces are infinite
and so our minds when we allow them to be so.


VOID MANTRA
By The Voltarian Aug.2009

Void- where is it?
It is the mind and the no-mind.
The undefinable- the indefinable.
All existance is the mind
which is and is not.
The singularity and the ripple
from which all emanate
Implicate and explicate.

The Infinite is mind in motion,
in process of being- and not being
turned on/off/on/off/on...
Religon and science wish to limit the mind
to concrete dogmas and mathematical paradigms.
The dogmas contradict-refusing to be explained.
The paradigms paradox- do they need to be explained?
Both finite and stagnate our understanding
of the Infinite that is us,
for corporeal and etheric are mind.

We as humans can only evolve
by dropping all finite conceptions
of who we are.
The Creator and the Creation,
Infinite in form.
The Wu Wei being the Universal norm.
Void-where is it?
It is the mind and the no-mind...


I LOVE YOU STEVIE SMITH
By The Voltarian. Aug2009

I love you Stevie Smith
I think you groovy fab
Even tho' you write of the dead
And those who are awfully sad.
Your approach to death by some
May appear callous and blythe
For you make it clear you have no fear
Of Death's keen bladed scythe.

Your bestest friends are Freddy and Mum
To them unconditional your love.
The Universal beams in through your crown
Reaching Soul's depth which has no bounds
emanating out with a positive hum.

Pub-lub-light chums gather round
To bask in your lime-light shining.
Supping whiskeys and sodas, tonics with gin
Fawning over your latest sonnets you bring
to recite in the Pub Club Corner.

Upon rainsoaked nights you slink out
Along pavements glistening you saunter
In search of lakes abominable
You reflect in puddles fast arising.
Sky speaks in spits and drops
Then howls in lashing hydro-spikes.

From houses golden squares and rectangles glow
Behind dropleted panes warm hearth homes.
But you prefer rain lashed streets, deserted.
To the womb of the lake
Through darkened wood you make
Where dominion of time dissipates.
There, another heaven and earth await
Confrontation with your ancient soul
Of previous lives spent on this Earth's
mortal coil.

You crave the waves to cover you over
To sleep, you desire for all to be over.
But the abominable lake crests no waves
Only ripples gently lapping at your nipples.
Cool and tingling you awake from mournful slumber
Reminding yourself of the clothes you flung asunder
And why should man fear more death than fear to live?
And were you always too far out in Life
Not waving , but drowning?
You'd sooner wend your way back naked
To the rain lashed suburban streets deserted.
But society propriety forbids it so
In this night, is anybody really to know?

Gnadiges Fraulein
Where is home for you?
All is hurt, tears and complain.
Even the deserted garden
Is too formal and shadow cast.
Not one blossom thrives there
But a thorn of your despair.

You crave the grave
To be elsewhere
But could your soul be quieted?
Would the Infinite satisfy?
Could you ever be satiated?



BLESSED ARE THE CHALK MARKERS
By The Voltarian Sep 2010

Blessed are the chalk  markers.
The Derry piece-peace lovers.
Whom politics, religon and
money have pulled asunder,
they have drawn together,
in joyful spontaniety.
Wet weather dampens them never.
Nor the arm of the law.
Both inspire them to continue,
chalking all the more.
They fish in muddy waters,
creation as their bait.
Their haul usually to their surprise
is creative public response.

Their response to corporate adulteration
results in their own brand of muralation.
No to war, no to conformity, no to hypocrisy
and blind consumerism.
Yes to dada, yes to surealisimo.
Yes to song and poetic actioning
Yes to zen, completes the eternal circle,
the mobius strip and infinate motion.
Still-moving-posting-passing by.
Singing lies-love-death.....and torture

To whom should we unify?
To the roots amongst us all, the cry.
Should the roots of diverse trees
matter to thee?
No, all trees grow from familiar roots,
only diverse in their personalities,
as should be we.

No need for rush, or heed to hurry.
Why whisk yourselves up into a flurry?
Life's too short, many say, to saunter and tarry.
I reply, time is just as you make it.
You only enslave yourselves when you worry.
So exchange your gold-grubbing-materialistic morals
for those values enhancing the soul,
shake yourselves from your complacent laurels.

You don't need to spend  money to give.
A smile is enough of a gig.
Give of yourselves, emanate your God-given light,
to all those in need of a lift.
Smile to the oppressed, depressed and  ill.
Humanize exploited consumers all.
Humanize exploited commuters all.
Bring them back to life,
distract them from their strife.
Suggest  they take a holiday.
Take off for six months, or more.
Sell up, buy a camper van,
or hook up to your/that  battered old  caravan.
Loose yourselves to natures flow,
then decide, is it worth a go?
or return to the hapless throng once mo'.

Oh you anti-religous, you heretics! You heathen blasphemers!
There's more Christ-conciousness in you than any clergyman
can bare.
Your actions in concert
are without pretensions to high art
But ART thpu richer than those on high thrones,
who condescend to throw to wretched dogs, marrowless bones?
The kernals you dispense to the crowd,
would make ol' J.C. so proud,
for they consist of pure light,
of which you alchemists have wrought,
with the gold of your intent, your hearts' will.
You turn the streets into true churches of Christ,
touching those the orthodox never will reach.

YES/NO TO ASBO's
By The Voltarian Sep 2010

No to ASBO's, no to spit.
No to spilt ice-cream cones,
McFlurries and fizzy drinks.
No to Wank Donald's, KFC,
fried chicken, doner kebabs,
that encrust upon pavements
and sole treds of shoes.
ASBO these fast junk food stores,
or ASBO the kids.
What! even babes in prams,
also littering the streets,
with their discarded dummies,
cuddly toys, and sometimes sweets?

Government want us to take in more fresh fruit and veg.
Leave off the fatty cholesterol, unhealthy meat.
They continue to thrust it all upon us, even so.
They claim they are serving us, giving us choice,
so ASBO these M.P.'s with their covert policies.
Elect those we can trust, those willing to serve.
ASBO those foisted upon us, we no longer deserve.

Those who ASBO the chalk markers, who dare colour our city.
We cannot abide this, all should be made to cower,
under the oppressive grey dreary gravitus of corporate power,
that turns a blind eye to Banksy, even courts his favour,
to daub and litter our high streets with their inane logos all over.
So, whatever happened to the true logos?
Alas buried under all the dross,
of a society that chooses gold,
as it's sovereign boss, that screams;
Art should not be FREE!
Art should be made to PAY!
So all who offer their art upon the streets,
should be made to 'clean-up' and FLEE!

You're causing CRIMINAL DAMAGE
security and police demean.
But the chalk here today,
shall by tomorrow's rain
be washed away,
yet the corporate graffitti remains,
to be tarnished only by age,
until another corporate take-over
presses for yet another design make-over .

ASBO corporate uniformed work togs
in disgusting colours, with slogans of rot.
We have no choice but to don this revolting garb,
whilst slaving for faceless masters,
who have gobbled up all the small concerns
we were once happy and proud to be a part in.
Now we are only a part of a gross parody.
Lasse-fayre with give and take
has been substituted for take, take, take.
We must once again grovel to remain enslaved,
to Edwardian pegagouges and false democracy,
or be branded criminal, no employment, no domicility.

No to ASBO's slapped upon legal gatherings of  three or more.
Should the Sally Army be moved on from their joyous racket?
Should  marching bands be banned?
What about rallies, Speaker's Corner, Oxford Street shopping,
any high street shopping?
Oh, well, we'll  make an exception for high street shopping,
blind consumerism must continue on.
What about public houses?
You will be arrested for gathering in an enclosed  public space,
to drink and be merry. How do you plead?
Oh, but we need to tax your beer and spirits, so we'll excuse
that too.
And bus stops?
You will be arrested for loitering with intent to catch a bus,
whilst gossiping to a friend or neighbour. How do you plead?
Oh, but the transport bosses must make their big fat profits
by fining you for the privilege of delays, cancellations and
general arse-ing about, so we'll excuse that too.
Ah! but we can get you on parks and libraries, swimming pools  too.
Loitering and gathering with intent on enjoying and exercising yourselves.
How do you plead?
We could easily close all these down, you know,
build multi-story car parks, or more hypermarkets or hyper by passes.
How about a Blockbuster Video store!

ASBO cheap booze,
or ASBO the need to
get plastered on such
cheap hootch?
Ask the youth what they
really need.
Is it so much to ask,
to bring down the rate of crime
and alcohol abuse?
Desist in abusing youth to fill
fodder  chosen roles.
Inspire them to reach
for soul enriching goals.
Invest in creativity,
Create self-worthy citizens
who choose to lighten upthe city
instead of churning in the shit heapy.
After all, why should they be forced
to conform, continually tested,
to match unrealistic statistics,
compiled by those whose heads
are firmly rammed up their bureaucratic
arse-tistics.

All those branded by the state as backward slow learners,
ADD and ADHD hyper-actives.
The Auties and Aspies are here to stay.
No freaks of nature, children of the coming golden age.
They should be running society, the future is surely theirs,
to free minds , unlock hearts, crush the hate and prejudice.
Liberate us from the monumental fuck up
of our inherited shitizized state.
So let's ASBO the stolen future of our nations.
Elect a new generation, with heart and patience,
to cater for all, exclusive of none
but those who wish not to stay, and be ONE.



GRAVITY-THE LEVITY OF THE SITUATION;
Salmon  And Trout That Defy Gravity; Water,Trees And Insects WithInbuilt Anti-Gravity Technology, Tornado Anomolies Explained
Large amounts of the following text has been taken verbatum from Wilcock's text in  The Source Investigations
A simple case of rotating air is enough to cause these effects, but what about water?As mentioned above, in the new model of the Universe, gravity has spin currents, caused by fluid-like  energy. If  these currents get strong enough-by rotating vortex motion within the Source Field, as Wilcox calls it-they then can create their own gravitational force,creating rotating vortex currents such as in tornadoes, hurricanes,oceans and mantle beneath continental plates, but sometimes this force can directly counteract normal downward push of gravity. This has been discovered by studying how trout can jump up high waterfalls with seemingly little effort .It has been observed by a Victor Schauberger, that fish would dance in a wild spinning movement and then float motionlessly upward through the waterfalls.
Even more bizarrely, one winter's night, by bright moonlight , he witnessed the same effect happening with egg shaped rocks!He was peering into a mountain pool, within a rushing stream, when an egg shaped rock the size of a human head started doing a spinning dance, just as trout  and salmon do As it then rose to the surface a circle of ice formed around it.Such bizarre changes in temperature are conducive to matter popping into "time space". We might think that a gateway into time space would increase temperature, but Kozyrev  proved  it actually made things colder. Schauberger witnessed several of these egg shaped stones  behave sequentially. On further analysis he discovered them all to contain metals.
How do giant trees pull sap all the way up their trunks? A Dr. Orvin E. Wagner, a well noted physicist within California State Polytechnic University, researched this subject. Having studied biophysics for over twenty years, he devoted himself  to these studies. In 1992 and 1994, he published his discovery that plants and trees are using gravity shielding effect to create upward sap flow. It appears that tree branches create a vortex effect not unlike that seen in pyramids,creating a rotating spin current of gravitational force, sufficient to pull sap up the tree. Boring small holes into the xylem tissue ,he used tiny accelerometers to confirm that gravity is not as strong inside those areas. tiny hanging weights recorded a decrease of upto 22% of the gravity force inside vertical holes of slightly leaning trees. He also found similar forces in a hole within a horizontal root, creating vertical thrust.He also discovered,  that tree branches, tend to grow  consistently at angles of multiples of five degrees, suggesting they are somehow harnessing a spiralling , geometric wave component that naturally exists within gravity. Wagner states;
"A growing plant stem acts like a tuned wave guide....A  stem growing at a certain angle to the gravitational field adjusts its cell sizes, internodal spacings and other structures to conform to the geometric wavelengths associated with that angle"
However, it appears from the  the grammatical nature of the original text of above paragraph, that Wagner's research is not yet complete.
 Dr.Victor  Grebennikov was an entomologist who discovered the Cavity Structural Effect, which led to a realization  that certain insects appearto be naturally using gravity-shielding technology as well. Grebennikov explains;
"I was examining the chitin shells of insects under my microscope in the summer of 1988 along with their pinnate antennae, the fish-scale microstucture of butterfly wings, irredecent colours, and other inventions of nature. I became interested in an amazingly rhythmical micro-structure of one large insect wing casing.....It was an extremely well-ordered composition, as though stamped out by factory equipment according to special blueprints and calculations.As I saw it,the intricate sponginess was clearly unnecessary either for the strength of the part, or for its decoration. I have never observed anything like this unusual micro-ornament either in nature, in technology,or in art. Because its structure is three dimensional, I have been unable to capture it in a drawing, so far, or a photograph.....Was it perhaps a wave  emitter using "my" multiple cavity structures effect? That truly lucky summer, there were very many insects of this species, and I would capture them at night............orms
I placed the small ,concave chitin plate on the microscope stage in order to again examine its strangely star shaped cells under strong magnification. I again admired this masterpiece jewel work of nature. I was about to place a second identical plate with the same unusual cell structure on its underside, almost purposely on top of the first one. But then. The little plate came loose from my tweezers, hung suspended above the other plate for a few seconds, then turned a few degrees clockwise and slid to the right, then turned counterclockwise and swung- and only then fell to the desk.
You can imagine how I felt at that moment. When I came to my senses, I tied a few panels together with wire, and it wasn't an easy thing to do.I succeeded only when I positioned them vertically. What I got was multi-layered chitin block and I placed it on the desk. Even a relatively large object ,such as a thumbtack, would not fall on it. something pushed it up an aside. When I attached  the tank on top of the"block", I witnessed incredible , impossible things.The tack would disappear from sight for a few moments. This was when I realized this was no "beacon", but something entirely different.
And I became again so excited  that all the objects  around  became foggy and shaky. I managed to pull myself together with huge effort in a couple of hours, and I continued working. This is how  it all started. Of course , much still remains to be understood, verified and tested "
I have particularly transcribed this verbatum so as not to distort Grebennikov's original emphasies. to a remarkable account. Truly "Twiglit Zone" stuff.. Wilcock also states that although Grebennikov never disclosed the the exact genus  and species of this insect, he does make multiple mentions in  his[Grebennikov] book of the remarkable properties of the wing casings of scarabeaeus, bronze poplar borer and particularly cetonia.There are five species of bronze poplar borer that have an unusual hoeycomb pattern on the inside of their wing casings, similar to his description.
This spiralling gravitational flow appears to be the great secret of how the pyramids were built. however, we have not really answered our deeper question of how we pop enough  atoms over into time space to actually make an object levitate.But first we must look into the mystery of tornadoes. Mainstream thinking says levitation in a tornado is caused  by air suction which is what we are seeing here. However, once other curious effects that have been documented are considered, we can no longer be sure that this is the only factor involved in levitation.There are many cases of people, animals, entire homes having been sucked up in whirling tornadoes, transported large distances without being damaged- where the fiercely rotating air should have torn them to pieces- and deposited down without apparent harm.Many matter-blending effects, as reported in the Philadelphia Experiment dossiers, have also been documented.Some other bizarre examples being a plate glass window, unbroken yet embedded with sand. Afarm machine had been puctueed by blades of straw. Straw was also found embedded into a brick wall of a house. A three inch twig blended into a wall without snapping twig or cracking wall. blades of grass driven into tree trunks as well as a cow  embedded in another tree! A banana embedded half way into a telegraph  pole! A bean embedded half-way int a fresh chicken egg with no sign of a crack in the shell!
A potential explanation could be that atoms are electrically charged to ultra-high speeds as the objects spin in the tornado 's centre, allowing it to exist on a higher energy density. When it flies out of the tornado, coming into contact with something on a lower energy density, it passes through like a ghost until the energy levels even out and so an  softer object finds itself embedded within a harder or vice-versa.  It appears that the structure of any object or living being becomes spongy thus malliable as a quantity of its atoms pop over into another dimension temporarily. as the whirlwind  slows down, the atoms pop back again. The whirlwind may also be fluctuating in its speed, so not everything within blends simultaneously.
Returning to the Philadelphia Experiment, it appears to me that the sailors ,not being warned  or informed of what was occurring, naturally went about their business on the ship whilst in transit from 1943 to 1983. On their return to 1943 is where disaster struck as either they blended with the ship that had changed position in relation to their original positions or vice-versa. But this is only my theory. Contemporary witnesses observed the ship only as a green fog,[N.B. Grebennikov's statement above, "objects became shaky and foggy"] no visible signs of high velocity spin, as this was probably occurring at  the  sub/atomic level within the ship's structure as well as anotomically within the sailor's, who were levitated this way and that  until they became part of the ship's structure.
For further accounts of matter transformation from within tornados or hurricanes, visit The NOAA Web site. Bearing in mind the sponginess of objects as their atomic structure transforms, let us now study;

GRAVITY AND TIME- IT GETS WEIRDER
Now, according to Einstein,a body gains mass as its velocity reaches the speed of light,but only if it is travelling on a strictly straight trajectory. If  however, it is spinning at a velocity near the speed of light, it loses mass and electrical charge, temporarily.How? Because some or at least half, say, have popped or flitted into another Universal reality, another time even. This is recitified as the body slows down.Usually between 15 - 20 minutes, the body's atoms return to this reality.This as DavidWilcock suggests, is a fluid-like flow between parallel realities. I also add that he still believes there are only two realities. I believe there are far more than we realise, and that atoms are flowing back and forth between all of them.
Another time even? Well that depends on which direction the atoms are pushed in by what David Wilcock prefers to call  'the levity of the situation' as gravity pushes UP as well as ALONG. As mentioned earlier, a body travels in time as long as it is in  motion. If it enters the other reality from the east, say ,it may travel forward in time, to the west, backward. how far in each direction is difficult to predict from our perspective as the body's gravitational mass and charge have equalled zero,and so rendered as pure field, a polar representation of  its solid matter on the "otherside" Space in one creating time in the other and vice-versa.
Russian scientist Dr.Nikolai Kozyrev realised that smashing objects against a hard surface caused the object to lose mass, having weighed the object before and after.
However, neither Kozyrev or Wilcock state whether the hard surface regains its original shape. This bothers me since forts and castles from the middle ages and since still retain cannon shot dents to this day! Kozyrev  also discovered that shaking a body up and down  rapidly 30x was sufficient to cause loss of weight.Upon ceaseing shaking, its weight did not return slow and fluid-like, but in sudden quantisized jumps over the 15-20 minutes. Each weight increase was proportionally larger  per jump each jump adding  a further e.g. 10milgrams; equal to the total mass that disappeared originally.  Kozyrev also found this to be the case with almost all succeeding experiments.It appears that there are layers within each atom,which flit back only when they have slowed down sufficiently to do so, allowing them to be and not to be simultaneously in either reality!
A Dr.Bruce DePalma and one of his  students wondered if  the spin of a ball in mid air lost mass also. Two one inch wide ballbearings were given equal thrust to cause them to rise and fall simultaneously, one was given spin velocity of 300 r.p.s in a hand router before  both being fired on their trajectory in the dark as the results were being photographed with a sixty cycle strobe light. DePalma discovered that the rotating ball went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, hitting the ground before the non-rotating ball. But has this  not been discovered with the invention of the rifled barrel? DePalma argues that as it travelled higher this meant it became lighter, and as it fell to ground faster than ordinary gravity should allow, it should then be moving faster through time. This sounds pretty obvious to me without his demonstration.This was back in 1976, about he time  I learned , aged 13,about rifle spin given bullets that edge over previous unrifled weapons.
But as we read on, the point being made is the inertia of bodies relates to the time energy flowing through them. So how do we get the really good stuff to happen on a larger scale? Wilcock says we have to go back and take another look at gravity, remembering that in Larson's model , gravity is all there is.Atoms and molecules are merelyvortexes within an energy field we call gravity flitting between ours and other realities where time is three dimensional
Wilcock asks us to look at a whirlpool in a stream of water for a minute. Does any of that water actually disappear as it enters the whirlpool?What happens after it shoots through the vortex;does it shift into some parallel reality, never to return? Of course not, he says.The water is still there in the stream,flowing along. But how does this apply to the earth?, he asks. Simply put the energy flowing into the earth must also flow out, Wilcock's gravity and levity 'clause', his Source Field, having spent some of its momentum and so obviously travelling a lot more slowly. This understood ,the realization dawns that there may be a tug-of-war between up and down gravity force,yet if we did not have this upward thrust we would very well be crushed by the full force of  its downward thrust . A Dr.Hal Puthoff calculated a direct relationship between gravity and vibrating motion within all particles germans dubbed "Zitterwbewegung" Whilst Princeton scientists back in 1982 discovered that electrons become fluidlike at super cold temperatures whilst being zapped with the world's most powerful magnet, "cooperating" into "quantum fluid", an extremely rare situation (in 1982) where electrons act identically, more like a soup than as individually spinning units.
Levity creates thrust once atoms cross over into time-space, so if a body is half in-half out of both realities,so long as its atoms are stil bound together, it can levitate ,due to the balance of gravitational forces.This may work in a manner similar to a Mobius loop as the body passes between realities.Also with D.N.A molecules since they  absorb and harbour light, they exchange energies and information in the same way between our physical and duplicate etheric bodies.

TIBETAN  ACOUSTIC LEVITATION
Although Tibetan monks have probably practised this for centuries, if not millenia, it had not come to the attention of the west until the 20th century.The following information comes chiefly from a Swedish aircraft designer,Henry kjellson who described the whole story to a journalist who then published it in a German magazine. A New Zealand researcher, Bruce Cathie then wrote a detailed analysis of it in David Hatcher Childress's Anti-gravity and the World Grid. Kjellson a colleague of a Swedish medical doctor who chose to be identified as Dr Jarl, who befriended a young Tibetan student whilst studying at Oxford. Years later this Tibetan student sought Dr.Jarl out to inform him that he [the student] had now become a high Tibetan lama and trusted member of a Tibetan monastery, urging Dr.jarl to meet him there. He was able then to obtain permission to stay long enough to make notes and report back.Amongst other secrets kept from westerners, a vibrating and condensed sound field can nullify the power of gravity. Others had heard of huge stones being levitated with sound but Dr. Jarl was the first westerner to witness it.
Having been led to a sloping meadow surrounded by high cliffs to the north west,one of the cliffs had a ledge leading into a cave some 250 metres above ground.The Monks were in the process of building a wall of huge stone blocks up on this ledge- the only access u was by rope. 250 metres away lay a polished rock slab with a bowl shape curve at it's centre, the slab being a metre wide and the bowl 15 cm deep.a team of yak hauled a giant stone block into the bowl-one metre tall by one and a half metre wide .
A perfect 90 degree arc was set up with 13 drums and 6 trumpets, all aiming at the stone . All the drums were made of 3mm thick sheet iron and metal heads instead of skins [sounds similar to Carribean oil drums], which were beaten with leather clubs The 6 trumpets were 3.12 metres long with  33cm  bowl? The monks carefully measured the distance from the stone to their arc of insruments to 63 metres.Eight of the drums were 1m in diameter and 1.5m long, 4 were 70cm x100cm. One more smaller drum being 20cm x 30cm. all three sizes being 3:1 ratio. In addition the harmonies of 200 monks lined up 8 or10 deep added to the focusing of energy toward the bowl and stone, having generated the required coherence through meditation.
As the harmonics of trumpets, drums and voices increased in tempo, after 4 minutes, the rock began to sway then suddenly it took off into the air with increasing speed to the platform in front  of the cave. After  minutes, it landed on the platform.Having temporarily lost half its atoms [if you could touch it it would feel spongy] due to being thrust beyond the light-speed barrier, it was able to ascend through a 500m arc  to it's targeted position.Not unlike  the tornado anomalies described of above.
Some of the stones having split due to intensity, they however managed to transport 5 or 6 blocks an hour. Dr.Jarl took the precaution of setting up a movie camera to film the whole process at two different occasions. The camera didn't lie. Unfortunately, the sponsers of Dr.Jarl, swooped in and  confiscated the films, as classified appeasing him with a srs[?] will story of a 1990 release date. It never occurred. Of  course I suspect readers will scoff it off as a likely tale.Why don't the monks demonstrate the method before skeptical scientists on live t.v.? Most likely the t.v.producers will be told to botch it somehow at the command of hidden authorities.




              Balinski, Young, and Arrow's Theorems On Choice And Creative Decision-making
                                                                    vs.                                    
                                                 Karl Popper's Criterion

               Has Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle also been at work here?



This is the second half of David Deutsch's Chapter 13- Choices, but not verbatum, as I have added some comments here and there and abbreviated some of David's paragraphs.

 Balinski and Youngs Theorem
Every apportionment rule that stays within the quota suffers from the population paradox

This work has a much broader context than the apportionment problem. During the 20th century, especially following the Second World War, a consensus had emerged amongst most major political movements that the future welfare of humankind would depend on an increase in society-wide [preferably worldwide] planning and decision-making. The Western consensus differed from its totalitarian counterparts in that it expected the object of the exercise to be the satisfaction of individual citizens' preferences. So Western advocates of society-wide planning were forced to address a fundamental question that totalitarians do not encounter: when society as a whole faces a choice, and citizens differ in their preferences among the options of which is best for society to choose? If people are unaminous, no problem arises, so  no need for a planner either. If not, which option can be rationally defended as being 'the will of the people'- the option that society wants? Which raises a second question:  how should a society organize its decision-making so that it does choose the options that it wants? These two questions had been raised, at least implicitly, from the beginning of modern democracy. For instance, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution both speak of the right of 'the people' to do certain things such as remove governments. Now they become the central questions of a branch of mathematical game theory known as 'social- choice theory'.Thus game theory-formely an obscure and somewhat whimsical branch of mathematics- was suddenly thrust to the centre of human affairs, just as rocketry and nuclear physics had been. Many of the world's finest mathematical minds, including von Neuman, rose to the challenge of developing the theory to support the needs of the countless institutions of collective decision-making that were being made up. They would create new mathematical tools which, given what all the individuals in a society want or need , or prefer, would destil what that society wants to do, thus implementing the aspiration of 'the will of the people'. They would also determine which systems of voting and legislation would give society what it wants. Some interesting mathematics was discovered. But little, if any, of it ever met those aspirations. On the contrary,time and again the assumptions behind social choice theory were proved to be incoherent or inconsistent by 'no go' theorums like that of Balinsky and Young.
Thus it turned out that the apportionment problem, which had absorbed so much legislative time, effort and passion was the tip of the ice berg. The problem is a lot less parochial than it looks. For instance, rounding errors are proportionally smaller with a larger legislature. So why not make the legislature very big, say ten thousand members , would be trivial? One reason is that such a legislature would have to organise itself internally to make any decisions.The factions within the legislature would themselves have to choose leaders, policies, strategies, and so on. Consequently all the problems of social choice would arise within the litle 'society' of a party's contingent in the legislature. So it is not really about rounding errors.Alas it is not about people's top preferences: once we are considering the details of decision-making in large groups-how legislatures, parties and factions within parties organize themselves to contribute their wishes to 'society's  wishes' - we have to take into account their second and third choices, because people still have a right to contribute to the decision-making if they cannot persuade a majority to agree to their first choice. Yet electorial systems designed to take such factors into account invariably introduce more paradoxes and no-go theorems.
One of the first no-go theorems was proved in 1951 by the economist, Kenneth Arrow, and it contributed to him winning the Nobel Prize in 1972. Arrow's theorem appears to deny he very existance of  social choice - and strike a the very principle of  representative government, apportionment, and  democracy itself This is what Arrow did. He first laid down five elementary axioms that any rule defining the 'will of the people' - preferences of a group - should satisfy, and these axioms seem ,at first sight, so reasonable as to be hardly worth stating .One of them is that the rule should define a group's preferences only in terms of the preferences of that group's members. Another is that the rule must not simply designate the views of one particular person to be  'the preferences of the group' regardless of what the others want. That is called the 'no-dictator axiom'. A third is that if the members of the group are unaminous about somehing - in that sense that they all have identical preferences about it - then the rule must deem the group to have those preferences too. Those three axioms are all expressions, in this situation, of the principle of representative government. Arrows fourth axiom is this. Suppose that under a given definition of 'the preferences of the group', the rule deems the group to have a particular preference - say for pizza over hamburgers.Then it must still deem that to be the group's preference if some members who previously disagreed with the group, preferring hamburgers, change their mind to pizza. This constraint is similar to ruling out a population paradox. A group would be irrational if it changed it's 'mind' in the opposite direction to it's members.
The last axiom is that if the group has some preference, and then some members changed their minds about something else, then the rule must continue to assign the group that original preference. For instance, if some members have changed their minds about the relative merits of strawberries and raspberries, but none of their relative merits of pizza or hamburgers have changed, then the group's preference between pizza and hamburgers must not be deemed to have changed either. This constraint can again be regarded as a matter of rationality: if no members of the group change any of their opinions about a particular comparison, nor can the group.
Arrow proved that the axioms that I have just listed are, despite their reasonable appearance , logically inconsistent with each other. No way of conceiving of 'the will of the people' can satisfy all five. This strikes at the assumptions behind social-choice theory at an arguably deeper level than the theorems of Young and Balinski. First ,Arrow's axioms are not about the parochial issue of apportionment, but about any situation in which we want to conceive of a group of preferences. Second ,all of these five  axioms are intuitively not just desirable to make a system fair, but essential for it to be rational. Yet they are inconsistent.
It seems to follow that a group of people jointly making decisions is necessarily irrational in one way or another. It may be a dictatorship, or under some arbitrary rule, or, if it meets all of these representativeness, then it must sometimes change its 'mind' in a direction opposite to that in  which criticism and persuasion have been effective So it will make perverse choices, no matter how wise and benevolent the people who interpret and enforce its preferences-unless, possibly,one of them is a dictator. So there is no such thing as 'the will of the people'. There is no way to regard 'society' as a decision-maker with self-consistant preferences. This is hardly the conclusion that social-choice theory was suppose to report back to the world.
As with the apportionment problem, there were attempts to fix the implications of Arrow's theorem with 'why don't they just...?' ideas. For instance why not take into account how intense people's preferences are? For if barely half of the electorate prefers X to Y , while the rest consider it a matter of life and death that Y should be done, then most intuitive conceptions of representative government would designate Y as 'the will of the people'. But intensities of preferences and especially the differences in intensities among different people, or between the same person but at different times, are notoriously difficult to define, let alone measure- like happiness. And, in any case, including such things makes no difference, there are still no-go theorems.
As with the apportionment problem, it seems that whenever one patches up a decision-making system in  one way it becomes  paradoxical in another.
Another serious problem that has been identified in many decision-making institutions is that they create incentives for participants to lie about their preferences. For instance  if there are two options of which you mildly prefer one, you have an incentive to register it as 'strong' instead. Perhaps you are persuaded out of some sense of public responsibility The Voltarian senses this with multiple choice questionnaires sent out by government  or market researchers, the nature of which are carefully designed to give them the answers they prefer to receive, not your true opinions or preferences.
But a decision-making moderated by civic responsibility has the defect that it gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of  people who lack civic responsibility and are willing to lie . On the other hand a society where everyone knows each other  pretty well , there is no need of a secret ballot just a show of hands this way or other yet the system will give disproportionate weight to those who can intimidate waverers.
One perinially controversial social-choice  problem is that of devising an electorial system. Such a system is mathematically similar to the apportionment problem, but instead of allocating seats to states on basis of population, it allocates them to candidates [or parties] on the basis of votes.apparently it is more paradoxical than apportionment and has more serious consequences, because in the case of elections the element of persuasion is central to the whole exercise: an election is suppose to determine what the voters have become persuaded of. The Voltarian calls this colour coded fascism /co-ercion  . Consequently an electorial system can contribute to, or can inhibit, traditions of criticism in the society concerned .The Voltarian calls this democracy if it contributes.For example, an electorial system in which seats are allocated wholly or partly in proportion to the number of votes received by each party is called proportional representation. We know from Balinski and Young that, if an electorial system is too proportional, it will be subject to the analogue of
the population paradox and other paradoxes. And indeed the political scientist Peter Klitgard in a study of the most recent eight elections in Denmark [under its proportional representation system] showed that every one of them manifested paradoxes. The Voltarian wonders whether this is a factor of The Heisenberg 'Paradox 'Principle on  a human society scale.  These included the 'More-preferred-Less-Seats-paradox', in which a majority of voters prefer party X to party Y but party Y receives more seats than X.
But that is really the least of the irrational attributes of proportional representation. A more important one - which is shared by even the mildest of proportional systems- is that they assign disproportionate power in the legislature to the third largest party,Z, and even to even smaller parties. It works like this. It is rare [in any system] for a single party to receive an overall majorityof votes. Hence, if votes  are reflected proportionately in the legislature ,no legislation can be passed unless some of the parties co-operate to pass it, and no government be formed unless some of them form a coalition. The Voltarian finds this the reason for U.K. Government's position since 2010 election. Because most of the major  parties are so bland in the policies they offer the nation, i.e more or less the same, whatever caters for corporate industry and banking but not the welfare of the nation a coalition had to be formed with Cameron as the P.M. and Clegg as the junior partner.The common outcome to this is that the leader of the third largest party holds the balance of power [could this be the UKIP leader rather than the Labour leader?] and decides which two parties  it shall join in government, and which shall be sidelined, and for how long, which means that it is correspondingly harder for the electorate to decide which party, and which policies  will be removed from power.
In Germany between 1949  and 1998 the Free Democratic Party  was the third largest after the Christian Democrat C.D.U. and C.S.U although it never received more than 12.8% of the vote but usually much less, the country's proportional representation gave it power that was insensitive to changes in the voter's opinions. On several occasions it chose which of the two largest parties would govern, twice changing sides and three times choosing the less popular of he two [as measured by votes] into power. The F.D.P.'s leader was usually made a cabinet minister as part of the coalition deal, with the result being ,that from 1969-1998, Germany had only two weeks without an F.D.P foreign minister. In 1998, when the F.D.P. was pushed into fourth place by the Green Party, it was immeadiately ousted from government, and the Greens assumed the mantle of kingmakers, taking charge of the Foreign Ministry as well. This disproportionate power that proportional representation gives the third largest party is an embarrassing feature of the system whose whole raison d'etre, and supposed moral justification is to allocate political influence proportionately.
Arrow's theorem applies not only to collective decision-making but also to individuals as follows. Consider a single, rational person faced with a choice between several options. If the decision requires thought, then each option must be associated with an explanation- at least a tentative one -for why it may be the best. To choose an option is to choose its explanation. So how does one choose which explanation to adopt?
Common sense says that one 'weighs' them, or weighs the evidence that their arguments present. This is an ancient metaphor. Statues of justice have carried scales since antiquity. more recently, inductivism has cast scientific thinking in the same mould, saying that scientific theories are chosen ,justified and believed- and even somehow even formed in the first place -  according to 'the weight of evidence' in their favour.
Consider that supposed weighing process. Each piece of evidence, including each feeling, prejudice, value, axiom, argument, and so on, depending on what 'weight' it had to that person's mind, would contribute that amount to that person's  preferences between various explanations. Hence, for the purposes of Arrow's theorem each piece of evidence can be regarded as an 'individual' participating in the decision-making process, where the person as a whole would be the 'group'.
Now the process that adjudicates between he different explanations would have to justify certain constraints if it were to be rational. For instance, if, having decided that one option was the best, the person received  further evidence that gave additional weight to that option, then the person's overall preference would still be for that option. Arrow says that those requirements are inconsistant with each other, and so seem to imply that all decision-making-all thinking-must be irrational. Unless, perhaps,one of the internal agents is a dictator, empowered to override the combined opinions of all the other agents. But this is an infinite regress: how does the dictator itself choose between rival explanations about which other agents it would be best to override?
There is something very wrong with the conventional model of decision-making, both within single minds and for groups as assumed in social-choice theory. It conceives of decision-making as a process of selecting from existing options according to a fixed formula [such as apportionment rule or electorial system]. In fact that is what happens at the end of decision-making- the phase that does not require creative thought. In terms of Edison's metaphor , the model only refers to perspiration phase without realizing that decision-making is problem-solving, and without the inspiration phase, nothing is ever solved and there is nothing to choose from. At the heart of decision-making is the creation of new options and the abandonment of modification of existing ones.To choose an option, rationally, is to choose the associated explanation. Therefore decision-making consists not of weighing evidence but of explaining it, in the course of explaining the world. One judges arguments as explanations , not justifications, and one does this creatively, using conjecture, tempered by every kind of criticism..........During the course of a creative process , one is not struggling to distinguish between countless different explanations of near equal merit; typically one is struggling even to create one good explanation, and once succeeded, one is glad to be rid of the rest.
Another misconception  to which the idea of decision-making by weighing sometimes leads is that problems can be solved by weighing- in particular, that disputes between advocates of rival explanations can be resolved by a weighted average of their proposals........ Something halfway between them
is usually worse than mixing two explanations to create a 'better' one , which needs more creativity. That is why good explanations are discrete- seperated from each other by bad explanations - and why, when choosing between explanations, we are  faced with discrete options.
It is not true that decision-making suffers from crude irrationalities, not that there is anything wrong with Arrow's theorem or any other no-go theorems, but because social-choice theory is itself based on false assumptions about what thinking and decision-making consists of. Similarly, a dictator in Arrow's sense is not the same as the normal definition consisting of secret police, torure and concentration camps for dissenters. It is simply an agent to whom society's decision-making  rules assign to make a  particular decision regardless of the preferences of anyone else.Thus every law that requires an individual's consent for something -such as a law against rape, or involuntary surgery or euthanasia-establishes a 'dictatorship' in the technical sense of Arrow's theorem. Everyone is a dictator over their own body. The law against theft establishes a dictatorship over one's own possessions, just as one is a dictator over one's ballot paper until posting it in the polling box. Arrow's theorem assumes that all participants are in sole control of their contribution to the decision-making process. Freedom of thought and speech, tolerance of dissent, and self determination of individuals, all require dictatorships in Arrow's mathematical sense.
Virtually all commentators have responded to these paradoxes and no-go theorems in a mistaken and rather revealing way in that they regret them. This illustrates the confusion to which I am referring. They wish all these theorems of pure mathematics were false. If only mathematics would permit it, they comlpain, we human beings could set up a just society that makes its decisions rationally. but faced with the impossiblility of that, there is nothing more we can do but decide which injustices and irrationalities we like best, and enshrine them in law. 'Hardly the best of all possible worlds' Leibniz would advocate,  says The Voltarian. As Webster wrote of the apportionment problem "That which cannot be done perfectly must be done in a manner as near perfection as can be " .
But what sort of perfection is a logical contradiction? A logical contradiction is a nonsense, as Edward Lear made so obviously clear in the 19th century. The truth is simpler: if your conception of justice conflicts with the demands of logic or rationality then it is unjust. If your concept of rationality conflicts with a mathematical theorem[ or many others] then your conception of rationality is irrational, unless you live beyond Lewis Carrol's looking glass, where everything to those who live there is normal, you are just as rational as they, unlike Alice, who IS the irrational one.To stick stubbornly to logically impossible values, this side of the looking glass, one rejects optimism, which is the norm in Wonderland, but nihilistic on our side, as it deprives one of the means to make progress. This, The Voltarian means by our civilization at present in a state of
stagnation. So few wish to change the order of things , government and economy especially, because it entails having to think  creatively. Let me now allow David to continue:
We need something better to wish for. Something that is not incompatible with logic, reason and progress. We have already encountered it as the basic condition for a political system to be capable of making sustained progress:Popper's criterion that the system faciliate the removal of bad policies and bad governments without violence. That entails abandoning 'who should rule?' as a criterion for judging political systems. The entire controversy about apportionment rules and all other issues in social-choice theory has traditionally been framed by all concerned in terms of 'who should rule?': What is the right number of seats for each state, for each political party? What do the groups want and what institutions will get what they want [presuming  they are entitled to rule over subgroups and individuals-Arrow's dictators?]?
So let's reconsider collective decision-making in terms of Popper's criterion. Instead of wondering earnestly which of the self evident yet mutually inconsistent criteria of fairness , representativeness etc are the most self-evident, so that they can be entrenched, we judge such criteria, along with all other actual or proposed political institutions, according to how well they promote the removal of bad  rulers and/or their policies.To do this, they must embody traditions of peaceful, critical discussion-of rulers, policies and the political institutions themselves.
In this view, any interpretation of the democratic process as merely a way of consulting the people to find out who should rule or what policies to implement misses the point of what is happening. An election does not play the same role in a rational society as consulting an oracle or priest, or obeying orders from the king as in earlier societies The essence of democratic decision-making is not the choice made by the system at elections , but by the ideas created between elections. And elections are merely one of the many institutions whose function is to allow such ideas to be created ,tested, modified and rejected. The voters are not a fount of wisdom from which the right policies can be imperically 'derived'. They are attempting, fallibly, to explain  the world and thereby to improve it .They are both individually and collectively seeking the truth- or should be, if they are rational. And there is an objective truth of the matter. Problems are soluble. Society is not a zero-sum game: the civilization of the Enlightenment did not get where it is today by cleverly sharing out wealth, votes or anything else that was in dispute when it began [Great!, Super!]. It got here by creating ex nihilo. {eh?!] In particular, what voters are doing in elections is not synhesizing a decision of a superhuman being 'society'. They are choosing which experiments are to be attempted next, and [principally] which are to be abandoned because there is no longer a good explanation for why they are best. Politicians and their policies are those experiments.
When one uses no-go theorems such as Arrow's to model real decision-making, one has to assume-quite unrealistically-that none of he decision-makers in the group is able to persuade others to modify their preferences, or to create new preferences that are easier to agree on.The realistic case is that neither the preferences or the options available need to be the same after as they were in the beginning.
Why don't they just ......fix social-choice theory by creating processes such as explanation and persuasion in its mathematical model of decision-making? Because it is not known how to  model a creative  process. such a model would be an A.I.
The conditions of 'fairness' as conceived in the various social-choice problems  are misconceptions analogous to empiricism: they are all about input to the decision-making process- who participates, and how their opinions are integrated  to form the 'preference of the group'. A rational analysis must concentrate instead on how the rules and institutions contribute to the removal of bad policies and rulers, and to the creation of new options.
Sometimes such an analysis does endorse one of the traditional requirements, at least in part. For instance , it is indeed important that no member of the group be privileged or deprived of representation. But this is not so that all members can contribute to the answer. It is because such discrimination entrenches in the system a preference among their potential criticisms. It does not make sense to include everyone's favoured policies, or parts of them, in the new decision: what is necessary for progress is to exclude ideas that fail to survive criticism, and to prevent their entrenchment, and to promote the creation of new ideas.
Proportional representation is often defended on the grounds that it leads to coalition  governments and compromise policies. But compromises-amalgams-of the policies of the contributors-have an undeservedly high reputation. Although they are certainly better than immeadiate violence, they are generally, as I have explained, bad policies. If a policy is no one's idea of what will work ,then why should it? But that is not the worst of it. The key defect of compromise policies is that when one of them is implemented  and fails, no one learns from it as no one agreed upon it. Thus compromise policies shield the underlying explanations which do at least seem good to some faction from being criticized and abandoned.
The system used to elect members of the legislatures of most countries in the British political tradition is that each district/constituancy in the country is entitled to one seat in the legislature and the seat goes to the candidate with the majority votes in that district. This, as earlier mentioned, is called 'plurarity voting system' or 'first-past-the-post' as there is no prize for the runner-up. This typically over represents the two largest parties, compared to the proportion of votes they receive. more-over, it is not guarenteed to avoid the population paradox.
These features are often cited as arguments against plurality voting in favour of proportional representation or other similar systems. However, under Popper's criterion, all is insignificant in comparison with the greater effectiveness of plurality voting at removing bad governments and policies.
Let me trace the mechanism of that advantage more explicitly. Following a plurality voting election, the usual outcome is that the largest majority, has the largest representation in he legislature[ Parliament in U.K.], thus taking sole charge. The losers sit  facing the winners in Parliament proceedings. This is rare under proportional representation, because some of the parties in the old coalition are usually needed in the new. The plurality system gives politicians the incentive to create new policies to persuade the electorate to vote for them next time.
 Is four years enough, or too much time? The Voltarian wonders.  He has elsewhere suggested that two may be adequate to prove to the nation the successful candidate's true intentions,.If policies promised  in those two years have come to pass or have failed, the choice is 'the will of the people' as to whether that party stay for a further two or more years.
In the plurality system, the winning explanations are then exposed to criticism and testing, because they can be implemented without mixing them with the important claims of opposing agendas. similarly the winning politicians are solely responsible for the choices they make, so they have the least possible scope to make excuses later if they have been deemed to be bad choices. [unfortunately, too many M.P.'s like to blame the last party's bad policies well into their  own tenure instead of changing them around as promised at election time.]  and so no scope for re-election next time, uless the election is "fixed" by  lobbying of big corporations and industries who side with the bad choices that suit them.
 Under proportional representation, small changes in public opinion seldom count for anything, and power can easily shift in  the opposite direction
to public opinion. What counts most is changes in the opinion of the leader of  third largest party, Z. This shields not only that leader but most of the incumbant politicians and policies from being removed from power through voting, yet often more likely to be removed by losing support from their own party members, or shifting alliances between or within parties. So in this respect, the system badly fails Popper's criterion. The all or nothing nature of the constituency elections, and consequent low representation of small parties, makes the overall out come sensitive to small changes in opinion. When there is a small shift away from  the ruling party, it is usually in real danger of losing power completely.
Under proportional representation there are strong incentives for the system's characteristic  unfairness to persist or worsen over time. For example, if a small faction defects from a large party, it may end up with more chance of having its policies tried out than if its supporters remained with the original party. This results in a proliferation of small parties in the legislature, which in turn increases the necessity for coalitions- including coalitions with the smaller parties, which further increases their disproportionate power. In Israel, the country with the world's most proportional electoral system, the effect has been so severe that, at the time of writing, [prior 2011/12]  even the two largest parties combined cannot muster an overall majority.  And yet under that system - which has sacrificed all other considerations in favour of the supposed fairness of proportionality - even proportionality itself is not always achieved: in the election of 1992, the right-wing parties as a whole received a majority of the popular vote, but left-wing  had a majority of the seats, because the greater majority of the fringe parties failing to reach the threshold for receiving only one seat were right-wing.
In contrast, the error-correcting attributes of the plurality voting system have a tendency to avoid the paradoxes to which the system is theoretically prone, and quickly to undo them when they do occur, because all the incentives are the other way round . For instance, in the Canadian province of Manitoba in 1926, the Conservative Party received twice as many votes as any other party, but won none of the 17 seats allocated to that province. As a result, it lost power in the  national Parliament even though it received the most votes nationally too. And yet, even in that rare extreme case the disproportion between the two main parties' representation in Parliament was not all that great. The average Liberal voter received 1.31 x as many members of Parliament as the average Conservative. And what happened next? The following election the Conservatives again  won on the most votes, nationally but gained the overall majority in Parliament. Its vote had increased by 3% of the electorate, but it's representation had increased by 17% of total seats, bringing the parties' shares of seats back into rough proportionality so satisfying Popper's criterion with flying colours.
This is partly due to yet another beneficial feature of plurality voting, namely that elections are very close, in terms of votes as well as that all members of the government are at serious risk of being removed. In proportional systems, elections are rarely close in either sense. What's the point of giving the party  the most seats if the third largest party can put the second in power? Unfortunately there are political phenomena that can violate Popper's criterion even more strongly. E.G entrenched racial divisions, or various traditions of political violence. Hence I do not intend the above discussion to constitute a blanket endorsement of plurality voting as 'The One True System ' of democracy suitable for all polities under all circumstances,[The Voltarian adds: after all democracy brought Hitler to power, skillful, or unskillful maneovering on his part did all the rest]. But in the advanced political cultures of the Enlightenment tradition the creation of knowledge  can and should be paramount, and the opposite is a mistake.
In the United States' system of government, the Senate is required to be the representative in a different sense to the House of Representatives: states are represented equally in the Senate but no always in the House of Representatives, as demonstrated above and in the main piece on apportionment.
Each are entitled to two Senate seats, regardless of population size. So why not do the same for the House of Representatives and have done with the apportionment problem? asks The Voltarian. Because the states differ so greatly in their populations, [currently California's population is 70x that of Wyoming's], the Senate's apportionment rule creates enormous deviations from population based proportionality- much larger than those disputed in  regard to the House of Representatives. And yet historically, after elections, it is rare for the Senate and the House of Representatives to be controlled by different parties. This suggests that there is more going on in this vast process of apportionments and elections than merely representation - the mirroring of the population by the legislature. Could it be that the problem-solving that is promoted by the plurality voting system is continually changing the options of the voters, and also their preferences among the options through persuasion?And so opinions and preferences, despite appearances are converging- not in the sense of there being less disagreement, but in the sense creating ever more shared knowledge.
In science, we do not consider it surprising that a community of scientists with different initial hopes and expectations, continually in dispute about their rival theories, gradually come into near-unanimous agreement over a steady stream of issues [yet still continue to disagree all the time]. It is not surprising because, in their case, there are observable facts that they can use to test their theories. They converge with each other on given issues because they are all converging on objective truth. In politics it is customary to be cynical about that sort of convergence being possible.
The Voltarian asks, whether more convergence on projects of national importance as well as importance to human  kind would be possible in Popper's Open Society, instead of jealousies due to fear of losing government funding for projects in  the present as well as future  ?
Throughout the West, a great deal of philosophical knowledge that is nowadays taken for granted by almost everyone- say that slavery is an abomination, or that women should be free to go out to work or that autopsies should be legal, or that promotion in the armed forces should not     depend on skin colour [ but does still depend on social class in U.K for higher ranks above Colonel and monetary-social in U.S. above N.C.O. level as well as age] -were highly controversial matters only decades ago when the opposite positions were taken for granted .A successful truth-seeking system works its way towards broad consensus or near- unanimity- the one state of public opinion that is not subject to decision-theoretic paradoxes and where the' will of the people' makes sense. So convergence in the broad consensus over time is made possible by the fact that all concerned are gradually eliminating errors in their positions and converging on objective truths. Faciliating that process - by meeting Popper's criterion as well as possible - is more important than which of the two contending factions with near equal support get's its way at a particular election.
In regard to the apportionment issue too, since the United States' Constitution was instituted, there have been enormous changes in the prevailing conception of what it means for a government to be representative . Recognizing the right of women to vote, for instance doubled the amount of voters - and implicitly admitted that in every previous election half the population had been disenfranchised whilst the other half were over represented compared with just representation, which in numerical terms dwarfed the injustices of the apportionment problem that has absorbed much of the political energy over the past two centuries. But it is to the credit of the political system, and of the people of the Western political world, that while they were fiercely debating the fairness of shifting a few percentage points' worth of representation between one state and another, they were also debating, and making, these momentous improvements, which too became uncontroversial.
The growth of the body of knowledge about which there is unanimous agreement does not entail a dying down of controversy: on the contrary, we will never cease to disagree on any issue until truth about it has been agreed upon and of course new issues and problems arise for us to disagree and debate upon. It is our, shall we say, genetic destiny to do so?