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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Can a particle erect a wall of separation between the expression of itself and the contextual 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.
When one is willing to build upon an impossible and ridiculous foundation, what cannot one rationalize? When one begins with a fundamental contradiction (such as morality among zombies), what can be done, other than to condition oneself to bias and then to create confirming validation, simply by refusing to look to the field as a whole? How often do we see faux scientists rat packing math to apply it to terms that only relate to a slice of reality, and then presuming to "prove" a point of moral bias? There are none so blind as those who will not see. Because we have erected a false wall against the political will of all who still hear the still, soft voice of a higher field, we have availed hubristically "reasoning" people with a political monopoly to drive the moral pursuits of the highest technological nation like 60. Moral insanity.
George Orwell, from 1984: The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?'
Note: It may be more coherent to move from creationism and intelligent design to intelligent consciousness, recognizing that each new moral choice entails a process of unfolding, considered feedback. If things were preset from the beginning, we would hardly be much more than epiphenomenal moral zombies, whose consciousness does not actually contribute anything to any cause and effect. See Klingman's The God Particle.
Tolerant people need to distinguish between reasonable models for communicating about God versus for communicating about religions that mainly promote subjugation (not freedom) and mayhem against non-adherents. The model for worshipping God matters little, so long as it promotes decent society for lovers of freedom. As a model for approaching God, the so called "religion" of Islam is demonstrably beyond the pale; it is a deadly cancer to decent society. How many smallpox doses should a person tolerate?
Too many judges and people take the First Amendment as some sort of suicide pact, as if we must tolerate every model that calls itself a "religion." A model that is antithetical to American liberty, which the founders worked hard to protect, can hardly be what the founders considered as a model or "religion" that is, in its practice, worthy of being protected ... any more than the founders would have allowed meetings bent on fostering conspiracies for destroying America. To see that Islam as practiced is such a conspiracy, all we need do is take it at its word. No sane person should consider the freedom to worship God to encompass the freedom to promote and commit mayhem against non-believers, merely by calling such promotion a "religion."
Evolutionary mutations occur. Definite proof to show that came in 1943 from experiments conducted by Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck. http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/microbial-genetics/spontaneous-mutations.htm Also, consider newly evolving species of flu viruses. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g424ju0w871j5r31/ So the inquiry ought perhaps be less about whether evolution occurs, rather than about whether the feedback of conscious will plays a role in its unfolding (i.e., conscious design). That is an issue about which one may qualitatively intuit, but not empirically prove or disprove. Using science and math, the best one can do is to compose arguments based on analysis, selected for confirmation bias. Those arguments can be interesting, but they go in circles.
So I suspect the key is less in quantitative empiricial proof than in the qualitative character of feedback in consciousness from perspectives of variously organized fields and particles. Some aspects of this may be analyzed mathematically, in bulk; other aspects by direct experience. As to consciousness itself, its ultimate explanation will remain as illusory as the end of the rainbow.
As to our psychological natures, the political question ought perhaps to be less about how individuals happen to find themselves than about how a society or culture ought to seek to guide its evolution. The "ought" in that issue is not answerable in science or logic. It is only "answerable" in intuitive, social empathy. A practical guide may consist in this: What sort of decent, sustainable society for the ongoing and unfolding expression of varying perspectives of free will should the Field of consciousness seek to avail?
****
Regarding rainbows and the Epic of Gilgamesh, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow.
"This place (the end of the rainbow) is impossible to reach, because the rainbow is an optical effect which depends on the location of the viewer."
"Then Ishtar arrived. She lifted up the necklace of great jewels that her father, Anu, had created to please her and said, "Heavenly gods, as surely as this jewelled necklace hangs upon my neck, I will never forget these days of the great flood."
Rinos have no more moral backbone to draw and enforce lines than Dinos. Neither stands for anything other than get yours. The incompetent base of Dinos get theirs by demanding entitlement to reparations and leveling. The grotesque base of Rinos get their by making deals with government. What do they have in common? Neither produces, so both suck theirs by flattening the middle class. So the country is run by a few unchecked elites, pandering only when expedient to variously divided and competing sects. Sort of a socialistic model of corporatist capitalism, where adherents understand that government power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Dinos are the advance element, while the Rinos bring up the supply line. Which one has the moral fiber to look out for America? Those of the middle class who hope either of these gangs will save America are really good at fooling themselves. Like Charlie Brown, expecting again and again that some invisible hand will restrain Lucy from pulling the football out from under him. What fool should expect essentially confessed narcissists to actually respect any higher values? Simply put, the China model of socialistic corporatism (or is that corporate socialism?) means to level (if not bury) the middle class. Clue: We are in the international corporate age, not in the individual free enterprise age. The middle class will not be served so long as it remains politically stupid and morally defunct. Are you being served?
@r0astytoasty said, "Man-made answers to questions such as those raised by the author can't ever be complete because mankind's perception of Life Itself has been truncated by the old knowledge of good and evil. No matter how much info we gather about any problem, it's never enough because it is never complete."
Yes. The only moral absolute we share is in one reconciling Consciousness, not in bivalent, moral truths provable to mortals in specific cases. All other moral truths are qualitative, not quantitative. Given meaningful free will as experienced through our varying perspectives, it may be doubted that even God "knows" the right answer to every moral issue. If God did, and God were morally perfect, how could God ever plan a change in His/Her mind? If God could never experience any unfolding thing that would trigger a reconsideration of moral priorities, how could that kind of existence be any more meaningful than that of an unfolding, brain dead, mindless, directional force?
The "rightness" of an answer to each moral issue may be less in the nature of absolutist, either-or reasoning than in the character of empathetic searching among perspectives within a reconciling field for that manner of organizing their communications which is most conducive to sustaining a civilization that avails each perspective of free will in its ongoing pursuit of communication of self. The moral absolute consists in a qualitative and innate need to be empathetic. Measurable specifics for how "best" to go about that in any particular case or quantitative analysis are not absolute.
Empathy is NOT the same as superficial love or immediate desire, but encompasses also tough love. What is the basis for reconciling tough love? An apprehension of what seems objectively necessary to sustain a civilization that avails each perspective a reasonable opportunity for freely pursuing its idea of meaningful fulfillment. That is not a true-false relationship. Do legal, cultural, religious, and moral traditons play a vital role to help us reconcile our purposes towards greater shared objectivity? You betcha.
@logmank quoted, "If God doesn't judge America, He owes a big apology to Sodom and Gomorrah".
Yup. We are being run by hordes of moral zombies, on a rocket course to unsustainability, accelerating to the point of no return. Not only have we flooded our electorate with illiterate, unchurched hedonists, but we celebrate it, and we blame the ill effects on social conservatives. What can you expect when the main moral values our children are inculcated with are below the belt or deep in la la land? The NWO will be run by Morloch corporatists, feasting on Eloi hedonists. [www.youtube.com] Or leaders will wake us to our senses.
From A.T.-
@diane said, "Frankly, I believe that the demonic cult of Islam should be banned from our Nation, but since we have religious freedom under our Constitution - it is allowed."
Frankly, I believe that the demonic cult of Islam should be banned and should NOT be considered a religion. A religion is something you believe, as a model or way for approaching The Sacred, is it not? If you don't really believe, it isn't your religion. If it's forced, it isn't religion. If you don't have a choice or a right to leave it, without being punished, stoned, or officially sanctioned, it isn't a religion. If it seeks a state imposed monopoly for worship or enforcement in law, it isn't a choice at all. What gives this malicious meme the right to claim protection under our Constitution?
From Dictionary.com:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
Notice the primacy of the emphasis on "belief." Notice also that secular humanism, provided one believes in it, would qualify. (So why are devotional readings allowed from books sacred to secular humanism, but not from the Bible?)
The more things change, the more things remain the same. Read Atlas Shrugged. The less assimilated we become in mores, the more we rely on legal detail. However, apart from ever changing social context, there is no detailed system of best laws. Chasing the best system of detailed, secular humanist, socialistic laws is madness. When that which is lawful or proper becomes an uncertain haze, masks will fall and we will become a nation ruled under competing factions rather than under laws. Meaningful freedom is better preserved in respect of that which avails our senses of self than in that which details a babel of laws. At best, there is regard for general law within a society that shares many values in common. As our worship of diversity dissolves our common bonds, the rule of law will likewise dissolve.
Post a Comment