Does it not seem odd, how one's incapacity to limit the Infinite Consciousness to the finite quantifications of substance so often tricks so many to believe that the Infinite Mind must be impossible? Indeed, quite as impossible as the cosmos. Yet, there the cosmos is --- a walking contradiction. What is anyone's idea of present-locus, if not entirely subsidiary to conscious apprehension? Sense of sight is supported by organ of eye, hearing by organ of ear. What organ supports sense of memory and recordation of previous in-form-ation, if not some aspect of the cosmos itself? How is it that one is availed to sense any discrete point in apparent time as being other than a mere Discrete, that is Unconnected to any continuity of sequence? How is it that one who does sense a present that is connected to a past is also availed to apprehend, all at once, a buzz of choices among potential futures? How, unless the cosmos itself somehow feeds back to the apprehensions of our senses? Is it not reasonable to intuit that the Field of the cosmos, as well as each particular perspective of consciousness of it, each somehow functions as receiver-transmitter for the other? How is it that mere apprehensions of consciousness are coordinated with measurable emissions of bursts of energy and communications of substantive changes? How is it that our choices appear, on measurement, to have been made before our brains engage synaptic appreciation of such choices already having been made, even before our self awareness of them registers? In the immeasurable or eternal void that lies between each apparently instantaneous and particular quantum leap, what Reconciler factors our apprehensions and appreciations in synchronicity with the buzz and fuzz? What is the fuzz and buzz, if not in respect of an implicate accompaniment and connection between the Holism and its Parts, beyond precise measure or proof, but not beyond intuition and empathy? Or do Atheists and Marxists deny even intuition and empathy? But for whatever IT is that factors such fuzz and buzz, how could we hope to experience or interpret our unfoldment in space-time to present any kind or degree of meaningful sensation or sense? What profit it a man to try to argue meaning with another who despairs of any meaning at all, lest the Unprovable prove Itself?
How is it that particular perspectives of consciousness sense and experience space-time as if it were continuous, rather than consisting of a discrete series of sequences? Could this sense abide in respect of a dance of feedback between an holistic perspective and its particular perspectives? Could it be that neither the Whole nor its Parts would sense or experience any perspective but for the abiding back and forth between them? Could it be out of such feedback, in discrete back and forth sequences, that an illusion of continuousness emerges to the sensory experience of mortals? How is it that human minds sense a buzz or fuzz of present possibilities in accompaniment with each expression of a precise choice or apprehension? How is it that our choices appear, on measurement, to have been made before our brains engage synaptic appreciation of such choices already having been made, even before our self awareness of them registers? In an eternal void between each particular quantum leap, what Reconciler factors our apprehensions and appreciations in synchronicity with the buzz and fuzz? How may the Holism of consciousness be at work at an implicate level, below the level of explicate consciousness, during each present mortal illusion of an instantaneous quantum leap, between discrete appearances of measurable particulars? What is the fuzz and buzz, if not in respect of an implicate accompaniment and connection between the Holism and its Parts, beyond precise measure or proof, but not beyond intuition and empathy? But for whatever IT is that factors such fuzz and buzz, how could we hope to experience or interpret our unfoldment in space-time to present any kind or degree of meaningful sensation or sense? When it comes to "objective" proof or disproof by a subjective perspective of consciousness of the existentiality, relevance, quantification, or quality of the Holism, how can our back-mathing be other than ambiguously fluxing?
Conventionally hammered wisdom is that Math counts things of Substance, with Consciousness emerging merely as derivative byproduct. In respect of that view, cronies and dupes work backwards, to cherry pick things by which to argue and fit their math to that model. The problem in this is that such artificially constrained "back-mathing" will not help one foresee when a substance that is being linearly mathed is about to flux or transition into a thing of a different quality, for which the model, not being equipped to count or measure qualities as opposed to quantities, will not apply. One simply cannot count degrees of cowness, man-ness, or consciousness.
A better model would abide in apprehending that math and substance are "associate-derivatives" of qualitative fluxes among perspectives of consciousness. While Consciousness cannot be quantitatively mathed, at least it can be apprehended in empathetic intuition. Thus, the model based on Consciousness as being a priori would fully accomodate science, while not feigning to turn mankind into a mere quantity, of no special qualitative value. By keeping in mind that human consciousness is a value whose qualitative interests and purposes are worth preserving, one will be less inclined to miss apprehending key signals.
One will be less inclined to fail to notice that the Ideal of America is dissolving -- in its borders, logos, families, industries, mores, and civilization. One will be less inclined to think that such dissolution can be fixed merely by altering a few forms for how to redistribute the math of taxes, revenues, and centralized stimuli. Instead, one will notice that the main forces or trends that are erasing America abide in the mathed bunk that is hammered into the minds of sheep. That bunk pretends to prove a lie: that America is best served by freely and cheaply marketing herself to a worldwide marketplace, with no standards for discriminating friends from foes, empaths from sociopaths, good-faith traders from crony gangsters, or decent values from lowest common denominators.