CONSERVATION OF MIND:
Suppose time, space and physical circumstance have no reality independent of Mind engaging in consciousness in "meta-nowness." Suppose all that we interpret as separate physical experiences are secondary to nothing more than mathematical tricks, derivative of capacity of One holistic consciousness to borrow virtual experientiality against meta-time?
Suppose that Oneness has capacity to split in sequential, virtual time, into mathematically offsetting (positive and negative) versions of itself. Further, so long as always conserving a balance of zero, suppose each such positive or negative version likewise has capacity itself to split into sub-positive and sub-negative versions of itself. And so on.
If so, what visions may such mind imagine, in derivation of such sequential splits? With what sort of non-body, out of body, or multiple body perspectives may such mind entertain itself, all subsisting simply as variations on one theme? What sort of trading on empathies, memories, or information may such Oneness perpetuate, either in lethal passion or in disinterested or circular autopilot?
Is not the “One” always the odd One out, forever precluding a complete annihilation into absolute nothingness (whatever that may “be”) as a result of any collision of all mirror positives with their mirror negatives? Indeed, byproducts of the One manifest in respect of indication of non-mirror parity (broken symmetry), such as in observations of muons that are only “right handed.”
It seems that our realm of mathematical possibilities is infinite, such that the possible forms of manifestations unto consciousness are nearly magical in responsiveness to mathematical investigations, so long as each particular mathematical investigation is not inconsistent with the math that is manifested in the physics that is secondary to the ruling synchronization of choices then and there being effectuated in respect of the interaction of all perspectives of beingness.
Among possible choices and experiences of information availed to each perspective, all require a subsuming synchronization in respect of the web that comprises each and every other perspective of being (as well as in respect of the holistic author of the common algorithmic ground that is shared by all more particular perspectives). Within the web we share for the communication of information, we live, die, and evolve, depending upon how our niche for receiving information strengthens, weakens, or even kills us. As information synchronizes before us, it, as in the case of lightning, can be immensely powerful or lethal to our developing interests. (Kill the mind and the body dies.) Often, a visionary being will be caught in a local web that may seem to be atavistic evil, yet may also serve as foil for progress along moral purposefulness.
****
EXISTENCE REQUIRES RELATION: Insofar as the quarks that comprise matter are never alone, are they “real,” or are they only Mathematical Constructs for conservational accounting? On one hand, quarks exhibit properties, such that they can be separately differentiated even though they can never be alone. On the other hand, they can never be differentiated except by means of relational reference (insofar as they act together in discretely measurable units, fractions, numbers, charges, or spin parity). While individual quarks that are bound (glued) together may be separated, such can only be experienced in quantum jumps, instantaneously (or “virtually,” by “borrowing against the future”), in such a way that conservation is always glued back together and restored for the here and now.
REALITY OF MASS: So, unless some “real” particle (Higgs?) can be shown to communicate “real mass,” then apart from function of mathematics, what “physical force” enforces such function of conservation, really? Must not all relationships be renormalized to each measurable perspective only as (and when taken as if) the locus of each such perspective is at the center of the here and now?
TRANSMISSION OF INFORMATION: Regarding “spooky action at a distance” --- can information ever be “transmitted” through space-time at speeds exceeding the speed of light? Well, suppose such spooky action at a distance does not proceed “through” space time or “at speed.” Rather, suppose the information action simply appears, simultaneously and instantaneously, at two loci that appear to be separated in different parts of space-time. Suppose the apparent reality of the physics by which information is organized (i.e. the reality of particles, matter-energy, space-time, distance) is mere byproduct of a higher reality (i.e. consciousness communicating with itself in respect of a chosen algorithmic medium). If so, information that appears to be imparted simultaneously to two loci separated by a distance may in higher reality simply be information being experienced simultaneously by one and the same perspective of higher consciousness, albeit, in varying aspects.
THE CONSERVER: Intuitively, every sensible relationship measures consistent with a higher level unity of one, even though our local measures tend to be inaccurate, incomplete, or fuzzy. So Who is the Conserver of the Conservation of One? If no quark can exist alone, but always requires a relationship with a variation of itself and within a field, then the means by which it is required and directed in the relationship would reasonably seem to be the higher reality. That is, that which rules the relationship is that which rules the thing related. In other words, a higher reality exists, which is too high to be accessible to our mathematical measure.
THE UNITARY RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Mathematically, apart from its unit, each sub-unit of a unit can never be consistently imagined or perceived to exist for more than a discrete, quantum interval, without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Likewise, apart from its subunit, each subrelation to a subunit can never be perceived to exist for more than a discrete quantum interval without somehow restoring itself to complete and conserve its unitary relation. Every unit, subunit, and subrelation is simply a different aspect of the one holistic unit.
THE PERCEIVING RELATIONSHIP CONSERVED: Each different aspect is induced by the imagination, will, choice, or imbued identification or perspective of a higher spirit or essence, beyond mere math. Each unit of perspective may combine with other units, to express, epiphenomenally, perspectives of consciousness. Each unit cannot contribute to the experience or lifeline of a path of consciousness except in respect of a higher, synchronizing, super unit. Apart from its super unit, no unit or perspective of consciousness can exist for more than its lifeline without restoring itself towards the completion of its super unit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
From what I've read so far, some of the points for being against the Manhattan Declaration seem to be a stretch, perhaps induced by a rather general caution against religion per se. However, I have so far only read the article, and not the Manhattan Declaration itself.
Maybe caution or offense is being taken at the notion that religious liberty is "grounded in the example of Christ." If so, it may be less offensive were the notion alternatively expressed: that religious liberty is grounded in the the examples of many traditions. After all, the proper concern is for preserving religious liberty, not any specific school of religion. That would accord more with the diversity of "religious" preferences (whether secular-like or sectarian-like).
For myself, I would interpret the message of Jesus as centering around a notion of free will, that we should choose to respect a Source of goodness out of our own conscious, individual free will, rather than out of force, barbarism, or calculated pretense (or Pharisee-like wearing of religion on one's sleeve). That seems hardly inconsistent with reasoned respect for individual sanctity, which I take to be fundamentally and traditionally American.
In that respect, my personal sensibilities are not offended by the Manhattan Declaration. However, I can see how singling out Jesus Christ for special emphasis for secular purposes would put hair on edge for many a person of a different background. After all, many a person has rationalized belief in individual sanctity and liberty apart from a Christian paradigm.
Still, no notion of a "wall of separation" ought to require that those who adopt a Christian-like system of moral conceptualization must for that reason alone forfeit their rights to associate in order to participate in secular politics. Or in order to express sentiments in the general spirit of the Manhattan Declaration.
Apart from grating for or against the religious sensibilities of some, the Manhattan Declaration does appear to express a strong stance in favor of a politics for respecting individual liberty, as opposed to a politics for the subjugation of liberty to the morally bankrupt and intrusively officious mind-enslavements of any sort of "secular or sectarian taliban" --- either of the commie fascist sort of the islamofascist sort. And we need a strong stance for that!
For myself, it seems far more important to organize and come together in order to resist the mind enslavements that would be imposed by commie fascists and islamofascists than it is to get in high dudgeon against the Manhattan Declaration.
If the words "grounded in the example of Christ" offend, one may perhaps sign with a caveat: that words be substituted, to read instead: "grounded in the the examples of many American traditions." Likely, there is concern that such caveats could subject their signers to discrimination. Well, so it goes; one has no choice but to make choices. Regardless, failing to choose to organize in order to resist commie and religious fascists will not end well. Certainly, fascists skilled in bi-political opportunism, who oppose traditional Americans, will not shy from discouraging counter-organizaton, spreading divisiveness, and taking advantage of indecision.
A new mafia hierarchy has merged with government. It has technology, academia, corporate science, MSM, banks, GM, GE, and the Fed. Indeed, it has its own sexed up, pantheistic, pagan religion, which respects will to power, but respects shared empathy for meta-consciousness not at all. It can invent money and channel it almost directly to its elite mobsters. It associates exclusively with thugs, throwing trust in civil society and good faith under the bus. It tolerates independent thinking not at all, and it destroys all independent thinkers who tolerate it.
Post a Comment