Re: Teleology -- deriving “ought” from the existential nature of consciousness of the Source
From the Source, and from the character or nature of IT’s manifestations: What “should” one draw, in order to sharpen and strengthen one’s appreciation of IT, within one’s own self image? Which of IT’s manifestations should one seek to promote, alter, or defeat? What may the Source Itself be seeking to sharpen and strengthen? What is IT’s purpose or meaning? Is IT’s purpose to shape and condition us with means of empathy, for us, acting individually and collectively, to communicate and feed back in appreciation and respect of IT? Does IT desire our coerced and dumbly submissive worship, or does IT desire, as much as may decently be availed, a free and informed dialogue, which is respectful of the perfection of the whole and of the dignity of each particular perspective of IT?
Should empathy be understood to entail appreciation and respect for IT, while enmity entails struggle against various imperfect manifestations of IT? If so, empathy consists in being receptive to incomplete expressions of the Source in oneself, in others, and in the informational background. Empathy consists in appreciating aspects of oneself as expressed in others. As such, empathy may find expression not just in love, but in humble and respectful communication, cooperation, competition, and worthy conflict.
In respect of others, apart from the Source ITself, empathy may also find expression in enmity. In respect of the Source, empathy may sometimes find expression in remorse, self loathing, even loathing of the Source, as it is expressed in oneself. In other words, God may feel remorse, yet have little choice but to carry on. In carrying on, through each of our perspectives, God will experience and identify with varying, cooperating, and conflicting parables, metaphors, interests, skills, motives, models, and sciences. Each of us will interpret our own perspective of good and evil, beingness and nothingness.
In absolute terms, it is "good" that God should identify with, evaluate contextual feedback of, and experience, such opportunities and arts. In self evident terms, it is "good" that the conscious will of each of us should respect that the fundamental characteristic of God is "good." In absolute terms, at most fundamental level of conscious will, the seed of goodness is in each of us.
In relative and subjective terms, each of us will experience differing kinds, degrees, qualities, and quantities of self image and respect for varying and fluxing contexts and events. In relative terms, each seed of conscious will may encounter challenging vortexes of informational organizations, which may bind, couple, or twist one into evil loathing of self, others, even of God, even to pretend an unreal and artificial zombie of a G_d, as if to "liberate" (or damn?) G_d , if God "dares" to protest. However, even those encounters may help the general Field of consciousness to sharpen and strengthen IT's sense and appreciation of art, meaning, and purpose.
Thus go forth, to the glory of God. Thus bring all senses for measuring and storing information -- of emoting, appreciating, remembering, representing, seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, counting, balancing -- under sway of the one superior sense of consciousness of being, being the sense that is beyond direct or complete measure or control. Laugh, both at those who pretend to confine God to an artificial model, as well as at those who pretend there is no God who is superior to themselves. Dance in empathy with the consciousness availed by God, in the feedback between the whole and the parts, in coupling and identifying with your body, a body that avails expression to each particular decision a split sequence after its brain has already been instructed by the field, and which field synchronizes each next parameter-availed expression, as it evaluates feedback from its particles. Thus is causation circular, not derivative; thus is superior logic Trinitarian, not bivalent; thus ought you to appreciate God.
*****
Particles of conscious will may condense and couple with ordinary stored energy, to leverage and form a focused front for an organic perspective of intelligent consciousness. With every flux, Something is synchronizing and deciding, beyond measure, until IT's work can be indirectly measured, as feedback after the fact, from various points of view and frames of reference. Thus, the quality of consciousness with respect to feedback between the field and its particulate expressions is being continuously fluxed and synchronized.
Each new synchronization of choices for the unfolding of the eternal present fluxes and brings forth -- subject to ongoing qualitative and quantitative evaluation -- the appreciation of all preceding information. Thus is God with us. Perhaps, information for God's qualitative evaluation is under aegis of a field of stored consciousness, while information for quantitative analysis is stored under aegis of a field of stored energy. Regardless, whether the field of stored energy is derivative of, or on a par with, the Field of stored consciousness may simply be unnecessary to enlightened philosophy within the mortal present.
Why, then, is God of import? Because one's philosophy of God, or lack thereof (or poor substitute therefor), unavoidably permeates and affects one's every act, decision, and moral evaluation -- consciously or subconsciously. What are the "higher values" of an atheist? A secular or atheistic humanist, who seeks with bivalent logic to derive "ought" from "is," would merely (and inadequately) substitute an over-reaching and secular priesthood of bureaucrats, lawyers, and scientists for a "Church of Big Gov" for God. In so doing, he would intimidate or steal from individuals their dignity for respecting their own consciences, in fidelity to anything higher than the gross, grubby, and grasping priesthood of a collectivizing government. And a militant enforcer for any priesthood for any so-called "messenger," who claims hierarchical authority from God to demand and make laws and government, would be but a servant of a would-be despot, seeking to intercede between each person and God, thereby affronting the dignity of each human being whose self image is derivative of God, not of any would-be intermeddler.
Unless members of a general citizenry and electorate enjoy a strong sense of personal connection with higher Consciousness (God), they often become easy prey for State bureaucrats and secular and religious despots. They become in peril of submitting and surrendering their moral dignity and liberty before God to hierarchical institutions of corruption and to fraudulent and foolish sociopaths. They fall prey to forces that would obtain peace by rotting minds.
******
Does either God or Nature have free will, random potential, or pre-determined knowledge regarding a pre-set path for the unfolding of our experience of the universe? Well, it is beyond my capacity to comprehend meaningfully how God could be either all powerful or all knowing. How could God have all power and free will to choose to do anything, if God already knew everything that was to come to pass? To me, it is only comprehensible that God may have all the power and all the knowledge that are allowed to be had, in relation to any context of the here and now. Beyond connection to information accumulated to the here and now, it may be that not even God necessarily knows what God shall or should do. It may be that possibilities "exist" in potential, which may have aspects beyond present knowledge or appreciation. For all we can appreciate, perhaps God's teleology is only to pursue happiness and fulfillment.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In death, all particular perspectives of consciousness must eventually become collateral damage from the unfolding purposes of the field of consciousness. Our material world is not the best of all possible; we are only its gardeners, always pursuing communion, and perhaps eventual merger, with a happier state of being.
My Blog List
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(171)
-
▼
September
(16)
- Consciousness and the Circularity of the Web of S-...
- Human Objectivism
- The Character of God
- Handwriting on the Wall
- Conservative Dissonance
- Teleology
- How to be an American
- Serial Meddling Elites
- Climate Change or Warming?
- Lunacy of applying only Logic to explicate the Eni...
- Divided By Dogma
- Humoring Addicts and Primitives
- Parchment Worship
- Help Me
- Of Royce's Hologram of Liberty
- Pax Hillarica
-
▼
September
(16)
3 comments:
To my understanding, of that which we are able usefully to model, we tend most to model in terms of fields and particulate expressions of fields. So, we have waves and photons, fields and electrons, etc. As to consciousness, there seems little reason to suppose we can usefully explicate it except in similar fashion. That is, we seem unable to build consciousness out of any substance other than consciousness itself.
The current consensus is that consciousness *does* arise from dumb material. But there is no believable model or mechanism for how this would work. If consciousness is awareness and volition (free will) then how does it arise? Recently tests have been proposed for testing theories of consciousness at the 'small scale.' As might be expected, all current theories fail these tests.
Well if consciousness does not arise from material, could the reverse be true?
This radical alternative supposes that 'dumb' material actually condenses from a primordial consciousness field. Are there models or mechanisms to explain this? That is the focus of Gene Man's World. The primary requisite is a model of the interaction of the field with the physical universe, and this is proposed and explained. Once a mechanism coupling the consciousness field to the physical universe is defined, then physical circuitry, either protein, silicon, or neural networks can encode information, perform logical operations, and lead in general to intelligence, which the author defines as the coupling of awareness to logical 'hardware,' with all of evolution unfolding in consequence. In this view the basic awareness and volition are fundamental, the evolution of intelligence is a function of the complexity of the logical circuitry that evolves.
Put simply, my self-awareness, my awareness of "I" does not change, but my self-image, or self-idea changes with information received and processed by my logical hardware, ie, my brain. If this were indeed the case, then we might suppose that animals or even insects might have have an essential self-awareness, while having absolutely minimal self-image. Why else would all animals strive mightily to survive?
But this would also imply that "I" would have some connection to the fundamental consciousness of the universe, which, of course, many people, in many situations, have claimed to experience, usually with religious connotations.
Yet if a primordial consciousness field that couples to physical matter actually does exist, one might expect cosmological consequences; the book treats in detail recent cosmological discoveries in this framework.
What if a field-particle model of consciousness could be shown, mathematically and empirically, to be consistent with explanations of observable phenomena? What if such a model were shown to be testable -- mathematically and empirically? What if such a model could lead to better understandings and practical, new applications? Those concerns relate to the primary focus of Gene Man's World. As such, it is an important work that merits careful, repeated consideration and testing.
The diplomats who did not walk out on Whack-Job fail to represent backbone, because they are in the grip of de-humanizing, despotic regimes or cults.
Any belief system that would avail one with backbone to test the values of his governmental rulers, by looking to values higher than whatever may then happen to be projected by whomever may then constitute the government or its rulers, must necessarily be based not entirely in empiricism, but also in personal, individual will to identify with something higher, something "spiritual," i.e., in that sense, "religious."
Atheistic regimes will never get that. Nor will regimes that interpose force of a despot between government and each citizen's individual consciousness of "God."
While I believe there is a moral absolute, it consists in something like this: Willingness to be receptive, in good faith, intuition, and empathy, to guidance from the best of the unfolding aspects of a higher character – regardless of whether that character be called God or the Ideal Person. I think Ayn Rand had regard for the Ideal Person. She would likely not agree, but I think that was her favored myth -- because I do not believe an Ideal Person exists. That is, not apart from the “Ideal Person” who (in my myth?) is the Field of Consciousness.
I suspect Rand could have sustained her philosophy equally as well without troubling herself to try to discredit the notion of God.
Regarding reason: I believe it is often reasonable to appear to be unreasonable. Within a context, to reason and learn about what may be made good and sustainable, one experiments with what is not. It can be reasonable to test for what is bad -- even to take the side of what may be the bad -- for the sake of learning where a position may lead - provided one does not fall into despair that there is no good. After all, there would be little point in trying to teach respect for either reason or moral values, had one no choice in testing the matter. If pure “reason” -- un-tempered with intuition, empathy, and experience -- could prove the best path in each case, there would be little point to having free will.
Morality entails mind choices, which entails regard for free will, even the free will to take sides (even wrong or “unreasonable” sides), even though one side or the other may dislike the choice or impugn against it, as being irrational or unreasonable.
While it is not in my power of reason to give final judgment to whether any person is perfect, good, bad, or evil, still, responsibility does flow through me to judge and decide, however less than perfectly reasonable, who to follow and what actions to follow. It is my responsibility to try to appreciate and learn from the feedback. In exercising good faith during the process of feedback, I may thus hope to enhance perspectives, including the perspective that constitutes my own consciousness. So long as I am an agent for giving expression to free will, I have no choice but to make choices in judging those acts, events, and paths which I consider to be good or bad – even when others may reasonably consider my choices to have been unreasonable.
That is why I consider empathy (which I distinguish from love) as an absolute that is superior to reason. “Reason” has an air of presuming that one way of looking at things must be correct for each situation for everyone. Empathy does not.
Perhaps, over the span of a life, one may seek to redeem or restore a worthwhile harmony to a cycle of being. I suspect we comprise the agency through which God learns – looking to the next cycle, the next Big Bang, the next re-collapse and re-design for the Field of Consciousness -- as matter dissipates out into the nothingness -- which it may well be, once uncoupled to the Field.
Post a Comment