Monday, March 7, 2011

The Changeless Changer

The Changeless Changer:

Mere words can never accord a complete, non-circular accounting of reality, because our words cannot define reality in itself, but only circular definitions of other words. Still, what is most interesting does not consist in word games or in words in themselves, but in that we exist to appreciate consciousness of poetry, i.e., what it is like to use words. Something (Meta Word?) abides, known even to inferior animals, of which the words of mortals are only an inferior derivative, but of which our mere words, in themselves, cannot create or define. At best, our words and models can enhance a qualitative or poetic appreciation of the reality of which they are dependent, but our words, by themselves, cannot change the shared, synchronizing, unifying, underlying reality with which each of us is only an inferior participant, dependent upon a common and superior holism.

Meta Word abides in all by which is experienced the subjective sensation of every inferior word, sound, sight, relation, reaction, conversion, equation, parameter of transition, feel, instinct, and emotion. Meta Word avails that by which we all – even inferior beings – pull at the same bootstrap – “scientists of ethics” not excepted. It is only out of the holism of the Meta Word that all of particular, subjective, and apparent experiences, attractions, repulsions, and organizations unfold, in synchronous feedback with observed and observable manifestations.

Our shared sense of reality does synchronously flux and change, yet an essence of reality remains changeless — in that it humbles all of its particular participants. Reality abides as a trivalent, holistic identity:  The possible, the manifest, and the unfolding. That which changes is the aspect or sense of reality that unfolds to our shared appreciation. However, our common and abject Dependence upon that reality neither changes FOR us, nor is such Dependence changeable BY our mere manipulations of words, metaphors, and models. Still, we DO participate in an ongoing, continuous, logarithmic, discrete, and digital changing and unfolding of choices among both fields and particulars of possible, overlapping, and fuzzy realities. With what meta sense, energy, or power do we do that? I suggest that all change emerges and dances in flux with apprehensions of meta energies of fields and perspectives of meta consciousness. To me, a quality of subjective intuition – which refuses to be denied – suggests that Something of higher power abides, with which each of our perspectives of consciousness participates. Beyond that, mere words will not confine that Something, but may help remind or inspire us as we assimilate in respect of it.

To appreciate that a higher reality does abide, beyond the words of mere mortals, necessitates appreciation of a non-quantitative, non-empirical kind of poetry, intuition, and inner sense. Meta Word is that which avails our empiricism, by adding quantitative layers on top of qualitative connotations of what otherwise would exist only as ephemeral words and un-manifested possibilities for the organization of “information” (i.e., “stored consciousness”). Meta Word may be appreciated as that by which physics (stored information, i.e., stored consciousness) and flesh are added to mere words.

How else to appreciate or “define” Meta Word, I know not — except to bow, in common and due respect of it. All that we measurably experience in consequence of Meta Word is measurable only in relation to models, analogies, and metaphors about it. The words of mortals that we find inscribed in our science books and “sacred” texts have no power to explicate God’s sole, special, or Meta Word. This is because we have no power to comprehend God, much less to comprehend a complete or limiting exposition of God’s Meta Word. Rather, we deal only with impressions concerning the words and poetry that flow to us through inspired mortals. Still, in proper context, we can find value and guidance in the inspired words that flow through mortals, as they connect us to our antiquity — warts and all. Such texts help bridge our context, to connect us with how we have come to be defined, measurably and poetically. However, it is no use to suggest that such are the ultimate words of Nature or God, for we have no means, while mortal, to apprehend such ultimates or to conceit to comprehend the Meta Word.

Yes, we can model and relatively measure such aspects of that part of the potential of reality that are presently manifest to our shared experience. No, our hubris avails us no power of declaration by which to limit the entire potentiality of reality. For us, our “sacred” texts can provide no limiting description — either of the entirety of reality or of God. Rather, the value of sacred texts concerns our capacity to refer to them, to connect us with our past, to help guide and inspire us during our unfoldment along our shared and poetically meaningful path through time. God abides; beyond that, sacred texts facilitate, at most, only figurative interpretations or apprehensions of God.

The door that separates our particular experiences from the holistic experience of God has never been breached by any mere mortal — neither by the best of our philologists, nor by the best of our logicians. “I” abide only as an inferior participant, dependent upon the superior holism of Meta Word. In that aspect, as a shorthand reference, for convenience of communication, I intuit value in referring to such Meta Word as “God.” Still, it is my sense that we have no moral sanction to abandon unfolding responsibility or reason to literalistic impressions of entire texts of antiquity. For argumentation, sacred texts are often of poetic value, not scientific value. They can help attest to what we would will, not to what God must demand. This is because neither the Cosmos nor God are subservient to the mere will of mortals.

At best, each of us can advocate for good will only in respect of that which we intuit to accord with our humble receptivity to the higher values of Meta Word. To my interpretation and intuition, present context calls for Americans to seek to preserve civilization that accords decent respect for the freedom, dignity, and well being of each well meaning individual.

******

To abide (to be recognized or recorded?) as a "Changeless Changer" (Unified universe? God? Ineffable essence?) necessitates a dance between a scientifically backed, indifferent objectivism and a willing, caring subjectivism. A Changeless Changer requires that quantitative predictability and qualitative free will must coextend, each to define the other --- depending on fluxes in purpose, point of view, and frame of reference. Because of their coextensive codependence, neither objectivism nor subjectivism can provide a complete model of either physical or moral reality. Further, every plane upon which objectivism and subjectivism meet will necessarily produce fuzz and uncertainty, because every focus of qualitative perspective with quantitative context is also necessarily changing --- constantly and continuously.

The field of consciousness perceives the particle as being quantitative, while the particle of consciousness perceives the field as being quantitative. Neither the field nor the particle is "really" quantitative or qualitative, in itself, but only in relation -- depending on attitude of view and frame of reference. The idea of an ultimate, substantive, reconciler --- whether quantitative (Higgs Boson?) or qualitative (White Haired God of Abraham?) --- is flawed and bogus.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I'm wrapping up my reading of Sam Harris' The End of Faith, as well as The Moral Landscape. You may know that Harris is one of the Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris). I'm somewhat familiar with the other three, but I'm surprised that it seems inaccurate to include Harris in their group. I find that I disagree with Harris strikingly little --- and then only in semantic preferences and minor facets of taste. (I'm not as pro gay).

Harris' idea of spirituality, empathy, and well being accord well with what I may heretofore have called progressive religion. Semantically, he does not like the word "religion," but he does respect a proper and limited sphere for spirituality. He does not mind "faith," but abhors "religious faith," such as faith in dogmatic literalisms. I presume he fancies himself agnostic, but I see no reason to suppose he disbelieves in God (common field of consciousness?), per se. What he does disbelieve (as do I) is a concept of a dogmatic God who has revealed his will, in sacred texts through inspired messengers, with respect to detailed religious regulations and an afterlife.

Mainly, Harris finds religious dogma, to the extent taken literally by large numbers of zealots, to be dangerous to the continuance of human existence. Well, I accord with that!

Where I differ, only a bit, is that I find value, at least for keen minds, in various so called sacred texts for purposes of historical and poetic context, for linking us with our past ideas ---warts and all. I would accord with teaching such texts in school --- as myths, with potential for illuminating figurative truths. I suspect Harris may just as soon make a clean break and jetison such texts altogether, insofar as they hobble keen minds and waylay poor minds.

I differ because I doubt that poor minds will be easily inspired, cold turkey, in the absence of tolerance for inculcation in simplistic dogmas, to transition their loyalties to new ways of presenting ideas and values that are essential to the preservation of decent civilization. Here, recall Robespierre and his disastrous prescription for replacing Christianity with a Cult of the Supreme Being.

I prefer a gradual withering away of the literalisms, rather than a sudden bleeding out. We are simply confronted with too many challenges to risk weakening American resolve by having elites insult mainstream Americans by telling them that all their basic dogmas are nonsense.

I prefer the intuitive truth that there does abide something of value (which I take the semantic liberty of referring to as "God"), of which our sacred texts can avail figurative insight. (Observe how the word "can" makes the message trivial in any strictly materialistic sense, because of its ambiguity. It's only in such a message's "there there" emotionally respectful sense that it is of value.)

Bottom line: Harris, unlike the other Horsemen, seems to squint between the atheists and the dogmatists. I (and Klingman?) squint with him, but with a bit more TLC and patience for the dogmatists. (As far as Islamic dogmatists, I'm probably more rabidly against them than any of the Horsemen.)

Many agnostics would likely enjoy Harris' take. If so, they may want to watch for the next upgrade by Kindle. I'll bet Amazon will soon have a version that will allow you to "check out" digital versions of books from libraries.