And further

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/neurosciencenews.com/nordrenaline-fear-learning-7512/amp/#ampshare=http://neurosciencenews.com/nordrenaline-fear-learning-7512/

Further

http://neurosciencenews.com/memory-rna-neuroscience-8025/amp/

I don't know why this isn't publishing at my Medium

https://medium.com/@4e7d367bca41/9b2bb380d4d9

An ethical perspective on the astronomical

Martin Rees published in Aeon meanders, with brevity if not alacrity, on his repeated consumption of Revelations I wonder?
It is, to my thinking, indisputable that humans are mediated by their inventions. So the problem is not a shortcoming of our brains that will be surmounted by a technological transhumanism, nor is that the yoke by which capitalism or otherwise controls are apprehension. The problem is the persistent accusation that we don't know. "you don't know..." was oft retorted when atheism was reported in the classroom, the schoolyard. Twice over in the twentieth century British schools were staffed by semi PTSD-ed male teachers, the result of two world wars. It wasn't that one didn't know God and they did. Indeed, that's the melancholia desiring problem they had, they didn't want to know whether they did or not have a theological fix, but sure as shit you weren't to write off their frustrations and reliefs on the question by claiming there was nothing. Martin Rees reminds me of them, the pupils cloned of them.
It's not a mystery, that can only be gotten around by God granting technology, what the intricacies of some minutiae manifesting as infection or a brook rock pool biome are. It is no less mysterious that those inhabiting a position of authority craned through their career to gain public recognition and very little contact with the ground, known as Meritocracy, often insist "You don't know". So it goes that discoveries are sublimely dismissed for the habit of a depression the release from which would collapse the encumbent position of morality.

Droning on Daesh

What security authorities, I take they are pretending to, ignore is that it is only the violence that the Daesh display that attracted recruits to the sufficient supplement of being Muslim.

I know from anecdote that non-Muslims watch DVDs with delight in the Daesh disposition, and doubtless much envy for a opportunity to emulate it.

National Action, or whatever they call themselves, in the UK are exactly what "profiling" cannot prevent. This exactly why I supported meta-data gathering, in debate on public transit (specifically airports) points utilising security technology. I was disappointed, though not surprised, that a Green MEP from Germany, pretending intelligence, endorsed profiling as the privacy protecting preference.

This is to accompany my thread on twitter that endorses the killing or lifetime imprisonment of Daesh. It has nothing to with their Islamic accessorisation. The stealth of some of the intelligence community to propagate more atrocity in our lives by crusading hippy-like with pseudo-philosophical oppositions to a supposed paradox in not respecting the necessity of allowing for redemption is a mockery of, not least, our deployed military. We do not see their work defending civilians by eliminating aggressors as something for which they need redemption, unless we are moralists without any grounds for our judgement since the precarious profession has, probably, not been ours.
Of course they kill, and know beforehand so. But it is not their proclivity to impose a personal dedication to reduce us all to living in those circumstances for their own pleasure in excuse provided by some entity divorced of all contact except by representatives who often are the most depraved by a continuity of tutelage.

Still, those hollowed out walking dead are amongst our own defence forces and security operatives. They cannot be profiled anymore than appearing non-white and stressed can be different from white and stressed, both on the same gig of travelling or being unemployed. Only meta-data derived linkages can capture, and securely effective by allowing separate enforcement agencies simultaneous access, the terrorists and cramp the muscular games of attrition that others, their virtual sponsors, would have imposed on us so as to bring submission to authoritarian pressure.

I had a title and forgot to note it down

I'm not going to fill this with canonical references, though it is on the importance of philosophy as daring to readers in (of academia) to bring to issue, discussion, on the performance of science as it aids the technological stasis of democracy as institution of selective representation.

I don't want to go on like this.

I have often, when prompted, remarked on uses and abuses of pragmatism and, it's ancillary, cultural relativism. So before getting into the random walk that inevitably I do when there is no matter to how I get back to base, here is the reference point of consequence. This thoroughly concerns Rorty's argument in The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy.

Philosophy is not a science, inventive as it is it does not produce technical items that can only be manipulated by others under it's control. Philosophy without method is the only way to practice it pragmatically. James has someways perverted pragmatism, by valorising "belief" another sign for conscience, to instill an imputation of a Platonic lineage to Pierce over his desire to give philosophy a scientific edge. This is continued in Rorty's essay, unfortunately.

Because Pierce was bringing deconstruction to the question of science, or specifically in Derrida's mot majeure differance. Pierce opposes what we may call Kuhnian - without plugging Feyerabend, nor Althusser for the sake of argument, or Foucaldian pre-genealogical - to name enough to tie a wikipedia search in knots, I think. The angel is a postie, contra Latour's Grunderisse redux. Under the arch, with no address, the Madonna gets no mail before mobile telecoms, which the angel signs for. But a digress into secular revelation.

Pierce, we'll omit German Idealism, especially affinity with Leibniz because Spinoza is on the money and you got Zizek to prove Lacan's diagnosis of the scientist, argued for synechism. He also got too much of the Darwinised Hegelianism into his otherwise laudable tychism, so creating another route for the Singularity, as if Leibniz hadn't already gotten enough publicity in Voltaire's ironic response to the Lisbon Earthquake that - and you can find my dig at Latour is answerable in a data-swindle that fails to account for a disruption in European agriculture that, conveniently, puts the onus on Natives of America for early climate change - coincided with Portugal's exit from the Brazilian basin.
Voltaire appears, provocatively, warning against exercising colonialism, if you missed the episodes.

So the matter is "belief" or conscience, who wouldn't forget that after all we've been through? You wait till look up what I've left you with, above.

I need to emphasise what I do not want to distract you whilst you read the following - that Art is better critique of politics than philosophy. So Rorty's reflexive polemic, largely due to deconstructionists skipping on the required decades of philosophy reading, rather as Pierce's tychism, blinds itself to the obvious. At least, I hope, the obvious to us. Rorty fulfills mine and his preferenced reading of Spinoza, let it be said, insofar as he could foresee the consequences of pomo identitarianism. Willed immaturity or not - and I cannot, despite concerns on usage departures from philologically located provenances of usage, comport my position on the Habermas train - the means by which to counter the convergence of ignorances is laid out as getting more philosophy into critiques of science. A last word to Wittgenstein before the short ride in a fast machine: "Soapsuds"

Start with difference between philosophy and the purposes of theologies. The former occurs in relation to events, in the ultimately vulgar, as argumentation; the latter must own argumentation or nothing. And dire consequences are threatened if it's proprietary role is dismissed. Events are marked out by knowledge, science, specifically available technologies.
There's nothing more to be said when we say moral. It is a concilience of proprietariness in implication. What else can this be if not that we are human in an ahistorical predicament? Pinker, Piaget whomever, fail to see that it is the responses of a politicised interaction that presents itself as evidencing developmental (psychic) of the human. This where I'm at with my tumbles into Lacanianism. Philosophical debates have absented themselves, except in moribund ethics, on the details of science. Rorty was affronted by Hauser's Moral Minds, in continuity with Spinoza in his attack though failing to allow Hauser the dignity of having pin-pointed a major subsidence in the edifice of philosophy. Hauser's error, the one he was too enthused to prepare himself for - that's to his credit - has been replicated and found in his favour. Not to his vindication. Philosophers, and not least Lacanians, have not arrived to rescue him from an injustice of political hostility.

I hate writing from a prepared text, as I have since "soapsuds". So I strode into another precinct back there. The scenario we inhabit now follows a certain enchantment where we have tolerated anti(social)liberalism. Yet, this is my argument, the only way to counter that intolerable politics is for philosophers to stand and plainly argue for Open Science. There is, to my thinking, no other way to bring politics round to counter this assertive, aggressive, insurgency of left and right conservative nihilism.

Wholey on reflection

Albeit I may appear splenetic in tweets the Blue Flag is certainly having an effect.  That aside....

It is a cliche to note how liberated (young) women were by WW2. I won't examine that fact here. I recently conversed with a Piagetian, one could say too much, yet, it was a refreshing, although a distracting, fast discussion.
After WW2 in the UK with the emergence of the NHS under austere conditions - what I am to speculate is not draw any parallel of certainy with contemporaneous austerity - mothers, new, were subject to state propelled attentions by the new health service. Many factors determined this beyond the naive political gesture of providing a future workforce, I shall not list them.
It is possible to derive an account of "womb envy" (Horney wrote after wars, Weberism, the threat of American global dominance as obvious new matrix) from the infant experience of that era. For liberation has not easily returned in spirit for women since. No matter the proportions, denser distribution of women in all facets of economy or politics. The latest point is a drawing dowm of access to divorce, independence in the benefit system crudely slams disputational partners together in Kleinian recycling.

The Lacan-Luhmannian autopoiesis I find, I wasn't looking though, on "the very essence of anxiety" the flying car petting bombing of the built environment surprising in light of Conservative rhetoric. You can read up on Piaget, I worked from Barzalai. When we gaze at the surroundings it's a swell, the whole cannot be fixed least of all the rural landscape eczematic and tattoed as it is - it is as magnified camouflaged or coitured body contours, one can't ignore this. In entirely masculine certainty the I is found whole, rather probably only possible, amongst what, as Piaget asserts is expected as whole.
You can see where I'm taking this? We need change our sense of proportion, to another sense in two senses, vice versa.

Derrida stumbled on a question, he thought of, of the blind. Is there a linguistic apperception to all the accumulate syntaxing of navigating an environment? There are varieties of blindness, difficult to imagine without using VR. It's like asking the multilingual if they think in one language generally to get a blind person to evaluate exactly how they read environments?

Ok. Consider the Negev Bedoiun. Deafness, of which an allegedly heritable  trait predominates amongst them is also of varieties comparable to blindness. So it is we all are, no matter our "good" senses, afflicted in our attentions. The Negev deaf have arrived at a sign language, particular descriptions by gesture. It's not linguistic, it has no wholeness with their language which they can see and read. Linguists are astonished. Do they get out much? Such gesturing, hit and miss, is common interaction. Semblance.

Of course I'm not completing this, as usual. You can think from the pieces. The essence of anxiety.

I begin.

https://www.thewildpharma.co.uk/plants/blueflag

Under Pressure

The percentages, the staple of decision-makers in the media's gaze. The majority of people who would be picked as jewish under the aryan law of Hitler's regime if it were introduced would be surprised. No less if a similarly law was repurposed for deportation to Israel, using very unreliable genetic database analysis, the majority would be surprised. Those who insist they are of jewish lineage may, by this measure, find themselves ejected from Israel. On and on it goes, if reification of racism develops further.

In our democracies we defer to the majority often without further debate, without admitting that the actual majority often makes that majority a minority. Some that voted Brexit do not simply regret the actuality, they believe they were uninformed of the projected consequences of a Brexit. Considering that few can be  broadly educated in every information dependent decision we should, informed by the certain probability of "unforeseen" consequences making a minority - of the majority additional to the minority that already forms a greater majority than the token majority - regret their decision, we should use any such decision to commit to further debate until social effects, the necessity of negative liberty - the right to be unimpeded in pursuit of private existence that does not impose on other private lives - outweighs the authority of decision makers by vote or "public opinion".
This would be what a petitioners' democracy by my design would achieve. It is a retrofit of Habeas Corpus. That Parliamentary Democracy exceeds this progressive practical direction toward social solidarity evolving from deconstruction of authority's power supposedly selected by democracy (which only derives from allegiances forced into formation under threat of destruction of the State that legitimated their honourific power in public life) though in practice little more than partially codified conventions installed by arbitrary decisions under pressure.

Returning to the issue of theology as biologically inherited, or one of it's by-products, Israel. There is no way out of conflict resolving such a cosmogonic competition except by agreeing it is certainly very questionably premised. None of the media featured contenders for parliamentary, or otherwise, seats breaks away from the prejudicial, albeit argued as conferring "recognition", perpetuation of certain segregations to further establish a dependence on parliamentary absolution to absorb constructed tribal divisions that are variously expelled for treatment, generally of legal contradiction and circuitious means to the end that begins the same.
Godlike Democracy, dividing for conquest by immanent nationalisms, is unbelievable.

Cattle, sheep diseases

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC95770/

Schmallenberg_virus still fits the speculation. However I was also mistaking it for the above.
Note how little is known about these viruses, a common factor.

Caring

When one is approaching irreversible infirmity, there should be the option of euthanasia.
Not at all in a matter of fact way, however. Departure locations should be established where a form of life and work can be known, where the departing can reside, be engaged by those living, having worked, or knowing the life, there.