The Problem With Artificially Low Interest Rates


If a shift from low volatility to high volatility signals a change for the worse in the macroeconomic outlook, then the collapse in the yield of short term US Treasury securities is a symptom of the current credit crisis, which has infected all the sectors of the credit market save the highest quality credits.

At the same time, the sharp decline in the yield of ten- and 30-year Treasury bonds and the collapse of lower-quality bond prices seem to indicate that a bad deterioration in US and world economic conditions is about to occur. Since, according to Philip Isherwood, equities tend to perform poorly when volatility is high, cash and bonds would seem to be a good alternative. But, stating his case in favour of US equities on CNBC, a US money manager made the comment that “money in cash is also at risk”. This is certainly true for bank deposits, CDs all structured products, and even money market funds, because the return of capital is uncertain. In the case of Treasury securities, “money is also at risk” but for different reasons.

In the case of Treasuries, the return of capital won’t be a problem for now, but I suppose that with a yield of less than 2% on two-year, 3.7% on ten year, and 4.5% on 30-year Treasury securities, the risk is that inflation (not that published by the government, but the cost of living increase for the median household), which is already higher than these yields, will over time completely eat away the purchasing power of the principal, including the interest.

I hope my readers understand the problem of interest rates, which are artificially low and below the rate of inflation. This forces investors, including individuals, institutional investors, and state and private pension funds, into risky investments, which as we have now seen can also lead to widespread losses. In fact, the losses are now so large that they threaten the entire financial system. I estimate that, when all is said and done, the losses experienced by the financial sector and investors brought about by Mr. Greenspan’s and Mr. Bernanke’s irresponsible monetary policies will exceed several trillion US dollars if we add up the combined capital losses on homes, nongovernment bonds, and equities.

Expressed in Euros or gold, the total wealth of the US has already shrunk by at least 40-50% since 2000. I don’t have a high regard for any government (except, possibly, that of Singapore), but the most destructive course a society can embark upon is to appoint academics to positions of responsibility. A problem of artificially low interest rates that is seldom discussed is that many individuals depend on interest income in order to meet their living expenses. Equally, pension funds depend on a certain annual income to meet their present and future liabilities. Moreover, high interest rates provide investors with a cash flow, which can cushion downturns in asset values. Say, an individual or a pension fund owns a balanced portfolio: 50% in equities and 50% in fixed income securities of various maturities. Let’s assume that, in a given year, the stock portfolio declines by 20%. If interest rates average 10% on the fixed income portfolio, the total loss on the portfolio will “only” be around 10%.

Moreover, the cash flow from the fixed income portfolio can be reinvested in equities. But what if the yield on the fixed income portfolio averages only 3%? Obviously, the opportunity to make up for the losses on the stock portfolio by investing the cash flow and averaging down diminishes. And what if the annual cost-of-living increases average 5% or more? In this case, the purchasing power of money will rapidly vanish. Moreover, because of negative real interest rates, consumer price inflation will accelerate, as was the case in the 1970s. At the same time, the “real” spending power of households whose income depends on fixed interest securities will be cut and their standards of living will decline.

My friend David R. Kotok, chairman and chief investment officer of Cumberland Advisors, writes regular insightful comments on the US financial market. Recently he stated: “We still have to deal with dysfunctional credit markets. The Fed must persist in their work of creating liquidity. Only time and transparency will relieve the problem of insolvency. That process is working, too. It takes time and it does and will succeed. Remember, there are no examples of Depression in economic history where stimulus was applied and where the inflation-adjusted interest rate was brought to zero by the central bank. That is the condition in the US today. In sum, stimulus works.”

Well, David, on this one I must disagree with you. I know many economies where monetary and fiscal stimulus was applied and yet they still went into depression. In all these economies, the inflation-adjusted interest rates were not only brought down to zero but, in fact, significantly below zero. The failed experiment by John Law with paper money in France at the beginning of the 18th century ended with a depression, and money printing in Germany between 1918 and 1923 brought about total impoverishment of the German working and middle class. Latin America went through extremely poor economic conditions in the 1980s. (In Argentina, car sales declined by more than 50% between 1980 and 1988.)

However, in all these instances, the depression wasn’t accompanied by nominal price declines but by hyperinflation and collapsing asset prices, GDP, and standards of living in real terms. In fact, I know of two little empires that, as a result of excessive monetary and fiscal stimulus, went bankrupt and ceased to exist: the Roman and Spanish empires.

Admittedly, these empires’ rulers weren’t as smart as our present-day leaders of Western democracies… .

Also, I was pleased to hear that Robert Mugabe (another academic with several degrees from Oxford and an honorary degree bestowed on him by China’s Hu Jintao “for his brilliant contribution to international diplomacy and peace”) has offered Mr. Bernanke a teaching job at the University of Harare. This will provide him with a first-hand opportunity to study the devastating impact of excessive monetary and fiscal stimulus on a society.

So, to a large extent, I agree that “money in cash is also at risk”, because there is the risk either of default or that money’s purchasing power will decline. Also, I am beginning to wonder for how much longer buyers of ten- and 20-year Treasury bonds will accept their low yields, which are now below the cost-of-living increases and below nominal GDP. The poorly delivered, contradictory, and incoherent statements made by Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke at a recent Senate hearing didn’t provide much comfort to holders of US fixed interest securities. Not surprisingly, gold has more than doubled since Bernanke was appointed Fed chairman, while the yield on 30-year US government bonds is higher now than before the January 125 basis points Fed fund rate cuts.

Surely, the Fed can cut the Fed fund rate to zero. But this doesn’t mean that longer-dated bonds will rally. If inflation were to accelerate further, rate cuts would inevitably lead to higher long-term rates and capital losses on long-term bonds – particularly if the dollar weakens further! In other words, the Fed can bring down short-term interest rates, but it has little power over the longterm bond market. I may add that one of the problems of hyperinflating economies is that the long-term fixed rate bond market ceases to exist.

I should like to introduce one more thought. Throughout most of the 1970s interest rates were below the rate of nominal GDP growth and negative in real terms. So, what happened? Inflation accelerated, bond yields soared from 6% in 1970 to above 15% in 1981, and the US dollar tanked. After 1981, we had for most of the following 20 years bond yields that were above both nominal GDP growth and the rate of inflation (positive real interest rates).

What happened? We had a lengthy period of disinflation. Also, because real interest rates were particularly high in the early 1980s, we had a huge US dollar rally between 1980 and 1985. After 2001, we again had interest rates that were below both nominal GDP growth and cost-of-living increases, which led to the unprecedented credit inflation we experienced between 2001 and 2007 and the subsequent historic bust.

Now, let us assume that market participants begin to believe in the nonsense Mr. Bernanke has been coming out with concerning “money printing” and “dropping dollar bills from helicopters” in order to stabilize asset markets and avoid economic downturns. They will begin to realize that he is the messiah of the gold bulls and the arch-enemy of sound money.

What will investors do? They will dump bonds and the US dollar en masse. In this context, it is interesting to note that recently, on very poor economic statistics, bonds didn’t rally but sold off. The Institute for Supply Management’s non-manufacturing index, which is representative of almost 90% of the US economy, fell in January from 54.4% to 41.9%. (A reading of 50 is the dividing line between growth and contraction, and the index has averaged 57.6% since its inception in 1997.) January retail sales – closely scrutinised – were a disaster and confirmed my view that US economic statistics published by the government misinform the public about the true state of the economy.

How can January auto retail sales increase by 0.6% when volume sales were down 6% month-on-month? According to David Rosenberg, in addition to declining sales at department stores (down in three of the last four months), sporting goods and book stores, furniture and building materials stores, sales at electronic stores were down 1% in January on top of a 2.5% slide in December, which represents the worst back-to-back performance since the 1990 recession. According to Rosenberg, the “bottom line is that the cyclical components of retail sales – autos + clothing + furniture + electronics + sporting goods + building materials + department stores – were down 0.1% in January.

By way of comparison, spending on gasoline, food and health care rose 1.1% collectively for the month.”

The poor state of the economy is reflected by the collapse of the ABC News/ Washington Post Consumer Comfort Index and its various components. The personal finance component is now lower than it was in 2002. Also, the University of Michigan index of consumer sentiment collapsed in January to its lowest level since 1992. According to Rosenberg, “consumer sentiment is now at a level that is telling us that we are not on the eve of a recession but are rather already several months into the downturn”.

As I have noted in earlier reports, the US economy is already in recession in real terms, but this fact is obscured by the government’s grossly understating price increases throughout the economy. Despite, in my opinion, horrible economic statistics (in real terms), the Fed needs to be very careful not to disturb bond holders by “printing too much money” (electronically), which – aside from the collapse in lowerquality bonds that had already occurred – would also lead to a rout in long-term government bond prices. At the same time, the US must be increasingly careful about its budget deficits and about bailing out the entire financial sector, which is loaded with crappy paper.

Otherwise, Treasury securities will reach “junk status” sooner than I had expected. But I can very confidently predict that, in the long term, US debt will become “junk”!

So, whereas under a sound monetary regime high-quality bonds would be – like utilities – a candidate to outperform, under a central bank that lacks any monetary discipline they are a rather dangerous investment. But this isn’t to say that, at some point in the current downturn, distressed lower-quality bonds won’t provide a great buying opportunity.


Dr. Marc Faber
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Marc Faber
Dr. Marc Faber is the editor of The Gloom, Boom and Doom Report and author of Tomorrow's Gold, one of the best investment books on the market. Headquartered in Hong Kong for 20 years and now based in northern Thailand, Dr. Faber has long specialized in Asian markets and advised major clients seeking bargains with hidden value, unknown to the average investing public.


  1. I watched that senate hearing referred to,Paulson and Bernanke were green around the gills and squirmed in their seats,as they spluttered and squealed.

    I’m sure a studier of body language would tell you they were distressed in their attempt to avoid telling the truth.

    But the distress on their faces betrayed them,I felt extremely uneasy watching them.

    Justin Towner
    March 7, 2008
  2. I too watched Bernanke speak recently and prior. I agree with Justin’s remarks.

    Few realize this, but USA (I am a citizen by birthright in 1942.) is already bankrupt. Roughly, our deficits, debts and unfunded liabilities exceed $75Trillion! Even Joe Lieberman has written WSJournal columns about this. The Chronicle (US tertiary, post tertiary academic rag) has published at least one article about this.

    Faber is in my opinion telling it “like it is.”

    USA, from my perspective, is becoming…rapidly…a banana republic.

    Dr. Faber, thank you for your excellent article.

    Doug Renselle
    In Quantonics
    Carmel, INdiana USA

  3. …oh…kay…stately naked oak…art thou in default, yet again….thy prodigious bole encrowned with heaps of mildewed debt and withered stalk…their phantom bonds released….

  4. Faber is difficult to swallow since his advice always is historically removed from the current problem. The debt problem in the USA, and elsewhere as well, is the step child of liberalism which depends on one believing 6 impossible things before breakfast. Of course none of the things are workable over the long run and ultimately things go down hill. That is where we are today in history, beliefs are out of whack with reality. The return to self sufficiency, hard currencies, and modest roles in government, etc., will require the pain of a global crash. We are not there yet, but it will likely come this decade. Faber is temporizing with the depth of the problem and its likely outcome. It is not just the dollar but a belief system that is in distress.
    J.W. Carpenter
    Seattle, WA. USA

    March 11, 2008
  5. The system of economic currency is an artificial system as all of us know. It currency is as powerful as electricity, and emerged on the same principles, potential -> actual, and hence the nature of human will is integral to the system working.

    The circularity of the system that is in place which has granted anarchic freedoms for the business sector, has throughout history steered the direction of science and education, in order to defend the empirical mindset, resulting in an economy that serves defence, and hence a science that has been conditioned and funded to create more powerful means of defence, of social management and control.

    Since the 1950’s the semantic language of digital systems has made manifest the principles of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (base 2 logic and non contradiction), and generated a powerful means of control, to the point that it is advantageous for humans to think of themselves as they would think of machines: closed systems, thereby negating consciousness as the energy aspect of material substance.

    Linguistic theory has permitted business to condition the consumer thereby manipulating the consumers descisions and consequently that market is driven not by the consumer, but by corporations who now more than ever control through the funding of research and hence direct scientific progress to ensure technological progress, with the objective to defend the mindset itself. As the economy is primarily based on the petrochemical and coal industries, any science that has offered serious alternatives, since the 1880’s, has been marginalised and attacked as fringe science.

    The sacrifice has been the truth of consciousness and of cosmology, and we are currently baring witness to the extraordinary power of business to increase radical exploitation of everything that is considered a resource, including the human being.

    The fusion of cybernetics, transhumanism, and genetic engineering is the fronteer of extreme fascist control. The very science that has been exploited to extend these frontiers: hyperincursive anticipatory systems or chaos theory, is being used to destroy freedoms by denying the resolution of the hard questions of conscoiusness and cosmology, permitting the chaos of argument and incoherence to reign unchecked, unless the theory is supportive of religious deism (judeo christian), the infinite void (jewish, agnosticsm, atheism etc), and any religion that negates the reasoning of complementary opposites being mutually exclusive aspects of the whole, rather than absolute entities in their right.

    All things have both positive and negative potentials.

    This war against evil is the means to defend the mindset of empire itself.

    The sacrifice is not only human freedom, but life itself, as ecologists have warned that such an economic system can only sustain 500,000,000 (

    Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics is only applicable to closed systems. Hyperincursive anticipatory systems are not closed.

    Unethical freedoms for an artifical system, aka the petro chemical economy will lead to evolutionary degeneration in natural and social systems.

    Life occurs as a continuous generation through the moebius twist of involution (hyperincursion). living things decay and the carbon is sequestered into the mineral kingdom. Living things do not emerge from mere matter. Matter and energy are mutual states of the one thing, and the electromagnetic spectrum embeds all ratios in a holographic nonlinear unity.

    Emerson’s platonic business model maintains difference, heirarchy and linearity, and permits those who are financially successful and hence the most powerful, to govern the system.

    His deist idealsim is a mere 1880’s reductive materialism of a hope that wisdom will prevail.

    Since globalisation and mutual contracts between nations, multinational-corporations have been granted so many fringe benefits and legal loopholes (semantic linguistic theory and rhetorics) that anarchy has been permitted to flourish and top down undemocratic control directed by coporate enterprise.

    The defence of the petrochemical and coal industry has negated and retarded the noble pursuit for truth since 1880. The stake? Life itself.

    Waiting for those who dominate this system to develop wisdom is doomed to failure, as those who seek to climb the ladder are the young and accutely conditioned to believe that this system is NATURAL and that mind is mere brainstates (artifical intelligence).

    Liberation is the act of colonising and franchising the people from a state of NATURAL freedom, to an social contract. This is the YOKE of citizenship. Progressing beyond the YOKE is the key, but nigh impossible as the education systems themselves are geared to create ignorance of the flaws in the mindset itself.

    A point has dimension. It is called a Plank unit.

    To grant a point zero dimension, (void) and not remember that this is in fact an abstraction for the purpose of reverse engineering nature, is the major flaw in the mindset which is dictated as educational programmes. Russell’s “Science and Society” pointed all of this out.

    All wholes have two primary complements that are mutually exclusive and hence coexist in a superposition until either aspect is apprehended by the observer. All technologies have + and – attributes. All semantic meaning fields generate + and – meanings. It is for this reason that philosophy and critical skills, indeed the liberal arts need to be integrated with science to return to some semblance of intellectual sanity.

    Words are powerfull. They were the first manifestation of currency and contracts. They are propaganda, commandments, dictates, programmes, grammatria, and in so being humans have been hoodwinked and enslaved by words and signatures and permissions to commit “necessary” acts of evil, and clear one’s con-science through direct philanthropy and research funding.

    Can the grand finale of human sacrifice be stopped?

    Melanie Claire Purcell Phd

    Newcastle (the worlds largest coal port (!)


  6. Melanie Purcell PhD,
    I think too much learning has made you mad.

  7. If you are suggest that too much learning has made me angry, then yes, you would be quite correct.

    It seems to me that there is a propensity for those who contain themselves by the boundaries and constraints of a single discipline, in this case economic theory, which is spoon fed from above by other disciplines considered higher in the linear hierarchy of knowledge, then it would be likely that you are either unaware of the wars that rage in nearly all disciplines, and that science itself is not by any means impervious to the agglomeration of crises in the foundations of knowledge. Indeed, it is a fact that there exists a serious battle between those defend the mindset albeit all but shattered, as if it is the dominant mindset that will deliver the liberty and freedom that humanists and free thinkers alike would hope for. That the sciences have been constantly mediated by governors and those engaged in social management, is an historical fact as agency of empire itself is the defence of the culture.

    The issue seems plain to me. That the more primitive modality of knowledge is to serve the military and hence defend the culture, and the secondary modality is the noble pursuit to seek the truth. One, the former, is imposed upon the other, and uses it to expand in an all consuming manner to the boundaries of the whole. That the boundaries themselves keep shifting through the means of technology, to the point that all of nature and humans included are the mere resource to serve the conquering of space, throws the entire project into an infinite search for the limitless constraints.

    It is undeniable that the current epoch is the result of the need to secure resources, a call made in 1880, and the response was Australia. The coal reserves are limited. Is this a serious problem? Of course. It is as serious as it was then, however, then as now had alternatives, and then as now had choices, however the choice being made now, as it was then, is to continue with business as usual as the economy is based is on petrochemical and coal based industries, and conservative liberals cannot see out of their peer reviewed boxes. In a country that has endured nearly 12 years of conservative liberal dictates, which has reformed all educational institutions under the Business/Education Roundtables initiated in 1998, which has been instrumental in imposing a conservative top down filter over all disciplines, it is no wonder that that the brain drain continues.

    The governors of this county have organized a series of maneuvers that ensured the Hunter Valley, which prior to 1975 was the most productive food bowl, as an open cut mine. In the face of climate change, and after James Lovelock 2005, suggested the short term use of Nuclear Power stations that were already built across the world, so that coal mining could stop completely, and provide a breathing space so that real solutions could be negotiated, Howard increased mining, and put Nuclear power back on the table, totally misrepresenting what Lovelock had said. The general public is told through the BBC “Moon for Sale” that the hope for the future is mining the moon, and in the same week, Richard Branson uses Steven Hawking to tell the public that there is MORAL OBLIGATION to mine the moon.

    Of course big business does not wish to change their portfolios, rather they would continue to consume everything, in order to preserve the economy itself. And if you do not see that big business is engaged in technologies that assist military advantage, you sir would be mad.

    If indeed your comment is stated to suggest that I am actually not angry, but insane, then can you give me one good reason why continuing with business as usual, is not the most insane direction to continue with? Particularly when the Institute of Space Energy Research headed by Harmut Muller in Germany, and the Institute of Basic Research headed by Ruggero Santilli in Florida, and indeed the research concerning hyperincursive anticipatory systems theory carried out by the British Computer Society, CASYS and CHAOS, offer the most important alternative technologies that in some cases (Santilli) could be utilized immediately.

    However it is not that simple, as you would have to be aware of how the American Physical Society is reformulating all of this research in order to serve its military strength, and that this society directly informs, as one would expect the UN Security Council.

    The mediating of knowledge this is nothing new, the APS simply is the means through which the Super Power of America redirects knowledge to support the military, and this is what all civilized cultures have always done, and what the British did before them.

    This is the inheritance of the primitive use of science inherent in empires.

    The tragedy is that intelligent individuals do not think for themselves, and in presuming that they are free, do not even consider the constraints of mutual contracts such as citizenship, amongst other more concrete forms of corporate exchange, that are continually engaged and that continually bind.

    When an institution suggests that only material from the past few years that is mediated by peer reviewed councils, (publish or perish) is valid, and that looking into the history and philosophy of maths and science is unnecessary, and that indeed there is no real need for critical subjects that are not outcomes based such as the many that constitute the liberal arts, well then the culture is in real trouble and will blindly progress to the eschatologically ordered technological singularity.

    If that is what you consider is fine, then you probably are in good company. There are many who believe that the only way to objective thought is to progress to the point of ultimate artificial intelligence. Too bad that life itself will not be worth living, as the destruction of the planet by then will be completely irretrievable, that is for organic organism such as people, but perhaps not for cyborgs: only the future will tell.

    I happen to like this planet, and I like living, and I resent being told continuously that we live in a democracy, while our leaders are dragging us into a particular direction simply because this planet is run by a bunch of egocentric power hungry men who have always exhibited a general disgust for nature and all things feminine.

    Melanie Purcell
    March 29, 2008
  8. Wow Melanie,sock it to ’em. I bet you’re beautiful as well. Keep writing, we need to lift the level.

  9. A conspiracy theory, but a very well dressed one. You really need to be specific, but that would require some empirical conclusions, arrived at via a formal analysis, which you seem to deny yourself. Those “egocentric power hungry men” are now fully supportive of climate change and the need to “do something” about it. The ‘solution’ will kill us more comprehensively than the current regime.

  10. Kage

    Yo said to Melanie Purcell: “A conspiracy theory, but a very well dressed one. You really need to be specific, but that would require some empirical conclusions, arrived at via a formal analysis”.

    The theory of the fascists being in control of things is true. Just look at a couple of things Marc Faber said:

    “inflation (not that published by the government, but the cost of living increase for the median household)”

    “I don’t have a high regard for any government (except, possibly, that of Singapore)”

    It’s common knowledge that most of the data used to compile a formal analysis is BS so how can you really come up with any empirical conclusions? All governments and the major institutions in the world are working towards destroying all the nations and create a global fascist state. Sounds crazy I know, but it’s just the facts.

    Alot of people reckon that the Federal Reserve chairmen of the recent times are idiots or something. I beg to differ. These people are as intelligent and intelectual as anyone and know the consequences of their current polices (excesive money creation, lax regulation, speculation, etc). They have an agenda and that is to globalise or create a New Order in which they control the whole world thorugh all the puppet regimes they established and support all over the planet and the financial system, etc.

    James Bond
    March 30, 2008
  11. James,
    Such lengthy comments like Melanie’s that lack some sort of data (disputed or otherwise) leave me a little bit high and dry. I guess we all sense the need to make sense of our world, but to distrust every datum arriving at your point of cognition is not very constructive. Yes, data needs to be assessed for its own integrity, but to write off the idea of actually analysing what is going on around you (because you found some faulty data) is somewhat apathetic and sells you short as a human being.

    One of the major social trends is the reliance on the expert. Our world and the issues contained therein all seem to take on proportions beyond the human scale. The need for coherence makes us resort to the expert for explanation and leadership. A great example of this is the increasing tendency of governments to tell us what is good for us (eg. global warming). This happens because governments can sense a need that is no longer met by community, church and family life. A need in large part they have caused through the destruction/marginalising of these groups (and others). People are no longer taught to think independently or to respect their own individuality – indeed they are exhorted to practice self-censorship and other self destructive though processes.

    Collectivist notions via government insinuation now hold sway. Yes, the mind is indeed repelled, but that just means that we need more than ever to question and analyse our own circumstances and situations. Oh, and find solutions. If you don’t fight you lose.

  12. I think J. W. Carpenter’s attempt to blame our economic distress on liberalism is pathetic. Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke are conservative Republicans.

    As we know conservatives are unable to process information that disagrees with previously held ideology. And so they ignore six possible things before breakfast, congratulating themselves all the while on their clear-sightedness. Pathetic.

    March 30, 2008
  13. It interesting to see that in a google search for my name, the first entry that comes forward is accompanied by Rod Grant’s comment alone.

    In terms of negating communication about complex issues, using comments as Grant has done, seems like a tactic and trap often used by pathological sceptics (as opposed to healthy scepticism), that serve simply and superficially to discredit a person like myself, whose interests are NOT in conspiracy theories, but in working through ridiculous either/or prejudices that arise from over simplified discourse.

    The split between oppositional sides of an argument perpetuate conflict, and negates the fact that with every concept of thing, there are two primary and complementary attributes. Argument and prejudice prevails today as a serious block to moving forward.

    One thing can appear as either attribute or indeed of both, depending on the filters through which one observes the world. Filters are determined through culture, conditioning, education, environment, experience, and technology.

    The fear from conservatives, that technological alternatives will destroy the economy, is as true as believing that the consumer drives the market in a world that nurtures and progresses sophisticated media advertising and propaganda potentials under the presumption that business advertising is educative (a comment directed at the government of San Paulo who outlawed advertising and billboards) rather than commercial. (I would argue that advertising is indeed taken seriously, and is the means through which a utilitarian ethic is delivered, however utilitarian ethics relies on the meaning of the word whole, and hence on the allegiance that an individual or corporation has to this whole. The whole has been cast as many things, the self, the corporation, the nation, the dominant mindset, the planet, and indeed in a technological culture that is rapidly progressing in its “space odessy 2001” the whole is infinite, and dependent on the lineage of the dominant mindset and its intentions to consume all resources in order to order to get “lost in space”?

    The benefits and the deficits of one’s actions are determined by the way in which utilitarian ethics is applied, the nature of the “whole”, and the nature of one’s allegiance.

    This is reason for the original comments concerning the utilitarian approach, that is, doing the greatest good for the whole that one serves, as the single greatest concern for the preservation of life on this planet, and the hope for progress to remain business as usual, is to “deal” with the issue of serious over population.

    You may not be too old to remember the attractive tales spun about progressing to computers, that paper will be a thing of the past, that there will be a potential for free discourse, that humans could reach some democracy through the freedom to think and explore knowledge and information, and indeed free communication, and open source software was the way of the future. All of these attributes could have occurred, and could have continued to develop, indeed showed great promise until the about 2002, when the Internet degenerated exponentially as it became commercialised.

    Alternative technologies of the kind that I referred to above, would deliver local control over fuel and waste to the community (Santilli). It would deliver eventually free communications (Muller), and the costs for many things to the consumer could be radically reduced. This would revolutionise society, and would not endanger the economy, rather, there would be a reformation towards more ecologically considered development.

    I do not think the general public realises that there has been serious progress in alternative science and technology that has been marginalised completely. There would not be a stops on transportation, even for space, nor would there be the need to cease industry, but developing alternatives that have already reached sophistication is a necessity. Ford conceived the soyabean car, all working parts, and all components made from bakerlite. This was no fantasy but one of many visionary directions that have been ignored decades ago. Tesla, projected as insane, was responsible for many of the technologies taken for granted today, yet he is like many “fringe” dwellers, a no go zone for serious academic research. Why, harmonic resonance science is an extraordinary science that has a double life that extends far more than simply its application in ordinary mechanics determined by classical physics.

    The sixties and seventies showed promise with groups exploring alternative lifestyles; with Buckminster Fuller and numerous others exploring serious alternatives to cities and architecture, however just as the evolution of these ideas came from radical liberals the degeneration of these potentials, again blamed on the presumed “degenerative behaviour” of “all” engaged in these projects, was primarily driven through the media and from conservatives, and remains a half truth which conceals the extraordinary success of some exceptional communes that continue today.

    The history of LSD and a host of psychological research is a history of post WWII >Military funded scienceOperation Paperclipmind control researchbusiness/educationalpanentheismfoundations of maths< ,and reason why postmodernists called for serious revisions in all disciplines. That this led to a tolerance of all other cultural mindsets as artefact, and a shoring up of the dominant mindset as truth, is surprising as all cultures, which include all mindsets are artefactual, however in terms of integrative research, there is a potential to realise ultimate truths and a unified science of life, but all systems of knowledge would have to endured equally, serious revisions which have been resisted for decades. It is no surprise that the dominant mindset is the object of defence, as the economy of petrochemicals and coal particularly was already a given in the nineteenth century, and defines the post 1880’s progression till now.

    I apologise for the lengthy response, but there is no sense in a five minute sound bite, nor is there any sense in a 500 word explanation of how to deal with the current situation from separate discipline areas. Such constraints will get, and have got many nowhere.

    And yes I agree that if you do not fight you do not win, but with low remarks that are designed to assinate one’s character, such a sight as this degenerates into a no win situation where conservatives in their ignorance and narrow mindedness, presume that this game is chess, when indeed the game became poker long ago and the stakes are the planet and life for all biological systems not simply humans. This is extremely contrary to what Richard Bransen and numerous other businesspersons believe, and what he stated as he was interviewed at Earth Hour last night, that the planet is fine, it is just humans that are effected.

    If anyone believes that extraordinarily complex biosphere that this planet is, can recover from continued and indescriminant extreme exploitation of all of nature as resource, and the continued transformation of minerals to toxic waste, then they are seriously misinformed and highly selective of the authorities to whom they seek advice.

  14. Melanie, after a quick study of your website, I offer these thoughts:

    1) You offer a false vision of life and the cosmos as benign until human beings screw it up. No doubt the human race makes things worse for itself in many ways, but we are born ignorant, not knowing, and nature is a torturer and mass murderer to a degree that human beings could not even approach until recent centuries. To the extent that you offer a vision which denies this, you falsify reality just as much as those you criticize. And to the extent that you affirm rather than abhor the destructive side of life, for the sake of nonduality, you thereby remove the basis for your own criticism of the existing order of human affairs. If it is not bad for nature to starve and kill us, then why is it bad for human beings, another part of nature, to do so? And if it is bad for nature to do those things, then it is a mistake to categorically reject the will to power over nature, as you apparently wish to do.

    2) Your intellectual enthusiasms (as far as alternative natural science is concerned, that is) seem to be determined by a mixture of aesthetic and ideological criteria, rather than empirical adequacy or logical explicitness. Consider your interest in Santilli, for example. He can use the mathematical language; of Lie algebras, for example. But if we look at mainstream theoretical physics, we may find many other alternative theories advanced over the years, and published in the journals. Why does Santilli arouse your interest, why have you heard of him and not the others? Because he is a critic of the academy in general, because he claims to have produced an alternative practical technology. This is romanticism. It is a fantastic thing when someone really can do significant things in many fields at once, but cranks who make false claims about their achievements are a hundred times as common, and there are quite a few cranks among your favorites.

    mitchell porter
    March 31, 2008
  15. I didn’t read much of Melanie’s diatribe because it is unreadable, but the last line says it all.

    What’s the matter Melanie, aren’t you getting any?

  16. Whoa heavy for this early in the week. I followed Melanies comments with interest, and surprisingly follow much of her argument. For a dumbed down version, perhaps the film “Zeitgeist” would suffice (on google video).

    However, I think the world’s problems are caused by far more than just a handful of greedy men pulling the wool. If that were the case than it would be simple to undo the damage and move forward. The problem is we like our current lifestyles too much, and in order to continue will require genocide and war on an epic scale (people>resources). All for a quarter pounder, a SUV and 24/7 aircon. Is it really worth it?

    April 1, 2008
  17. “I think J. W. Carpenter’s attempt to blame our economic distress on liberalism is pathetic. Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke are conservative Republicans. ”

    Price-fixing the cost of money and credit, aka setting interest rates, is not economically conservative, but liberal (in the modern definition of the term). Just because the people doing it might label themselves conservative is a fallacy of association; the act itself is economically liberal, and thus liberalism is to blame.

  18. I was going to respond with respect to the discourse, however I see that there is no point.

    You have no interest in finding any solutions, nor in engaging in the more complex issues that run behind the current situation.

    Your propensity to discredit an individual through the use of derogatory terms or making reference to their private life is indicative of the level of intelligence or education that is apparent here.

    I certainly would not want any advice from you guys, you are all either wet behind the ears, puppets, or are doing your nation a service by serving business as usual.

    you obviously have not read my sites, nor have looked at my PhD thesis, nor have any interest in communicating with others seriously, and seem to be complicit to the general game play, as most sites are that have invaded Australian politics online, from Britain and America.

    With guys like you running the show, then, yeah, mass genocide and global warfare all for a SUV and quater pounder as beyondtools said: dont forget the coke.

    I happen to believe the human being as a whole to be extraordinary and capable of far more than they have been permitted to develop, I do not buy into this evil nature BS, this is the Hobbs and Locke speak of the 1600’s, these guys exemplify two sides of one of the root issues- deism. You should really read them, both of them, they are extraordinary in their “rational” construction of the world, and the reasoning behind gross exploitation of all including human as resource.

    Wow, what a generalist dumbed down education does for the masses, turns their brains to mush, and makes them well conditioned to play the game and they do not even need to be prompted, they simply repeat the memes that they are fed, and like androids, take sides and fight to the death.

    Shame both sides are so mixed up, that the drama is simply fascist terrorism from all quaters.


  19. You are a tad extreme Melanie. Idealism is all nice and well, but doesn’t work unless it is sound, practical and will continue to work even if some fight against it – which I think yours will not.

    If you are above all of this, then why argue?

    I do not doubt that you have strong literary ability, but for anyone to suggest that the ideas of others are not worth hearing is just ignorant. Are you sure you aren’t part of a cult?

    Best wishes to you

  20. I am neither above nor below anything, nor am I left or right, in front or behind. I am neither an idealist, nor a materialist, nor an antirealist, but believe in realism from a non-dual-dual perspective, which is really simply being a philosophical monist, if the meaning of “substance” was qualified as signifying the particle/wave or matter/energy dualism inherent in the electromagnetic spectrum, which used to be the basis of physics.

    I do not believe that I ever said the ideas of others were not worth hearing, however I consider personal attacks to be not worth entertaining. I have not critised anyone on that level, nor have I engaged in any low form of abuse that seeks to discredit another. All I have done is to provide futher explanation of my points, which have been written in relatively plain language.

    I have not been offering anything but an educated perspective that is based on the philosophical issues that are the cause of binary conflict. If you can’t get that, and engage in the complexities, that are extremely difficult as it is easier to be projective and to use common language that often fails in revealing the essence of what one means.

    These things are more easily considered simply from the recognition that all things have both positive and negative attributes.

    It is not really that hard. It is not about being engaged in any cult. Most cults that I am aware of, are anything but an attachment to an extreme perpsective that FAILS to see hidden complexities and hence more integrated potenials.

    The issues that I am interested in bringing to the fore, concern the more complex issues of reality, and its inverse corellative, artificial reality and intelligence, that is derived from reverse engineering nature.

    There is a strong propensity to describe natural systems from the perspective of artificial systems, without maintaining the distinction. Hence consciousness itself is described in terms of artificial intelligence, as if it too is emergent. It is convenient for industry, alopathic medicine, religions, and governing bodies amongst other institutions, to have the masses believe that there is nothing more to mind than mere brain states. This is not rational nor is it a real perspective, and has been challenged sufficiently by philsophers such as Danah Zohar and David Chalmers amongst some others.

    It presumes that consciousness is not participatory, nor anticipatory. It negates feedback, and recursion, which is inherent in the responsiveness of all living things. The more sophisticated hyperincursive anticpatory theories, that is, chaos theory as it stands today which is or may have already realised quantum computations and reverse computation, and is the immediate state of the art “information theory” >in-form< is a recursive rewrite process and concerns continuous creation rather than a simpler entropic world view that negates the apprehension and significance of growth. Furthermore, information/entropy which is the dual aspects of IT, constitutes the life/death attributes of complex systems, whereby entropy is merely a HALF TRUTH, and consequently cosmic heat death, is a spurious notion, based on a particular way of constructing the universe and remains unproven.

    The guts of what I was hoping you to consider not just a novel way of seeing reality, that is formulated by myself, but rather, a more coherent perspective based on cutting edge findings from the numerous scientists and research bodies that I have noted.

    I am sorry “smithy”, but lifting the discourse is seemingly hopeless, and whether or not I am ugly or beautiful, have had “any” or not is inconsequential. All it does is reveal the base tactics of those who are disinterested in discussing real solutions to the agglomeration of global crises, and ineed, implicates GOOGLE as many have suggested, in working for the conservative business agenda, rather than any egalitarian search engine.

    And economic systems are driven from bottom up, by consumers?

    Please, can any of you provide empirical facts that support this position?

  21. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
    – Leonardo da Vinci

  22. Melanie is an expert. She will make it all better. Woe betide any who don’t coordinate their uniformity with her views. It’s a pity this site has become her psychic toilet. Saving the world through the comments section of a blog, sheesh.

  23. Melanie, if you actually want to make an intellectual contribution to a better world, you have a ton of self-criticism to perform. Speaking completely frankly, I have to regard you as someone whose intellectual life has become pathological, exactly as Rod said. Whatever valid scholarship and thinking may be contained in your thesis is hard to discern amidst pseudoscience, spurious connections, and outright paranoia (illustrated above with your intimations that Google may be part of the conspiracy to pillory your work, just because it has indexed this page already). Here are a few of the assertions in your thesis or website to which I find myself opposed:

    1. That the Klein bottle is “THE key to” (resolving any number of well-known oppositions). Nonsense, it’s just one possible symbol of duality masking a hidden unity, or whatever.

    2. That the Klein bottle is present in the works of Plato.

    3. That the Klein bottle is present in any ancient wisdom.

    4. That bafflegab about higher dimensions and a new epistemology is in any way necessary or even likely to prevent war, exploitation, or unsustainability.

    5. That formal and arcane attempts to get beyond “binary logic” have anything to contribute to getting beyond the superficialities of soundbite culture.

    6. That the revived interest in nuclear power in Australia needed Lovelock’s remarks to get going.

    7-12. The ideas of Illert, Santilli, Muller, Trell, Rowlands, Gariaev…

    13-14. That there are any significant “alternative energy resources” to be found in the work of “scientists investigating post-Einsteinian physics” (and that there is a conspiracy to suppress this).

    15. Lomas & Knight’s theory about an ancient civilization of global extent which busied itself with predicting and defending against cometary impacts.

    16. That the Phrygian cap has anything to do with the Klein bottle.

    17. You quote Santilli: That “the research currently conducted by the U.S. Military is dramatically more advanced than that conducted by U.S. academia precisely in view of the removal in military circles of any restriction for the research to be strictly compatible with Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics.” Incredible nonsense, though secret military super-science is a favorite of conspiracy theory and science fiction.

    18. That Tesla’s work constitutes a body of untapped possibilities which we are prevented from harvesting thanks to academic obtuseness and conspiratorial misdirection. The worthwhile part of Tesla’s work is a basic part of today’s science and engineering, and the rest was his personal crankery.

    19. That there is a 3500-year-old conspiracy to suppress the holistic metaphysical idealist alternative to reductive materialism, for the sake of the power structures which the latter supposedly enables.

    I actually share your interest in the metaphysics of consciousness and matter, your rejection of the crude existing dogmas about how the mind works, and even your estimation of its significance for today’s digital culture, but there is so much other dross in your synthesis that I have to reject it.

    mitchell porter
    April 1, 2008
  24. Please. Doesn’t Melanie have a comments section on her website ?

  25. Enough Boys,

    you can go on with your daily reckoning as usual.

    It is obvious that even the simplicity of Leonardo, that is both remarkably complex and yet appears so simple, exemplifies a sheer delight of the harmonic ratio of natural form, growth and process.

    While appearing simple, this “code” has still in its complexity baffled scientists who have spent generations on refining the potential to reverse engineer the muse (human) as machine (robot), to the point that it is more than a mere sex toy, and has intelligence. But then who would want to create an intelligent sex toy or slave, or worker, or drone ??

    The project will secumb to the impossibility (even with nano parts) of manufacturing the complete human physical complexity by shifting toward the full production of transhumanist potentials where all that is necessary is a conditional program for the mind.

    The question is : is there even a need for transhumanist technologies to be implanted when simply transmitting a certain sound frequency, as Susan Blackmore willingly experienced as the subject of harmonic resonance experiments, reporting that afterwards whe experienced accute anxiety, followed by fear followed by intense anger.

    And then, why even bother with that, when it is obvious that media manipulation works a treat.

    I suppose it depends on the level and degree of fascism that is emerging and the size of the population, as the sound waves are difficult to contain an direct and require a blanket of barium and aluminium in the atmosphere to assist the directionality: oh, is that why Malcolm Turnbull was airing the notion of “cloud seeding” in the media, at a time when rain was not really necessary and this valley was recovering from flood? and is there any similarity between cloud seeding and chem trails??? But one would have to entertain the fire behind the smoke screen of conspiracy theories to investigate such things, and that would mean academically suicide in this country, and I suspect all English Speaking countries.

    By all accounts, in terms of education, psychology and media it looks like conservative utilitarians have suceeded already ;-)

    The fear that all intellectuals should have in terms of history revealing that they are the first targets in genocide, these days, is somewhat numbed as you only have to be “tagged” as “mad” to be “off the radar” so to speak.

    Thanks Grant et all.

    Such a small word and yet so large in its dual meaning.

    Semantics really is so very powerful.

    Have a nice day, best wishes and warm regards….

  26. Melanie,

    Your Venn overlaps ours significantly.

    Our Gestalts are similar, except for your apparently dialectical usage of terms like monism, simplicity, and semantic.

    Faber’s article is a critique. For me, it is about what USA needs to do to improve fiscally as a nation?

    For me, you and one or two others got closer when you suggested a meme of individual responsibility. (You have boundless energy and use it to exercise your individual responsibility. Thank you.)

    Classical societies, in my view, are losing their grip. They have had a quasi-sovereign grip on individuals for millennia, and that is changing and plausibly will continue indefinitely.

    Your responses contain an entire tertiary level education in themselves, assuming one would study them and pursue as many threads as possible.

    For me, simplicity isn’t Ockhamistic. Simplicity is holographic. A hologram clarifies with more nexi, not fewer.

    For me, as gnostics have said, “monism is deceit.” Too they have written, “principle rules something not itself.” Think about that.

    What a great blog this would make!

    Best to all,

    Doug Renselle
    In Quantonics
    Carmel, INdiana USA

  27. Thanks Doug, and yes, this could be a good blog, and yes, I think you are quite right concerning classical societies.

    What business leaders are scared of, is loosing their control. They believe, in their naivety, and like Emerson, Russell, and most other supremacists, that managing the resources, and that includes the labour force, is like running a well greased machine, and partly this is true, as the economy is an artifice and modelled on mechanical systems. Understanding mechanical systems and their aetiological roots is not that difficult, however one has to understand what they are built on, and that is a science inherited from the ancient Greeks, who devised sophisticated systems in order to a)run the state, b)develop slave based labour c) build imposing architectures that exemplified their brilliant minds,c) develop trade, and most of all, develop a well conditioned military force, which under the tutelage of Aristotle was extraordinary.

    All of this was built on a formulation of “religious” systems. The Greeks inherited and developed the Phoenician/Hebrew/Greek unity of ideas, that had been well formulated and exemplified in the monotheistic constructs of sun worship. The Greeks, sheer brilliance is human brilliance.

    Their world was as much inherited from a lineage of warfare that is presumed to be a NATURAL HUMAN CONDITION, however, if the science of ASTROARCHEOLOGY or ASTROASTRONOMY, which flourished in the 19th Century along with the development of archaeology, yet was put to death abruptly sometime before WWII as it was continuing the project of nutting out the root of knowledge and the reasons why the psychology of warfare, domination and globalisation where the “norm”.

    Classical societies in the 19th century had, through the reasoning of the 17th Century (Hobbs and Locke and others), secured the disenfranchisement of the woman from the “game play” of civil life, by negating their education. The religious basis of the Age of Reason, is most curious, and really needs to be brought to the fore, as the so called “empirical sciences” are based on a world view that is far from true, and utilises a deist religious-anti-religious program. Most would not understand such a term as religious-anti-religious, and this is basis of the logic that is at the root of the artifactual systems.

    Reducing the concept of one God to an architect, who is not “in the world” and is the epitome of “the good” and cast nature as pure evil, and the domain of the devil or the epitome of “the evil”. This is Protestantism at its worst, and the puritanical pure fiction of the basis of age of reason, which permitted nature and all that is natural, to be cast inherently evil ,and as mere resource, for the use of white men, who in terms of Britain, believed they were the kingdom made from the unity of an aristocratic lineage of 10 tribes of Israel. See the British-Israel-World- Federation.

    For those who could see that this way of casting religion had it benifits (Aristotle, et all….Henry VIII, Charles II particularly)it was Business as usual. The Motto for the Royal Society, and under Charles II, was “Nullius Verba” “On the words of no-one”. What this allowed was the shift from scholasticism, which was a system devoted to the deeper questions of consciousness and cosmology, and which CITED and worked on the notable texts from antiquity, to a blanket process of REFORMULATION of ancient questions, science and knowledge. It began with Boyle’s dismissal of any alchemical text and the perspective that was based on natural science and was the presurser to biology, and bio-chemistry, herbalism, vibrational resonance science, and process physics, (which continued with phenomenology on the continent and through the Lutheran Protestantism that preserved nature as sacred, but only to an extent). With Boyle, Alchemy, which was initially psychological, biological, and medicinal, as well as the “spurious” quest for making gold from base metals, was reduced to the spurious quest alone, to mineral and material science, not only dismissing SPAGYRISM violently, but consciously and overtly negating any experiments that revealed natural process, medicinal efficacy of herbalism, and the vibrational science.

    The “spurious” quest to make gold out of minerals, and indeed to attempt to create the perpetual motion machine, which is of course the attempt to mimic nature, the earth and cosmos, and the human being, became progressively reduced through UTILITARIAN means (technology for defence), and hence the project of industrialisation to the making of money from mineral coal tar chemistry and petroleum based industries.

    You may not realise this but King Charles II and the Royal Society, initiated top down institutions that monitored and sought out “non-British ideas” and controlled through propaganda, pamphleteering, education and psychology, with the intent of exposing members of the Aristocracy of anything that would considered embarrassing,controlling education so that the system could persist, and so that anything which threatened it would be ridiculed.

    This COVERT management of the society is partly the utilisation of Plato’s work and mostly of Aristotle’s extraordinary linguistic theory inherent in his Rhetoric’s and Laws, his Oral Doctrines.

    Why is this so important to the current era?

    We have inherited this system. Anything which threatens the industrial basis, like CO2 emissions -need the spin, look like the leaders are interested, get Gore to paint the picture, know it is only half the truth, know that there will other theories like cosmic forces from solar flares amongst other things, like comet strikes, like a natural process that is a constantly changing phenomena of a chaotic natural system, anything that will take the pressure off by generating argument and incoherence.

    The spin, is always putting the real threat (CO2 and all other emissions from unbalanced natural cycles due to over exploitation of all resources, if trees were not exploited as they have been, the cycle would not be so unbalanced) in front of everyone’s face, then the detraction causes the denial, and it is self erupting, as all specialists will speak from their independent discipline, all quite valid ASPECTS of the WHOLE, but not INTEGRATED, and NEVER integrated , as the INTEGRATION of the mindset itself, RELIES ON THE KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS BEEN NEGATED from REVISING ALL DISCIPLINES, PARTICULARLY SINCE 1950, in histories, in sciences, in archaeology, in feminist studies, in anthropology, in psychology,in the arts, in philosophy and so on.

    Added to this, THEORIES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG, such as Russells set theory, have remained COLD CASES-OPEN, as they are CRUCIAL to the ARTIFICIAL SYSTEMS THEORY that has been progressed -IT- since the 1950’s particularly.

    What is considered as the NATURAL EVOLUTION OF KNOWLEDGE is anything BUT that.

    Had there been a natural evolution, driven by the truth, all spurious theories would necessarily not stand up to rigorous scrutiny, and naturally fall away.

    Just as if a NATURAL EVOLVING ECONOMY was the norm, stupid technologies that obviously had more negative than positive benefits would naturally through educated scrutiny die an natural death.


    This is the problem with conservative liberals and so called democrats, as the system is a covertly engaged mediation of all system of social management, dependant entirely on the ideological base of the those in government, and the degree to which they hate the ignorant masses and blame them for influencing and retarding the whole shebang, when in fact they are PARENTED BY ABUSIVE PARENTS.

    THERE IS NO TRUTH in a system which RELIES on MEDIA SPIN, and the MISEDUCATION of the masses, that keeps them IGNORANT.

    Round and round we go.

    And maybe, a new blog is a good idea ;-) as some blogs only appreciate authorities that are ordained by the system itself, and we all know that in America anyone can buy a PHD, so that in itself is meaningless.

    my email for anyone interested in continuing a serious discussion,and nutting out the more complex problems that are due to inherited systems, and I am certainly not exempt from making mistakes, and thinking in absolute terms, struggling against a projective conditioning that one is immersed in daily is a huge struggle. I am very open to discussion.


  28. Melanie, congratulations now you know what it takes to make capitalism [controlling the masses] work! What now?

    Diggin it!
    April 4, 2008
  29. Wow, that’s a lot of waffle Mel.

    Argue this then.. is life better now or worse than centuries ago? This machine of corruption you’re painting obviously has some beneficial side effects.

    Progress either occurs because of, or despite what you’re saying above, but regardless we’ve survived and flourished as a species to the point where we live longer and better than ever, and are on the cusp of a lifestyle only dreamed of in ages past.

    And you can thank the capitalist machine for accelerating this process in the last few centuries. Without it, we’d likely all be still sitting in a ditch sticking berries up our nose worshiping some imaginary friend in the sky.

    And talking with caps just highlights the fact that you’re a raving lunatic.

    Good for a laugh though, so knock yourself out.

    Unpopular Truth
    April 4, 2008
  30. Hi trenchers! Ya know, Justin & John, I’m glad you suggested I side-slide over here to see Melanie’s writings. Yep, he/she and I are definitely on the same frequency. And although he/she is substantially smarter than I and writes so, I like what is being said.

    I have “answer-up” and other ponderings to do over-in the thread I commandeered from Bill Bonner… but if I may make a general comment to an incorrectness I see here and elseblog…

    One cannot predict how less or more the world would be technologically advanced… had we used a commune the whole time… instead of capitalism’s pyramid scheme… for USA/World survival systems.

    Its easily quite possible (and likely probable) that, had the world NEVER used inequality festivals like AmWay (American Way, see pyramid scheme symbol on back of USA dollar bill)… and instead stuck-with sharing/Christianity/socialism, then the world would be 5-10 times more advanced than it is now, especially morally and efficiency-wise (repairability).

    Pyramiding (monetary/bloodline discrimination) (capitalism) is a TERRIBLE thing… and I believe it has held us all back… immensely, as a matter of opinion. Capitalism is actually a SHAM/CON… and media keeps capitalism-condoners and promoters all yelling “Yay, servitude systems!” because… you’re conned… and bought-in… to AmWay. YUM, servitude done right!

    But not Melanie. He/She sees thru the cons…. and that makes me proud to make his/her aquaintance if he’ll/she’ll entertain such. Keep up the fine thinkings and writings, Melanie and others. Good stuff… but I need to look up some of these HUGE words flying-around in here. And I’m 50 friggin’ years old, for kris kringles!

    Best Regards!

    Larry “Wingnut” Wendlandt
    MaStars – Mothers Against Stuff That Ain’t Right
    Bessemer MI USA

  31. ..before melanie takes off her clothes here at the daily reckoning yet again…..someone should proof read her extravagrant sentences…sort of an alchemist who can make common sense out of our ramblin’ rose……”Research gives your articles credibility, supports your arguments, and can serve to make your articles longer, more detailed, higher quality. Therefore, they can command higher prices….”….

  32. Melanie,

    I do have one question, and would appreciate an answer that doesn’t go off on a ramble, if possible.

    How can you be so sure that human-caused CO2 emissions are harming this planet? Since you seem so persistently skeptical, what makes you a believer in this case? And is there not more political motivation to promote such an idea even if it were not true, at least from the liberal point of view? It seems fiction wins Nobel Prizes now-a-days…

  33. All,

    This is just awesome!

    If we could answer a fraction of all questions asked here, our world would be a better place!

    Melanie, again, your writings are well th~ought. Excellence!

    But as you read some of our responses, some of us males do not whole(ly) grasp your essence. Doug too.

    What chance is there that Daily Reckoning might set up a separate blog to allow this to attempt an effort at ‘at least’ partial fruition? Mayhaps it should just continue here… Help? Melanie has a site. Doug has a site. They are almost all-consuming. But there IS something GOOD happening here… Dr. Faber, help?

    Capitalism, in Doug’s view, is marvelous! It mimics nature in its evolutionary aspects. (However:) It mimics humans in its greed.


    Which is more highly evolved?



    Is society above individual? Is individual above society?


    If social capitalism is social and as a result drives out individuals as capitalists, do we still have capitalism?

    Again, is it apparent that socialism tends to monism? Is it apparent that individualism tends to pluralism? Will you argue otherwise, and if so, do so?

    To avoid male aversion to rambling, a couple of reading suggestions:

    Read Mae-wan Ho’s ‘the Rainbow and the Worm,’ two editions available: 1993 and ~2000.

    Study gnosis. Gnosis means what Melanie has: individual wisdom AKA Sophia.

    Ponder philo Sophia.


    In Quantonics
    Carmel, INdiana USA

  34. Hi all… you can continue here or if you want to take it over to the Daily Reckoning message board that might be more conducive to ongoing discussion.

    The Daily Reckoning

  35. John,

    Since Melanie didn’t respond to your query on CO2, allow me.

    We need to di(omni)stinguish a sceptic from “absolute scepticism.” Latter is absolute uncertainty. (See Cratylus and David Hume. Heraclitus is more quantum than either of those classicists.) Reality isn’t like that. Reality is “partially uncertain,” and all of reality is to some degree uncertain.

    People who say CO2 is anthropogenic, in my view, are wrong based on quantum~macroscopic~uncertainty.

    To believe what those folk say means that classical determinism (absolute absence of uncertainty) is in- ‘effect’ “real.”

    Quantum reality is non classically determinate, due its implicit (intrinsic?) uncertainty.

    Classical notions of root cause 1-1 correspondent ‘effects’ (essentially classical determinism), from a quantum perspective, thus are simply bogus.

    Does that help John?



  36. Daily Reckoning people,

    This is my first experience with DR.

    It has, for me, been a great journey.

    Thanks to you for offering top notch materials for omniscussion.


  37. Doug,

    I understand what you’re saying.

    Nothing is absolutely certain, thus those of us who understand that have to be by defition skeptics of literally everything, or else we must establish an artificial threshold of what defines “real” based on observation, inuition, and logic.

    The question was a bit more rhetorical though, personally at Melanie, because she chooses to be skeptical of virtually everything, yet stands firm in the belief of this global warming bs. It’s inconsistent at best.

  38. when judging something, there is a tendancy to look purely for local causes. Like on a table of billiard balls, a person hits a ball with a stick and that ball hits another, and so on, in a simple process that is linear and can be tracked as such. a->b->c.

    This is simple causation. It is real, it is true. It is local.

    Is this the whole picture though?

    Isolating the local events makes it more simple to map relationships between things. Reducing causal relationships to mechanical and local effects however, while making it easier to understand the immediate situation, is not providing any information about the bigger picture, the global effects and causes.

    It seems highly irrelevant to include other causes or reasons behind the events. such extraneous information may include details about the pool que, the level of the table, the smoothness of the cloth, the chalk, the intention behind the invidual shooting the que, such as choosing to loose a shot, or being drunk, or being knocked, or someone shouting loudly and breaking concentration.

    This seemingly insignificant information is generally ignored, as in many circumstances, it reduces the ability to judge what is actually occuring. The more information, the less capable of locating or honing in on a specific cause.

    In chaos theory, this “extraneous” detail is called “noise”. In terms of social theory, the “noise” comes from the “stress” and general disastisfaction of the masses. It is the very thing that grows in intensity unless measures are taken to either dampen down the noise, or provide solutions to the problems.

    Damping down the noise, is the very thing that a general governor does in a machine. It is the component that dampens down the extraneous vibration that will continue to build unless it is sufficiently dealt with. James Clarke Maxwell, wrote an important essay on the General or centrifugal governor. The relevance of the general governor, (and indeed, the governor general;-) in Australian politics)is significant as the mechanistic world view has always used the information and theories of machines and applied them to the management of humans. The corellation between the muse and machine is a two way correlation and this is why there is a need for a lot of complex thinking in fleshing out not only the nature of artificial and real systems, but how science has served utilitarians in providing methods that can be applied from top down to control systems.

    It is my contention that the late 1800’s signified an extraordinary and fast moving progression from the constraints of religious dogma, with a potential for a more extraordinary renaisance than previously experienced, however that this was negated by the imposition of a new dogma, and that is the new and improved dogma of mechanical materialism. What was negated, was the potential to realise the very essence behind Edwin Abbot’s important book of the time called “Flatland”. > systems<

    The centrifugal governor is often used in the cognitive sciences as an example of a dynamic system, in which the representation of information cannot be clearly separated from the operations being applied to the representation. And because the governor is a servomechanism, its analysis in a dynamic system is far from trivial. James Clerk Maxwell wrote a famous paper “On governors”[1], which is quite frequently considered a classical paper in feedback control theory, in 1868. Maxwell distinguishes moderators (a centrifugal brake) and governors which control motive power input. He considers devices by Watt, Professor James Thomson, Mr. Fleeming Jenkin, Sir William Thomson, M. Leon Foucault and Mr Carl Wilhelm Siemens (a liquid governor).
    In a largely overlooked passage of his famous 1858 paper to the Linnean Society (which led Darwin to publish his monumental On the Origin of Species) Wallace says of the evolutionary principle:
    The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident; and in like manner no unbalanced deficiency in the animal kingdom can ever reach any conspicuous magnitude, because it would make itself felt at the very first step, by rendering existence difficult and extinction almost sure soon to follow.[2].
    The cybernetician and anthropologist Gregory Bateson would observe in the 1970s that though seeing it only as an illustration, Wallace had “probably said the most powerful thing that’d been said in the 19th Century”.[3] Bateson revisited the topic in his 1979 book Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, and other scholars have continued to explore the connection between natural selection and systems theory.[4]”


    Charles Darwin was extremely concerned about the propensity for oversimplification as I have previously said. It leads to degeneration.

    The social noise that is persistent today, mainly comes from the resistance to permit revisions in all disciplines and instead to defend the mindset itself, which has a foundation of a flawed system of logic, which even in its most refined reformulations, is only an approximation of truth. It will remain degenerative due to the over simplification of realism and the imposition of a scientific dictatorship that is designed to dampen down the social noise through cybernetic, transhumanist, and/or over medication of phameceuticals that are indescriminately used to assist the masses in dealing with the anxiety that occurs as they SENSE but cannot articulate what is occurring.

    Like the fear flight mechanism so extraordinarily displayed in the animals that survived the tsunami, the general fear and flight builds as humans sense there is something going on, but as individuals are shackled to their lifestyles, rooted to their homes, and jobs, and as freedom to change one’s course or situation in an instance is determined not only by financial freedom, but also by inside information, the leaders continue to control by treating the symptoms rather than the cause.

    Why? the cause is unclear, as the lineage of manipulation is not overt, and it has taken me twenty five years to come to some sensible conclusions as to what is the general cause, and that is, that the theory of causation itself is radically oversimplified – as David Bohm noted in his ontological interpretation of the quantum principle, and requires reinvestment with a least the teleological principle of formative causation, and I would suggest, a more complex MOEBIUS PRINCIPLE of INVOLUTION as a closer approximation to a real cosmological model of continuous creation.

    Time is not simply linear. Nor is it an eternal return, or simple circle cycle, it is complex dynamic process of continuous turning inside out and upside down, about a point, in an asymetrical rotation.

    It is this that I believe Plato was speaking about in Timaeous. It took him pages of detailed depictions of a loop that is turned to form a x (infinity symbol) and then one circle is inside the other.

    If it was simply a circle, he would have said so. Why Neitszche and all others described it as a circle, is possibly to do with the translation and/or interpretation. It is as if the choice was either the pelican christus or the ouroborus. However the ouroborus was originally depicted as a double circuit. (cleopatras notes)and as I have pointed out in my research, these two shapes, are both postures of the classic kleinbottle.

    However it is not the classic kleinbottle that is the most important shape. It is the moebius kleinbottle, as revealed by Lewis Carol, in Mein Herr, chapter seven of silvi and Bruno revisited. However you wont find that online in the guttenberg reproduction, as the very important paragraphs about the genius mathematician from Germany (felix Klein) demonstrating the making of the Purse of Fortunatus, and proceeding to discuss perpetual motion machines, is not included (?)

    I follow clues, like an investigator. There are many and they are not well disguised. They are often infront of one’s noses, which is why it is SO DIFFICULT to reveal them to others, as they cannot believe that they could be decieved so easily.

    Bertrand Russell is most important as he states explicitly the post war project.

    Charles Darwin: “There is one living spirit, prevalent over this world … which assumes a multitude of forms according to subordinate laws. There is one thinking sensible principle allied to one kind of organic matter.”

    “Notebook C”, as quoted in Creativity, Psychology And the History of Science (2005) by Howard E. Gruber and Katja Bödeker, p. 142

  39. John,

    I think scepticism as say, “moderate uncertainty,” is good. I think those who do that are doing what Paul Pietsch in his Shufflebrain meant by “Indeterminacy is a principal feature of intelligence.”

    I do not know Melanie’s detail position on ‘global warming.’ Global warming is a quantum~complement of global cooling. They are ‘not’ classical ‘opposites.’ Earth has been in an ice age for a long time. But in 20th century we entered a warming period which lasted until about 1998. Earth has been cooling since 1998. My own view is that Earth’s poles started switching about 150 years ago. Sometimes Earth’s core actually reverses over a few hundred years. What used to be our ‘south’ pole is now off coast of Newfoundland, in Atlantic ocean. I think our warming cycle is more related to that than to CO2 emissions. But that is only my view, not ‘the’ view.

    (You need to understand that quantum~reality tends to deny any classical notions of 1-1 correspondence of ’cause.’ Most novelties have plural affectors whose affectations are stochastic.)

    If we weigh all (stochastic) sources of energy (they are almost unlimited in number and scope…) which have potential for affecting earth weather we find they simply dwarf humankind’s contributions: Sun solar weather, sun core weather, earth core weather, earth surface weather, moon affects are enormous as evidenced in tidal affects. Mix moon’s distortion of earth’s oblaticity and its distortions of a polar switching earth core…

    So you see, John, I tend to agree more with you on global warming, but perhaps for di(omni)ffering ‘reasons.’

    That polar switching, if I recall well, happens at about 350 thousand year intervals. So it is much more coincidental event-wise than anthropogenic ‘weather affectors.’

    Personally, I find Melanie’s intellectual powers quite incredible. And she has a right to her own views and I respect her rights but in no way do I ‘have’ to ‘by some other, say, social authority’ respect what she says or does. Though, as you can see, I believe she is much more ‘correct’ than otherwise.

    I do not think she is routinely “sceptical of everything.” If she were, in my view, she would be sceptical of anthropogenic ‘global warming.’

    A key intellectual enabler is to realize that all metaphysics, philosophy, and science are provisional. All we need do is read Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to grasp essence of provisionality as a deep principle of ‘thinking ethics.’

    We all must do that, period. (I.e., practice provisionality.)

    But there is risk in it. Pioneers break all rules and make things happen which previously appeared ‘unscientific.’

    What a great world, eh?

    Best to all,


  40. hi,

    global warming is extremely complex, and as I have said there are natural fluctuations, cosmic forces, and yes I agree with doug about the magnetic switching. These things are indicators of an extremely complex system. It can only be likened to other copmplex natural systems, and the human body and mind complex is one that reveals all the elements of a complex living system.

    It is true too that we cannot really control things.

    However there are those who cannot stop trying to control everything. It is as if they are the wizard of oz, and they keep wanting to contain and control everything and everyone, they have an idea or image of perfection and order that is UNREALISTIC, and the task is impossible, and the thoughtforms generated are like the witches, battling on a higher level, and when dorothy simply continues to walk, not too judgemental, not too empathetic, not negating another’s perspective, collecting these wounded beings along the way, all assisting eath other in various ways, they become brave enough together to find the source, and are each looking for the source for different reasons.

    funnily enough it is just a mere mortal, switching dials, trying to control the weather, trying to control the people, trying to be god.

    on the surface it seemed to be a huge and dangerous and out of control place. in truth, it was exposed simply as a false dellusion, NOT an illusion, but a delusion generated from a certain psychological pathology of control and domination and authority.

    The climate change issue is more than simply too much CO2, and this is where Al gore was “strategic”: that is he is involved consciously in the game of good cop bad cop politics, and that is if one grants him the intelligence to know that some of his information was incorrect, and it was extremely limmited, an narrow or selective. As many children know that a comet hit the earth when the dinasours left the stage and the ice age occurred, and if that is not climate change what is?

    This is SOLDB (sticks out like dogs balls) ommission.

    the use of words is NEVER ill considered. This is one LAW of the ART of MANAGEMENT. They called it climate change. vast subject area.

    they did not call it excessive indescriminate exploitation of all that is, or simply exploitation.

    that too would have covered a vast area, virtually all encompassing.

    I wonder if some of you guys ever think about a beautiful woman as she walks past, and calculates the cost of her body sculpting. Is she so concerned about what she looks like, and what others think of her, that there is nothing to talk about, until you break through this false delusion or appearance of the false person?

    Is this of her doing?

    Has she been exploited? It is all choice? What drives these impluses? should we care? Is there indeed a DUTY OF CARE?

    Do any of you have daughters? What do you think about their early sexualisation? Do you think it is all just fun? Do you think it is purely a lack of intelligence if she gets caught in the web of vacuous conceit? Are you concerned that Australia has such high rape stats, domestic violence, teenage suicide, homelessness, vandalism, and crime and indeed that these statistics are highest in the Hunter mining valley?

    Do you think that these stats are proportional to american stats? Do you presume this is simply the way of the world or is it the AM WAY.

    these questions are important. As the one size fits all simplfication of all things, where today I can shop in down town suweto and buy the same and expect the same as anywhere else, is not waht I consider to be interesting and cultural exciting.

    you ask me if I think this world is better or worse. All I can say is both. It depends on what you are referring to, and how deeply one is willing to explore the pros and cons.

    On the whole, I get sick from the smell and the air when I enter a shopping mall, I can last about 5 to ten minutes max before I get flushed and faint, and feel like I have drunk wine with presevatives and sulphites. My body reacts. This does not happen if there is fresh air or open air markets. I cannot tolerate airconditioning, my body and mind is progressively incapable of handling large crowds and lots of visual and oral information from billboards, logos, signage, advertising. I cannot stand standing on concrete, and not feeling the earth. I cannot stand adds on tV. I find it awful that the internet, an incredible tool, has become so commercialised and this has made it so difficult to research. I do not like the INSURANCE thoughtform; that you need a mobilephone or any other such thing, in case you have a disaster. just in case, you break down and am threatened by what?

    it is only other humans that pose a threat to me. As a woman I cannot comfortably walk down the street after dark. And I refuse to presume that this is natural, and men simply cannot control their sexual and agressive urges. Tantra requires no thing. Why are men not aware of these practices? Why it is hidden or occult knowledge? Why are they educated in the fine arts of subtle energy?

    It is not inherent in the human being to be an animal, and after so many millenium of evolution. And if you think that the most “evolved” and “civilised” is the least to be feared you would be truely mistaken.

    So I have issues some of which are driven from my health, some from my gender,and some from the constraints that limit my research. But having said this, I do not hate men, nor do I hate science and technology, nor do I hate cities, nor do I hate uneducated people, nor do I hate nationalities, nor do I hate americans, or christians or moslems or ……….

    Indeed if I was irreverent, and blamed all these things, I would not care to write at all, and would simply practice the art of subtle being.

    what is good? I love the world and nature, I love country, the land the birds, the trees the wilderness, animals, people, quirky architectures, overflowing gardens, singing, dancing, art, language, the list is enormous, but there will be few things in this list that is dependent on technology, and many that are threatened by the progress of an indescriminate artificial world.

    I am not against tools, we need them now like we have never needed them before, but not to be used in the same way, infact I would suggest, used in the reversed manner with a competant distinction between the natural and the artifical.

    Used to educate, used to emancipate, used to truely liberate. Liberation is twisted to mean civilise, colonise, to free the person from the natural state of freedom and birth right. To take the wild and chaotic out of the complex system(?)

    Chaos theory is important in understanding that the chaotic is only an appearance if viewed from a local perspective. Globally, there is extraordinay harmony in the A-SYMETRY.

    not dumb down and enslave further, and instill hatred, anger, fear, prejudice.

    If I were asked if I loved my nation, I would have to clarify the sentance. IS nation referring to the country, land and all that is on and in it? If so, a resounding yes.

    However, nation is not country. Nation, Nationality, national, a long time ago was a word connected to natal, meaning birth. so in that sense nation and natal is to do with birth right, hence with common law which is based on the laws of nature, hence natural science, however natural science has been skewed to mechanical and material science. A science of “dead bodies”. Education permits one to believe that it is ok to describe the human being and its physiology as if it is a dead mass. That biology is forced to use physics and material chemistry to describe the living being, is an atrocity. cleavage of cells is considered from crystallography which refers to the nature of mineral geometrics and the leavage patterns around the inherent geometric of the mineral growth pattern. This is peculiar. minerals grow in a vastly different manner to cellular entities.

    When empires expand their national awareness also expands, and in the collectivity of the enterprise, the frachise progressively dissociates from the homeland. A globalist or internationalists would not mind, they have presumably expanded in their national awareness to be an earthling. But have they?

    yes and no, and here the details are most important.

    As all social systems and theories are derived from natural laws and systems, what I spoke about in the former entry, to do with local and global, and how both are important, and how the “noise” is important. We currently could say that the “act local think global” is derived consiously from the post 70’s chaos theory realisations. One could say that it is a shame it wasn’t well formulated before then, as the project of the 60’s could have been saved, however these theories have been well formulated and were well formulated decades before, however unless theories can be put into the language of a certain lineage of mathematics, it is rejected time and again.

    There was even a monk centuries ago who had worked out Mandelbrots fractals. Fractals are inherent in relativity theory. Fractals are inherent in living systems. Fractals are inherent in the electromagnetic spectrum. Fractal are embedded ratios of mathematical analogs.

    With the shift from ana-logos to digital, there has been a constant need to make the axiomatic set theory more and more complex to approach the level of complexity that was inherent in analog. Why was there a shift, there is a distinct dislike for the noise, the messiness, the chaos, the paradoxes, the constant appearance of inifinitudes and zeros that mess eveything up.

    I keep saying we are working with a retarded a science that is reduced to serve technologists, and the technology that is funded is a product of the retarded science. Visious loops. Catch 22. Other options are and have been excluded for centuries, however there is a fear of exposure of the flaws that have used to continue the syllogistic project to find the perfect objective entity (AI) who can tell us the secret of the universe, and I do not believe it will be “42”, or any one number.

    if it was 0->infinity symbol here->moebius kleinbottle symbol here, noone would understand it.

    that such a statement could be seen from the geometric and kinesthetic action of taking a twisted loop and turning it to be an infinity symbol,and folding on circle into another, as Plato suggested, would be anathema to the LANGUAGE of idealist maths.

    The local global slogan, and the statement we are citizens of the world, and the “whole earth image” all these things are huge in terms of the human psyche.

    However, it is not people who have been granted freedoms. It is corporations. ANd the law that binds them very loosely, is mercantile law which is very different to common law. It is the “law of the high seas”. It is Naval law, and hence it is military law.

    It has nothing to do with a land based birth right.

    Massive implications.

    So when asked do I love my country, a resounding yes, that moves me. Do I love the earth? YES My parents country, yes. The land there and here, and all that is on it and in it is extraordinary. Do I love my nation?

    What is my nation? Is it the empire? Is it the government and laws? is it the culture? which culture, maths science religion? Is it common law, or mercantile law? What is citizenship? What are the contracts? What is a franchise? Is my capitalised name referring to me the real person, of is it referring to franchised entity, and if so, when did that contract occur? And what rights do I have? Are they birth rights? Human rights? What is all of this?

    you guys will be very helpful here,you know business, you know currency, and as the bigger picture is never on the surface (well it is and it isnt, it is often as I said, right in front of us, but it isn’t enough to presume that “appearances” are everything. Things are not “simply” on the surface, yet the “surface” will connect with everything, and I believe that if you are willing to put your googles on and dive in;-)you will see for yourselves that appearances (and probabilities) are not all there is to truth.

    Look this climate change thing. mining coal is not the issue. If humans were RESPECTUL of the LIVING BREATHING SELF MAINTAINING BODY, one would know it can survive with an organ missing here or there, and even recover a damaged brain to an extent,but there is a limit to how much you can take away, how many connections you can break, before the bodies complexity is not able to self maintain. So we can think up artificial lungs for the planet, and artificial bees, (this has been done by the way, what the human mind is capable of is extra ordinary: dont hold it back by negating the more positive and truth direction for the one that will simply continue to opress)and survive a little longer, but we know deep in our hearts that there have been things that have contributed to this failure, that could have been avoided.

    Of course I am speaking both metaphorically and straight.

    It needs to be said that the focus on entropy (death) alone is a half truth. Life is the other aspect in the entropy/life dualism.

    Life is the greater attribute, as it is the one that is most dominant from a global level. At the global level, this earth is a perpetual motion machine. It is not in a vacuum though, it is not contained and bounded, it is not autonomous, it relies on the sun,and the planets and …… and the whole system is vast.

    We think that there is something that would have to be driving it, a god or many mere mortal men, heroes no less, but the very “nothing” that drives this whole shebang has many more useful words, and is the quantum principle that drives all individual and collective entities, and like an artificial system, that is spun by players, these players are not devoid of thoughts and choices, either irreverent and careless, random, conscious or unconscious, and either can be as good or bad as the other. The system is self correcting, and in terms of the economy, this is why I spoke of a true field, not manipulated, not covertly driven, not pupeteered. If the consumer was not decieved, and the seller was not wishing to induce addiction, and there was more responsibility from the individual players as they realise that the little agreement here or there, can have huge and real consequences in the real world of human affairs.

    This may seem irrellavent in a site that plays the faceless market.

    does it matter if one is aware of what their money is doing, or who is using it or loosing it?

    money is energy. it is currency. but while it remians like nationalism dissociated from the real things and from a real sense of truth based on natural science and natural laws, then the matrix is a sinister place, and likened only to a game when men can sit around drinking margeritas, and making huge statements and discisions, that play out in the real world as exposed in “Bush’s war”.


    this is the real illusion. I do not believe that transcending nature is the quest. Transcending the delusion that was set in motion thousands of years ago is the true quest. far more subtel, far more complex, far more hidden, far more that appearance.

    get real.

    ignorance is not bliss

  41. hello again, and thanks for keeping this conversation going, it is always rather sad that so many people are uninterested in the details, and prefer to run with superficial arguments.

    about the carbon cycle.

    First, carbon is one of the four most common elements, helium oxygen nitrogen and carbon and constitutes the major element in living bodies.

    Carbon is peat,coal,graphite,and diamond. It is most interesting. As coal it is a random and chaotic little mess of structurless structure ;-) and yet as diamond it is the hardest and structurally a most ordered crystal, that can be burned under certain conditions.

    how is it formed?

    deceased bodies, plant and animals, will simply decompose and in the process the carbon is released through oxidation hence co2. However, if these dead and former living things are immersed in water or mud, so that the process of oxidation does not occur, the carbon is naturally sequestured- contained, and eventually over time, becomes coal, and at the end point of this process, diamond.

    Now the common presumption that consciousness emerges from the organisation complexity of the organism is hence then presumed to emerge from matter, is a little bit misleading. It is true that the organisational complexity of a living thing will determine the complexity of the consciousness, however to think that plants and animals emerge from matter is a grossly misleading conclusion and inherent in the linear over-simplification of the process of growth and form.

    It is interesting to consider that the ancient Peat Bog burials of important individuals, would eventually become diamonds. for those of you who have worked in any way with crystals, recording information or useing them as transcieivers, or amplifiers, you will remember the extraordinary properties of these things. Pre war technology.

    One of the reasons that so many egyptian mummies were simply burned in the furnaces of the stream trains, was that they were a good source of fuel and there were so many mummies. they were a little like burning peat. those who did this showed little respect for what they were indeed doing.

    when coal is burned the carbon is released and immediately couples with oxygen, and like ordinary carbon release from decaying matter, it is then in the atmosphere, as co2, and used by plants.

    if this cycle was respected, and it was well known and beautifully reported centuries ago, one may have then thought it problematic to also burn trees and chop down forests at the rate that this has been permitted.

    I cannot understand how both have been permitted.

    It fails comprehension knowing that the science text books had full reporting of this cycle ages ago and most eloquently prior to 1950.

    So what is really going on here?

    While paper is an important commodity, many alternative paper sources have been negated such as hemp, a fast growing weed.


    SO when you simply dismiss the issue of the human footprint, rather than asking me to constantly give reasons why I agree with the issues of human impact, particularly after the industrial revolution, and which I have done at length, please provide a reasonable counter argument based on some factual reports so I can understand where you are coming from.

    it is not helpful to simply denounce the contemporary crises, that is a continuation of the crises noted at the end of the 19th century. It my contention that that period also offered remarkable alternatives that were denied, and steered away from for security reasons, and the security issues where predominantly to defend the mindset that permitted outrageous exploitation of everything.

    And presuming that there is no consistency in what I am talking about, is insulting. Indeed, if you were to explore more than one discipline and study how they have changed over time, and what forces political and social, influenced these changes, then you would see that there has never really been any single REAL paradigm shift, in the way that Kuhn and Popper suggest, ever.

    sure, superficially it looks like the moves from analog to digital, and from newton to einstein, or from einstein to heisenburg, or heisenberg to wheeler, constitute some sort of shift, but on closer inspection, there is a single continuous project and the true potentials for radical transformation which is the meaning of a paradigm shift, has never been permitted.

    best regards and again thanks for continuing the conversation.


  42. Melanie,

    You still haven’t answered the question. No one is denying that we are responsible for releasing some CO2 in the atmosphere, and that there may have been alternatives.

    But how can you blindly believe that we are actually altering the long-term temperature of the planet? Or that it is changing at all? There is so much controversial data and politically-motivated “science”, it strikes me as quite odd that you accept it as true.

    And you know better than to ask me for proof, the default position requires no proof, as it is not asserting anything new. The burden of proof is on the global warming bandwagon, and they have failed to provide adequate proof yet.

  43. All,

    I just want to take a single word and enlarge its con(m)text a tad: consistency.

    Are any of you familiar with Kurt Gödel?

    In 1931 he wrote a paper on his notions of what he called “incompleteness.” That paper has since been labeled, coarsely, “Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems.” Some claim there is one, some claim two (Doug), some claim three incompleteness theorems.

    Doug Hofstadter in his GEB summarized singularly, “All consistent axioms in number theory include undecidable propositions.” Doug would add an ellipsis to that: …in a single global context. For maths to work “context freely” their context must be global and singular.

    Classically completeness has (historically) meant a theory is both consistent and complete. Gödel showed using recursion and self~reference (Stuffs of Mandelbrot’s fractals and essence of Möbius evolutes), that no system can be both consistent and complete. Indeed, his first theorem says no system (is capable of) can add a consistency statement about itself which proves said system consistent. Therefore, all classical formal systems (whose bases enjoy a number system’s logical foundation) can be ‘consistent’ in any classical, formal sense.

    So asking Melanie to be ‘consistent’ is problematic. (Assuming English language possesses even a modicum of logical formality.)

    Let’s try taking two views of reality, and discuss completeness in terms of each view’s real essence:

    Classical completeness:

    1. consistency – always states ‘the’ ‘truth,’ and
    2. completeness – states all ‘truths.’

    Quantum completeness:

    1. consistency – always changes, and
    2. completeness – changes all.

    Evolution, if you admit it is an absolute change theory, a quantum~theory, begs us to adhere memes surrounding Quantum~Completeness.

    To do that, we have to reject classical notions of completeness, unless we are speaking to an audience which only understands classical notions. When in Rome…

    Doug senses that John is asking Melanie to be classically consistent. She can’t if you grasp what Doug just wrote. Why? Formal ‘consistency’ is impossible by inspection of Doug’s two exemplars if you fathom quantum superior classical.

    And if we ask Melanie to be quantum~consistent, as an evolving being, she will always be changing her positions for better…in order to be quantumly~consistent.

    ‘Change’ is… ‘State’ isn’t…

    Best to all,


  44. Well, Doug, if I understand you correctly, all you said was that Melanie can’t be both classically consistent and complete, so I don’t see a conflict unless you assume that she is complete.

  45. Wow impressive – this article now officially has the most comments out of any article on the DR. Take that Ron Paul! (he got knocked down to second :P)

  46. John,

    Classically, I agree with your assessment.

    However, if reality is changing, evolving, and like gravity, all is in reality and reality is in all…we must learn to see consistency as change.

    Classical consistency depends upon absence of change to retain stability. Quantum reality IS change and thus incapable of classical notions of stability. (This is what Pirsig meant when he said “Classical thinking suffers a mental defect in reasoning.”)

    I would say that if one currently supports global warming, in order to be consistent one would have to say, “Earth classically-unpredictably warms and earth classically-unpredictably cools,” in order to be ‘consistent.’ (consistency here is change~consistency, not ‘state’ consistency)

    For example if Al Gore claims earth is classically warming, then he should be able to tell us when it started warming, and he should also be able to predict when it will start cooling. But he cannot do that, can he? (In fact, as he describes it, it will keep warming forever.)

    Were he a quantum~being who intuits quantum memes, he would respond that all he can do is predict a probability. He is realistically precluded from predicting a precise time, location, and temperature.

    Recall that Kyoto Accord predicted a precise temperature rise over next 100 years. As I recall it was 6C degrees. That of course is sheer idiocy. (It appears as though they naïvely did a linear extrapolation of temperature from about 1975 to 2000.)

    All I ask for Gore, et al., is to be able to understand physical reality better and describe their views in those terms. Instead they proffer political BS which in almost all cases is just that.

    If we put all of this in light of Marc Faber’s original article, we have a similar situation with our global economy: is it warming? Is it cooling? When will global markets go up? When will global markets go down?

    Quantum approaches say we can only rely (uncertainly) on stochastics which are adaptive in real time.

    But no one, as far as Doug knows, manages like that. We still manage by ‘objective,’ even though most of reality is quantum~wave~subjective, evolving and changing endlessly, perpetually.



  47. Doug,

    If I recall correctly, quantum wave probabilities collapse on the macro level into a more predictable reality (although I’m sure you know more about it than myself).

    Either way, it seems to me that this long tangent conversation about “consistency” has turned into a semantics discussion, as we all knew what I meant by “consistency” to begin with. While agreeing on a specific term in the English language might not be your prefence, it does make conversation easier, would you not agree? For example, I could say you consistently talk about quantum mechanics, and we would all know what that means. Introducing a new “classically consistent” vs “quantum consistent” argument doesn’t change the reality (or perception of reality if that helps).

    Oh, and do you refer to yourself in the third person, or is there another Doug?

  48. John,

    You appear to be saying, “I like being a classicist. I like status quo.” At least it is my perspective from your last comment.

    Classical consistency is wrong! Why? Dialectic is wrong!

    By comparison quantum~consistency is better: it’s based upon perpetual change where classical consistency is based upon classical ‘state.’

    Do you want to thing-k ‘state?’ Would you rather think change?

    I (Doug) am trying to help you see that.

    For example, it is a classical view that we can only thing-k about reality as objectively stopped (possibly linear-motion stoppable).

    What I am attempting to do is show you how quantum~think~king is superior to (above, more highly evolved than) classical-thing-king. That’s all.

    Classical-thing-king is just what forced classical ‘mechanics’ to assume wave functions have to collapse. Classicists had to collapse quantum waves to stop them so that they could think about them CONsistently.

    But collapsing a quantum wave zeroes h-bar! (Turns off quantum~reality.) It is an act of classical convenience and classical dialectical CONvention.

    It is an quantum~epiphany to fathom that quantum waves NEVER collapse, NEVER stop, rather wave perpetually: THAT’s real! (Our sun could not ‘live’ >billions of years were it classical. A photon could not travel billions of light years were it classical. Think about that!)

    I am saying that we cannot stop quantum reality: I intend to say we cannot zero h-bar for our own CONvenience and with a desire to be classically ‘CONsistent.’

    Classical science is quantum science with h-bar zeroed, but classical science isn’t real, nor is classical ‘CONsistency’ real. That is why I tried to help you see that.

    As an example, ask yourself if a pendulum stops at end of its swing? When you push your kid on a playground swing, if your kid actually stopped at end of each pendulum’s swing arc, what physically would your child feel? (Classical science assumes said pendulum ‘stops’ at each extreme of its swing. Actually it doesn’t! Why?)

    I hope this makes sense to you. If not, keep pushing back.



  49. Doug,

    Let’s leave what I’d “like” to think or what I’d “prefer” out of this, since it is irrelevant. I have always been open-minded to science, regardless of whether I “like” the results or not.

    What I’m saying is that, while quantum mechanics provides a better understanding of the physical world, it averages out on the macro level to the point where it is insignificant. To use your pendulum analogy, the pendulum will keep swinging consistently (classically) regadless of what happens at the quantum level. While the pendulum is still made up of an uncountable number of particles, they lose their “unpredictibale” behavior on a larger scale and become predictable classically. If I throw a rock, I can predict with much certainty what will happen without having to crunch a billion quantum equations to arrive at the result, because the probability waves are insignificant on a macro level. Similarly, while we can talk about quantum mechanics in the global warming debate, we can classically make predictions without having to account for random wave distributions on the quantum level.

    Oh and to answer your question of whether the pendulum “stops”, I would have to say yes, it does. Since the definition of “stop” implies the classical meaning, which is that the perceived velocity is 0. However, if we choose to break down the definition we would run into several problems. First, relativity doesn’t allow for the word “stop” as all velocity is relative and thus you cannot have 0 velocity, or any definite velocity. Next, perception is relative in our minds, as everything we see is based on a frequency of our eyes (frames per second), so we never actually “see” motion, we just see a series of frozen snapshots that must convey zero motion by definition. Furthermore, you are correct that on the quantum level it is impossible to “stop”, not to mention that it is also impossible to know for certain the velocity and position.

  50. Hi all… as much as we are enjoying this thread, any chance you could continue it over on the message board?

    If this page gets much longer we may run into some technological problems.

    From the DR

  51. stochastic process is not the only process, on one level things appear to be random, but on another level, they are synchroneous to a higer order logic that is embedded in the analogue that generates the information.

    depending on the number of variables input, and the need to accept a certain degree of hidden variables, that will determine the difference between the artificial and the natural, as Bohm suggested and as Everett confirmed.

    The bias of rationalising everything as stochastic process is misleading and particularly when applied to cognitive science which has taken the lead from AI, to determine apprehension of NI, natural intelligences.

    This is a spurious process of investigation that defers NI to AI for confirmation.

    And yes, moving could be good, there is much to talk about.

  52. Oh no.. not more Melanic Waffle!

    Unpopular Truth
    April 11, 2008
  53. Obviously “Unpopular truth”, can’t resist a comment that will put down or undo other peoples conversation. such tactics are like peer pressure and bullying, and while on their own, make the individual who in this case, is not prepared to speak from his real name, look stupid, sexist, uneducated and supremacist and racist, displaying a distinct distaste for the indigenous, and for women,

    Why comment when you obviously do not read, and are reacting from some unresolved fear or unfounded presumptions that change will ruin everything for you, there is no other way that your behaviour can be rationalised.

    Noone is forcing you to read this. You free to come and go. But continuing to make such comments and not actually engage is mindless.

  54. All I said was that your posts are waffle. Resorting to namecalling means I probably hit the mark.

    PS You forgot facist.

    Unpopular Truth
    April 13, 2008
  55. Thanks “unpopular truth” for pointing out that I have resorted to name calling. It is not something that I like to do or to field. It astounds me that simply being a woman, can incur the sentiments that are so easily exchanged here. But also, important exchange, and this is engaging. With respect, I had spent some time answering your former questions.

  56. Melanie: I think you spend some time trying to organise your lovely ideas on these here pages. Looking up the page (scroll up for five minutes), I can see the title of this here article. Why, it says “The Problem With Artificially Low Interest Rates”. Taking my sarcasm hat off for just a split second, I notice that an overwhelming proportion of these comments have bugger all to do with the article (or even this website).

    Do you suspect that perhaps the majority of people that visit this site, might be sick and tired of seeing comments about this crap? I am. I personally want to read about economic ideas, and the interesting commentary that other readers will provide ^on those topics^. The Communist in me (perhaps thats our common ground) thinks, hey, the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few here.

    Dictator Pete says: “seriously, get a blog!”

  57. Melanie and other frequent commenters on this post…

    We’ve asked nicely twice… but now we have to close comments on this post. You are welcome to continue it on the message board under the General Discussion thread, since it is not a financial topic.

  58. […] led me to wonder how such a disparity came about. Was money being priced too cheaply as a result of artificial forces? If there is demand for money and credit, yet little availabilty, wouldn’t that suggest high […]

Comments are closed.
Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to