Property rights vs. the commons
The model of civilization provided by the Roman-Empire is the same model of civilization used today.
Namely, one acquires new property and new riches by violence, then, supposedly, one uses knowledge possessed by the culture, and related to practical creativity, to build structures, eg water-supplies and sewers and public buildings etc, which, it is claimed, improves the condition of life for those just conquered peoples, so that the conquered population becomes "used to" the built-structures, which are associated with these structures being used within society, in a practical (but very narrow) manner, by the people, where this public use would occur during the time-period of an oppressive occupation, an occupation which is based on violence, so that a way-of-life becomes familiar to the people, (a way-of-life associated to the social-physical structures of a technically identified social context), and the violent-imposition of oppression is administered by social institutions, within the new social-technical context [Does this sound familiar?], so as to define a social hierarchy.
Subdue a people (and their culture) by violence (steal what these peoples have, which has "value"), occupy based on both oppression and, so called, technical civic improvements, [ie provide free-lunches (or public works)], so that within such social context an institutional hierarchy is implemented, then take away the free-lunch (by instituting taxes) after a hierarchical social-oppression is institutionalized. Then within this narrowly defined but easily managed social context, swell the population so as to define a growth, based on narrowness, which is organized to be managed by only a few in the ruling class.
That is, the commons have been (come to be) redefined as the public-works, which have become a part of hierarchical institutions. The society has been privatized, based on a controlling social hierarchy. The commons can be ran-sacked at any time based on property rights and minority rule. This expansion was based on violence, and "the commons" were where there was no apparent value, and, thus, it was the place upon which the low-levels of society depended for their survival.
The issue is about law being based on equality, or based on property rights and minority rule.
In fact, one sees that water-supplies and sewers are unnecessary, when one considers the lives of the native people's of the Americas, their needs for food, water and shelter were easily met, simply by living in harmony with the world's environments, whereas, sewers get emptied into the water-ways and then the wastes polluted the village down-river.
If the water from the streams is not drinkable then it is being polluted by some improperly considered technology.
However, people should easily adapt to changes by moving elsewhere, rather than staying fixed, so as to admire their public-buildings.
That is, the great-value [related to the, so called, practical creativity (or to civic engineering)] of a created context results more from "a circularity and repetitiveness of a communication system," which exists within a hierarchical social system. That is, a clean water-supply is highly valued by the population only after the river has been polluted by a sewer-system (which is located somewhere).
Today developing water-filters to combat water-pollution is important, as is combating-disease, and building sanitary conditions, eg using the new pit-toilets, and developing energy through the re-new-able energy sources (including thermal-solar) are all great uses of practical knowledge.
But tinkering with genetic chemistry, wherein the relation of "DNA to the enzyme systems of life-forms" is not understood, and thus such tinkering is total insanity, since the relation of the chemical properties of DNA to the life-form and to the web-of-life is simply not understood.
Such chemical-tinkering is based on ignorance, an insufficient knowledge, and this use of ignorance is allowed, based on decisions within a (corrupt) justice system, since big corporations are using this incomplete-knowledge as a way to use a hierarchical system of knowledge to control a market (and the population), so the justice system is upholding this insanity and this great ignorance.
The earth supports the life which exists on earth, while practical knowledge is used to "improve one's living conditions," or make one's living conditions more conducive to developing practically knowledge related to creative (and selfless) works.
The basic question is about existence, and the realm (context and range) within which the "practical creativity" of humans is defined. Is it only the material world, or is there a natural context of existence and "practical doing" which is not confined to a material existence? This is where both science-math and religion have failed, and they have become managed by corrupt and/or ignorant people who are locked-in to a very narrow narrative, based on materialism and selfish gain, and who are afraid to seek to realize what they are within existence, frightened to either consider or experience how they reflect all of existence.
That is, "it is the violent destruction for selfish purposes of acquiring riches and property" which, of course, implies the idea of property-rights, which results in such a social construct being associated to a failed, but narrow and
fixed, way of doing-things.
It is the relative (or controlled) implementation of already developed practical knowledge (of the society which has been over-run by violence), and which determines if a "violent take-over of property" can be used to (or justified by) institute public works, which "improve the living conditions of the newly conquered society (people)," so as to then be able to institutionalize a social hierarchy based on an external knowledge, in turn based-on the selfishly motivated view of a material existence which is held by the conquering forces which seek to institute a social hierarchy, primarily built for the selfish-gain of a few.
In the US it is a question as to whether it is the social model of
the "violent Puritans" of New England (who represented the Roman model of violent take-over of the native people's land, but the so called better-life was only better for the colonizing Europeans)
(this leads one to ask, Was the Roman-Empire also based on the same type of self-referential culture based on colonization?)
The friendly Quakers, whose social model was to lived in harmony with the existing native populations and to interact with the other native cultures, whereas the native people's did not have the acquisitive life style of Europeans, and it is the native people who lived happier, more self-confident lives and who possessed a very deep knowledge
of the material environment of the native peoples (their lives were not all that difficult [they easily had food water and shelter], and they traveled and traded over great ranges)
Knowledge about what existed between the material and the spiritual worlds, or the verbally-spiritual world, where the verbal-spiritual was the propagandistic model of religion which the Europeans knew about religion,
(that is, the native peoples used the knowledge which they possessed and that knowledge existed between both the material and the living nature of existence).
The Quakers were the more energetic and more thriving community while the Puritans seemed to relish torturing and subjugating the people in their community, who deviated from a norm, where this norm was identified by a few people who comprised the ruling class [This should also sound familiar, ie What "norm" do today's surveillance-mangers serve?].
For example, B Franklin ran-away from Puritan Boston so as to thrive in the Quaker communities, but Franklin was arrogant and did not sufficiently praise and support the equality of the Quakers of which he needed so much in order for his life to thrive.
That is, the spirit for the Europeans was a form of propaganda about possessing high-value, but they attached themselves only to a narrow vision about possessing riches in an exclusively material-world.
Today, the "ancient aliens" TV show on History-channel, is still grappling with the ideas of ancient religions concerning the powers of giant peoples
(eg so many religious stories of creation deal with the giant origin of the first humans, ie emerging from the constellation Orion (the giant)),
which the religions represent as being both narrowly confined in their views and selfish in that narrow outlook as to the existence-properties of the Gods, ie the difficult challenge of continually transcending the creation of existence by the natural living entities which are fundamental to existence,
So that the "ancient aliens" TV show, attributes these mysteries to the existence of superior-intelligences who can better deal with the material context, so as to provide the lowly mankind with technical gifts concerning the material-world, ie a myth of inequality and the diminution of the powers of individuals of the human species, ie a very narrow context concerning the nature of existence.
The amazing building capabilities of the ancient world was a world where knowledge was about both (1) the material world and (2) "the living world and a world which transcends the material world,"
and this knowledge has been demonstrated by the skillful work in very old cities, which are over 12,000 year old (perhaps greater than 30,000 years old) wherein structures of great size were built so that the work demonstrates deep technical knowledge of material and a capacity to technically create in a material context at a high-level, even beyond our technical understanding today.
These engineering marvels of ancient mankind are shown on the "Ancient Alien" TV shows on History-channel, but they are improperly interpreted to show that mankind is inferior except for the few elites.
But the correct interpretation is that;
This was possible for mankind who possessed a deeper knowledge, which transcends the idea that there only exists "a material world," and the absurd idea, based on violence, of "an arbitrary high-value being represented by an elite few," who are to be allowed to "dominate society by violence."
The current basis for science, ie the knowledge needed for practical creativity, first it is assumed by science that "the world can only be a material world" and that different regimes of differential equations define measurable properties of physical systems
1. Classical solvable and based on the existence of measurable properties of relatively stable material systems, this is the set of precise descriptive structures upon which a great deal of all the practical technical development in the western civilization is based. Note: "western" means society based on the Roman-Empire, or whose main religions are Judeo-Christian-Islam.
2. Classical, non-linear these are quantitatively inconsistent descriptive structures, used to describe unstable material system patterns, which can only be controlled based on the properties of the system's differential equation itself, ie not the (solved) properties of the system, where the information derived from the properties of the system's differential equation can be used in feedback systems, ie this means that the system is contained in a discontinuous set of descriptive structures, between which the system's description is changed where these changes are based on the observed properties of the system being fed-back so this information is used to alter the description of the system, but the system still being related to the differential equation (the changing conditions are discontinuously and totally outside the context of the system's descriptive structures)
3. General relativity also non-linear and un-relatable to practical use,
since the observed properties of the solar system are stable, but the descriptive structures available to describe the solar-system can only describe a non-linear quantitatively-inconsistent, and thus chaotic, context.
Furthermore, there are the very stable nuclei, general atoms, molecules, molecular shapes, and crystal properties, which all go without valid quantitative descriptions.
Thus there are
4. Quantum physics randomness, ie function spaces of harmonic-functions, and operators, which represent measurable properties, together are used to define a statistical mess, which cannot be used to identify the observed stable spectral-orbital properties of general quantum systems, because the observed spectral properties of general, but very fundamental, quantum systems cannot be found to sufficient precision with this method, it has become a method of statistical (or probabilistic) manipulation of non-physically motivated models of these general quantum systems. Within this failed context, of not being able to identify by physical law the spectral properties of general quantum systems to sufficient precision, it can be defined as a method of indefinable randomness.
It is, more or less a method which tries to identify macroscopically physically measurable properties with sets of operators, which, in turn, act on sets (or spaces) of harmonic functions, ie functions of the form, Ae^i(Et-px), that is operators which act on sets of functions whose domain spaces are defined on sets of circles.
That it, quantum theory is a description which tries to use the properties of probability to fit the descriptive structure to the observed data.
Yet many of the reasons for abandoning classical, or geometrical-and-measurable based, description are not really resolved by the quantum context, such as accelerating charges giving-off electromagnetic radiation (so as to give-off energy)... ,
[whereas a bounded system composed on individual, free charges moving in an unknown, yet, nonetheless, bounded context, in turn, requires these free charges to possess various types of charge-accelerations, and, thus, causing these charges to give-off electromagnetic radiation],
... ., so as to make the system unstable.
Whereas, If one identifies the descriptive context so that the (quantum, or physical, charged) systems and their interactions exist in a set of open-closed metric-space structures, whose geometry is that of circle-spaces, so that the description depends on processes defined in a discrete manner, with discrete relations existing between the separate descriptive structures (or separate metric-spaces, which are involved in the descriptive structure), then this is a descriptive context which has many similarities to a harmonically-based quantum description, but would account for a closed system, which, when left undisturbed, would not give-off electromagnetic radiation.
5. Particle-physics, whose properties are only related to calculating elementary-particle cross-sections, "Where is a precise description of a general nuclei's stable spectral properties, where the description is based on the laws of particle-physics?" (Answer: No such description exists, ie it is a physically useless theory since it is based both on indefinable randomness, ie it is mathematically structured to adjust the wave-function of a regular quantum system, and non-linearity, ie its is both chaotic and quantitatively inconsistent)
Particle-physics is based on data which can be interpreted to mean that there are dimensional levels in regard to U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3), which are unitary, ie based on pairs of opposite metric-space states, where these levels have stable patterns associated to themselves, ie the particle-collision patterns, but whose interpretation is confined to the idea of materialism, but the particle-collision patterns are not stable properties, but the patterns of this suggests the idea of grand-unification which is an idea related to SU(n), and this does imply the material world is but a single dimensional-level within a many-dimensional context where the many-dimension model implies a transcendence of the idea of materialism. There is a new idea which builds the higher-dimensions with stable geometric shapes, rather than trying to build it with the ideas of indefinable randomness and non-linearity.
6. Derived theories, eg string-theory, derived from both particle-physics and a model of gravity consistent with general relativity, it is a geometric theory consistent with indefinable randomness, non-linearity and the idea of materialism.
Where all of the above descriptive structures demand the idea of materialism, and all of these descriptive structures cannot be used to describe the observed stable properties of the above mentioned fundamental physical systems. The basis for the current math models of physical systems is both indefinable randomness and non-linearity, and these descriptive structures cannot be used to describe the observed stable properties of (general) physical systems, which exist at all size-scales.
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion