latest

corona/Disdain.md

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# Disdain for Publishers
+
+Disdain for the vulnerable, all because of a different decision regarding the vaccine. How does that even come about? I found it quite striking, particularly because the response was so "matter of fact" blunt about denying a man his life. One might see the respone as logical and rational, but though it might at least be the latter, it appeared to be merely repeating the arguments found in the corresponding article being shared. That is, it took me back to a tim when I would read close to the entirety of a newspaper and think of it as the norm through which to become informed. How lovely to have such a guarantee that one is obtaining such useful information, or especially information whose use can be specifically understood.
+
+We, or I, never questioned whether a proportion of writing was biasd or misleading, except for some of the personal bias put forth by the author, based on their personal experience and style. But it didn't go much beyond that. In fact, since they had set out to wriet an article on the subject at hand, it would cause me to assume both that the author is somewhat knowledgable about the subject at hand, or that they were intrested in that particular subject. In any case, it conferred some significant expectation about their competence.
+

corona/Quantified_Risk.md

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# Quantified Risk
+*In evaluating a person's capacity to increase risk upon everybody else*
+How comprehensive is this going to be? Because, obviously it's a farce from the absolute beginning. We ignore everyone who actually had it, gaining comprehensive T-cell immunity which curs pathogenic transmission for future strains to come, and instead make it purely symbolic practice to demonstrate that you would be ever so willing to perform whatever duty is demanded of you, like a good child, or a good soldier, even going so far as allowing the government to inject a product composed of synthetic substances into you, regardless of the capacity for it to be dangerous for you.
+
+You can declare that it is almost completely free of risk, but you cannot say it is absolutely free of risk. This is an explicit action that you are taking. There is a difference between your current or unaltered state and your medically-treated state, and there is some risk incurred in making that transition. Comparing a direct action to a theoretical event which is not made one's destiny through demand or decision, but is an occurrence which takes place as a matter of happenstance as per the patterns of the natural world is an absurdity. There is no way to make up for indirection vs explicit, or the potential of an event being realized, particularly since these are not even options being offered to anyone, as there is no reasonable expectation that the state is offering you a bout of SARS-COV2 infection and illness. That is, though they are compared on the basis of theoretical risk, and though we could presuppose that the weight applied in such a comparison is unquestionably accurate, the comparison itself is inadmissible as it does not represent the transaction being proposed.
+
+In fact, the nature of the transaction as contextualized by first effects is not even something which has been formalized, and is alone something which I doubt very much any universally credible consensus can reach. Again, one will say the special circumstances and particular risks supersede any such discussion, but I would say that you have sold away any standard for ascertaining what a special circumstance happens to be, and that the predisposition to operate per such a modality expresses one's antagonism and driven to profit one's own desires.
+
+At the very least, the fact of there being any research whatsoever which shows that some people never encounter symptomatic disease fulfills the potential of someone not having disease as an option. The other possibility is that one adapts as per interaction with humans throughout a course of events whereby the prevalent strain becomes more common an dless responsible for disease. There would likely be very many persons who would come to enjoy this circumstance and they would have immunity to offer to the whole community.
+

corona/Waking_Up_To_Death.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Waking up to Death
+Every child has to learn of the threat of their mortality. It is sobering and macabre, yet fantastic and enlightening. The scaling of time and attempting to conceive and visualize a lifetime. The consideration of representing a complete human lifetime as an eternity. We each get to have one infinity.
+
+The contemplation and bewonderment brings about angst and dread. There is still so much to do and experience. The limitations imposed by being a child causes one to feel as though one cannot even yet begin to do that which must be done before one leaves the world, and this feels incredibly unfair. Unfair because of life, but perhaps because of the culture as well.
+
+There is a spark of hope, however. As one attempts to conceive as to the experience of death, eprhaps as a visual description, one also begins to wonder if there might be more. Again, we always use one measuring stick. There is little one can do to evade that, but it is worse in childhood, as one feels a bit of FOMO about nearly anything.
+
+But then, life expectancy has changed, and will get better.. we hope. With still an eternity to go, might that leav enough time for immortality to be discovered? Surely my experience is the only one I can experience, thus why shouldn't it go on indefinitely?
+
+And what of the moral good of having life? If, indeed, it is better to be than not, to exist rather than not, then certainly it is tragic for life to end. Why allow for one to exist if they must be learn that they will stop existing, and thn for that to come to pass? Would that not call into question the very proposition of being? One could say that it's better for there to have been than not, even if it comes to an end, but one would need to assume they understand how to evaluate the perceptions and experiences of all others in order to make such a broad assertion. The fact is, no one knows the specific pain and sentiment of another.
+
+Then, if our capabilities become great enough, that immortality becomes approachable and attemptable. Then it becomes immoral to not be offering it ot those that wish it, as even if not all can receive the enhancement, the degree to which it is used will dictate the rate at which it becomes universally viable and available.
+
+Surely, if anyone wants it at all, it is to be used, and if almost no one wants it, its use and pursuit by a few carry to the culture a range of prevailing benefits which reduce particularly discernible instances of challenge.
+
+But, now, how can it ever be created?

corona/mass_formation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Mass Formation
+Mass-scale forming, colasceing. Requirements/conditions to enable this to materialze are as follows:
+
+## 1. Loss of Meaning/Sensemaking
+- Loss of connectedness: social bonds do not exist or are superficial
+- Lasting anxiety: especially if it does not have a clear source or cause
+- Confusion: contradictions about ideas or events greatly affecting one's life wherein confusion is a consequence of having to maintain beliefs/understanding
+
+## 2. Narrative
+- Some repeating narrative which gives an explanation about the phenomena relating to the anxiety
+- Targeted object proposed as responsible for the undesirable circumstance
+
+## 3. Solidarity
+- Solidarity is formed among those who are convinced of the narrative.
+- Must now support a narrative which villifies in order to maintain social bonds
+

new/ExistingStateOfBeing.md

@@ -4,4 +4,7 @@ The stereotypical conception of the physical vs spiritual lends to imagine the p
 
 The Christian Science way of looking at things has tended to declare stories of the Bible as allegory, and to claim that the afterlife could not be known to be something realizable through mortal thinking. That there is no reason to believe it exists or that it doesn't exist. In that sense, it stands to reason that any separation of physical and spiritual cannot really be understood to be real or relevant except on the basis of a synthetic conception as to the nature and composition of the spiritual.
 
-The physical may very well be a spiritual expression which fulfills any or all or none of the known frameworks for spiritual understanding. So where does that leave one's understanding of matter? Some spiritual framworks of thought (SFT))
+The physical may very well be a spiritual expression which fulfills any or all or none of the known frameworks for spiritual understanding. So where does that leave one's understanding of matter? Some spiritual framworks of thought (SFT) may recommend or make clear a fundamental axiom and value or goal of ridding oneself of any material desire or expectation for the purpose of being aligned with or affecting or being affected by the spiritual, and this creates a great conundrum. That is, there are obvious reasons for conducting thought from a human body, such as to acknowledge and, to some degree, take for granted the physical value of our observed Universe. And this is not just for one's personal survival and direct benefit, but even in respecting the existence of all expression of being as can be seen in material forms (humans and animals, for example). Thus, there is a moral basis and impetus for recognizing and respecting knowledge about the physical.
+
+Where does one make a point of demarcating between these two? Or does one even need to find the point where you depart from one and come into the other?
+

new/Hegel_OS_notes.md

@@ -516,3 +516,12 @@ This central concept is used by ideologues to weaponize language: "You like Demo
 - Liberation presupposes change in biological dimension - instinctual needs, body reactions, and the mind
 
 ### Marcusian Alchemy
+- Purify oneself and adopt critical consciousness
+- Engage dialectic to burn away oppression and yield golden society
+- Biological level: new man (of course)
+- Pure consciousness: critical, class, racial, climate
+- People cannot be free as other to absolute
+- When all become aware that they manufacture the absolute, it becomes realized
+
+### Contemporary Comparison
+-

new/In a Nutshell.md

@@ -12,11 +12,11 @@
 - Inaccurate to conclude that each vaccine has different types of side effects
 - Inaccurate to suggest that natural immunity should not be expected to be effective and durable
 - Inaccurate to propose a Darwinian explanation as to why variants are created and to lay the blame entirely on the unvaccinated
-- Inaccurate to suggest that our PCR tests are effective at identifying COVID ones
+- Inaccurate to suggest that our PCR tests are effective at identifying COVID cases
 - Inaccurate at referring to asymptomatic spread as a spreading of disease rather than a spreading of immunity
 - Inaccurate to obsess over Long Covid
 - Inaccurate to report case numbers based on PCR, with no distinction for CT value, and to report daily changes to overall data sets, including revised changes to past dates.
-- Inaccurate to suggest mitigation stratgies are effective and harmless
+- Inaccurate to suggest mitigation strategies are effective and harmless
 - Inaccurate to suggest that herd immunity can be achieved
 - Inaccurate to avoid doing blood work to test  D-Dimers, troponin levels, and changes to concentrations / proportion at different immune cells.
-- Inaccurate to scaremonger about variants, without helping people understand the distinction between antigen.drift, which occurs naturally with coronaviruses, and antigen shift, which happens with influenza.
+- Inaccurate to scaremonger about variants, without helping people understand the distinction between antigen drift, which occurs naturally with coronaviruses, and antigen shift, which happens with influenza.

new/Norm_Fenton.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
 - Nothing was reviewed / was rejected by pre-print servers
 - Now only on ResearchGate and blogs
 - All videos have been removed (banned from posting videos on YouTube)
-- LEtter into American journal of theraputics - looked at Bayesian model analysis techniques
+- Letter into American journal of theraputics - looked at Bayesian model analysis techniques
 
 ## Data problems
 ### Fundamentals
@@ -123,3 +123,8 @@ Daily UK gov cases vs Daily ambulance/emergency calls (NHS dashboard)
 No relationship whatsoever
 
 ## Vaccine Efficacy/Safety
+Problems highlighted with definition of COVID CASE and VACCINATED PERSON also undermine the results demonstrating vaccine effectiveness. The comparison between cases in vaccinated/unvaccinated that determine effectiveness.
+
+In Lancet-reported observational, any error resulting from case / vaccinated person definitions are compounded by the fact that there are different testing strategies for each:
+- Asymptomatic/unvaccinated tested regularly
+- Asymptomatic/vaccinated not

new/Othering-UnMe.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Othering the Un-Me
+Impetus to view other humans as disease/parasites/pests.
+
+Fear of illness? Maybe, but not explicitly so because of low probability that one maintains a conception of disease-state, and low expectation of correltaion with experiencing life-threatening disease.
+
+Reduce anoher and factor into a form who has not qualified for your forthrite consideration.
+
+# Anti-Mask Supremacy
+Privilege:
+- expect that you are invincible, perpetuating behaviour which puts vulnerable at risk - promotes infection which disproportionately affects those from marginalized communities
+-

new/The_Supreme_Concern.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# The Supreme Concern
+They have all subscribed to it. One chief, principal threat of such great importance that the minds of the masses don't even have the ability to consider if it could be supplanted, much less consider if the status of the concern is well-warranted.
+
+How did this come to pass? Is it through a clear evaluation of the circumstance and an irrefutable conclusion that our focus shuld be wholly consumed by this matter?
+
+Certainly, there were predictions which conferred the following expectations:
+- First order death
+- Incurring severe disease
+- Loss of infrastructure
+- Possibel death
+
+## 1. First Order Death
+The distinction is being made that the expectation was such that infection by the virus alone, incidentally, and irrespsctive of initial viral load, would yield illness which kills ~3-10% of those infected. This was quickly discovered to not be the case, and instead a grasping approach was sought amongst politicians, public health advisors, and persons who were consuming the narrative. Any order of influence associated with a recorded health event is to be considered interchangeable with that of a first order effect.
+
+This is an extraordinary form of methodology whose utilization was adopted without consideration as to detrimental effects, and that this occurred so readily suggests that either the vast majority had been coaxed into an unthinking stupor which compromises one's own capacity to protect themselves, or that such a methodology was being promoted by those who are incomppetent or of ill-intent