GOD -- BEINGNESS THAT IS DEMONSTRABLE, BUT IMMEASUREABLE:
It seems fairly likely that Something or some Consciousness exists, in itself (or at least superior to us), without our necessarily being able empirically to measure or predict ITs underlying nature, character, function, or purpose. It may be a meta Brane or a meta Consciousness. Either way, it’s meta to us. Except that we can measure those relations which IT avails to us, in circular and relative terms. That is, we measure what IT avails to us as we relate to perspectives of IT, in respect of such perspectives of ourselves as IT avails to us. That is, our particular perspectives of ITs holistic self are necessarily incomplete representations and interpretations.
The limits or measures of ITs potential are beyond our capacities. Even if ITs existence may be demonstrated mathematically, IT has aspect that renders IT incomplete to our comprehension, hence, metaphysical to us. Apart from experiences of intuitions and empathies that are not measureable, we have no means to relate to IT. We have no power to take IT apart to reverse engineer IT, as by summing parts together. The potential of ITs holistic function encompasses more than the sum of ITs parts.
The entirety of all of that which is measureable to us, which we interpret as our physics, consists in relational feedback (“subjective consciousness”) among incomplete representations of a meta essence of Beingmess. To the extent we share in discovering and experiencing any mathematical constants, such is solely attributable to the way in which we happen in common to have been imbued with perspectives of consciousness whose identities and capacities for communication of feedback are fine tuned, defined, and governed in respect of such functions, wavelengths, and constants.
Those constants demonstrate our “lifeline” or common connection to the Holism. Those functions only happen to exist for us, “physically,” in respect of tuning that is assigned for them to the universe that is continuously, contemporaneously, and synchronously shaped for us by “IT,” i.e., our common Source of Becoming.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have below set out some preliminary concerns. I guess I'm still struggling with what is "the territory," that is, upon what, ultimately, is the territory dependent. I can see how we share a common reality, that may be reducible to some kind of common building blocks. I can see how that building block is something more than mere math. But I am not sure that whatever IT is can be reduced to anything that is measureably physical.
I hope all is well with you and your family.
Best regards,
Ron
*****
Is it in some ways more useful to think about particles, such as chemical atoms, as if they were minute (conscious?) computers for relating to, crunching, storing, and expanding informational experiences, rather than as physical particles?
Insofar as such atoms are conceptualized not as particles, but as in sync computers, then, to be consistent, what must be the character of such building blocks of in sync computers within the network that is our universe? Is the ultimate character that of meta stuff, spiritual, will, awareness? In any meaningful sense, what is IT that avails such "computers" with potential and capacity for making computations, storing measureable information, and "emotionally committing" to the expression of allowed "choices," to make them manifest to represent aspects of information to be stored within the record of what we take to share as our "physical universe?"
Is the experience of each perspective merely "after the fact" epiphenomenal of the coordination of a Higher Will? Is each of us an expression of a perspective of the higher Will? Is feedback of our experiences to the appreciation of the Main Program, so that IT processes such feedback as information for guiding its next sequencing choices? In that way, is the Main Program "conscious?" Are our immeasureable, intuitive, and empathetic feelings somehow representative of what the Main Program takes into account as it synchronizes unfolding outcomes for each of us? IOW, is IT empathetic of feedback (prayer?) regarding our emotions and feelings?
If the Main Program and ITs components are like computers, the kind of computer they model is indeed strange.
Purpose: Is the purpose of the Main Program to reduce all perspectives to an organized collective Borg? Or is ITs purpose, as freely as decently possible, to experience Beingness from as wide a variety of separately manifested perspectives as IT cares to appreciate?
Post a Comment