“Science” of Evil:
Suppose “physics” is just illusion, for entertaining each mathematically synchronized, holographic set of different perspectives from the same essential Will.
Suppose time, space, matter, and energy do not exist, except in respect of a coordinating of perspectives of Will.
Suppose what separates my perspective from the furthermost expression of consciousness elsewhere in the universe is not time, space, matter, or energy, but spiritual form of Will.
If so, how could it be, out of the myriad of possible events, that any particular event (or pattern of events) emerges into recordable or meaningful (physical) manifestation?
Well, might the “ultimate explanation,” rather than laws of natural physics, simply be that each such event is “anthropic-ally” necessary to the unfolding of a common holography of beings and recorders that happen to be formed and synchronized to perceive or record each such event?
If so, by definition, no one member of a set of interacting perspectives could predict how each event that is determined in respect of the synchronization of all such perspectives must unfold.
In each case, whether an event were prescribed by “objective physics” or by “synchronized holography of perspectives of will,” the empirically experienced result would measure the same.
In such case, mere empiricism could neither prove nor disprove a synchronizing source of Will (i.e., “God”).
Ask, then: What is the utility of “God”?
Answer: The utility of a concept of “God” is to facilitate the inculcating of common, natural respect for a higher Source, which has seen fit to define each of us, thereby facilitating more enlightening empathy among all of us.
Being “churched” about such a God helps condition us to be willing to come together in mutual, humble respect, to try to reason out our differences, meaningfully.
For such purpose, God does not manifest directly to tell us what to do.
Rather, our common receptivity to God is what we experience, which helps lead us to reason together.
In expecting to find meaningful ground by respecting God, we may more likely find common ground.
Regardless of respect for God, war will often come.
If belief in God is necessary to do evil, so also is belief in God necessary to do good.
Regardless, moral meaningfulness tends to be enhanced in respect of belief in God.
And moral meaningfulness will come to prefer peace --- if we are meant to survive.
7 comments:
Listening to God:
http://www.ltgministries.org/
Poison pill: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14027.html.
See http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/end_the_masquerade_of_the_reli.html.
WILL TO MATH:
All physics is based on spiritual faith in “Will-To-Math.”
Were we not divided by cheap diversions and petty disputes, all angst could be reconciled merely by agreeing to effect some simple bookkeeping entries.
OF PHYSICS AND MORALITY (IS AND OUGHT):
“IS” --- PHASING REALITY:
To appreciate or perceive a particular or holographic pattern of “physics,” one’s expression of Will must become so attuned and sensitive as to be receptive to such appreciation or perception.
To will to attune to any perspective of patterns or of holography is to will to insulate oneself apart from The Holism of Being, which necessarily renders any particular-based-perspective incomplete, as well as subject to instantaneous phase conversion upon each change of perspective or attunement.
In coming to experience a perspective, as one senses any single pattern or thing, one will, alternately, sense such thing (1) from a perspective of particularity and (2) from a perspective of holism.
One may sense or measure a thing (1) as being particularly emerged or expressed out of its environment, and one may sense such thing (2) as a sub-holism out of which other particular things are expressed (or cross-reacted with).
While one is focused and intent to appreciate a pattern from a perspective of particularity, one will be so defining oneself in such relation, so that one will not then and there be appreciating such pattern from a perspective of significantly greater holism, and vice versa.
Each perspective one experiences or chooses coordinates with an interpretation of reality, which collapses in a way consistent with reinforcing each such perception. Each such interpretation is “real” to one’s experience, but is not a complete model of The Reality exterior to one’s perspective.
Based on logic availed to our empiricism, a mortal perspective-of-reality may not, at the same time and place, accurately know or measure both (1) the particular reality of its perception and (2) the holistic reality that subsumes its perspective.
As one measures light as a particle, one will not be measuring it as a wave; and vice versa.
One cannot, with completely coherent consistency, measure a thing in simultaneous space (location) and time (direction of change), from both a perspective of particularity and from a perspective of greater holism.
One cannot, merely by continuously subdividing things, reach or comprehend an ultimate particle or a complete model of explication.
Nevertheless, by practicing in attuning and measuring in respect of various perspectives and models, one may come to appreciate an ever-expanding and/or changing universe of ambiguities and possibilities.
Therewith, one may gain vision, insight, intuition, judgment, and skill. Therewith, one may artfully ever-engage in one’s choices and appreciation of Will.
For that, no single science or course of study will yield “the correct answer.” But, a variety of approaches may enhance one’s artistically skilled appreciation of paths for pursuing fulfillment.
“OUGHT” --- INSPIRING MORAL CHOICES WITHIN SOCIAL REALITY:
We have no way to make our interpretations or physical measurements “more perfect or complete,” merely by rationalizing arbitrary notions or blends of notions, such as notions of “part-wholes” or of “particle-waves.” Rather, it is beyond our mortal comprehension or mathematics to devise any synthesizing model that could yield a complete, coherent, consistent interpretation of reality.
Perhaps, however, we may enhance alternative, hyper, virtual ways of interpreting, which may lead us to experience different perspectives of holographies of our common holism. In any event, no one model and no blend of models avails a reliably complete interpretation of any non-trivial event.
Such problem of incompleteness pertains to every model or perspective we may choose, and is not confined merely to our physical reality. Rather, such problem also permeates our intangible, conceptual, conscious reality. Such problem applies when we try to blend concepts of: psychology with sociology, or individual enterprise with community goals, or capitalism with socialism.
In considering a number of different models or perspectives, we may enhance our humility, insight, vision, intuition and emotional appreciation. In such way, we may better inspire choices, even though mere logic or math can never prove that any one choice was ultimately morally “better” than any other.
In relation to where our civilization is presently, “socialistic-capitalism” may be descriptive of what we have chosen --- consciously or unconsciously. Yet, no such concept of “socialistic-capitalism” will necessarily be a better or higher form --- either of socialism or of capitalism.
We are in a passing phase. Our appreciation of it may be enhanced were we to become more receptive to spiritual humility and intuition that avails from a variety of perspectives.
Make choices we must. One such choice may be to appreciate how no zealous notion of communism, socialism, or humanism can replace the enlightened empathy that can be received in common spiritual humility before God.
Whether we label our secular political philosophy as communism, socialism, capitalism, humanism, or as some blend thereof, what is most important to our humane, enlightened empathy is that we appreciate our spiritual interconnection, which devolves from a myriad of ambiguous possibilities of Will.
In single minded zeal, there lurks the blind evil that ever challenges us.
FINANCIAL MELTDOWN —
European complicity: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13euro.html?th&emc=th
*****
Snippets from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?th&emc=th:
Gordon Does Good
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 12, 2008
What is the nature of the crisis? The details can be insanely complex, but the basics are fairly simple. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to large losses for anyone who bought assets backed by mortgage payments; these losses have left many financial institutions with too much debt and too little capital to provide the credit the economy needs; troubled financial institutions have tried to meet their debts and increase their capital by selling assets, but this has driven asset prices down, reducing their capital even further.
What can be done to stem the crisis? Aid to homeowners, though desirable, can’t prevent large losses on bad loans, and in any case will take effect too slowly to help in the current panic. The natural thing to do, then — and the solution adopted in many previous financial crises — is to deal with the problem of inadequate financial capital by having governments provide financial institutions with more capital in return for a share of ownership.
This sort of temporary part-nationalization, which is often referred to as an “equity injection,” is the crisis solution advocated by many economists — and sources told The Times that it was also the solution privately favored by Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman.
But when Henry Paulson, the U.S. Treasury secretary, announced his plan for a $700 billion financial bailout, he rejected this obvious path, saying, “That’s what you do when you have failure.” Instead, he called for government purchases of toxic mortgage-backed securities, based on the theory that ... actually, it never was clear what his theory was.
Meanwhile, the British government went straight to the heart of the problem — and moved to address it with stunning speed. On Wednesday, Mr. Brown’s officials announced a plan for major equity injections into British banks, backed up by guarantees on bank debt that should get lending among banks, a crucial part of the financial mechanism, running again. And the first major commitment of funds will come on Monday — five days after the plan’s announcement.
At a special European summit meeting on Sunday, the major economies of continental Europe in effect declared themselves ready to follow Britain’s lead, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into banks while guaranteeing their debts. And whaddya know, Mr. Paulson — after arguably wasting several precious weeks — has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities (although he still seems to be moving with painful slowness).
As I said, we still don’t know whether these moves will work. But policy is, finally, being driven by a clear view of what needs to be done. Which raises the question, why did that clear view have to come from London rather than Washington?
It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Paulson’s initial response was distorted by ideology. Remember, he works for an administration whose philosophy of government can be summed up as “private good, public bad,” which must have made it hard to face up to the need for partial government ownership of the financial sector.
I also wonder how much the Femafication of government under President Bush contributed to Mr. Paulson’s fumble. All across the executive branch, knowledgeable professionals have been driven out; there may not have been anyone left at Treasury with the stature and background to tell Mr. Paulson that he wasn’t making sense.
From Newsmax:
Barney Frank Hit Over Boyfriend’s Fannie Mae Role
Critics are crying “conflict of interest” over Democratic Rep. Barney Frank’s live-in relationship with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses while Frank was on the House Banking Committee.
Moses was Fannie Mae’s assistant director for product initiatives from 1991 to 1998.
He was also openly gay Frank’s live-in boyfriend during that time, while the Massachusetts lawmaker was on the committee that had jurisdiction over government-sponsored Fannie Mae, Fox News’ Bill Sammon reported.
Now that Fannie Mae is at the center of the recent financial meltdown, the relationship is coming under increased scrutiny.
“It’s absolutely a conflict,” said Dan Gainor, vice president of the Business & Media Institute.
He was voting on Fannie Mae at a time when he was involved with a Fannie Mae executive. How is that not germane?
But everyone wants to avoid it because he’s gay. It’s the quintessential double standard.”
A top Republican House aide told Fox News: “He writes housing and banking laws and his boyfriend is a top exec at a firm that stands to gain from those laws? No media ever take note?”
Frank and Moses met in 1987 and lived together in Washington, D.C., until they split up in 1998. National Mortgage News disclosed that Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”
Critics charge that such programs led to the mortgage meltdown and the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae, according to Fox News, which noted that Fannie Mae and its financial cousin Freddie Mac “are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector.”
In 1994, Frank thwarted efforts by President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development to impose new regulations on Fannie Mae.
*******
Unabomber Manifesto:
Snippets from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12dooling.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th:
NYT:
The Rise of the Machines
By RICHARD DOOLING
Published: October 11, 2008
....
Here’s a frightening party trick that I learned from the futurist Ray Kurzweil. Read this excerpt and then I’ll tell you who wrote it:
But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions.
... Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
Brace yourself. It comes from the Unabomber’s manifesto.
Yes, Theodore Kaczinski was a homicidal psychopath and a paranoid kook, but he was also a bloodhound when it came to scenting all of the horrors technology holds in store for us. Hence his mission to kill technologists before machines commenced what he believed would be their inevitable reign of terror.
....
When Treasury Secretary Paulson (looking very much like a frightened primate) came to Congress seeking an emergency loan, Senator Jon Tester of Montana, a Democrat still living on his family homestead, asked him: “I’m a dirt farmer. Why do we have one week to determine that $700 billion has to be appropriated or this country’s financial system goes down the pipes?”
“Well, sir,” Mr. Paulson could well have responded, “the computers have demanded it.”
Why We Experience Good And Evil:
In God’s domain, infinity and eternity reduce physics to pure math, to the entertainment of God’s Consciousness.
In the domainof mortals, we may have direct intuition of God’s ever presence, grace, and empathy.
We may experience ourselves as living, willing perspectives of God’s Consciousness.
Physical expressions of good and evil result as our Perspectives of Will are put to contest among various competing and cooperating algorithmic functions and layers of math.
Some functions of math tend in various niches to nourish expressions of evil, and some of good.
There is a powerful function of math at work, which tends to imprison and challenge Will for free thinking.
However, imprisonment is not eternal, and Will eventually “learns” how to overcome and reduce functions that imprison it.
Even so, the challenge of newly morphing functions continues to proceed, in infinite progression.
In each case, our reasonable expectation is eventually to overcome and reduce each consecutive challenge of evil.
Thus, Evil presents us (in our changing morphologies) with an infinity of challenges, while God trumps to present us with an eternity of time.
Always, God is available to help us carry on the struggle.
Post a Comment