IS INFORMATION PRESERVED -- ARE FACTS REALLY FACTS:

IS INFORMATION PRESERVED -- ARE FACTS REALLY FACTS:

EXISTING FACTS: Facts tend to be cherry picked and rationalized. What is more fundamentally important is to have a worldview. One needs to have a moral philosophy. What should one’s purposefulness be about; what facts (or science?) should one seek to bring into existence?


RELIGIOUSLY DELUDED SCIENCE: Capacity for computational self diversion is commonplace. The more interesting capacity pertains to the quality of one’s insight. Our beingness poses more of a problem of moral purposefulness than can be resolved by “scientifically” reducing our beingness to fundamental, measurable parts. The self anointed, scientifically enlightened tend to see Christianity as the major faith that challenges their authority regarding social norms and mores. So, they often believe Christianity must, at all costs, be brought down. They tend to be more tolerant of Islam because they view Islam as a counter vise for helping to screw down Christianity. They think, by demonstrating that Christianity has no more validity than Islam, that they can convince many Christians who are disgusted by Islam to leave all religious faith. The problem is, in believing they “should” so subvert spiritual belief in higher morality, these so called scientifically enlightened would thus substitute their own kind of religious faith.

FEEDBACK: I suspect there are aspects which function and relate, sequentially, regardless of feedback. And then there are functions whose actions and choices depend upon consciousness of feedback.

CAUSATION VS. EPIPHENOMENA: What is God’s range of beingness? Is consciousness entirely epiphenomenal?

EVIL: Evil is to fail to acknowledge or respect the incompleteness of your perspective, and to demand that others must entirely yield to you, rather than join you in empathetic respect and pursuit of the encompassing perspective of the whole. Evil is to be willing to use all means to ensure the other side does not get a hearing. Big Brother POWER is only an evil, incomplete aspect of a more encompassing drive: EMPATHY for all our perspectives.

POWER VS. EMPATHY: Conscious power is expressed as effective will. Will is conscious purposefulness. Purposefulness is to an end. To beg a question, what, if any, is the proper end? Is the proper end power in itself (i.e., Big Brother like perpetuation of impersonal power)? Or is the proper end to avail that various perspectives among the whole of Consciousness may empathetically communicate their arts in relative harmony? Is the end for power, or for empathy? Is the end for impersonal collectivism, or for individually communicable freedom and dignity? Is evolution driven to preserve collectivism, or to communicate individual expressionism? What is the fundamental antagonism that drives history? Is it not an attempt to reconcile Mohammed to Jesus, i.e., forced collectivism to invitational individualism?