Thursday, December 30, 2010

Regarding The God Particle

From A.T. --
@RickK, Re: "Dlanor, So you're saying only conscious beings can add complexity to a system?"

That's interesting, even though I had not quite said or contemplated that. I suppose random complexity may be added when you have a system of limiting parameters wherein components are subjected to a continuous directional force or energy. (Aside: what or who would be the author of such a continuous directional force?)

Note that since matter is stored energy, and energy can be conceptualized as a kind of substance, the broader concern should probably more properly be labeled one of substantialism rather than of materialism. Regardless, the terms are often used loosely and interchangeably. I think you are saying that energy is independent of consciousness and that in such independent capacity energy can add complexity. I have not much considered that, perhaps because I am not confident that energy in fact is independent of consciousness. This gets down to trying to understand what is the character of consciousness at its ultimate or finest point.

Key may be in considering what could be the other side of the concept of energy, as in: what is pure energy? If the ultimate building block is qualitative consciousness rather than quantitative mass, another key may be in considering: what is the ultimate character of consciousness?

If consciousness is more qualitative than quantitative, then it may be better approached with intuitive adducements than with pure reliance on empiricism. This is sort of like the query of how everything material could arise out of nothing that is material, except that I carry it further: If everything material could arise out of nothing that is material, then why could not everything that is material be considered to continue in interactive respect of nothing that is material? That is not to say that it is nothing, but only to say that it is qualitative rather than quantitative, sort of like free will and moral choosing.

Edwin Klingman, who, I assure you, is adept with logic, math, computing, and physics, has detailed some interesting ways of considering this. He has summarized much in a short book, The God Particle. Although short, I would be hard pressed to summarize it here. However, an important taste may consist in this: There may be "particles" or perspectives of consciousness, as condensate from a field of consciousness. Although they have some fine, innate level of will (like a selfish gene?), their capacity for expressing intelligence evolves with their capacity to self organize ("conscious design"). The eternal field from which such organizations of conscious condensate are derived may be conceptualized as an aspect of "God."

I would defer to Klingman's book. However, it seems straightforward to apprehend the idea that consciousness is perhaps the only non-trivial aspect of being of which we can have direct knowledge. Why is this important? Because it avails a basis for conceptualizing free will as a part of reality, and a basis for intuiting a source for connecting and reconciling such perspectives. That is, if you and I are perspectives of but one field, then there is hope we can learn better to draw on that in order to reason our way towards reconciling empathies and interests. The stance of materialistic reduction, on the other hand, seems not especially suited to assimilating a willingness to reason together in respect of a real and higher field of reconciliation.

I don't mean to suggest there aren't empirical aspects to Klingman's hypothesis. Insofar as notions about slices of the field, many aspects of his ideas are as empirical, testable, and reliable as the Standard Model, but with a virtue the Standard Model lacks: a basis for considering moral expressions of free will to be part of reality, rather than mere convenience of pretense.

Re: "As for consciousness - if you're so unable to state what it is, how can you be so confident about how it can and can't arise?"

I don't think consciousness itself arises. I just think it is. I think perspectives of it condense, couple, and organize.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Wall of Separation

Can a particle erect a wall of separation between the expression of itself and the field from which it is derived?  If consciousness as it is communicated among perspectives is derivative of a reconciling Field of consciousness, i.e., "God," then it becomes impossibly ridiculous to think in terms of trying to erect a wall of separation between God and our political expressiveness -- which may be why our founders deployed no such language in our constitution.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Psychohistory of America

Will America still be competitive against China, India, Germany, Japan, or Dar al Islam at the end of the century?  Well, any attempt at psychohistory ought to consider the more than 50 percent of America's electorate that is utterly incapable of growing out of political adolescence.  Libertarian Conservatives think our salvation is free trade with China and simply have little comprehension regarding the importance of assimilating national values.  Corporatists, who give not a fig about the American middle class, will pull our adolescent sheeple around by their noses.  Yes, there is a newly invigorated tea party, but our middle class in main has too aptly demonstrated its impotent idiocy and vulnerability to big corporatist investment in buying government.  I suspect much of the so-called conservative movement actually sees the salvation of conservatism in international corporatist capitalism, national borders be hanged.  The NWO juggernaut has slowed only to allow its supply lines to catch up with its forward advance.  Much will depend on people like John Bolton.  Could he, or folks like him, govern in respect of what is actually best for America and its middle class?  If not, the Big Boy will not be America, but those who own and toy with America.

Head Cloud

If humanity does not soon undo itself, the "capitalism of stuff" may be on its way out.  The new competition may consist less in things than in fractal clusters of clouds, ideas, inspiration, and organized information.  Indeed, the concept of a particular self, limited to the perimeter of a physical body, may be on its way out, once means are discovered for leveraging the capacity of the human brain, at will.  Then, the competition will be to entice different perspectives of consciousness to share (mind meld?) or invest in various possibilities for the unfolding experience of information.  The actual construction of what we take to be "physical things" may come to be delegated to a system of various levels of macro and micro computing machines (merger of Matrix and Tron?).  When that happens, what would become of the role of capitalism?  Instead of managing money, will not some system be needed for managing and trading psychic credits?  Ought God, when inspired to particular apprehension, then be conceptualized as the head cloud of psychic investment chips, each chip being encoded with each organized perspective of consciousness as some kind of charge-potential or bio-psychic metric?  Once human beings evolve to no longer do the physical work to manufacture stuff, but only participate mentally in the directing of stuff, then under what competitive process will manufacturing and consuming be organized, and how will the psychic herd be thinned?

Friday, December 24, 2010

Instantiating Beliefs

Morality is closely tied to a concept of free or conscious will. If there is no quality of free will, then every event is either predetermined or random or driven entirely by some process for bringing order out of chaos, such as natural selection, wherein the pattern that then and there happens to survive to provide the context for the next succeeding pattern is deemed, trivially, the fittest, or the cause. When it comes to causation and correction, most moralists sense there is something trivial or incomplete about the concept of physical causation under terms of determinism, randomness, or natural selection.

Firstly, what is the nature of these patterns that are being fluxed, repeated, and changed? Are they fully modeled in respect of a potential for expressing themselves to observers in dualistic, alternating capacities as fields and particles? What is the role of perspectives of consciousness in effecting the manner of representation of these field-particles? Should consciousness itself best be modeled as having capacity to express and communicate itself in some alternating form of field-particle feedback? May that capacity sponsor the signification of non-conscious organizations of patterns of appearance?

Secondly, why is it that humanist moralists, who do not believe conscious free will is other than derivative artifact of physicalism, nevertheless deem it necessary or proper for a civilization to act as if (i.e., pretend) free will were a real existent? If all of decent society is merely a matter of proper (B.F. Skinner) conditioning based on that which is, rather than that which ought to be, then why bow to a notion of morality at all?

Well, the fly in such ointment is in the word "proper." It is necessary to choose (or believe, based on conscious free will?) that conditioning which is proper. It is necessary to choose who should decide and the principles under which they should decide. So, most humanist moralists eventually bow to the expediency of at least pretending to believe in free will.

This begs a quesion: Having bowed to the need to pretend to believe in free will, why then do humanist moralists stiffen their necks not to bow to a common or interconnecting Source for such free will? If morality consists in empathetic good will towards other perspectives of consciousness, why, absent some connection with such other perspectives, should I be empathetic? If morality is taught among "Brights" to be only a front for survival of the fittest, why should I not be devious and enslaving? If morality consists only in a genetic predisposition brought upon us by evolution of selfish or altrusitic genes (btw -- are these consciously selfish and altruistic genes?), and if evolution is morally blind, then, for my own most selfish and fittest advancement, why should I not seek to establish a superior order of sociopathic beings whose genes are mutated so that they have no qualms about reducing all other Americans (and the entire middle class) to mere serfs, to do as they are instructed or bribed? Why should I not seek to participate in directing my own superior evolution? Indeed, why should any reasonably intelligent humanist trust any other humanist?

If a moralist can believe in conscious free will, and the quality of consciousness is empirically inexplicable, then why should not a moralist believe in spiritual free will, or free will based on an interconnection of field-particle aspects that are of a quality that, at some superior level, simply defy individual empirical analysis?

The measurement problem:  Within the reality tunnel, did every physical thing come from no physical thing, based on acts of measurement somehow made and communicated among various perspectives of a single reconciling Consciousness? Is there no such thing as a single particle?

Is consciousness the only experience we know to be true?

Are reality and information built out of participatory belief?

Do neurons instantiate meaning? If so, how?

Are you me? Is this just a ride?

I suspect Pagans tend to relate more to a panopoly of empirically measurable energy fields, while Theists tend to relate more to an immeasurable and single field of consciousness. For a Pagan to take the step to become an empathetic Theist may be little more than taking the step to intuit the ultimate quality or character of conscious energy.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Great Awakening May Be Too Late

Signs that the Great Awakening may be too late: Signs of The Borg -- how many of these have come to pass?

1) Divide and rule, bread and circuses, eartags and monitoring, networks tightening into spider traps, entire societies following paths to cultural suicide;

2) International corporatist control of government programs for regulating all major social institutions: banking, currency, religion, medicine, family, academia, media, regulators, politicians, courts, internet, mass spectator sports, interpreters of history, and science consortiums;

3) Discrediting of traditions for promoting decent regard for privacy and modesty;

4) Weakening of traditional expressions of respect for independent identities;

5) Promoting of political correctness to the extent of banning of ideas and words that threaten competition among international corporatist hegemonists;

6) Accelerating of organizations of minority axis in order to weaken, level, or replace every tradition and institution that has heretofore rewarded individual independence;

7) Promoting of doped out hedonism, common lack of shame, and collapse of mind into communal heap;

8) Increasing of means for psychological monitoring, profiling, and collapsing of individual will;

9) Pushing of freedom of expression and enterprise into ever more regulated corners;

10) Manipulating of cultural purposes, interests, and fads;

11) Manipulating of math and science to convince weak minds of masses that what has been decreed by now prevailing powers is for the moral best, even necessary to save the planet;

12) Inducing distrust of privacy of individuals whose interests are not well known or controlled;

13) Corporate inducing of members of lower class into debt slavery, then enticing them to try to escape by spreading wealth, the cost of which is to be sloughed onto the middle class, to reduce the influence of all its independent minded persons;

14) Severing of lines for moral representation, connection, foresight, and intuitive empathy among the great middle class;

15) Weakening of capacity for vision regarding relationships of feedback with the higher field of consciousness;

16) Infestation of sects that promote total submission and subjugation of all minds of the middle class;

17) Dividing the military in the ranks, while selecting for its upper echelon among those who are most sychophantic to international corporatism;

18) Replacing of conscious will of individuals with natural selection among heart-of-darkness corporate zombies;

19) Replacing the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule with humanist fidelity inculcated for the planet and the superior wisdom of its corporate managers.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Creation Myth

Creation Myth

For a modern twist on the parable of the blind men and the elephant, suppose: all ultimate particles were paradoxical points, otherwise without size or shape. Upon collapse of the field that gives them expression, would the field itself become without size and shape, and also without motion or direction? Or would it retain potential, capacity, and charge enough to flux with feedback in itself?

What would be the potential of such a collapsed, holistic field to store and remember information, to express or convey information, and to apprehend or learn of new contingencies? Is there a Character that wills a contingent capacity for giving expression to such a charged field? So long as the field remains charged, can it ever be collapsed into a single point of no shape or size? What manner of point could this be, and does it have capacity to count or to represent, model, and remember information? Upon collapse, may such a field in fact become a mere point, so that it can reasonably be conceptualized as illusion or contingent representation or translation of information, like binary bits activated by some meta computer?

Well, that is one possible popularization, intuitively mixing the quantitatively measurable with the qualitatively immeasurable in order to construct a creation myth. Note that the creation myth may image a Creator character just as reasonably as a random bubble in the void. Actually, insofar as a Creator myth avails intuitions of connections in moral empathy, it may be more suitable for inspiring and sustaining civilization. Obviously, myths have a self fulfilling aspect, almost as if reality can be directed or even created by bootstrapping from invented contingencies. Maybe God is the greatest story teller. Alternatively, a Sisyphus may opt to try to confine God to a “scientific” approach, to make a math fetish out of often absurd modeling (see global warming), contrived from confluences of necessarily incomplete perspectives (as if mortal creatures could stand outside their context to measure or confine God or creation).

Monday, December 13, 2010

Cracked Symmetry, Analytic Philosophy, and Xmode

Cracked Symmetry, Analytic Philosophy, and Xmode:

Analytic Philosophy stumbles when it tries to prove that non-trivial, absolute Truth can be empirically ascertained. There are at least three reasons. First, Analytic Philosophy begins with a premise that truth is derivative from dumb nature, rather than from conscious will (a conscious will which is not truth, per se, but simply existent). However, there is no basis or need to assume that nature is even on a par with consciousness, much less superior. Second, given limitations of a-priori math, Analytic Philosophy has been unable to demonstrate non-trivial, internal coherence except, if at all, within less than complete systems. Third, at least one alternative philosophy has all the empirical power of Analytic Philosophy, but without need to pretend to be a closed system. This alternative philosophy is consistent with practical empiricism, without ignoring spiritual and moral appetites in the expression of conscious free will among members of a civilizing society. In other words, Analytic Philosophy promises more than it can deliver, and it fails to deliver where civilization most needs it to deliver.

The possibility that is alternative to Analytic Philosophy is what I call Xmode. Xmode does not disdain analysis per se, but simply recognizes practical limitations for analysis when it comes to ultimate concerns and moral issues. Xmode apprehends that what is considered good versus evil fluxes with contexts, civilizations, and winds of change. Essentially, Xmode considers that Consciousness wishes to appreciate and pursue communion among a variety of decently civilizing, intuitive, and empathetic perspectives – even while recognizing that such communion is not perfectly or necessarily availed simply by manipulating forms and rules of man and nature. The key is not in the precision of forms, but in the quality of feedback.

Xmode differs from model-based-realism in that Xmode does not seek ultimate answers in eternally fixed formulas. In respect of the empirical, Xmode simply seeks those formulas that are most practical, even while acknowledging that some may remain practical for the duration of our universe. Xmode suggests there is no exact way to differentiate all aspects of all existents which are contingently empirical from all which are not. Explanation: All that is empirical is coordinate with expressions of mass, and mass entails appearance and communication of shape, size, density, charge, and direction. Yet, all of mass (nature) is subsidiary (subjective) of Consciousness.

Yes, mass seems real, as does life and death. And mass does have undeniable reality – albeit, contingent to a shared frame of reference, so that which is mass to our universe may not be mass to another, yet it may be something in respect of consciousness. To the extent organizations of consciousness do not share a frame of reference, masses known to one frame may remain unknown, perhaps unknowable, to the other. That is, the so called “objective” nature and reality that we share is derivative of an encompassing subjectivity (or shared field of consciousness), within which we have been defined and share expressions for our identities and empirical communications.

There is constant, discrete, continuous feedback (give and take, yin and yang, I Ching, Digital Philosophy, synchronous conservation, communication of measurable and intuitive information) between the field of consciousness which we share and among its field-connected particles or perspectives.

Given parameters for empirical conservation, all such aspects of Information as are measurable may well be subject to a contingently conserving principle. However, as to aspects of Information which are qualitative rather than quantitative, empathetic rather than measurable, moral rather than technical – it may not be knowable to consciousness (or necessary or helpful to decide or believe) whether such aspects are subject to conservation (perhaps as archtypes?).

Apart from Consciousness, there is no Information or truth, either to store or to communicate. (Could information be collapsed, represented, and stored, absent some means for modeling and representing it?  Could any means for modeling information abide, apart from some level of consciousness, however faint or remote?)  Yet, without truth, how could there be Information? This conundrum is irresolvable, unless consciousness itself, in some mode, is the author of information. Ask: By what mode could consciousness relate communication of truths among perspectives? Answer: By cracking the holistic symmetry of consciousness, in order to avail a field that can experience feedback – back and forth – with such particles as are connected in respect of it.

As our (subsidiary?) universe of the holistic field of consciousness cracked, it therewith availed a numerosity of particular perspectives – of discretely and continuously changing and overlapping interests. Simultaneously, it availed the real math and the contingent mass needed to allow each perspective of interest to signalize, store, and convey information, via apparently empirical and measurable masses of shapes, sizes, densities, charges, and directions.

Why is there conservation of matter and energy? Because, the holistic consciousness, of which field we are derivative and contingent, governs our parameters. However, the free will with which we participate and convey our experiences is not confined in our apparent masses of bodies and brains. Rather, our free will is availed expression by superior Mind, as experienced from apparently varying perspectives in respect of Field of mind. Insofar as our universe presents to us as being contingently and practicably measurable, we call it Nature. Insofar as our universe presents to us as being beyond measure, amenable of availing us with meaning and purposefulness, we may as well call it Field of Consciousness, aka, God. Xmode considers Nature to be contingent, and God to be the most superior consciousness of which Nature is derivative and contingent.

Thus, it is Consciousness that is moderator of truth, justice, goodness, meaning — as well as of horror. However, without apprehension of need for normalizing and civilizing restraint, one’s consciousness falls easily into Conrad’ian, horrific, heart of darkness. Presently, our worldly and false experts are tending to deem hardly any behavior to lie beyond our acceptable norm. Except for overturning prevailing civilizations, this does not bode well.

Die hard devotees of pure scientism are now positing, as a middling alternative to Analytic Philosophy, a concept of model dependent realism. This notion constitutes an attempt to evade the spiritual by conflating idealism, realism, and instrumentalism, all the while denying that there is a God or anything worth acknowledging, intuiting, or being empathetic of, that is beyond the power of new priests of science to completely replace. However, this is merely a poor substitute for a stumbling, Analytic Philosophy, with a dose of the desperate thrown in. In effect, model dependent realism asks us to surrender concepts of good will and good faith to the moral judgment of empiricists, who think they know best – even though they remain so squirrelly as not even to pay due accord that “ought” is not derivable from “is” in pure logic, without an immeasurable quality of intuitive empathy.

All that stands between analytic philosophers and an acknowledgment of God is to factor conscious will into the notion of model dependent realism. That would cost them nothing in respect of that which is do-able in empiricism, but would allow them at least to come out from behind squirrel masks.

Reading some extracts from Richard Rorty, I begin to suspect some notions of my own, to wit: That the only non-contingent truth is consciousness, and, ironically, we can only experience, intuit, and empathize regarding consciousness.  This means we cannot empirically or rigorously define or represent consciousness. I take it as contingently true that there is no non-trivial truth beyond consciousness.  If so, the source and contingency of meaning, truth, morality, and goodness all have to do with consciousness. In other words: How the field of consciousness changes, and how we – in feedback -- relate to, participate with, and appreciate the changing of the field of consciousness --affects the unfoldment of the habits of consciousness in regard to meaning and morality.

All of this has to do with how perspectives of consciousness share fundamental contingencies that sponsor the unfoldment of derivatively shared contingencies, which flux and overlap in how they are categorized to our subjective prioritization.

In other words, all of mortal experience is subsidiary and subjective to the field of consciousness, but mortal experience appends “objective” aspects, to the extent various mortal perspectives of the field happen to share the same subjective context that happens to be availed them by the field.

How does the field present such shared perspectives? Ah, that question is beyond our mortal kin. Rather, as mortals, we only appreciate and represent relatively fleeting and contingent shadows. Our prayers and applause may affect the show, but as to its holism, we do not empirically affect IT. That is not to say that IT may not avail us with powerful and expanding technologies, because it evidently does. What IT does not do, however, is to avail us with means to control, comprehend, or empirically match the holism itself.

Still, I do not share Rorty’s atheism. Rather, I consider the field of consciousness to be God; I consider that the field is responsive to, and cares about, our feedback; and I consider that we can appreciate IT spiritually (religiously), but not empirically. Ironically, some of Rorty’s more significant ideas can easily translate to an appreciation of the religious, merely upon apprehending that the broadest and most fundamental of fields, from which all others are derivative, is the Field of consciousness.  IOW, Rorty should have based his foundationalism on consciousness instead of on absolute empiricism.

See quotes from article at

"Nothing is sacred to Rorty the ironist. Asked at the end of his life about the 'holy', the strict atheist answered with words reminiscent of the young Hegel: 'My sense of the holy is bound up with the hope that some day my remote descendants will live in a global civilization in which love is pretty much the only law."
"Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own—unaided by the describing activities of humans—cannot.”
According to Rorty, analytic philosophy may not have lived up to its pretensions and may not have solved the puzzles it thought it had. Yet such philosophy, in the process of finding reasons for putting those pretensions and puzzles aside, helped earn itself an important place in the history of ideas. By giving up on the quest for apodicticity and finality that Husserl shared with Carnap and Russell, and by finding new reasons for thinking that such quest will never succeed, analytic philosophy cleared a path that leads past scientism, just as the German idealists cleared a path that led around empiricism.
In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Rorty argues that the central problems of modern epistemology depend upon a picture of the mind as trying to faithfully represent (or "mirror") a mind-independent, external reality. If we give up this metaphor, then the entire enterprise of foundationalist epistemology is misguided. A foundationalist believes that in order to avoid the regress inherent in claiming that all beliefs are justified by other beliefs, some beliefs must be self-justifying and form the foundations to all knowledge.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Living Within Parameters

Living Within Parameters:

From A.T.--
Re: "A progressive, income-based tax system makes sense only in a state-controlled society."

No. I stand in praise of "extreme moderation," in defense only of that government that avails decent freedom of expression and enterprise to its citizenry. Such a government is not availed either by excessive control by statists or by excessive control by international corporatists. You may as well have said, "A flat tax system makes sense only in an international corporatist controlled society." Yes, you would then have free speech, meaning, if you wish to advance, free speech to sing the praises of the international corporatist elite. Both systems are for Progs. Both want to reduce the middle class. Both think they know best. And both seek to annihilate America's borders. One does it with open invasion. The other under a Trojan Horse of free trade. Both are showered with funding from those who seek to fit the middle class with concrete shoes.

You are fighting the future with the past. It was in the past that we had a semblance of free competition. Now, the competition is not to produce goods, but to control politicians, governments, and middle classes. Does A.T. mean to promote insight or simply to defend the undermining of the American middle class, only under the alternative flag of international corporatism?

I grant you, I don't want large taxes simply to fund intrusive government. However, I do want a republican system of government, not an international corporatist system of government. I don't want redistribution for the sake of false fairness. However, I do want some limitation on the capacity of people of distinctly anti-American mindsets, such as a certain Mr. Soros, who fancy themselves the saviors of humanity if only humanity will surrender its freedom. I don't see the point for facilitating fop progeny of Soros-like aristo-rats in imagining they know, and mean to enforce, what is best for the rest of us.

We can only live within parameters. Republicanism is not excluded from that hard rule. So we absolutely do need some means to redistribute, not for fairness, but to allow Republicanism to survive. For that, I would suggest: end the income tax; end corporate taxes; replace with flat sales/value added taxes; but also add a progressive consumption tax based on annual individual consumption. And include taxes on speech that is not free, i.e., speech charged for via advertising and subscriptions, as well as monies spent to acquire face time to influence politicians. Do not allow corporations to contribute to politicians. But do allow individuals, in unlimited amounts. However, tax such political investments via a progressive consumption tax. Dedicate proceeds to preserving the republic.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010


MORALITY:  Morality consists in resolving always to be receptive to improve the state of affairs with which one is led to identify, insofar as one has means to apprehend and progress it.  Morality has to do with subjective apprehensions of improvement and progress in respect of one’s relations with the Field of consciousness.  It does not pertain to purely empirical progress, but to a kind of subjective, Pilgrim’s Progress.  Morality does not consist trivially in considering all that one may choose as being moral.  Rather, it entails reasoned receptivity to guidance, and progress in relation thereto.

CONTINGENT MORALITY: In respect of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, morality may become like ballast, to toss over once the fight is seen to be one of survival. Among a generation that will be left holding the bag after economic depredations of its predecessor, there may at first be less time and energy for concerns about social niceties and moral traditions. However, when flourishing begins to require assimilations among like minded individuals, values may again harden among separate groups. Once the melting pot and salad bowl no longer work, confederacies of loyalists may again arise. Politics in such groups will become far less tolerant of diversity just for the sake of diversity. There will arise more concern for facilitating systems that avail practical results and decent jobs than for systems that promise a kind of cradle to grave entitlement-arianism that they have no power to bestow. Benefits for louts and incompetents will fade fast.

INVISIBLE HAND OF MARKET BASED MORALITY: When one’s notion of morality consists in believing that everyone should do that which benefits him only, I don’t quite grasp how such an ethos can very well sustain a group or a country, much less a civilization or a world. I fail to apprehend how some people write of morality while denying the existence of any connection or basis for empathy or mutual concern among respective perspectives of consciousness.

CONFLATING EMPIRICAL CONCEITS: When atheists claim they are ‘as objectively moral as” anyone else, I don’t quite grasp how they “objectively” measure any such a thing. Are they also able objectively to measure the subjectivity of being “as happy as” anyone else? Insofar as intersections among reality, science, morality, and religion often meet in ways that are appreciable yet beyond measure, it hardly satisfies my subjective or intuitive apprehension of truth merely to assert that atheists are as moral or happy as anyone else. Rather, my intuition tells me they tend not to be as moral as, nor as happy as, many people who do have decent faiths concerning a higher basis for morality. Simply put, I do not see that pure objectivity, or any purely objective testing, has much to do with morality.

RATIONAL RELIGION: I apprehend doubters’ disgust with what they perceive to be ridiculous or even evil practices of religion. What I do not apprehend is their expectation that religion can or should be done away with. Consider the concepts they would replace religion with, i.e., some kind of environmental or earth science, sprinkled perhaps with notions about genetics and psychology. Insofar as such concepts led to social and political urges about which many people could easily doubt, how then do proponents mean to justify enforcing or cajoling obedience or respect for their “science backed” rulings, except by claiming somehow that they have a closer relation to higher truth, justice, morality, or goodness – especially with regard to concerns that simply defy empirically precise quantification or measure? Yet, choices must be made, both by individuals and by bodies politic. To what, then, is the appeal ultimately made, when an advocate says such and such is best, if not to metaphysical truths (i.e., religion)?

COUPLING OF MASS AND WILL: Information is created, stored, and communicated in respect of the interaction of copasetic organizations of mass with organizations of particles of conscious will. Mass plus perspectives of consciousness avails the experience of a crude sense of touch, which eventually translates to the most basic of tactile sensation, then to translations of impingements that lead to experiences of balance, direction, taste, smell, hearing, and, eventually, sight. One remains faithfully cognizant of one’s connection to morality as one remains cognizant of one’s continuing connection to the field of consciousness (which is NOT entirely accounted for in the merely seen). In respect of the Field of consciousness, it may be that every perspective is morally responsible for its own empathy, is audited accordingly in respect of feedback with the field, and continues to preserve, weigh, and re-mix perspectives of consciousness in the hereafter in respect of such feedback. That is, our perspectives may be subsidiary to archetypes, the forms of which are forever expressible by the Field. In that way, our morality is grounded in archetypes of consciousness that are connected in meta-empathy within a Field.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Overreach of Science

In the NOVEMBER 29 , 2010 issue of National Review, Edward Feser reviews The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Feser discusses Hawking’s notion relating to contingent reality and model dependent realism, to explain how it is old where it is defensible and muddled where it is original. That is, Hawking engages a fallacy of equivocation by conflating realism, instrumentalism, and idealism. Feser’s critique highlights the proneness of Hawking types to overstep their expertise in dealing with a conundrum: any contingent reality, like the universe, must depend upon a necessary being acknowledged as a necessary, i.e., the principle that nothing contingent can be the cause of itself.

Compare entries in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, from “relations” through “relativism.” Consider the problem of trying to comprehend the difference between that which is relative and that which is essential, intrinsic, or holistic. Consider whether that which is essential may consist with a field that mediates that which we experience, model, and communicate about, as if such were measurable mass (having form, size, density, and motion), even while the way or substance by which the mediation effects our experience may be of an essence that defies scientific measure or empirical comprehension. That possibility must drive many scientists who wish to have faith only in science, rather than in a dance with God, into incoherence, if not madness.

Eventually, by a process of feedback and measurement, one may come to apprehend that one’s sensations entail interactions of fields and particles, i.e., relations charting expressions of particles operating within ranges and domains -- relating and changing among overlapping ranges and domains, and so on. The universe of ranges and domains most relevant to one’s experience will necessarily be the same universe of information-being-communicated that one shares with other perspectives that experience much the same information.

Abstracting further back, one may apprehend that consciousness of sensations of one’s mind is part of the entailment. Abstracting even further back, one may apprehend or intuit that one’s mind, itself, is part of a higher model or system, which is beyond the measure or empirical control of one’s mind. One may intuit that there is purpose, meaning, and goodness, yet apprehend that one is not completely the pilot of one’s mind. That is, a mortal mind is not so independently powerful as to be able to predict a future path for which it cannot change to cross different bridges as it comes to them. Nor is a mortal mind so powerful as to be able to measure or control that which does completely account for and pilot it.

What we can do is model various overlapping fields of ranges and domains. We can get a sense of our general direction and even make general, statistical measures of it. However, we cannot make a perfect model of that which allows us to make models. Rather, we can, in empathy, be guided by IT, to factor ever new information, to discover and empower ever new and powerful keys to combinations for ways of experiencing and communicating information. We cannot control IT, but we can be guided by it.

To observe oneself is to change oneself. That which determines or decides each change is always at least one step ahead. One may be copasetic with one’s Pilot, or not. If not, one’s Pilot may abandon cooperative interest, or take pointed action to demand harmonious regard.

When our scientists, pleasure seekers, and eaters of entrails come hubristically to presume they have no need of metaphysical empathy or guidance, that is when the lesser minds and diverse addicts that follow them come to believe we need not be guided by anything higher, but that we can continue to soar without IT. That is when the quality of empathy we need to sustain meaningful civilization begins rapidly to fall. That is when the Field of Consciousness begins afresh, to seek a relationship with more faithful and promising partners. And that is when civilizations fall and there is much gnashing of teeth.

Suppose we were to accept as mortal limitation our incapacity to measurably explicate what conscious will consists of, beyond a logical construct that infers its existence, both as a field and as a particulate expression, perhaps with some generally measurable signs in the cumulative. How then might a model look that mixed such a variable with more quantifiable relations and variables? Could such a model be as precisely viable in many respects as any other current model? Compare Klingman’s The God Particle.