Are We Certain?

by Carol W. Christen

Imagine all persons as being human. A human person does not and, indeed, cannot metamorphose into any other living creature, such as a horse. A human person remains a human person; and, all humans constitute a system of humanity called society.

There are many systems; i.e., a herd of goats, a colony of ants, etc. When God gave humans dominion over the animals and plants, He made humanity the metasystem over the animals. Even if God didn't do this, assuming it to be myth or fiction, then, by virtue of our sciences and arts, we humans view all animals and plants as systems which we can study or exploit and which we can understand completely, given the will and the tools. We are as a metasystem to the animal and vegetable kingdoms; i.e., we can know them entirely because we can measure them any way we wish.

When it comes to ourselves, however, is this the case? Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle proves that no system can measure itself. There is no reason to believe humans are exempt from uncertainty when they attempt to focus attention on themselves or other humans to measure them one way or another. In other words, how does a human become a metasystem to other humans; and, how can it be proven that any human has achieved metadimensionality towards everyone else?

A metasystem is a dimension above a system and encompasses the entire system. Who is it who has such attributes? Parents? Coaches? CEO's? Ministers? Kings? Dictators? Neighbors? Police? Congress? Criminals? Cartels?

Think about the answer carefully. It can be argued that each of the above know what is best for all the rest. Is this truly the case, though? Humans group to avoid this problem by counterbalancing other human groups. Humans will create larger systems which have greater powers; many hope the larger group may be the metasystem. Is that true or is it still a local system function rather than a metasystem function?

Each human wishes for control over local conditions; some have larger boundaries wanting as much as possible. Regardless of the limits or not, no one has achieved metaness to anyone else. Slavery, imprisonment, force, war only determine winners, not certainty that might makes right.

Those who figuratively stand on the backs of others are striving for overt certainty that they are right and are entitled, to boot. Others in secret agencies and societies strive for covert certainty. The problem for everyone is that they are all uncertain about the measures they take and uncertain about their results or their downfalls, which will happen because none of them has become a metasystem; none of them can by definition.

The implications of understanding this concept might go a long way towards freeing those humans who are being used and abused by others who claim divine right to such abuse or use. All claims of being more than human or above it all must fail since the human system remains and is still uncertain and a system.

Is government a metasystem? Are those who do or would govern metasystems to other people? The answer is, again, no. Take for example the government of the United States. Is that government a metasystem?

The only metasystem to the government of the United States is stated in the Preamble to its Constitution; i.e., We, the People of the United States, in order to: form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and (secure the blessing of liberty) to our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.

Therefore, we are back to us; and, we are by definition the creators of government, not its subjects. Anyone at all who works in the government is subject to its rules when it is an employer; but, the rest of us are the human persons who empower that government; we are not subjects or objects for that government; because, the government itself cannot measure us, the People, with any certainty at all. It cannot legitimately claim us as its proper focus. We, the People, can claim government as our proper focus.

A police state, a military state, a legislature which sells itself to the highest bidder - none of these is proper. Although people pretend they have the right to subject others to all kinds of improprieties because they are of the government, they do not, in reality, have any such prerogatives or rights. The fact that bad law is voted for and upheld by a majority, does not produce or establish justice. It does not even promote the general welfare.

Often, scientists will find serious fault with certain beliefs and laws, but some people will always insist that their view is the certain one and will not retract the errors.

The People gave the government a metasystem to measure government's performance. That metasystem is a set of ideas in the Preamble. Every law made should have to conform to the principles in the Preamble and the Bill of Rights. If any law does not match, it should not become law.

Supposedly, the Supreme Court is to determine this; sadly, it never mentions the Preamble's overriding principles. It argues only from opinions (uncertain), precedents (may not match or matter either), and from the prejudices of its society. After all, the ones chosen always reflect the current political climate. No one in politics seems to wish to choose a human being who understands the subsidiary nature of government to its own people.

When we turn to science, we know that proof of any theory must be found and tested by others. A hard science - a science concerned with the makeup of the universe, can prove its theories and is certain, at least, up until it is overturned. Only metaphysics is free to discuss meaning for the hard sciences; a soft science is uncertain.

What is a soft science? A system which purports to measure the human person will always be uncertain. It may be statistically significant when it measures; but, does it hold true for humans across the planet? Is psychology an uncertain, thus soft, science? Psychiatry is both hard and soft in the sense that a psychiatrist is also a doctor. Is a doctor a scientist? Not necessarily. When is a doctor a scientist?

Why haven't we grasped who we are? Is it that our soft scientists cannot really tell us the whole of our nature? Why is it that even the small parts we can claim to know about ourselves are always refuted by authorities, by those with the opposite beliefs, by people on the street, by the media, and by anyone who wants things to match a small, proscribed agenda for everyone else? Is it because the uncertainty causes anxiety and, thus, overreaction?

If human persons realized the implications and the true limits of authority, would it be easier to live on earth? As a human person, I am lumped with corporations which are defined as persons. Yet corporations are not jailed for crimes; their buildings, assets and employees are not surrounded and closed by federal marshals; the owners are often excused though persons die or become ill; the stockholders are always excused from culpability although they paid for the corporate "person."

Is the corporate "person" a metasystem to human persons? Let's measure a corporate person. A corporation exists at the pleasure of government. Government cannot be a metasystem to the people as we discussed earlier; therefore, a corporation is a creature of government, regardless of ownership or stocks.

Corporations are pushing and buying government; and, corporations have wider latitude and rights than the people who work in them. Corporations propagandize against the human persons within who would join unions. All the people give the corporations the right to exist; and then, some people in corporations insist that none of those people have any rights while within their doors. The uncertainty is mind-boggling.

The corporation pretends to be a metasystem to the government which allowed its creation. The corporation further compounds its error (taking people in along the way) by usurping the role of metasystem to the people, especially when it goes global. Corporate greed has gone beyond cash.

Corporations need to be redefined. Making them both person and organization operating by the will of the people confuses the owners and stock holders. It confuses the true governmental metasystem, the people. Terms need to be defined correctly. Congress needs to realize the country is not served by serving the few because the country is not the few, never has been, and never will be.

Is Congress a metasystem to the people? No. There is no need to repeat the argument. Each authority needs to be matched to its proper role, rather than being a piece of congressional pork.

Who owns me or you? No one. But, corporate persons are owned by some people. People die, suffer, are imprisoned unjustly. It happens in the uncertainty and the stubbornness of those who hold power, who sway weak people to pass foolish or vindictive laws not matched to the Preamble.

Who owns me? Everyone wants to tell me what to do or be or feel or say. Everyone wants everyone else to behave. Police want to beat people into submission. An army wants them to die for being different. Religious people think only their religion is certain. How can you tell if your religion is the meta-religion? God is obviously a metasystem to mankind. Why would He raise anyone over any other of mankind? How can any person speak for God? The wise think it's love; the rest think it is a matter of coercion.

The state owns even my death. How did it get to be that way? I do not object to its noting my date, time and reason for dying. Now it says I must not die without its permission. Wait, some need permission. Some are killed for state reasons. Maybe tomorrow all of us will need permission to enter the streets, as the government proceeds to pretend it is a certain metasystem to its people. Anyone or any system which purports to be a metasystem to a human person is false.

The government alleges that "for the greater good", the rights of the people can be diminished or eliminated. Even if the majority of people support such a premise, the People do not; for, the government is not the People, the metasystem to decide. It is interesting how only certain opinions ever make it into the body politic. People with differing views are attacked, ridiculed, etc., both publicly and privately. No one is using the meta-yardstick, the Preamble to check for right and fairness to everyone.

We are not taxpayers or workers except occasionally in our lives. We are all the People, the citizens, and those who deny any of us our due, usurp the Constitution and pretend to be doing it for our good. That, too, is always false. The maturity of our people will occur only when we realize that politics is the art of secret certainty which needs to give way to open, courageous frankness about the reality of life.

Return to Port Of Call Home Page
Return to June/July 97 Table of Contents