Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Of Moon Bats among Fundies and Militants

See http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=802338105001.

By a process of Eastern pre-modern and Western post-modern meditation and deconstruction (dissolution of wholes by intricate analysis of their parts), one may deconstruct a bell until it no longer may ring. Indeed, one may deconstruct all of substance, until it dissipates into mere words (dormant information or“stored consciousness”) — layered on top of “some meta flux of becomingness” which is so ineffable, ethereal, and ephemeral as to be beyond description or measure in relation to any model that can be coherently correlated with physics — even though, intuitively (unavoidably?), such Meta beingness is implicated.

Yes, we still experience an unfolding appreciation and manipulation of sensations and signs of interactions and relations among apparent fields and their expressions of particles. No, we have no way of knowing what is the most fundamental essence that causes or underlies such sensations and signs of “substance,” or that avails us with our interpretations of selfhood and individuated agency of causation. Indeed, one may deconstruct selfhood itself, until one’s very consciousness of one’s identity merges to become pure consciousness — that is aware of no self.

From the standpoint of Meta Word, consciousness and physics would seem to be interchangeable, in that both are derivations of a more fundamental essence. Depending on purpose, perspective, and context, consciousness can be expressed as physics, and physics can be expressed as consciousness; that is, active, informationally qualitative consciousness can be converted to a stored or radiating form of informationally quantitative physics, and vice versa --- however, not without a directional, sequential, relational, expanded, entropic change in the shared field of space time.

We have no perspective or model by which to relate, simultaneously, to an unfolding of consciousness into physical substance, or to an unfolding of physical substance into consciousness. We have no coherent model that can accomodate light at the same space-time locus as being comprised of both waves and particles, nor do we have any coherent model that can equate (or beam?) a conversion of the quality of consciousness back and forth into a quantity (or quantum) of physical substance. Yet, we may infer, from an implicated standpoint of Meta Word, that consciousness is actively unpredictable substance, and substance is stored, inactive consciousness --- depending only on how Meta Word deigns to unfold.

Given this state of affairs, one may ask (trivalently): (1) Is consciousness inferior to and derivative of substance; (2) is substance inferior to and derivative of consciousness; or (3) are mortal experiences of both consciousness and substance necessarily implicated as being inferior to and derivative of Meta Essence (Meta Word?) — that is, does there abide a Meta Being that has trivalent capacity to avail changing-interpretations-of-the-changeless, to reconcile all that is Possible ... with all that is Manifest ... with all that is Unfolding?

For convenience, I take liberty to refer to such Meta Word as “God.” This puts me at odds with most who seek the comfort of more popularly contending states of confusion. As to religious fundamentalists and their assorted, attempted literalists, I am loathe to accept any mere “sacred” text of words, translated in respect of any expanding universe of circular definitions that are collected in dictionaries for mere mortals, as being apt for defining (or confining) “God.” As to militant atheists, I am loathe to accept that mankind should sever relations with the history of our unfolding traditions and moral values (of which most such texts and myths can be useful repositories, when properly or figuratively interpreted). Rather, I seek to bring quantitative science face to face with qualitative morality.

I begin with an intuition about morality, which I take to be common and reasonably objective. First, I decline to try to replace God with respect to any need to judge the subjective merit (or soul?) of each person or perspective of consciousness. Rather, I try to build on a moral ethos, not altogether unlike Kant's Categorical Imperative. My test is: What is necessary or helpful to facilitate a civilization that avails its members with decent opportunities to freely pursue their individual quests for meaning and fulfillment?

Insofar as Meta Word is manifestly at work in guiding us to states of consciousness that are leveraged with brain capacities as powerful as we find among human beings, it strikes me as reasonable, perhaps even obvious, that civilization ought not needlessly stymie such powerful perspectives of consciousness in their individual pursuits of meaning. That is not an intuition that is derivative of science. Rather, that is an intuition that may come direct from one’s state of beingness. Once accepting that qualitative intuition, techniques of quantitative science can be brought to facilitation, face to face. In that way, a “science of morality” may come to make sense, as may broader political platforms.

Given pursuit of a science of morality, manageable questions become obvious: What parameters of family and social values are necessary to sustain decent civilization? Should such values be sustained by law, not hindered by law, or only be encouraged by tradition, howsoever it happens to unfold? What kind of regulation of economic activity and trade can best facilitate free enterprise? How can citizens of good will be protected from crony capitalists? What kind of traditional myths, parables, and figures of speech are best understood and suited for inspiring the kind of analogical reasoning about values that is needed in order to inspire appropriate moral standards, to assimilate and preserve decent society?

To my lights, it is morally insane to expect to preserve decent society based on nothing more than government established worship of savage competition, hiding behind masks of calculated abuse and greed by faux libertines who maneuver to own the government (and to erase nations). It is insane to expect that government “ought” to force toleration of every multi culti affront to demographic maintenance and assimilation of traditional values, merely to expand opportunities for godless and greed based maneuvering among contenders for controlling laws, finances, taxes, entitlements, and government gifted monopolies.

The kid in Sixth Sense saw dead people. As an equal opportunity offender of fundies and militants, I see moon bats.


Decent civilization, trying to be tolerant, has allowed gays, Muslims, crony capitalists, communal utopians, and stick up artists to overstep.  Decent civilization will fall, if it tries too hard to accomodate such who want to subjugate it.


Anonymous said...

Re: I may partially agree with something of this nature but the pragmatist in me says 'prove it', or at least give any evidence.

Well, for ideas that are interesting, we begin with intuitions, then proceed gradually to put flesh (proof) on them. After awhile, we begin to accept "proofs" (ways of thinking) because we become habituated to thinking in the same grooves. Neither the Standard Model nor the political platforms of Democrats or Republicans are proved, but are often reflexively accepted as if they were.

Anonymous said...

Re: Family Values vs. Economic Values

If marriage is to be reduced to an idea outside of government, then won't it become an idea of no legal significance? When an idea of marriage or family no longer conveys any discernible or discriminating meaning, will those who claim the inferiority of family values to economic values finally be satisfied? When definitions of marriage and family are finally made so dissipate and non-discriminatory as to be meaningless, will they be satisfied? Will they be satisfied when government declines to recognize any role for the notion of marriage or family, outside of contract law?

When that happens, won't government fill the vacuum, so that the traditional roles of families for rearing the next generation will be replaced by bureaucrats? When government and law are taken out of the definition of marriage, then won't government and law simply refill the vacuum in some other guise? What will that guise be? After all, everyone knows that empowering more government, through bureaucrats, to directly oversee the rearing of the next generation is bound to be change for the better, right? (sarc)

A nation flourishes as it inspires the loyalty of its citizens. Citizens are loyal as they perceive that their assimilation can reasonably be hoped to faciliate their individual dignity and freedom of expression and work. Is America, now operating through those who own its politicians, upholding its end of the bargain? How much of the fundamental changing of America that is underway will have the effect of reducing the middle and lower classes to abject servitude to an aristocracy of elites, who themselves will also have no freedom to resist the replacing political paradigm? How much of this fundamental changing of America is connived out of greed, versus fallen into out of ignorance or weak willed entitlement mongering?


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 bogus.