Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Birthright of Humanity

In a way, slavey is the freedom to be indifferent; the freedom not to care to make choices for oneself. If an absurdist-existentialist were seriously principled, why should he care to teach his comprehension of existential absurdity to anyone else? How much should he authentically care about how little he cares?  If consciousness is a fundament of reality, and if consciousness has no choice but to choose to care, then does that not implicate a fundamental, forced, spiritual choice about the quality of faith that one should adopt or not adopt in order to guide, justify, or rationalize one's life in a meaningful, principled wayIf consciousness is assumed to be demonstrably and merely impotent, acausal, absurd, epiphenomenal byproduct of that which is measurably Quantifiable as the Substance of Physics, then why does that which collapses fields into particles depend for its determination on local expressions of immeasurable qualities of Consciousness?

If indifferent physics is all that exists, then how can such physics consistently be considered as being accompanied with a "rule of survival of the niche-fittest to replicate," given that any judgment about the "fittest" is a mere after-the-fact-labeling for a result, rather than a describing of any physical, causal agent in itself? That is --- unless the singular big-bang source of all fields and particles of physics is considered to be "the real causal agent," having pre-packaged and pre-designed all that unfolds. In that case, however, "survival of the fittest" is not itself the mechanism, but only a description of an illusion that derives from the mechanism, i,e, the originating big bang. In that case, the randomness of quantum physics is also illusory, even though it's predetermination can only be inferred, on faith, and not proven.

TEST OF INTRINSIC MORAL WORTH VERSUS ENHANCEMENT OF MORAL WILL: It may be that this life is not a "test," but it does seem to be guided by an interfunctioning of purpose-driven consciousness. If so, whatever is guiding our physical unfoldment and evolution seems also, based on feedback process, to be guiding the evolution for how information and knowledge are organized for acquiring potentiality. Perhaps, that organization of knowledge continues to inure to the capacity of whatever forms are availed for perspectives of consciousness to continue to identify and bond with each succeeding hereafter.

So long as consciousness abides, the differentiality of our perspectives of IT may be more illusory than real, and the physics we presume to measure may be mere significations of feedback or afterglow of Something that is more qualitatively spiritual and less quantifiably measurable than we often apprehend. In other words, we may be the expressions of an Origin that melded the informationally Indifferent with the purposefully Caring. In that case, our humanity depends on our respect for, and preservation of, freedom to care.


Anonymous said...

Our confused communications of good faith will remain doubly challenged so long as we pretend — in our theories, terms, and non-trivial facts — that the interrelationship of the quantitative with the qualitative can be reduced to factual certainty. Consider: “To know” any non-trivial thing necessitates knowing every aspect that is pertinent to knowing it. To know every pertinent aspect necessitates that all of pertinent physics be measurable, at least in potentiality. For all of pertinent physics to be measurable, we would need a mathematical basis that was complete, consistent, and coherent. However, Godel demonstrated that our math is necessarily incomplete. Thus, we cannot know whether we can know every pertinent thing about physics. Thus, our knowledge of physics is inherently incomplete. Thus, there is nothing about physics that we can “know” — apart from empirical tinkering, relying largely on Bayes’ Theorem. In that way, in practice, we find, circularly, that things work and that the fittest evolves ... because they work and because they are fittest. Thus, we rationalize our skills and sciences circularly, as if such rationalizations represent actual knowledge of reality, rather than mere after-the-fact rationalizations of the practical.

Like Camus, many of our atheistic comedians are twisted to believe that physics is all; that the only philosophy worth advocating is the absurdist philosophy that there is no philosophy worth advocating. That’s a dark place to be. It’s indicative of a deeply entrenched mindset. No one can pull a person out of that mindset when he is inclined to resist. When a person makes the choice to believe and advocate that there abides more that is worthwhile than a philosophy of absurdist worthlessness and nihilism, then he can hearken to a pilgrim’s journey of purposefulness. Until then, until he chooses to be receptive to a message of worthwhileness, no one can pull him from his slough of despond. A person who becomes impotent to purposefulness will of course be collected into a common fall into nihilism of self. Such is the artificial end of dialectic objectivism and communism.

NOTE: Yes, logic gates may be constructed, in set series, to filter that which can be practicably known about particular niches within orders of significance and degrees of certainty. However, note the quality of the qualifier: "practicably."

Anonymous said...

Beyond Virtual Worlds for the Definition of Self and Selves: Among elohim, skilled architects may image or construct variously configured and math-matized systems and levels of dreams and pretense, such that avatars and game-bots of consciousness could experience all manner of siren challenges. For entertaining their perspectives, individual avatars of consciousness are dependent upon the set-system-game-parameters with which their partiality is invested and identified. There is no reason to suppose that that which avails such partiality of perspectives is itself mortal, inanimate, unconscious, or undirected by, or unappreciative of, purposefulness. Further, it seems doubtful that any source of consciousness, itself, by injecting a perspective or avatar of itself into a virtual world, would thereby make its meta aspect dependent for its mortality upon such virtual world. When an avatar is depleted (dies), there is no reason to suppose that the source of consciousness that sponsored it should likewise be depleted. Such “knowledge” seems simply beyond any non-holistic avatar to the extent its identity is invested in a perspective of partiality. As to meta intuition — that entails a character of choice.

Anonymous said...

Mankind needs novel entertainment, challenge, and uncertainty. Those who come to seek easy, predictable comfort soon seek stupor, depletion, or death. Once a system offers one a position of guaranteed comfort and entitlement, one's itches turn either to the stupor of drugs or the excitement of lawlessness or anarchy. The best sustainable system of governance, theology, and philosophy for humanity does NOT consist in one that would justify or entitle everyone equally. The best system tends to consist in one that would avail reasoned pursuit by each of his own happiness. Except as prelude to suicide or departure from earth, why should anyone struggle or fight for a system that means forcibly to reshape his bed and cover him in and out as a human curtain?