In broad political terms, rather than analytical scientific ones, the Aurora massacre is to be understood for its effect on the social and political framework in which the incident occured and is occurring. This broad effect, we can all guess fairly well, will amount to a stress on the system. The participants in this system, largely limited to just the United States population, are equally, under the hypothesis that bacteria regulate all CNSs, regulated by bacteria like the alleged shooter. But as the hypothesis holds that human violent tendencies are controlled by bacteria and used to offset human idiosyncratic practices of treatment of corpses, the play that this massacre gets in the media and under discussion will all take a turn in keeping with the hidden agenda of bacteria. There is no doubt in my mind that bacteria are responsible for all crimes just as all wars, and also for all the greatest achievements of men, or more properly said, must be assigned an equal share in such responsibility given that the exact proportion is way beyond the current state of progress of scientific argument about bacterial regulation of CNSs, and probably is not a simple proportion anyway but rather a complex array of weights regarding the myriad factors that determine mammal behavior, or indeed any animal behavior.
If we withdraw the measure of penalty for crime then we must necessarily also withdraw the reward for enterprise, which is the protection under the law for men to keep the fruits of their labor, for without bacteria labor would not be fruitful. While withdrawing penalty inspires a certain altruistic sympathy, withdrawing protection of fruits can safely be assumed to have no sympathizers outside of a miniscule set of extremists, or those criminals who fail to project beyond the initial booty. Yet these two changes of law would be equally necessary under an, excessively naive, revision under the hypothesis. Evidently a morph of the hypothesis to theory status would parallel developments with respect to the actual extent of shared responsibility with bacteria, and what revisions to law are necessarily called for on scientific grounds. Every implication of the hypothesis, at the current level of evidence, requires for its appreciation a vastly greater scale of time assissment than the perspective of law today. The course of events that lead to a man doing something like the Aurora massacre involve interventions, and taken opportunities leading to establishing a territorial hegemony, by bacteria at key times and places across millions, but moreso even billions of years.
The results of careful observation and deliberation will alone settle the matter, for it is well enough along in discussion that an end of uncertainty is within expectation, since a place for the discussion has been prepared here and, to some extent, elsewhere.
Monday, July 30, 2012
It seems to me there is a small step of progress which could be attained by grouping together stars with planets in a single category, planets being defined according to the new definition of the International Astronomical Union, in 2006, that omits Pluto. The attainment of hydrostatic equilibrium, one of the new criteria of the IAU for planets, is shared by stars, and in my view enables a body to operate on a certain level that is no different whether planet or star, and needs to be recognized in civilization by a new term if this level is to get the attention it needs for fruition. The term I suggest for this category is astremity, a borrowing from the word extremity, which characterizes a filling of a certain space with form and which suggests the idea of curvature filling a certain space to form a planet or star.