Tuesday, June 7, 2011


WHAT ARE SUBSTANCE, INFORMATION, AND CONSCIOUSNESS: I conceptualize Substance (S) as being comprised of measurable matter and energy, particles and fields. I conceptualize Information (I) as being comprised of that which enervates the rules and chronologies of relations among, and the quantities of transitions between, forms of Substance. I conceptualize Consciousness (C) as being that which --- through whatever it is that enervates Information --- senses, interprets, experiences, and identifies with qualities of awareness of Substance and Information. I conceptualize Self-consciousness as being that which senses, interprets, experiences, and identifies with self-awareness of Substance and Information.

WHAT IS THE RELATION AMONG SUBSTANCE, INFORMATION, AND CONSCIOUSNESS: The relationship among Substance, Information, and Consciousness seems to conform to a conserving meta math, which, in its trivalence, abides beyond mortal comprehension as to the Quantitative, but not as to the intuitively Qualitative.

THE NATURE OF SUBSTANCE: Matter and energy measure to be inter-convertible, subject to an Informational law of Conservation of their sum total. As Substance unravels, it becomes more and more disorganized, in a process called entropy.

THE NATURE OF INFORMATION: Information seems to increase as Substance unravels (at least, so long as Consciousness associates to record or apprehend a sequential direction to such unraveling).

THE CHARACTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS: Intuitions, signs, and communications between the holism versus the particular perspectives of Consciousness seem to become less appreciated the more Substance unravels and the more the organization of Information increases. As math-based logic gates of our presently-shared universe become Informationally more organized, the potentiality and degrees of freedom availed particular perspectives seems to become Substantively less.

OF CONSERVING INTER-CONVERSION OF S, I, AND C:  I have no means by which to perceive or ascertain — independent of the mix of S, I, and C — how S may act directly on S, nor I on I, nor C on C. Yet, I intuit a roiling mix or fuzz regarding such relations, out of which that of which I do perceive, and interpret as our experiences, unfolds and manifests forth

OF THE DIRECTION OF CONSERVATION: The conservation of S, I, and C seems to proceed along a meta direction, so that such unfolding of conservation cannot, by mere negation, be reversed to a previous state.

OF THE ORGANIZATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS INTO SELF AWARENESS: How does Consciousness flux, organize, and integrate, so that the integrity of some perspectives is promoted (even to the point of awareness of self), while the integrity of others is degraded (even to the point of operating essentially like pre-set Information)? I know not the meta means, but I recognize the associations: Each perspective records, apprehends, or chooses what to appreciate, and such records, apprehensions, and choices are synchronized within a system so that some “catch the wave” and some do not. Like society, Consciousness organizes in, and becomes organized in, various hierarchical, sequential, and numerical levels, layers, and values. Information and Substance organize in association with how they are recorded, appreciated, or chosen by Consciousness. Consciousness associates with, or organizes, Information and Substance consistent with a digital process of feedback, which entails choosing or willing what to appreciate, depreciate, reinforce, diminish, promote, repress, free, enslave, attach to, avoid, reward, and punish.

OF MORAL VISION AND MEANINGFUL EMPATHY: Intuitively, the mores and ideals with which we shape our purposes and visions guide our appreciations of each system within which our thoughts and actions are chosen and rationalized. If we envision a shining city of freedom, decency, and empathy, on a hill, we may better participate in making it so. If we rationalize that everything should be reduced to equally inanimate math and substance, we may tend to produce an altogether different sort of beingness. Nothing in fate, substance, or historical determinacy objectively requires or proves either choice.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The world is in financial crisis, so, to let no crisis go to waste, out comes the Gay Agenda to tell us we should least of all be concerned with it. This is strange to me, because it seems obvious that decent civilization depends on families, guided by assimilating values, to inculcate sustainable values through the generations. The alternative is to redefine words so that family, marriage, values, and charity have no reliable meanings. The purpose of families transmitting assimilating and civilizing values is to keep government from taking over those functions. The alternative is for government more and more to usurp the role of parents. Once we move from traditional to communal and poly families, the next step is ever more governmental regulation of interrelational "rights." I agree, keep government out of adult bedrooms. I don't agree that it is necessary in order to accomplish that to force taxpayers to fund "rights" to require that gays must be entitled to require that states and the union are forbidden from giving special incentives to the traditonal family unit for rearing the next generations. I don't see that as a "right," nor as a good idea. I see it as piling on during an economic meltdown in order to further accelerate the unraveling of sustainable, small government, civilization. The Gay Agenda is synonymous with ever increasing governmental intrusions. We already have taxpayers funding teachers to inculcate Johnny why it is perfectly normal for Freddie to have two mommies. This is not necessary. It is one thing to assert a right to acquire life insurance to provide for a close intimate. It is another thing to require, as a matter of "right," that taxpayers must force all pension plans and all tax exemption claims to provide for it. There is no such a "right," unless and until citizen taxpayers vote to fund and allow it. When they do, I shall believe they have lost their collective minds.