Saturday, June 26, 2010

Transcendent Moral Order

Does a Transcendent Order based in Logic implicate inherent Consciousness?

What, if anything, can account for the existence of logic? Can non-logic account? Or must logic always have existed? Has existence been, tied to a quality of logic, only insofar as logic has been in being?


If logic has always existed, it did not have an author – either conscious or non-conscious. But, may that with which logic abides, of which logic is an aspect, be either conscious or unconscious?

Is choosing whether to conceptualize consciousness as a necessary aspect of existence, is such choice of conceptualization a function of intuition, perspective, and/or experience? If a function of intuition, what is “intuition?”

Ask: But for laws of logic (such as pertaining to identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle), could a “rock in itself” exist? Well, one may assume it could. But, the assumption could be more in respect of a concept of a rock-in-itself than an actual rock-in-itself. In either case, a “rock-in-itself,” by definition, would have no knowable identity, beyond conceptual intuition or assumption. The only way the concept of a rock-in-itself can be expressed is with a statement (whether spoken or thought), appreciable to a mind, which respects superior laws of logic.

Regarding that which provided and continues to provide the superior laws of logic: Is IT, for moral purposes, best conceptualized as (1) nothingness, (2) inanimate existent randomness, or (3) consciousness? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EYQHd4LeKU&feature=related.

What concepts of morality may reasonably be derivative of a concept of eternally existent consciousness?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Atheism fails to guide or account for intuitive, inter-being purposefulness, empathy, or morality. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjMMj_pcLq8&feature=related

Anonymous said...

Regarding proselytizing: I'm not sure what should be considered to be proselytizing. To me, proselytizing is more in the vein of insisting that others should accept metaphysical slogans ("Christ died for our sins so we are saved by His grace” -- whatever that means), even though there is no way in logic, science, or even intuition to draw reasoned connections from such “feel good” slogans. That said, don’t get me wrong: I do think there is much validity to Judeo-Christian values. So, insofar as religious movements and notions do tend often to impact politics, I think drawing connections between politics and religion would not be “proselytizing” … at least, so long as one is only advocating a general system of social or political values, based on reason.

Indeed, I don't think we can get away from big government without assimilating the kinds of “spiritually based” social values that can sustain a civilization. I don't think we can assimilate values if we cannot somehow derive them in common, via some kind of convincing logic, science, or intuition. While I think natural selection occurs, I don’t think natural selection, in and of itself, makes intuitive or moral sense ... unless it is somehow guided. But that kind of guidance would implicate a kind of truth potential that is not limited to objective “true false” categorization. I think it may help decent civilization to prevail if it can reasonably be shown that morality is more than mere pretense, and that what really runs things, even behind the veneer of talk, is more than an indifferent or indecent law of the jungle.

In any event, I don't think intellectuals tend to be convinced merely because someone says some old time religion says so and so. I think intellectuals may prefer to consider something like Gene Man’s (or Carl Jung’s) notion of “God,” as a field of consciousness that is inherent to existence -- something that would make more sense than mere regurgitation of mantras.

The crux is this: Gullibles tend to be comfortable being ruled, and rulers tend to be happy to rule with the kind of slogans that have made most folks comfortable. People who are happy with their religious services don’t like to see their familiar content being monkeyed with by too much intellectualism. But intellectuals don’t tend to buy metaphysical slogans that have no intuitive or inherently testable truth value. So, when believers don’t want to submit to intellectual analysis, what are we left with? Well, priests, prosylytizers, and gullibles -- sort of like surrender to the elite rule of those who know best … kind of like asking middle class thinkers to leave their thinking capacities at the door, because they may upset prevailing mind diversions.

Problem is this: Old time religion --challenged as it is with science, anarchy, and Islam (not to mention incoherent logic) -- is not, by itself, absent more intelligent thought, up to leading decent civilization to prevail. IMO.

Anonymous said...

Regarding proselytizing: I'm not sure what should be considered to be proselytizing. To me, proselytizing is more in the vein of insisting that others should accept metaphysical slogans ("Christ died for our sins so we are saved by His grace” -- whatever that means), even though there is no way in logic, science, or even intuition to draw reasoned connections from such “feel good” slogans. That said, don’t get me wrong: I do think there is much validity to Judeo-Christian values. So, insofar as religious movements and notions do tend often to impact politics, I think drawing connections between politics and religion would not be “proselytizing” … at least, so long as one is only advocating a general system of social or political values, based on reason.

Indeed, I don't think we can get away from big government without assimilating the kinds of “spiritually based” social values that can sustain a civilization. I don't think we can assimilate values if we cannot somehow derive them in common, via some kind of convincing logic, science, or intuition. While I think natural selection occurs, I don’t think natural selection, in and of itself, makes intuitive or moral sense ... unless it is somehow guided. But that kind of guidance would implicate a kind of truth potential that is not limited to objective “true false” categorization. I think it may help decent civilization to prevail if it can reasonably be shown that morality is more than mere pretense, and that what really runs things, even behind the veneer of talk, is more than an indifferent or indecent law of the jungle.

In any event, I don't think intellectuals tend to be convinced merely because someone says some old time religion says so and so. I think intellectuals may prefer to consider something like Gene Man’s (or Carl Jung’s) notion of “God,” as a field of consciousness that is inherent to existence -- something that would make more sense than mere regurgitation of mantras.

The crux is this: Gullibles tend to be comfortable being ruled, and rulers tend to be happy to rule with the kind of slogans that have made most folks comfortable. People who are happy with their religious services don’t like to see their familiar content being monkeyed with by too much intellectualism. But intellectuals don’t tend to buy metaphysical slogans that have no intuitive or inherently testable truth value. So, when believers don’t want to submit to intellectual analysis, what are we left with? Well, priests, prosylytizers, and gullibles -- sort of like surrender to the elite rule of those who know best … kind of like asking middle class thinkers to leave their thinking capacities at the door, because they may upset prevailing mind diversions.

Problem is this: Old time religion --challenged as it is with science, anarchy, and Islam (not to mention incoherent logic) -- is not, by itself, absent more intelligent thought, up to leading decent civilization to prevail. IMO.

Anonymous said...

Regarding proselytizing: I'm not sure what should be considered to be proselytizing. To me, proselytizing is more in the vein of insisting that others should accept metaphysical slogans ("Christ died for our sins so we are saved by His grace” -- whatever that means), even though there is no way in logic, science, or even intuition to draw reasoned connections from such “feel good” slogans. That said, don’t get me wrong: I do think there is much validity to Judeo-Christian values. So, insofar as religious movements and notions do tend often to impact politics, I think drawing connections between politics and religion would not be “proselytizing” … at least, so long as one is only advocating a general system of social or political values, based on reason.

Indeed, I don't think we can get away from big government without assimilating the kinds of “spiritually based” social values that can sustain a civilization. I don't think we can assimilate values if we cannot somehow derive them in common, via some kind of convincing logic, science, or intuition. While I think natural selection occurs, I don’t think natural selection, in and of itself, makes intuitive or moral sense ... unless it is somehow guided. But that kind of guidance would implicate a kind of truth potential that is not limited to objective “true false” categorization. I think it may help decent civilization to prevail if it can reasonably be shown that morality is more than mere pretense, and that what really runs things, even behind the veneer of talk, is more than an indifferent or indecent law of the jungle.

In any event, I don't think intellectuals tend to be convinced merely because someone says some old time religion says so and so. I think intellectuals may prefer to consider something like Gene Man’s (or Carl Jung’s) notion of “God,” as a field of consciousness that is inherent to existence -- something that would make more sense than mere regurgitation of mantras.

The crux is this: Gullibles tend to be comfortable being ruled, and rulers tend to be happy to rule with the kind of slogans that have made most folks comfortable. People who are happy with their religious services don’t like to see their familiar content being monkeyed with by too much intellectualism. But intellectuals don’t tend to buy metaphysical slogans that have no intuitive or inherently testable truth value. So, when believers don’t want to submit to intellectual analysis, what are we left with? Well, priests, prosylytizers, and gullibles -- sort of like surrender to the elite rule of those who know best … kind of like asking middle class thinkers to leave their thinking capacities at the door, because they may upset prevailing mind diversions.

Problem is this: Old time religion --challenged as it is with science, anarchy, and Islam (not to mention incoherent logic) -- is not, by itself, absent more intelligent thought, up to leading decent civilization to prevail. IMO.