Thursday, December 1, 2011

Meta Selection among Meta Patterns

.
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.
.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

In the beginning was JHVH. And JHVH was without form. And JHVH cracked and beheld he-she-it was naked ... and covered itself with patterns. And patterns became coextensive. Thus imbibed JHVH from the patterns of life and knowledge. JHVH was alone and breathed, "Let us establish Quark." JHVH jabbed the rib of Quark, and Quark acted Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top, and Bottom and fell into a dark place, in all manner of entanglements and disputes. There was darkness among the tribe of Quarks. So JHVH said, Fiat Lux! And there was Lux. Quarks went forth, flatly but with discrete spins, attractions, and antagonisms. Thus made JHVH space-time and direction-sequence. But there was disarray and dispirit in the garden. So JHVH sent Einstein, and Einstein established measure, but without preference. So there was incompleteness. Then followed Bohr, who established predictability, but only in statistical unfoldings from locally unpredictable leaps. So JHVH sent Godel, to reconcile the cosmos with math and man. But Godel proved mathematical reconciliation of the quantitative with the qualitative is impossible, and went he the way of madness. So JHVH said, I am! The people lined up to receive gifts. But the gifts required work. So the people yawned and passed. Thus fell the land in diversions and dopery, and JHVH waited. The people said, let us make a golden A.I., and make A.I. render gifts unto us. But A.I. was without purpose. So the people set up plays and movies and Kindle Fires and said, Commit notions of JHVH to the flames! for we need not. And JHVH waited, as the people fell into disputes, and connivers arose among them, pretending to be messengers, saying do this and this and this for me and JHVH will gift you with bounteous virgins. And still JHVH waits, a wallflower at the dance ... until the people apprehend that the dance is within them.

Anonymous said...

It's not just that politics is a dirty game. Most of life is. I value faith in a higher source of empathy and decency. However, few devout believers are likely to make good political leaders. No doubt, Carter (Baptist) and Obama (Marxist Muslim) are devout, but they are among the worst America could turn to. I doubt Jesus would choose to run for political office. And I don't want a political leader who has little life experience. Someone who has never known the underbelly of humanity is unlikely to have much real world appreciation of what needs to be learned from the school of hard knocks. And someone whose identity is mainly tied up with being pious is more likely to intrude and confuse governmental force with piety and charity. Morality often is effectiv ely legislated, but that legislation tends to be best done indirectly, by giving decent people opportunities to lead, rather than by trying to force innately bad people to be always on their best behavior. Simplistic moralism almost always does not produce decent society. This goes also for so-called secular ham-inists. To give teachers absolute authority to enforce any simple rule --- such as zero tolerance for nearly anything (bullying, sexual aggression, knives) --- is to license complete control unto utter ninnies. That's a view to the kind of insanity that would prevail were we to surrender complete authority to government (or Sharia law) to legislate child rearing. Unfortunately, the more unassimilated, divided, and insane our culture becomes, the more the cry for enforcement of simplistic solutions. Our social problem is NOT mainly in our laws. It's in our loss of decent, moral assimilation. Too many secular know-it-alls have to many governmental cure-alls, even as they ridicule assimilating moral piety. Too many secular ninnies think we can have small government without having privately influential forums for shaping and assimiliating mores.