Intuitively, perhaps empathetically, there exists and abides a Field (God?) which has power or capacity to give conscious expression to mathematically related arrays of incomplete and unpredictable choices of perspectives of itself. The Field is a unifying Being which enjoys a property of Existing. All else among particulars that exist owe their beingness to the Field.
In respect that each array, and each perspective of each array, mirrors an incomplete, particular representation of the whole of the Field, none can mirror or avail a complete measure or explication of the power or capacity of the Field Itself. Rather, the Whole is of a class that is not encompassed among, or to be explicated by, any mathematical functioning or summing of its Parts. One does not adduce its existence by syllogistic logic or by empirical measure. With conscious intuition and immeasurable empathy, one may or may not choose to adduce the existence of such Field, either by according one’s life as if it exists or as if it does not. For that, sub-metaphors are not useful in literal respect (for one cannot measure God), but in figurative respect.
What one can do is sense and communicate (in relative terms and metaphors to such other perspectives of the Field which happen to share one’s frame of reference) about the context with which the Field happens to give expression to each particular self. In doing so, one can intuit, and empathize about, one’s derivative dependence upon the Field. One can comport one’s consciousness with reasoned regard for unfolding expressions and processes of the Field. One can mathematically model and measure such various aspects of such processes as may relate to oneself. And one can, in empathy and intuition, be receptive to guidance regarding how one “ought” to choose to measure or tinker about such unfoldment. That the Field is beyond comprehension in respect of the logic of our incomplete perspectives is not an argument against its existence. Rather, one's choice at any level of consciousness to appreciate the existential pervasiveness of a common Source of perspectives of the one Identity of consciousness depends upon the character of one's intuition and empathy, not upon the quality of one's logic or the precision of one's empirical measure.
Regardless, one cannot with mathematical precision prove or know what one ought to do, nor how that which one does may affect the future of the unfoldment under the Field. One can, and perhaps should, in good faith and good will, apply Reasoned Empathy in respect of one’s feedback in relations with the unfoldment. By “Reasoned Empathy” I do not mean unconditional love for every conceivable kind of rot or rotter. Rather, I mean respect for that which one intuits should be unfolded. What I intuit the Field purposes to unfold or communicate is reasoned awe across the perspectives and capacities of the whole and its parts. I doubt the Field purposes either (1) a Umma for the loving or encouraging of cannibalistic or irrational subjugation of perspectives of mind or (2) a Utopia for the purposeless rotting and doping of rotters and dopers. I doubt the Field condemns its perspectives for original sin of being imperfectly incomplete, in that there would seem no other way to have a perspective of the whole Field (unless such perspective itself could be like an independent holism).
To a limited extent, Original Sin has been a useful concept for reminding people of the undoubted fecundity of evil in the world, and of the undoubted commitment required to struggle against evil. No doubt, innocents need to be reminded how surrounded they are by misguided, amoral, cannibals. No doubt, innocents need to be encouraged to be receptive to higher guidance, to help them learn to distinguish among the good, the misguided, the amoral, and the evil. However, apart from those purposes, the concept of original sin has been overdone and reduced to literalistic irrationality. One may seriously wonder how cousin concepts to Original Sin can be co-opted by statist hegemonists. But there is little sense in supposing God should wish to impose eternal punishments against fallible, temporal perspectives of beings, who need experience and guidance to better intuit how to comport with God's unfolding purposefulness. There is little sense in supposing that consciousness, in itself, is other than an Identity, with potential for communicating choices among various contextual perspectives of itself. There is little sense in supposing that any exchange of empathy during a communication among perspectives of consciousness should be based other than in reasoned inspiration and appreciation. There is little sense in pretending any particular perspective of consciousness has authority as a stand in for the judgment of the entire Field of God. Rather, if moral responsibility means anything, each perspective must be morally responsible to give effect to its own interpretation of the array of choices availed in the unfoldment, of which every other person is only a bit actor, not a stand in for God.
The kind of concept advocated herein, of God as the Field of Consciousness, is bound to irritate fundamental believers and authorities for traditional sacred texts, as well as atheistic materialists and overgreedy empiricists. For the near future, it may be that to advocate for such a concept is to volunteer to be put on a relatively small island. Yet, the company is good. Maturely considered, the concept (1) may allow one to be intellectually honest with oneself, (2) is consistent with intuitions of many, (3) enhances the best parts of the moral guidance of sacred texts, (4) does not hamper appreciation of traditional and sacred parables, (5) overcomes various moral deficiencies of both secular and sectarian fundamentalists, (6) is not inconsistent with testable scientific formalizations, (7) hampers science not in the least, and (8) facilitates respect for the best of traditional American values of freedom and dignity. In short, it seems the concept of God as Field of Consciousness for expressing the unfolding of experience need not forbid a reasoned reconciliation of the Big Bang, 1984, Brave new World, Atlas Shrugged, American Exceptionalism, and the New Testament. Indeed, Ayn Rand's ideal regarding the mind of man seems to implicate mind of the Field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm enjoying Atlas Shrugged. Started it years ago and could not take it. Now I can hardly put it down. She indulges a lot of character development to set up for much political preaching. But her tale bears incredible similarity to what's happening now. She calls crap when she sees it (no prisoners). She despises original sin theology (on that, I tend to agree), yet stakes all on her myth of the conscious will of her ideal man (John Galt). (For my money, she may as well have made Galt a particular expression of the ideal field. Who'd a-thought it ... Rand's an anti-theist theist!)
I'm thinking there are 5 classes:
1) GOOD -- Conservers of liberty (Reagan);
2) MISGUIDED -- Liberal spreaders of Keynesian collectivism (Obama; Krugman);
3) AMORAL -- Conservatives who want to get high; social libertines who believe only in fiscal conservatism (Hitchens?);
4) EVIL -- Economic cannibals who manipulate currencies and otherwise produce nothing, except by stealing know how and technology from others (Soros; China);
5) MIND ORPHANS -- Kids under 9 chronologically or mentally (Eminem; saggy panted, bling covered, rap blasting ghetto clowns who have lost their minds and who are easily duped).
My hypothesis is that modern corporatists no longer compete primarily by producing a better mousetrap. Instead, they have morphed to compete by buying political influence, collecting political IOU's, manipulating currencies, selling international influence, buying media to influence the gullible, and inventing schemes (credit default swaps and global warming carbon credit banks).
I suspect the result is this: The deciding factor becomes gullible youth and saggy panted mental orphans, who are easily bribed and led around by the nose by media slogans ... especially when borders are erased, prisons are filled, inner cities are devastated, families are paid to have fathers leave home, diversity is celebrated, and Muslims are invited to the meltdown.
Why? Because the people who are running things are barbaric, predatory cannibals. It is easier to make a quick killing by tearing a country down and then selling it off, piecemeal. Move industry to China, reduce Americans to have to compete for third world wages, blame Whitey, and divide and rule. Join with the Chinese to keep everyone well regulated and under the thumbs of cannibals. Once the masses are reduced to having to work full time just to put food on the table, they become much easier to rule. Forever. If they get too wealthy, just cause another economic breakdown. And so on.
Who is willing to allow this? Misguided, amoral, and evil cannibals. And are they ever rampant! How do they do it? By duping everyone with the mental maturity of a 9 year old. Among Obama's constituency, how many have figured out that the only people he has spread wealth to are people like Soros and Goldman Sachs? The media don't much explain this to the masses. And every minority is so riven to blame Whitey, they would hardly believe it.
Yes, we will probably toss Obama. With whom will we replace this regime of Prog Dinos? Why, with Prog Rinos. But a Prog is a Prog is a Prog. And who do Progs serve? Cannibals. What will change this? Not the bread and circuses of elections. You can't unwind a Python from your neck by pulling on him from the head down. You have to do it from the tail up. We need a massive, moral re-education and re-assimilation of American values for liberty. But we're not going to get it so long as we feed and nourish the misguided, amoral, cannibalistic, and mind orphaned. We need not to nourish those groups, but to rally decent Americans away from them.
Ayn Rand foresaw a sudden economic meltdown. On that, I quite fear she was right. Her solution was a strike by the productive, brainy class. On that, I think she's wrong. I don't think that will work. I expect we will either have dark times or a miracle. The miracle will have a chance if we can somehow enlighten people with decent, assimilable values ... from the ground up. I see no chance in hell that established newspapers or campuses will help. My Thanksgiving will consist in hope that there remain enough Americans of grit, so that we may yet produce a miracle.
Most Americans are likely still misreading Obama. He has no desire to restore America to a position of economic power. His service is to dupe the proles, reduce the middle class, and reign in a new order of international cannibals. Don't imagine Canada is safe. The Islamic Umma and the Worker's Paradise are myths. Never existed as paradisiacal, never will. They're, shall I say it ... crap. Prisons for crapbrains. But a dark age of barbaric cannibals ... well, that's the default position. Unless we somehow unwind this thing with good people from the tail up. Wet Nurses of the world, unite! (Randians will know what I mean.)
Post a Comment