To know (number) vs. to justifiably believe (appreciate):
From A.T. -- Re: “Kant's transcendental idealism needed to make room for noumena (things we can't see) and, at the same time, attempt to explain phenomena (the things we can see).”
To know that which a thing or event is … is to be its complete author and sustainer. For anything that is not trivially true, as completely derivative of a system of definition or prescription (however incomplete that underlying system itself may be), we do not know it in the sense of “either-or.” Rather, as avatars for a conscious free will, we “know” in a sense of justified belief and chosen, purposeful commitment. That is, we know in a sense of intuition, empathy, and inspiration, as factored or justified under many sided logic, not bivalent logic.
The bivalent math that is availed to mortals is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions that are measurable to mortals. The meta algorithm is beyond mortal capacity to complete or fathom. In whatever way it functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will (i.e., God) to function.
It needs willful stubbornness to feign non-apprehension of that aspect of our basis for being which remains beyond measure, when it is necessarily implicated by that aspect which is not beyond measure. It is intuitively obvious that there are means of appreciation that are not entirely subsumed in measure, just as there are means of logic and reasoned decision making that are not subsumed in bivalence. There is many sided logic, and we necessarily relate it to every choice we make that is non-trivial (i.e., not derivable solely from a foundational system of axioms). Consider the innumerable choices and stances of taste, value, characterization, and belief that one deploys every day, which are reasonable to one’s personality and which cannot be accounted for in terms purely of bivalent logic.
What reasonable person does not make non-trivial choices that are factored and inspired in conjunction with many-sided logic? To try to constrain oneself to a life of pure, bivalent logic would be to try to surrender one’s conscious free will to an unconscious, calculating robot; it would be to willfully flagellate one’s expressiveness of free will.
*******
Insofar as mass is information made physical, as byproduct of perspectives of consciousness interrelating within a ground of being that is availed with a field of consciousness, that which one may know, physically, depends upon the quality of its shared apprehension and committment within the ground of being.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Of what should justified belief and chosen, purposeful commitment consist? Of what should we know … in a sense of intuition, empathy, and inspiration, as factored or justified under many sided logic, not bivalent logic?
The bivalent math that is availed to mortals is incomplete. Another way of referencing that statement is to suggest that a meta algorithm runs choices for firing and synchronizing the operations of the algorithm that establishes all parameters for those relations and interactions that are measurable to mortals. The meta algorithm is beyond mortal capacity to complete or fathom. In whatever way it functions, we are unable to distinguish that way as being different from how we may expect a Field of conscious free will (i.e., God) to function.
What reasonable person does not make non-trivial choices that are factored and inspired in conjunction with many-sided logic? To try to constrain oneself to a life of pure, bivalent logic would be to try to surrender one’s conscious free will to an unconscious, calculating robot; it would be to willfully flagellate one’s expressiveness of free will.
A difference between the simplest chemical or physical reaction and the response of any organism would seem to be this: In preparation for each sequence with which an organism (animal, plant, micro-organism, or cell) is to act, it will, at some level, “rationalize” or represent a decision about that which it is next to do, and such “decision” will have been made a split sequence before its brain, nervous, or capillary system will have conceived or represented the decision. IOW, no decision is made purely at the level of the brain or body of an organism or a perspective or particle of consciousness. Rather, every decision is bound up with the entire synchronizing context of the potential of a field and its sub or particulate expressions.
This begs a question: At what point does even a chemical or physical reaction become the organized response of an “organism?” Are substances that have capacity to decay radioactively “organisms,” so that a “decision” is made a split sequence before any particular radioactive atom experiences a decay? Is there some algorithm that connects to govern, such that each reaction, apprehension, or choice -- upon feedback between the universal field and each and every particle -- is universally synchronized with the eternal present? May that algorithm be an aspect of the very ground of being that is availed by an encompassing Field of consciousness?
Indeed, are all of physical masses and their causative relations mere derivatives, i.e., after-the-fact storehouses of information, for which experience, communication, and feedback are represented or signposted as our “physics”? Is mass merely a representative of information, produced to our sensation as byproduct of inter-apprehensions among a single Field of consciousness and its particulate expressions? Are our separate identities, experiences, and decisions secondary phenomena, derivative of the capacity of a common Field of consciousness to receive and synchronize responses to empathetic feedback from many connected, coordinate, particular perspectives?
Post a Comment