Monday, September 26, 2011

Aesop The Younger

How may a mythical dance of consciousness, as a discreet-discrete two step between its holistic field and its particular expressions, be conceptualized or faithfully analogized as creating substance, signified in a way that is artifactual of the dance? "Answer": Via a wanding quality of meta magic, that unfolds the quantum decoherence of the potentiality of universe.

Each new conceptualization for discovery and insight alters the potential for consciousness to apprehend new discoveries and insights. There is something magical in its infinity and in its circulating-yet-expanding feedback about the unfolding capacity of the path of Consciousness. That we, from our particular points of view, think our experience of beingness is more scientific than magical is more an artifact in respect of our having been meta-shaped to share a frame for conscious reference (however vast that frame may appear), than in respect of any limitation on the holistic potentiality of conscious beingness Itself. Thus, consciousness ever pursues a receding pot of gold at the end of beingness. Like a ghost rider, mortal consciousness pursues that which it has no means to grasp, except in imperfect, surrogate apprehension. Pure consciousness apprehends, but does not directly “hold” or “cause,” any measurable “thing.” At the end of what we can measure, the “first cause” is something that has no causative substance.

If a "real" referent for something like a “God Particle” exists, its quality of reality for mortals exists only in meta-math, beyond the powers of Godel, not in substance that is empirically measurable to mankind. In a quantum universe, the observer effect not only clouds and affects the unfolding of that which we particularly measure; it also affects the unfolding of the universal frame we share, within which we generally share our measure of it.

That holistic, synchronizing effect that is applied to our space-time is not something we can scientifically replicate (unless, oxymoronically, we could acquire capacity to backtrack in time). Until then, that holistic effect is something we may NOT quantitatively correlate to empirical testing, but only qualitatively appreciate via intuitive adducement. One who, for his holistic FAITH or philosophy, declines the path of intuitive adducement can continue to his heart’s content to pursue the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for replicating the scientific-law-that-models-everything. Along his odyssey, numerous, wondrous, temporal phantoms will unfold and astonish all apprehensions and expectations.

Regardless, the myths or stepping off points that one chooses in digital alternation for pursuing principled philosophy for reconciling the quantitative with the qualitative, whether along the path of hopeful empiricism or along the path of reconciling intuition, are not what will deliver one either to madness or to contentment. What will deliver one to madness or to contentment abides with the general disposition of one’s attitude of apprehension (the unfolding and ever-developing character of one’s soul). Prayer, to the extent efficacious, may abide in a dance or quality of intuitive apprehension and appreciation of feedback between a particular Perspective of consciousness and the Field of consciousness. That quality of efficacy, much like centering meditation, may avail intuitive and spiritual growth, but will not be of quantitatively scientific demonstration.

When applied in selfish lack of good faith, prayer reduces to a superstitious effort merely to recruit the cosmos against one's competitors in narcissism, as a child might wish to become a vengeful god. However, the quality of appreciation or apprehension that abides with each of our perspectives is what feeds the synchronizing that is availed by the Reconciler, which unfolds before us, in sequences of holistic yet discrete feedback. In our Reconciler’s house are infinity of rooms.

On Earth, one of those rooms may compass a city of freedom and dignity, on a hill. That is a vision for decent civilization. It is a myth in respect of which independent-minded persons and Americans could aspire (regardless of whether they may sometimes prefer applications for more secular seeming metaphors or models for measure). It is an assimilating myth that compasses truth enough to foster celebration among most familiar folk religions and civic metaphors. However, no single person's belief in the communication of freedom, dignity, decency, and empathy will validate a myth. If Americans continue to will the unraveling of all sustaining myths, then multi-cultural diversity in desires will sink rather than sustain America. Truth be known, the myth that science, if it blots out all alternatives, can substitute to save us is not a sustaining myth.


Anonymous said...

The first thing I take from excellent advise not to speak more clearly than one thinks is that one should try to avoid conflating that which is meant to be amenable to quantitative based logic with that which is meant to pertain to qualitative based appreciation. That sometimes gets sticky. Although Ought does not seem to be derivable from Is, neither does Is seem to be derivable from Ought. Yet, in a dualistic way, neither Ought nor Is seems to avail capacity for intelligible discussion without the other --- except with aid of models appropriate to the times, figures of speech, or myths.

Somehow, I think we find ways to muddle through to tune our qualititative mores (religions) with our quantitative models (sciences). However, the muddling seems to be coming unglued. Our religious myths are not keeping up with our science models. I think a meta myth is needed, not to replace folk religions, but to provide shared metaphors or language in respect of which our various secular and religious sects may re-think old metaphors in order to facilitate communicate on more shared ground. I lack the background or ability to tune the quantitative modeling. So my interest turns more to how a meta myth may be assimilated that could be consistent with intuition, without unnecessarily disparaging traditional myths or running afoul of mathematical models. Consciousness seems to invite a handle for that, in that, while the consciousness field "does not tell us the inner dynamics of awareness or will," it may describe the means by which the field interacts with mass-energy." I assume this relates to fields of consciousness appearing to have ghostly or "non-local" capacity to guide or influence paths of particular things without coming into direct, measurable contact with them. I remain somewhat unclear whether one may hope to find a way to actually measure, account for, or provide an application for that "contact."

Anonymous said...

In any event, I suspect quantitative-based thinkers mainly resist the notion of a field of consciousness for the reason that it seems counterintuitive to their training. If consciousness could guide the evolution of interactions of substance, they expect the effect should be statistically demonstrable. I think that's the main reason. For application buffs, there's another reason: a theory for a field of consciousness seems not likely to advance technological applications. I tend to discount that reason, because it discounts a moral application: facilitating a model for a way of thinking about moral concerns. Also, because it's convenient to my limited facility with math and physics. I also discount the random argument. I suspect one of two things: Either a consciousness field will be statistically demonstrable, or it will be reasonably rationalized why its existence should not be statistically demonstrable.

Maybe some kind of holistic observations within our universe could avail meaningful statistical analysis. So far, however, the camp for many materialists seems to find convenient comfort in notions like many worlds, while the camp for many spiritualists seems to find convenient comfort in a notion that one field (consciousness field?) may just as well have innate capacity to subsume many worlds in its potential for choosing among which possibilites to favor (collapse) for being manifested.

Some may explore an idea that is both beyond many worlds and a single field of consciousness. An idea that is dualistic in a way, in that it relates both to measurable substances and to substances (particles of consciousness) that are too small to measure --- except in large statistical applications. In that way, some may be encouraged not yet to give up the ghost, so to speak, on actual empirical testing of a field of consciousness --- perhaps even leading to eventual technological applications.

If so, I remain dim on how they might see daylight that could square that with a notion that gravity is the real field that the universe arose from. By taking physics as based on a Gravitational/Consciousness field as given, Klingman would accept that the field is unexplained, but may be used to explain everything else.

Regardless, I suspect it will for some time remain the myth (to me, a dangerous myth!) among some physicists that science can and should provide all the experience and guidance that is needed for assimilating mores. I rather think the kind of meta myth (and comfort words) we need is one that would facilitate honest communication among those enlightened persons who want freedom, dignity, decency, and empathy of mind, not just for themselves, but also for their children and all others with whom they empathize.

Anonymous said...

Psychology 101 -

If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage,
hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of
stairs under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and
climb toward the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with
cold water. After a while another monkey makes an attempt with same
result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty
soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys
will try to prevent it. Now, put the cold water away.

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new
monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock,
all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt
and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a
new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous
newcomer takes part in the punishment... with enthusiasm.

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by a
fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs
he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea
why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know
why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the
remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water.
Nevertheless, none of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the
banana. Why, you ask? Because in their minds... that is the way it has always

This, my friends, is how Congress operates... and is why, from time to
time, all of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME.

Anonymous said...

When may raising someome's anxiety level by telling him to breathe slower else he's going to die actually cause him to breathe slower?

Anonymous said...

Too many scientists have become prone to replace priests in hubris for "knowing" The Truth. I wish they would return to more humility, for seeking what works. Since our unfolding is not static, and all things other than what may be presently tested do not remain the same, the best myth or model that works is prone to change with the times. The best myth may often not remain the one that any person, whether scientist or priest, wants to say "is settled." Too often, we mistake practical myths (hypotheses) for "The Settled Truth." When scientists propagate their models as settled truth, they tend to reduce themselves to apologists for those despots who believe themselves entitled to deny choices for all others. Although things do not remain the same, hubris leads despots to feign to make things remain the same. This is how we get bureaucrats taking away our choices about even the flush capacities for our toilets. Bureaucrats are coming more and more to serve despots for the purpose of denying people freedom of choice. They do this by replacing incomplete and untestable religious myths with incomplete and often untestable scientific models. The difference is, more priests than scientists apprehend myth aspects in their models. Having taken away the tools of religious inquisitors, we now give new tools to bureaucratic fascists. These neo-myth enforcers recite a new kind of Latin, which the unwashed are expected not to read for themselves: Latin from the new holy book of "settled scientific truth."