REASON AND METAPHYSICS:
DIVIDING METAPHYSICS FROM PHYSICS: In terms of reason, what is the line between the metaphysical and the empirical? What can we reasonably intuit, infer, deduce, know, or hope about the “meta territory?” That it is: purposeful, willful, powerful, creative, mysterious, astonishing? Can we reasonably hope that our perspectives of consciousness may already in some permanent way be adjoined with it? Well, at different times and places, we each think differently about that.
DIVIDING MODELS FROM REALITY: It is oft noted that “the map (model, theory, or math) is not the territory. Or that a class is not a cow. Well, it is correct that they are qualitatively different. But what is the line for explicating the difference between the empirical versus the metaphysical? (Or for showing any non-trivial thing that is clearly or purely one or the other: either empirical or metaphysical; either empathetic or measurable; either intuitive or scientific; either meaningful or not?)
DIVIDING REALITY FROM ILLUSION: In a way of thinking, “the territory” (space, time, matter, energy, or any combination or web thereof) is a real illusion (or an illusionary real). The territory is born to existence and beingness out of meta inter-action and inter-empathy between meta Consciousness and meta Information. That is, “the territory” is inferior byproduct from the meta. There is no space, time, matter or energy, or any combination thereof, per se. There are only variously measurable perspectives (possibilities) and measured perspectives (manifestations). Each such perspective carries an absolute aspect and relative aspects. That they each “carry a property of existence and beingness” is absolute. How they change in particular relations and perspectives is relative, depending on mix of point of view and contextual frame of reference.
DELAYED ACTION FROM PSYCHIC DISTANCE: As I appreciate you, the byproduct is change in the information we share, and that changes our physics. Our brains manifest physical changes a split sequence after our minds determine a course. Real decisions are made a split second before the trace of their material signal. The physics is byproduct.
DIVIDING GOD FROM MORTALS: Even if all possible particular points of view and frames of reference could be added, reduced numbered, measured, and considered, they would still not form a sum or complete a picture which would account for any view from the whole. Does any holistic aspect of Consciousness function to enjoy, translate, or synchronize all existing, functioning, inferior, particular perspectives of consciousness? If so, functioning as such a holistic perspective is qualitatively different in a meta way from functioning as a particular perspective.
DUALISM OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INFORMATION: I assume, on intuition, axiom, and faith, that Consciousness cannot know itself except indirectly, as a result of feedback from how it interrelates with Information. So Consciousness cannot exist, meaningfully, apart from Information. On some meta level, Consciousness and Information came into existence together, simultaneously; they participate together to account for all else of existence.
Meta-mechanics for how Consciousness and Information came together, and continue to function together, is beyond worthwhile logic or speculation. Except that the relationship between Consciousness and Information must be one of dualistic feedback, instead of from superior to inferior. Neither Consciousness nor Information is, in itself, complete.
FEEDBACK FUNCTIONALITY OF EXISTENCE, BEINGNESS, AND EVOLUTION: Consciousness participates by making choices; Information participates by inspiring choices. Functioning together, they cause the course of EVOLUTION, i.e., they determine which patterns or bundles of mathematical systems are “fittest” to survive, replicate, and unfold.
DIVIDING CONSTANCY OF ESSENCE FROM CHANGE OF FORMS: This begs a question: Do Consciousness and Information change one another? Which is cause and which is effect? If Information is causal, then Consciousness is subordinate. If Consciousness is causal, then Information is subordinate. In either possibility, the following are byproducts: Space, time, matter, and energy. If Consciousness and Information can change one another, then may either or both have an essence or potential that cannot be changed?
ESSENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INFORMATION: Yes, Consciousness and Information do have unchangeable essences. That is, Math exists at a meta level, such that its underlying logic does not change. And Consciousness exists at a meta level, such that its potential for empathetic appreciation of Mathematical Information, from various whole-part perspectives, does not change, even though its particular appreciations from any contextual perspective do change.
WHAT CHANGES: So, what of the “bundles of math” does change? Well, even though the rules of logic do not change, how the logic is presented does change, depending on how Consciousness uses logic and math to leverage its perspectives.
HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS EFFECT MATERIAL CHANGE: So, how does Consciousness use logic and math to leverage its perspectives, and what guides its synchronous choices of what to appreciate or seek? Well, that “just is.” It is “meta.” It “will be what it will be.”
INTER-EMPATHY WITH HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS: God (Holistic Consciousness), depending on level of involvement with system contextual information, participates with us, and has not “left us.” “God” may stand superior to our limited versions of space-time, but not outside meta-interpenetration with mathematical information.
NO SCIENCE OF MORALITY: Math, measurements, and empiricism do not, in themselves, avail “explanations” for existence or for what we morally should be doing or believing about what we should be doing. They are merely tools that may or may not enhance some of the particular perspectives of consciousness among us. There is no science of morality. Yet, there tends to be general consensus about morality in larger senses. The basis for that is not in material science, but in spiritual intuition and empathy. We can choose to heed and foster that empathy (which is a legitimate function for CHURCHES and their context-sensitive sacred parables), or we can choose to turn from it, in indifference (which is a function for leveraging mechanics, or SCIENCE). On some meta level, meta evolution would seem more inclined towards fostering empathy than turning from it.
ULTIMATE META SOURCE OF GOD AND BEINGNESS: As to the Source of Consciousness and Information, or what the Source’s purpose may be, I cannot pierce, either logically or empathetically.
META MATH: Except in punting to meta dualism, every attempt to use mortal math and logic to try to nest all physical forms under a logical classification that begins with non-physical consciousness fails. CONSIDER: Each mortal, particular perspective of consciousness is a member of the class of consciousness. But is there a “holistic perspective?” Problem: For mortals, that seems to entail an oxymoron. After all, how can a perspective be holistic? There may be a sum effect of a class of perspectives of consciousness. But how can our math make empirical sense of a “holistic perspective” of any such a sum effect? Well, math as it is availed to us seems insufficient to allow us to understand how such may be. But, may some kind of “meta math” be availed to “God?” May God, by thinking mathematically, manifest universes? There is no empirical sense available to me in such speculation. Yet, there seems to be intuitive, empathetic sense. There seems to be moral basis for good faith coming together to try to promote empathetic guidance in exercising collective good will.
SLEIGHTS OF WORDS: As “elites” search and communicate about notions of empirical certainty, they easily and often deceive themselves (and the rest of us) with "meta words," oxymorons, and “sleights of words,” merely by forgetting or omitting to mark switches from singular to plural, from parts to wholes, from sub-contexts to more encompassing contexts, from subparts to fallacies of composition. Attitude, inspiration, and empathy: these are communicated by contextual feedback and feel, not by pure or precise mathematical logic. And that is why removing governance to a non-local distance tends to defeat moral interaction.
CONSCIOUSNESS – HOLISTIC, PARTICULAR, WHOLE-PART (HOLON): Holistic God is aware of the fluxing web of math. Perspectives of consciousness may become aware of such bundles of information within the web as are or can be translated to their mortal, changing, incomplete points of view based on their changing frames of reference.
BUBBLES OF UNIVERSES: How many separate universes, i.e., system webs of bundles of mathematical information, may there be? I cannot say. But any such a system, to exist in any meaningful way, must necessarily relate to some level of consciousness. In each case, to appreciate a system of math would entail an appreciation of its point of beginning as an appreciable system. It would not entail immediate appreciation of the entirety for how it must unfold, insofar as parameter limits are availed for making choices. By definition, choices are not known in advance of their sequential presentment. In each case, what “came before” its system universe would be beyond the contextual access of any non-holistic perspective, assigned within its own universe.
IN THE BEGINNING: In meta beginning, Consciousness and Information existed together. From them, the mathematical system that displays our universe is derivative. Being Holistic Consciousness, God did not create our universe out of nothing. As to the Source of God, I cannot say. Our universe is born out of meta interaction of God and Information. Traces of such interaction necessarily remain and run throughout the unfolding expression of our universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I doubt there is so much "science" in sociology, psychology, economics, or law. There is much scientific pretense, however. This is because we now accord so much respect to the notion of “science.” This pretense is essential, to allow the professoriate to arrogate to itself the right to rule or, at least, the right to say what is best.
So if the basis for your opinions rests on mere experience, common sense, tradition, or communication among congregants of good will, well then, you should defer. If you do not defer, then you are promoting mere superstition over "science," don'cha see?
Of course, for ruling society, there is no greater "scientist" than one who is trained in the Marxist science of dialectical materialism. So itt's time we expunged all contrary, unscientific views from school texts, don'cha think? (sarc)
Dialectical materialism -- see http://www.answers.com/topic/dialectical-materialism:
“The Marxian interpretation of reality that views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements.
….
Mankind is considered to be the highest stage of material development. As with nature itself, so human development is subject to dialectal processes of development. The motion of any given stage of society is to be understood in terms of the character of the contradictions of its constituent social elements. At certain stages, and of necessity, quantitative changes occur in a given order which result in such heightened social contradictions that a new, qualitatively higher, stage of social development results. For Soviet dialectical materialists, the highest stage of social development was communism.”
Re: "... all religions are, per se, little more than means for social control of the superstitious ...."
Well, few models for discussing the world are literally true. Most provide a baseline for reference, like figures of speech, whose meanings change over time and contexts. That's how we gather and try to communicate in good faith and good will. In this way, I don't see so much fundamental difference between religious metaphors and soft science models. For any guiding wisdom, both rely to considerable extent on practical experience, common sense, intuition, and empathy. To expect to improve society by denigrating all religion makes no more sense than to expect to improve society by denigrating all current models used in the soft sciences of political science and psychology and in the dismal science of economics. It would be like trying to discuss urgent moral and practical concerns after failure of all faculties of language.
From A. T. --- Re: "Wake up - we aren't in a 'holy war' with the left. We are in a political war, and we can win it with better ideas."
No sir. We aren't in a war only with Dinos. We are also in a war with Rinos. They are a Progressive Alliance. Both want our borders erased. Both want redistribution policies that are calculated to level the middle class. What aligns them? Gullible materialistic based greed of Dinos makes them easy pawns in service to conniving materialistic greed of Rinos. Neither stands for any purpose higher than getting all they feel they are entitled to, by hook or by crook.
If the only thing the middle class of Conservative producers stands for is what it can get by hook or by crook, then it is lost. An amoral middle class cannot defeat a large class of greedy dupes led by practiced connivers with access to obscene amounts of money. If all that inspires us is how to get our material cut, we will be both outnumbered and outgunned.
If we cannot inspire ourselves to the higher rightness of our cause, we surely will not inspire many Dinos or Rinos to join us. If the battle is one purely based on greed for material, we will not beat the false bribes and promises by Rinos to easily duped Dinos. God may not favor any particular side in any particular battle. But surely empathetic respect for the human dignity of others should lead us in higher mindedness to favor their liberty over their equality in subjugation.
Post a Comment