To me, it's hard to imagine how any aboriginal pattern could abide as any kind of pattern, absent some kind of innate sensory feedback. Given that, once patterns in the field start apprehending the power of positive consciousness, that power, by meta-natural-selection, would soon establish its expression, coextensive with the aboriginal field. Given that, it comes to devote itself to gardening a realm of feedback with various particular perspectives of itself. However, the times are not right for such an idea. Affinity for such an idea is not enough. Some mix of opportunity and privation is also needed. There abides too much counter attraction to nihilistic nirvana: fill up your senses with diversions under an assumption of ever thereafter resting in consciousless peace. The idea of eternal consciousness is not necessarily an appealing one. To some, it's apalling. To me, it's mainly merely intuitive and not inconsistent with logic or empiricism. The here and now problem of trying to go without an idea of spiritual purposefulness is that its frustration tends to hamper efforts to establish and preserve a civilization of decent liberty of thought and conscience. It tends to rationalize a permanent law of concealed tooth and claw. That's just common sense, even though ingenuity of consciousness precludes its proof in empiricism. As civilization proceeds with trying to annihilate itself, more people will change and seek to preserve it. Unfortunately, such cycles seem innately necessary.
To conceptualize our relationship with a Field of higher purpose is to conceptualize a dance, whereby that which should be done from each perspective of the relationship is apprehended and appreciated as a consequence of the unfolding of the relationship. The "ought" is neither determined nor even in existence, except in respect of how it is ascertained derivative of the dance. In other words, we try to do what God wants, and God seeks to provide what we need. Sometimes, what we want changes what God determines that we need. The "ought" is not an independent existent, unless in a way that is even higher than, and thus beside the point, of our relationship. In that way, we don't mind "ought," but we do respect God, even though we also participate in the unfolding and perhaps sometimes changing of God-Mind. What we think, say, and do affects God. God may be torn to different interests in different environments, geographies, and cultures. If we imagine, rationalize, and pray for a despotic, violent, mind-enslaving society, then God may come in such an environment to entertain such a society. We share responsibility for participating with God in guiding the oughts and interests that come to prevail. Good thoughts, good words, good deeds carry self-fulfilling potential for consciousness, from both the perspective of the Field and the perspective of its Parts..