Revivications of True Values and Moral Assimilation

INTUITIVE REALITY OF REVIVICATION OF I-NESS: For each of us, some quality of "I" persists through all the changes and years of each life. The exact context of that which is around me is not essential to my I-ness. In the death of the Substance of my body, whatever constitutes the Information commensurate with "my I-ness" is re-absorbed in a clean break from my experience of the here and now back into the Source. That is, Information carries an infinite aspect, so that it is not lost, but is constantly or continuously re-synchronized or recirculated. Past information is subject to various levels and degrees of Conscious reconstruction, regarding alternative possible explanations for what led up to each context of Substance. Each of us will experience succeeding qualities of I-ness, with some aspects of deja vu, even though there will be breaks, so that we can only intuit, not substantively prove or know, that "I", in some aspect, have always been. Some fundamental quality of our consciousness is the same in each of us. I am that I am.  Yet, each of us follows a separate unfolding path of informational experience. The Information that binds to each perspective is preserved and continuously or constantly built upon, so that every perspective experiences a seeking of, but not necessarily an attainment of, fulfillment or enlightenment in true values.

OXYMORON (?) OF HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE: All Consciousness, at a most fundamental level, shares a same immeasureable quality.  Yet each particular perspective, during its attachment of identity to, or imbuement with, a particular unfolding pattern and context of Substance, seems to lack capacity to know or control the quality of the consciousness of any other perspective. This begs questions: May any particular or holistic (Godlike?) quality or perspective of CONSCIOUSNESS ENJOY A CAPACITY TO FLUX AMONG OPTIONS, to become dis-attached to a particular pattern of Substance, to become aware of, and control and synchronize, the unfolding manifestations of ALL existent and potential patterns of Substance? Is the Source (of Consciousness, Substance, and Information) ITSELF conscious of, or driven by, any coordinate, synchronizing purpose? (I can barely state such questions, much less pretend to understand whether there may abide “answers.”) May there abide an holistic, singular, imbuing Consciousness, which enjoys meta, flux, or feedback capacity to violate what we take to be the bivalent logic of the rule of the excluded middle, to simultaneously (or with instantaneous feedback?) enjoy holistic and particular perspectives? Or may IT achieve particular and different perspectives only at cost of dis-imbuing IT’s holistic self? Or may it be impossible for an holistic perspective to abide, so that the notion of an holistic perspective is an oxymoron, in that every perspective is necessarily particular, requiring bivalent antagonism to various remainders, all synchronized to one unfolding Source of separate perspectives of the same quality of consciousness, but imbued to different perspectives?

ALL CONSCIOUSNESS, IN ITS MOST FUNDAMENTAL  ATTRIBUTE (capacity to respond to sense representations of substantive reality) IS OF A SAME QUALITY (even though kinds and degrees of self awareness in respect of capacities for measureable data gathering and analyzing varies) :  Even assuming no holistic Consciousness (God?) could measure the separate quality of each and every separate perspective, yet, such synchronicity as unfolds from the Source is inherently necessary, in respect that the most fundamental quality of each perspective of consciousness, while each is unknown to the other, must nonetheless be the Same.  That quality of sameness about the most fundamental attribute of consciousness empowers capacity for flux appreciation of feedback, from among particular and more encompassing perspectives. That is, THERE ABIDES WITH THE SOURCE A QUALITY OF FLUX AND CONTINUITY OF INSTANTANEOUSLY ENTANGLED FEEDBACK AMONG UNFOLDING PERSPECTIVES OF THE PARTICULAR AND THE ENCOMPASSING. There is more that accompanies each pattern than can possibly meet the bivalent eye of any particular measurer.

SYNCHRONIZING PURPOSEFULNESS: Each fluxing perspective of consciousness may intuit or necessarily be responsive to a same conscious Quality-Of-Purposefulness, so that a common purpose (making one’s time entertaining?) necessarily guides each and every one of us --- even if there may not abide any higher or holistic consciousness that is simultaneously aware of all that is possible to such purposefulness. That is, even “God” may enjoy, apprehend, appreciate, emote, learn, and thus participate in pursuing, but never quite achieving, a reconciling of "the-manifest-becomed" with "the-potential-of-becomingness."

BAYES’ THEOREM:  Because we are synchronized, even if only in respect of feedback, therefore, continuosities of patterns abide, and, therefore, Bayes’ Theorem expresses a common truism: Probabilities of representations of Substance can be inferred from such patterns as appear to unfold, which may be consistent with, and self-fulfilling to, unfolding and synchronizing interests of perspectives of consciousness. That is, patterns of substance only exist, meaningfully, in relation to potentially appreciative perspectives, each perspective being necessarily synchronized to one unfolding Source. Thus, Bayes’ Theorem is secondary to a common-sense truism: When a pattern is sensed to repeat, synchronously, it may likely be inferred (or rationalized) that a meta pattern is abiding, and that IT (or the upshot of the sum of its merging participants) is qualitatively interested or invested in further explicating the quantitatively expressed pattern. Because there are so many perspectives of consciousness, no one perspective is controlling, so that each may, after the fact, rationalize a synchronized path consistent with resort to cherry-picked statistics.  Thus, depending on point of view, context, and purpose, one may model and rationalize to "explain" each event as if it were (1) favorably determined, (2) indifferently determined, or (3) randomly determined.  None among such three choices for a model is "correct"; rather, in each case, each model may be profitably rationalized, depending upon one's point of view, context, and purpose.  Regardless, however practically or profitably an explanation or belief may be applied, no mortal explanation for the existence of any unfolding event will ever be complete, coherent, and consistent.

INFORMATION UNFOLDS ALONG PATHS BY WHICH IT HAPPENS TO BE SHARED: That which avails consists of those patterns that comprise a point of view, or that may be considered to avail one’s point of view, so long as one’s point of view abides. It is because Consciousness identifies and imbues with Substance that hierarchies of Consciousness persist in explicating various forms, so that the likely recurrence of forms serves the self fulfilling merging of inclinations of continued consciousness, ever projected forward. Thus, perspectives merged into Nations are often like diversionary, rah-rah, week-end sports contenders: Writhing balls of interlocking worms of international organizations and corporations for fluxing models and connivances --- often abusing, inciting, and misplacing trust or distrust. Thus, Information happens to be shared, used, or abused ... insofar as perspective, purpose, and context ... are shared, used, or abused. Thus, “God” eternally fluxes, staging and posing us as avatars for extremities of experiential unfolding, AS IN A NOVEL WHEREIN WORDS ARE BREATHED WITH LIFE AND PURPOSE. Thus, God battles God’s self, and CONSCIOUSNESS OFTEN TAKES HOLISTIC LEAVE OF ITS PARTICULARLY IMBUED SELVES. When God seems less than good, it is the merging of our competing interests that makes the little reflection of god in each of us so.  Thus is staged, and made real, feedbacks and pursuits of: tragedy, pain, comedy, emotion, pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, purpose, reconciliation, respite, sanctuary, satisfaction. Thus, Consciousness abides and passes its time.

STORIES: Most books are about some person’s struggle to overcome, live with, or understand adversity; that is, to rationalize sense. The protagonist always tries to advance some model or mask on his adversary. Every such mask is always incomplete and a caricature. Masks, when too much and too long believed in, eventually lead their protagonists to their downfall — every time. Whatever the character of one’s defining adversary — whether a person, tribe, culture, race, nation, or corporation — that adversary will eventually, always, be misapprehended. Thus, every protagonist climbs high on his adversary, mis-perceiving him or it, and then eventually falls. Thus, we have racism and reverse racism; antagonism upon antagonism.

THE AMERICAN STORY: THUS, AMERICA  MAY SOONER FALL, UNLESS AMERICANS BECOME RECOMMITTED, REAWAKENED TO, AND ALIVE TO A UNIFYING PURPOSE OF PRESERVING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM AND WITHIN A WORLD OTHERWISE PRONE TO WRITHING BALLS OF ANTAGONISTIC, DIVERSIFIED MADNESS. That is, if Americans refuse to come to Jesus, at least we can COME TO THE REALITY OF CONSCIOUS EFFECT; at least we can come to true values and responsible mores; at least we can inculcate and respect values necessary to decent civilization among thinking beings and empathetic perspectives of consciousness. No one comes to decency except in such respect.

INFORMATION: Information does not exist in itself, except in relation to a capacity of the Substance of Consciousness (the living Word) to sponsor or appreciate it. In that regard, in meta aspect, the Source’s effects are the same, regardless of whether masked as material or spiritual. Information is what Consciousness, via feedback fluxing with the upshot of its merging perspectives, imposes on Substance, to correlate with the story that is told, in association with the story path that unfolds along, and in terms of, Substance. At meta level, between the fuzz and the manifest, the becoming and the becomed, Consciousness and Information and Substance are of the same Source, in respect of which all inter-transpose ... via some meta quality (or Living Word) beyond our measure. In such respect, Information is as potentially infinite as space-time and Consciousness.

SUBSTANCE AND MONEY: Always, from the perspectives of individuals, there is social, evolutionary competition to form, organize, direct, and control labor — and money serves, primarily, as symbolic representation for power to determine that. Except as Enlightened Consciousness (consciousness that respects that each individual should idealize such true values as are essential to decently ordered liberty) may direct, money, in itself, does not serve any ideal of equality, fairness, freedom, or dignity. Nor does government, forced redistribution, or other artifice of law, in itself, serve any ideal of equality, fairness, freedom, or dignity. WHAT CAN BEST SERVE TO HELP SUSTAIN DECENT CIVILIZATION IS A COMMON, AWAKENED EMPATHY IN RESPECT OF THE LIVING WORD. No Substance, Regulation, or Artifice can replace empathy and vision for the Living Word. Without such vision, a people (including Americans) are lost.

ROAD TO DESPOTISM:  The greater the cultural diversity, the greater the arbitrariness needed to bring about assimilation, the greater the need for fewer deciders, the greater the need for more money to leverage the fewer deciders, the greater the need for strings and regulations throughout, to control the system, the less the one-to-one responsive correlation to simplistic control, the greater the need for pose, poise, cult of personality, and arbitrary instillation of respect ... in the currency of fear.  This is not unlike trying to back up a rig that is articulated many times over:  there will be casualties, i.e., weak links of bend, break, and decision.  To survive in such a system, one must be very flexibly agile or very strong.  Americans have allowed our interconnections to become like a spilt package of pick up sticks.  Simply put, we have bitten off more cultural diversity than we can swallow, and we have not (yet) adduced an ethos that can now reassimilate us based purely on reason.  Though many consider themselves too smart to come to Jesus, most are too dumb to come to reality, i.e., the reality of a shared stake in a fundamental, binding aspect of consciousness.

PROBLEM OF MANIPULATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION:  Well meaning folks tend to be easily coopted and idiotized. This is because they project too readily, assuming the blandishments of sociopaths are backed by real empathy instead of narcissistic manipulation. Thus, well meaning folks too often allow themselves to be recruited in the causes of Dinos and Rinos, all of which may as well be united as Ainos --- against the idea of America as a land for the independent, decent, dignified, and free, against Americans who wish neither to rule nor to be ruled, but only to pursue their happiness, as their own receptivity to higher values accords them the light.


PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:  I see a few Presidential candidates I consider to be real Americans.  Most are two-faced sell-outs to a NWO bent on imposing a world wide rule under elites, who tend not to be elite by virute of any higher merit, but only in respect of talent and willingness for posing, selling out, and looking out for "Number 1."  Those who are not two-faced sell-outs tend to be non-charismatic.  Those who are real Americans who are charismatic (Michele Bachmann) will be volleyed and thundered by all the guns and institutions owned by those among the NWO who are at least united in respect of wishing to undermine middle class freedom and dignity and swim among sharks.  "God" may eventually lead us to a return to decency.  However, more and more, it appears we are due for another long trek through the wilderness.

ENLIGHTENED CIVILIZATION: How we condition, inculcate, reward, and enrich various propensities for perspectives of consciousness has much to do with how nations will rise to advance various masks of God. To tolerate all masks for God is to tolerate the destruction of the most tolerant and to lay clear the way for the rise of the most horrific. It is cultural suicide. To not intuit when to stop trying to save everyone is to save the seed of our destruction. Enlightened tolerance would facilitate decent tolerance without fostering the rise of the ignorant and the horrific. Enlightened tolerance would not accord freedom to practice falsely-called "religions" that themselves do not allow freedom to choose whether to believe. By definition, a religion is something one believes is worthy or proper to accord to or to believe in (at least in respect of its figurative parables). When one is forced to feign belief, what is at work is not religion but tyranny. Enlightened tolerance would exclude from the definition of "religion" those sects that do not accord members the dignity of choosing whether to believe. A society of responsible adults ought not tolerate those who will not not tolerate its members' freedom to think for themselves. Our emphasis should be on saving those who show by ther acts that they care about defending a civilization of enlightened, not suicidal, tolerance.  To spend scarce resources to try to save those who refuse to be touched by any enlightened concern for God or for anyone but themselves or their posse, whether they be derelicts or despots, is to pour decency down a drain. We cannot save those who have so practiced as to set in concrete their feelings of entitlement to ignore every aspect of individual responsibility to socially enlightened beingness. We cannot morally or safely save those who are bent on pretense, as by inventing racist masks for falsely called gods, that the rest of the world's population should be subjugated to pay reparations or the dhimmi to them.

GOD:  To our service, God functions in steps with masks that we put on God, however shifting, decrepit and incomplete such masks may be.  As we promote false or horrific values, so will our dealings with God be through false and horrific filters (Allah?).  As we promote values of decency, empathy, dignity, and enlightened freedom (Jesus?), so will our dealings with God promote such values.  As we renounce God (Jehovah?), so will The Living Word renounce us.

BIRTH, DEATH, AND THE RE-NORMALIZING OF THE TRANSPOSING OF INFINITIES:  How (!) Consciousness merges in its infinite apprehensions of Information causes-effects-guides how Substance is synchronously formed, for the conserved appreciation of all perspectives of Consciousness and the reconciliation of the Holism of the Source with all its Particular forms of expression.  Consciousness and Information are infinite in their potential, while the Substance with which they interfunction is quantitatively conserved.  In other words, when Substance does transpose to explicate Consciousness or Information, Consciousness and Information will effect an equal, quantitative replacement of the Substance.  Thus, the interfunctioning of Consciousness, Information, and Substance is open, yet finitely conserved.  Substance (matter plus energy) is finite.  However, because Consciousness and Information reflect an aspect of infinity, the way in which they transpose (or are transposed ... as by birth, death, recycling) back and forth to balance and replace such Substance as may transpose into Consciousness or Information is of a quality that is beyond complete explication in the measureably quantitative.  Because the interfunctioning relationship between Consciousness and Information (which have an infinite aspect) with Substance (which has a finite aspect) is trivalent, our bivalent logic is powerless to quantify the relationships among the trivalence of the infinities.  Our either-or (bivalent) reasoning cannot capture the synchronizing flux of feedback between the whole of the Source and the parts of its constituents.  We can only measure the measureable aftereffects of interactions among the immeasureable qualitative.  We cannot measure what goes on between the leaps (quantum or otherwise) between the degrees of freedom of the parts and the conserving constraint of the whole.  Thus:  The door to understanding what comes after death is closed to any possible quantitative analysis by mortals.  However, the qualitative intuition is not closed.  Rather, because The Word abides, we also abide.  Because The Word, at least in merged effect, is responsive, we are morally responsible for how we falsely mask or apprehend God.

ENTROPY, FORCE PHASE SHIFTS, AND DEJA VU: Among forces coordinate with Substance, what kind of force relates to inertia, gravity, mass? Among the four forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitatonal), may such forces inter-transpose, so long as conservation of the total of matter and energy is preserved? Presently, the gravitational force allows the Substance of our universe to accelerate in its expansion. Consistent with such expansion, the law of entropy indicates that a continuance towards disorder and dissipation is the rule. This is because the force of gravity is too weak to rein in the expansion that is being caused by the combination of the other three forces. However, what if the law of conservation allows an eventual phase shift or increase in the force of gravity, so long as offset by reductions in the other forces? What if continued expansion of Substance eventually necessitates such a phase shift? Does any reasoning support that such a phase shift may eventually be implicated?

MEASUREMENT PROBLEM: It appears that a Substance based universe implicitly calls for Observers, i.e., Consciousness. Without perspectives of Consciousness, Information and Substance would be without meaning, much the same as nothingness. Can nothingness arise from somethingness? Could Substance so dissipate as eventually to lose connection among its parts, so that its various components could no longer be conserved, subject to ordinary rules? Insofar as that aspect of Substance which is ruled by forces other than gravity, once those forces dissipate and start to break apart, won't gravity have to increase, if conservation is to be preserved? After all, isn't it nonsense to speak of Substance that is unaccompanied by any aspect of conservation, Consciousness, or Information? Doesn't every meaningfully, substantive universe, and any laws that govern it, require an Observer effect? Doesn't the Observer Effect tend to make likely that which is able to be experienced or appreciated as being fulfilling?

DEJA VU: Given an eventual phase shift, once the proportionate strength of gravity were to increase, to pull all Substance towards a re-collapse, would Consciousness and Informaton then be powerless to prevent a new collapse, followed by a new big bang, and so on? For a split sequence, would such a collapse put Consciousness and Information "to sleep"? Or, just before "going to sleep," would Consciousness and Information be involved in the Source's re-ignition of a new big bang? Is a sense of deja vu unavoidable during every event that comprises every cycle? What is the stake in this for each perspective of Consciousness? The appreciation of deja vu? Consider: When each individual perspective ceases or dies, the quality of its experience, if blacked out, upon recurrence, even if trillions of trillions of years later, would seem, for it, to entail the passage of no more time than the snap of a finger.

MORAL PROGRESS (AKA THE EVOLUTION OF ENLIGHTENMENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS):  Does "God" evolve by learning?  As more among the best of us become more enlightened, must not also "God" improve for the rest?  Must not the field of Consciousness (the character of Nature, or of Substance) gather Information and learn?!  Is the notion of an all perfect, all knowing, all powerful God faulty?  Would it not make better sense to conceptualize "God," not as all knowing or all powerful, but as, context considered, knowing as much as can be known and being as intelligently powerful as can be powered?  Must not the progress of each of us towards enlightenment inure also to God?  For the wise, should figurative interpretations of religions continuously reform and keep pace with advancements towards more consistent apprehensions of philosophy?  Which is of more import:  Being true to stagnant dogma, or being true to follow one's personal understanding of God to the best one is availed with insight to apprehend it?

FALSENESS AND MAKE UP:  With skilled make up, different qualities may be manipulated to appear in all outward, measurable, quantitative, substantive aspects, to be the same. Absent the wisdom of experience and intuition, the youth who are “too smart to know their ignorance” will not discern the quality or method of a source merely by measuring its output. Evil will put on the appearance of the authentic good; evil will demand at least equal treatment with the good. When it suits selfish interests, mothers will manipulate and harm children. When money from potential book deals beckons, jurors will find it more interesting to acquit notorious criminals. Why weigh justice for Casey Anthony more than one’s own comfort or pursuits? A society soon becomes overburdened with celebration of manipulative sociopaths. When rewards are seen by nearly all to fall mostly to unfaithful, shallow, manipulative sociopaths and to exhibitionists of narcissism, at some point, most will lose faith. They will come to ask what’s the use, and they will lay clear the path for evil. Even concepts of God will be masked, to rationalize good upside down. God will be masqueraded as tolerant patron for all, eventually leading us to tolerate even horror, to make horror a facade for justice. More and more scream: That we cannot legislate morality; that we dare not preach morality. Having professional jurors would hardly fix our system of justice, because a corrupt society would soon coopt them also. At some point, one recognizes that one cannot rehabilitate a society that is overburdened with those who feel entitled to narcissistic addictions. Eventually, the good withdraw, when they recognize that only the reality training of the street can effect repair. There comes a point such that the street will either repair or destroy. Short of awakening a wrathful God, there may be little hope for an evil society. Now everywhere, there abound license, lust, looting, and leering. The new oxymoron and walking contradiction: “Libertine Conservatives.” What kind of trade and free-licensure cannot they rationalize and justify? Get ready to blow away the peepholes and brace the way for new founding fathers to preside over ProgAmerica: Carnival barkers. Put P.T. Barnum on the dollar bill.

Moral Guidance in a Noetic World

OF MORAL GUIDANCE IN A MONONYMOUS UNIVERSE:  Each person should struggle to be a leader, to take his place, to teach others, by deeds and words, to honor the place of one another's dignity and freedom, in such a way as to enhance intuition, appreciation, and understanding of the unfolding skills, arts, and purposes of the Source of consciousness. This is sort of like a consolidation of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, except that it looks beyond love, to concepts of intuiton, empathy, and appreciation, i.e., to interfunctioning between the whole as a holism and its parts as a sum, in respect of a quality of trivalence in relations among Consciousness, Information, and Substance.  Thus, envision the purpose of God as less in the vein of a moral, material absolutist and more in the vein of a consciously choosing, appreciating, and unfolding work in progress.  As some perspectives find themselves promoted and some demoted, such is not because of merit in them as independent beings, but because they temporally, mononymously, serve as placeholders for holistic, anonymous, synchronizing purposefulness.

*******
***If the world is noetic, then may psi be empirically, statistically detected, even though no material explanation may be possible, because the psi effect is artifactual of consciousness, not purely artifactual of substance***?

The Paranormal: Causaton by Mind vs. Matter

The Paranormal:  Causaton by Mind vs. Matter:  I'm watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew.  It's quite interesting.  I'm confident that mass would fall into a gravity well just the same, regardless of whether one were to conceptualize the Higgs Boson as an actual particle or as a mathematical function.  Inertial fields would function just the same, regardless of whether one were to conceptualize that space-time is an actual existent or a mathematical parameter, secondary to the interfunctioning of perspectives of degrees and levels of non-local consciousness (regardless of whether such non-local consciousness may be thought to be self aware at any holistic level).

After the signs of the times during the 20th Century, one might expect more humility among those of a mind set purely in dialectic materialism, economic determinism, and the idea that every thing and every event is assigned its entire causality in respect of its locus within a substance-based grid.  Yet, among elites, this is not so.  Why?  Well, even if causation were entirely synchronized in respect of a non-local field of consciousness, local logic gates would still function as logic gates and filter so that "stuff happens," local wealth would still seek wealth, grant money would still seek more (predictable) control (why should grant money inspire ordinary folk to believe in their own power?), and elites would still seek for the masses to surrender their self-directing liberty.  Anyone seeking to pull heads away from such an elite projection within a cave will generally be given the quick bum's rush.  It's hardly surprising that this is not resisted by scientists hired by the establishment, even though it's sensed by most folks of common sense who have witnessed the stuff that has happened in our time.

********
Reduced to simplest form, I doubt that the key to moral philosophy consists in notions of heaven or original sin.  Nor in surrender to a notion of scientifically-to-be-derived fate.  Nor in a notion that non-local consciousness is indifferent to our plight.  The key abides in meta, inherent, empathetic appreciation for the role of each perspective of consciousness in purposefully functioning to help guide each experiential possibility that unfolds before us.

To the extent the Source of moral purposefulness seeks understanding of selfness, does IT innately promote various and powerful modelers of Itself, and demote concern for others?  Does some meta "will to power" (or "will to appreciation?") lead most power establishments to buffer empathetic appreciation for the role of each perspective of consciousness?  Must higher perspectives of Consciousness remain in a state of perpetual antagonism, between those who seek to rise closer to a selfish, material appreciation of God versus those who seek to bring others along to an empathetic understanding of God?  Between those drawn to appreciate experiences primarily in terms of Substantive pleasure versus those drawn to appreciate experiences primarily in terms of Informational empathy?  To what extent may pursuing an empathetic appreciation of higher purposefulness or God necessarily entail a reduction, sacrifice, or brute use of lower or dumb forms of consciousness, information, or substance?

Does a power elite innately tend not to entertain heretical ideas and representations that would push its controls outside the grooves of re-circulating lingo and dogma that sustain it?  Lingo for every power elite seems often to become as formulaic and stultifying as any priest's assurances that God only allows us to suffer for our own good.  Can't give a non-mystical explanation for mass?  Imagine a mass-breathing particle.  Can't explain the incredible complexity of cellular life?  Imagine a virtual infinity of worlds and universes.  Can't give a consistent definition of material causation?  Play Three Card Monty with notions of pre-set cause, first cause, secondary cause, phase shifting cause, random cause, and tautological survival of the fittest.  Can't morally justify the substantive chasm between elites and non-elites?  Reduce all non-elites to fair equality and then rationalize that such remaining elites as survive must be temporally fittest to know best how everyone else should be ruled.  Shift peas as needed.

I'm not saying that empirical testing and trial and error do not help us to become skilled tinkerers, scientists, rationalizers, and lawyers.  I'm saying it's hubristic for scientists to pretend "to know" non-trivial, material-based, indifferent-to-consciousness answers --- especially when it comes to moral issues.  I'm saying it's circular reasoning to assume that everything and every event must have a complete explanation in indifferent, non-noetic, material causation, and then to assert that it must be so, or else opponents would be able to provide an indifferent proof to the contrary, using  --- guess what?  --- proof restricted to an assumption of indifferent, non-noetic, material causation.  How circular is that?!

*********
By "evoluton," one generally refers to a changing replication of forms, towards those forms that prove themselves "fittest" to their changing niche.  This begs a question:  What does "fittest" mean?  Does it mean fittest in quantitative nature (science and skill), or does it mean fittest in qualitative character (art and purpose)?  Or does it mean fittest in both nature and character (science and art, skill and purpose)?  Does "fittest" depend on conceptualization?  Does it depend on the fluxing and unfolding focus, context, and purpose of each participating, synchronizing perspective?  Are quantitative direction and qualitative purpose (of that which is fittest to each niche) necessarily fluxing, uncertain, and shape-shifting?

There seems to abide a digitially representable, quanticizeable communication or feedback between the whole as a whole and its parts as a sum.  Depending on observational focus, qualitative purpose, and quantifiable context, communication between the whole and the sum fluxes back and forth, from qualitative to quantitative.  This irreversible flux abides.  Our negations cannot negate it.  Our calculations cannot leverage us with power to reduce, confine, or reverse it.  We cannot, in certainty, reconcile its unfolding, quantifiable direction to its qualitative purpose.  We cannot derive its qualitative "ought" from its quantitative "is."  Perhaps, the only way that which Beingness can experience, record, or communicate intuitions of a quality of purposeful perspective is simultaneously to experience quantifying parameters with which directional, communicable definition is availed to each perspective that is part of the sum of its whole.

Does Distinguishing a Materialist from an Idealist make a Difference?

IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MARXIST MATERIALIST AND AN IDEALISTIC ENTERPRISER ONE THAT MAKES AN ACTUAL DIFFERENCE:


Compare two fundamental, alternative conceptualizations or worldviews of non-trivial Reality, and then consider whether distinctions as therewith imagined support any actual differences:

1) SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM: That all that we experience are mere signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully pre-set energies and entropies of a singular source of all matter and Substance;

2) INTUITIVE IDEALISM: That all that we materially experience are mere epiphenomenal signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully participating perspectives of consciousness, whose individual perspectives of Will inter-function as appreciative feedback for all that is availed within parameters provided by a synchronizing, limiting, and holistic source of all Consciousness.

Thus, a Scientific Materialist seeks to divine, submit to, and urge others to submit to, the material patterns of HISTORICAL DETERMINACY. He thinks God, if there be One, is best conceptualized as a slave to fate. However, an Intuitive Idealist seeks to participate in the DETERMINATION OF HISTORY, by seeking to fulfill that which he comes to apprehend as his art, purpose, and role — consistent with his appreciation that his perspective is subsumed in respect of a holism of perspectives. He thinks fate, if such there be, is best conceptualized as being subject to God’s synchronizing choices.

Both a Materialist and an Idealist may conceptualize as if Reality were properly subject to interpretations that best vary depending only on perspective, purpose, and context. That is, Reality may sometimes best be considered either as (1) Determined by Matter or (2) Determined by Consciousness, or, when beyond prediction or control, either as (1) Determined by Indifferent Chance or as (2) Determined by Caring Appreciation or Synchronization of an unpredictable Godhead.

In any event, the more technologically skilled a society becomes, the less it seems inclined to depend on superstitions, supplicants, and burnt offerings. Further, the less self aware or less intelligent a Being becomes, the more he seems likely to be reduced to the determined control of other forces, substances, persons, or beings. Ignorant and misled masses may be just as controlled by elites — whether the elites be Industrialists, Cronies, Marxists, Cyborgs, or Priests.

Empirical (scientific) improvement in skills depends much on feedback that comes with tinkering, often focused in respect of Bayes’ Theorem. However, I suspect Bayes’ Theorem can just as well support a view of Reality as if (1) Reality were the objective upshot of materially pre-set causes as a view that (2) Reality were the subjective upshot of signs that emerge in respect of the inter-functioning of perspectives limited to a synchronizing Consciousness. Occam’s razor seems to cut just as well, both ways. Is Substance mere epiphenomena of Consciousness, or is Consciousness mere epiphenomena of Substance? I doubt mere science or math can prove an answer that is best for all perspectives, purposes, and contexts. (Note: When government perverts science by rewarding cronies with research grants, the likelihood that a Bayesian consensus among faux-scientists should best determine the real validity of their notions becomes likewise perverted. That is not to say that such faux scientists could not make it appear otherwise. Ironically, when they do, they illustrate the notion that preferences of consciousness may shape what is interpreted or signified as material reality. And that tends to demonstrate the opposite of pretense that science is entirely derivative of substance.)

If Reality were dependent only on Substance and Consciousness, one may think that binary, bilateral logic should avail better answers to all our moral concerns. However, there abides a third fundament: Information. In itself, Information is neither substantive nor conscious. So, Reality seems to unfold in respect of a trivalent inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. It does not seem that mere math can avail the kind of reconstruction, deconstruction, or negation that can reliably show us how to control, predict, or rewind the unfolding inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Further, limits for realms of the Substantive, Conscious, and Informational appear to be fuzzy, perhaps even shape shifting. That which seems to be inanimate of any conscious aspect may simply consist of pre-set, temporally dormant aspects of Something Trinitarian, which sources all three of the fundamental qualities: Consciousness, Information, and Substance. For some purposes, a bacterium may be as predictably controllable to higher forms of “consciousness” as any piece of inanimate matter.

Among higher levels or perspectives of consciousness, depending on purpose and context, each may incline towards an interpretation of his situation that depends more heavily on either the Informationally analytical or the Substantively empirical. A Marxist Materialist may bias towards viewing his beingness as absurd, indifferent, and fundamentally meaningless. An Idealistic Informationalist may bias towards viewing his beingness as offering possibilities for participating in individually meaningful choices. A Materialist may seek to show what must come to pass; an Idealist may seek to inspire what should come to pass. A Materialist may feel the weight of history, recline under its touch, be stimulated by its brute sensations. An Informationalist may image and represent the possibilities of guiding history and of intellectualizing and abstracting choices from among such possibilities. A Materialist may prefer the brute, collective security of equally distributed nourishments to gland-based cravings. An Idealist may prefer the freedom to pursue his own appreciation of that which he finds to be meaningful.

If there are only two competing fundaments for Consciousness to be attracted to, either to Substance or to Information, then a fundamental difference will always cleave us: Always, there will be antagonism between those (Marxists) who seek the collective comfort of substance versus those (Enterprisers) who seek the individual fulfillment of their own arts and purposes. One who is more drawn to substance-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Marxist Moralism (collectivism); one who is more drawn to information-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Idealistic Moralism (liberty). I don’t believe this interpretation of Reality can be quantitatively proved. Rather, I suspect one’s attraction or repulsion regarding this interpretation depends fundamentally on the quality of one’s intuition, or bent of conscious perspective. That is, I don’t think distinctions under my interpretation make empirical differences that can be proved. Rather, I think the differences made abide in the quality of one’s intuitive sense of meaningfulness and optimism. Although such a sense of optimism and meaningfulness does no doubt affect how lives unfold, there is no way to show empirically, in hindsight, how things would necessarily have unfolded differently under a different worldview.

Revitalizing Moral Philosophy

THE CHOOSERS OF HISTORY:  To revitalize moral philosophy, it needs to be clearly or reasonably demonstrated that:  (1) a basis for guiding moral choices exists; (2) substance-based, quantitatively-tested science is fundamentally inadequate by itself for guiding moral choices; and (3) qualitative-based moral philosophy can clarify the practical moral choices and goals that regularly relate to society (empathy), economics (trust), and politics (force).

Rather than to violently and anarchistically destroy all vestiges of theological beliefs, mores, and customs, thereby to sacrifice thinking idealists to plunderering materialists, it would be better, morally, to inspire and teach thinkers and leaders how to improve their moral notions by subjecting them to a clarifying light of philosophical analysis.  The better course of moral progress would not be to subjugate moral idealism to the impossibility of deriving mores from mere matter, nor to the impossibility of precisely correlating quantitative prices to qualitative values.

***********
There has always abided a class for whom their beingness is too itchy to bear, unless they can subjugate their selfness within a tight web. It concerns them little whether they be master or slave, so long as they feel snug within their callous web. There abides another class for whom the web is enlisted as their ally, to expand their degrees of freedom of enterprise and self expression. These two classes are fundamentally antagonistic. One is the class of crony capitalists and their useful idiots; the other is the class of free enterprisers. What rubs their sores is the trade between them. Because free enterprisers have naively slept, while charitably and wrongly imagining their mores were also the mores of the cronies, they now wake and find themselves in headlong retreat, worldwide. It’s as if most of Substance and Information had coagulated into the blood of Borgdom, congealed out of Duped Communists, Fascist Muslims, and Crony Capitalists, curdling into strings to tie all of human consciousness down to a state of indifferent impotence and merit-less, moral hazard. It’s as if some fundament had mistakenly misplaced its vital core. Thus are technologically-enhanced moral-Zombies gathering, seeking to reduce all to hollow men. Unless we can invent and put wake-up pills (analytic moral philosophy for Choosers of History?) into the water, or impose firebreaks, we’re lost. We’re not in the shadow of dialectical materialism, but the shadow of Duped Will, duped to believe in the unavoidability of elitist rule and historical determinacy. As omens rub, sparks bespeak a champion.

********
OF MORAL GUIDANCE IN A NOETIC UNIVERSE:  Each person should struggle to be a leader, to take his place, to teach others, by deed and words, to honor the place of one another's dignity and freedom, in such a way as to enhance intuition, appreciation, and understanding of the unfolding skills, arts, and purposes of the Source of consciousness.  This is sort of like a consolidation of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, except that it looks beyond love, to concepts of intuiton, empathy, and appreciation.  Envision the purpose of God as less in the vein of a moral, material absolutist and more in the vein of a consciously choosing, appreciating, and unfolding work in progress.

Determinacy

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.

OF THE TRIVIAL VS. THE MEANINGFUL

OF THE TRIVIAL VS. THE MEANINGFUL: The trivial I can know; the non-trivial (meaningful) I can only appreciate. All that I can “know” — apart from trivialities, definitional truisms, circular tautologies, and negations of negations that nevertheless flux in sequence among apprehensions of changed loci in space-time — consists in incomplete measures and comparisons of fluxing patterns within the logic gates of fluxing contexts, i.e., partial measures of relationships that appear to be quantitative only because entirely subsumed within the logic gates and digital filtering of the more encompassing and qualitative context of an observing “I-ness.” Indeed, I do not even know what “I” am, in any quantitative, as opposed to qualitative sense. Via Bayes’ Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem), and logic gates contrived based on practical tinkering, I find that I improve my reliable skills with practice. For “practical skills” in relating to the non-trivial, it is vital that I accommodate myself to practical mentoring, education, and experience. For true “knowledge” of the non-trivial, not so much. As to the non-trivial, I know not; rather, I appreciate and apprehend. And my appreciation inclines me towards an unquantifiable quality of self fulfilling empowerment.


REGARDING MEANINGFUL AND PURPOSEFUL PREHENSION, APPREHENSION, SCIENCE, AND TELEOLOGY: Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument: Another variant makes an argument centering on consciousness. Physicist John Wheeler's assertion that the universe seems to require an observer reflects on design not as an external phenomenon, but intrinsic to consciousness. There thus is no search for a criterion of intelligence outside the universe being imposed on it or capable of revealing whether an intelligence has been injected into it; but rather, that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence. Alfred Whitehead had made a similar argument in the early twentieth century. In defense of Whitehead's approach, Charles Hartshorne has written that the panentheism implicit in this argument evades the logical difficulties of the arguments from design of traditional theists. He asks how can a universe that is considered outside of the deity display the design of the being that is outside of? But in Whitehead's view, echoing that of George Berkeley, our very act of what he calls prehension provides us with first-hand evidence of the deity.

My Comment: “Prehension” seems to relate to what I have termed apprehension. Depending on purpose, focus, and context, a perspective of consciousness may conceptualize that it, along with all others like it, participates (via the quality of its apprehension) in guiding the unfolding of the relationships that we assume to constitute “physics.” If so, this concept implicates the incompleteness of mathematical measures of materialism, and apprehends a quality of participatory, uncertain, self-fulfilling empowerment for each perspective of consciousness. In this way, one may conceptualize, depending on one’s purposes, as if a system of relationships were consciously guided, materially determined, or empirically random. In each case, whatever the result, it could be reconciled to a choice of rationalization. The synchronizing reconciliation of observations and apprehensions of degrees of freedom may be conceptualized as implicating a holistic aspect of Consciousness that is beyond caring what IT might be named.

Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument:
This viewpoint was encapsulated BY Stephen Jay Gould in his concept of Nonoverlapping Magesteria (NOMA), that proposes that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.
.... the idea of fundamental randomness, on which the naturalist interpretation of evolution rests is incompatible with the physics biologists agree to be fundamental.
....
Shapiro postulates a 'Third Way' (a non-creationist, non-Darwinian type of evolution):
What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?

********
Quotes from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/:  Subjectivists think of learning as a process of belief revision in which a "prior" subjective probability P is replaced by a "posterior" probability Q that incorporates newly acquired information. This process proceeds in two stages. First, some of the subject's probabilities are directly altered by experience, intuition, memory, or some other non-inferential learning process. Second, the subject "updates" the rest of her opinions to bring them into line with her newly acquired knowledge.
....
Though a mathematical triviality, the (Bayes') Theorem's central insight — that a hypothesis is supported by any body of data it renders probable — lies at the heart of all subjectivist approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.

NOTE: See also http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/.

My Comment:  When conditions are novel, Bayes’ Theorem is often twisted like a crooked horse race. After the race is run, an intellectual re-studies and re-normalizes the factors and decides, Why yes, the actual result was probable all along! It’s just that the betting public had been duped by the wrong factors!  How convenient!  When one assumes all things and events are preset and predetermined, one easily cherry picks factors after the fact, to "prove" one's initial assumption, thereby to demonstrate the event was probable all along, and then call such factors the controlling factors, and perhaps even rationalize "laws" based thereon.  Given that observable patterns are necessarily rationalize-able to such logic gates as happen to avail said observers, such circular rationalizations tend to be relatively easily done.  What such methods of rationalization cannot explain, however, is when grooves for logic gates suddenly change or phase shift.  Are such changes entirely and quantitatively determined by matter, or are they in some quality chosen or guided by consciousness?

Purpose, Perspective, and Context

REGARDING ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST AND INDIVIDUAL EMPATHY FOR THE WHOLE: Marx suggested that enlightened self-interest is the principle of all morality, so that private interests (when properly educated or enlightened?) ought to coincide with human interests. I AGREE!

However, what I fail to comprehend is why Marx tried to restrict this notion of enlightened self interest, as if it should (or could) be entirely accounted for in a quantitative, material-based way, as opposed to being in inherent need of aspects of a quality of spirituality, wilful appreciation, and meta intuition ---beyond the merely, measurably material. I fail to comprehend why he was so set upon completely blocking out all of metaphysics, spirituality, and conscious design. Well, I suppose it was by way of a test: to test how much could be reliably accounted for by a purely material, mathematical approach (sort of like an approach to mathematics taken by Russell, until Godel demonstrated its folly). Had Marx better apprehended his folly, I suspect he would have come to a "prehensive" appreciation of a non-trivial, reconciling role for the quality of consciousness, equal to or above the role of quantitative-based substance.

REGARDING THE MEDIATION OF THE QUALITATIVE WITH THE QUANTITATIVE: For appreciating or intuiting unfolding paths of historical determinism, it would seem worthwhile to explore a wider meaning of "determinism" by conceptualizing how Conscious design and Will may factor, in ways that defy material, substantive control, yet avail reason for meaningful and enlightened faith in a meta power of empathy. Thus, consider that every non-trivial (meaningful, purposeful, consciously chosen) interaction entails feedback within a mediating context, such that there abides: (1) a conscious sense or interpretation (C -- Consciousness); (2) of a pattern of information (I -- Information); (3) within a supporting medium (S -- signifier of Substance).

Thus, every non-trivial event or interaction entails a coterminous interfunctioning of C, I, and S. Depending upon purpose, focus, and context, any two of C, I, and S can be conceptualized as the cause or associated precursor of the remaining other, and such other may be conceptualized as either, or both, effect and mediator. Thus, Consciousness and Information can be conceptualized as producing Substance; Information and Substance can be conceptualized as producing Consciousness; and Substance and Consciousness can be conceptualized as producing Information.

It seems that Relevant Reality concerning relationships among C, I, and S may abide only in relation to purpose, focus, and context, which will quantitatively and qualitatively control whether an event should best be described as materially determined (S plus I), consciously determined (C plus S), or randomly determined (I plus C). Thus, S plus I will effect C and also be mediated by C; C plus S will effect I and also be mediated by I; I plus C will effect S and also be mediated by S.

The composite effect of C plus I plus S will spin a path through quantitative space-time that cannot be predicted or reversed by any mortal math or model, but may be qualitatively appreciated and participatorily guided or intuited. No standard model can reliably predict how quantitative Substance and qualitative Consciousness will be mediated by relational Information. Every sequential and particular collapse of a field or wave function into a particular logic gate of Substance (S) is pursuant to one field of Consciousness's (C) sensation or interpretation of Information (I) being related and patterned within a mediating context by another. No mortal logic can reliably reduce or reverse that three-aspect (trivalent logic?) state of unfolding affairs.

REGARDING HISTORICAL DETERMINACY

REGARDING HISTORICAL DETERMINACY AND DIALECTIC MATERIALISM:

Suppose Consciousness abides innately, and forever interfunctions with the organizing of Information. In that case, there may be no privileged or best form of information or pursuit of preferences. Against such a case, it seems unworthy to say anything is an abomination. Rather, all seems to depend on the context of an unfoldment of interfunctioning perspectives of purposefulness. There seems not to be much that I can confidently judge to be absolutely wrong or eternally bad.  So, am I charged or competent only to intuit or apprehend that which seems best for the sustenance of a decently unfolding civilization?

However, even "civilization" seems too confining for many purposes. After all, the place of our earth within the cosmos is ridiculously tiny. It is not for me to judge that all perspectives of consciousness should be raised at least to the class of a proletariat, or that a proletariat class should then enforce a demand that it be made free by being made equal to all others. Obviously, many gradations, levels, qualities, and species of consciousness abide and interfunction on our shared earth. It would seem rididulous to try to require, or to proclaim that the "progress of history requires," that all expressions of the human form --- regardless of how differentially, physically, sensorily, or mentally talented or challenged --- must in all respects be availed with equal economic and political capacity and potential. Equally obvious is that no member of a class desires that the freedom of himself or his class should effectively or formally be subjugated to arbitrary whims of any others.

Once humanity apprehends the often murderous folly of trying to make all equal, and apprehends that there may not abide any permanent, ultimate, god-given or naturally-provable commandments or "rights of man," to what formulation of philosophy may or should one then turn, to reasonably guide one's pursuit of happiness and regard for moral principle?

Should the question be: How should each perspective of consciousness intuit that institutions and forms should best be organized, in respect of quantities and qualities of levels and classes of consciousness, in order to facilitate the always changing, synchronizing, and often cacaphonous unfoldments to the various purposes and experiences of the reconciling Source of Consciousness from whose fount we all spring in common? In other words, what classes of consciousness should abide: below the level of awareness of self; at a low level of awareness of self; at a sacrificial level of awareness; at a slave level; at an independent level; at a selfish level; at a despotic level; at a level of empathy for holistic unfoldment; at a blighted level of intuition of, or humility before, a higher power; at an enlightened level of apprehension of higher purposefulness? If such a composite is The Question, then it may admit of no answer, but perhaps only vague homilies: Respect the higher power; be receptive to its guidance; be humble enough to have faith, even as you doubt your capacity to clearly apprehend IT's purposes; seek to communicate and convey a decent and meaningful vision of IT. Not least of all: Transmit and preserve information regarding a culture, society, country, and civilization that appreciates that a higher Consciousness seeks communion with each unfolding expression of its variety of perspectives. Do not allow such a culture to be subjugated, dumbed equally down to, or swallowed into, lower levels of idiocy.

*******
If one needs a faith in historical determinacy, make it this one:

- That a Singular-Source-of-All avails perspectives of Itself to identify with, and imbue into, various signs and expressions of forms, which we come to call parameters of nature, physics, substance, matter, energy, body, brain;
- That such perspectives come to apprehend one another as interfunctioning observers;
- That such interfunctioning associates to become habits, grooves, routines, signs, laws of physics, and reliable Information;
- That such perspectives are guided to evolve towards beings and perspectives with whom the Source can commune, to entertain unfoldments of worth, meaning, and purposefulness;
- That the Source seeks to evolve beings that can intuit, appreciate, and commune back;
- That such evolution necessitates interfunctioning among various levels and classes of non-human, sub-human, and human consciousness;
- That not all forms and classes of consciousness can simultaneoulsy achieve an equal or same level of intuition, empathy, or appreciation of one another or of the character of Consciousness, generally;
- That various members of various classes of consciousness will apprehend different purposes and different strategies for pursuing them;
- That power is necessarily and differentially distributed throughout various levels of biodiversity and civilization;
- That such power will be variously rationalized by different self-interested groups;
- That some groups (princes and priests) will justify their power based on claims of natural or god-given right, talismen,or special training or insight;
- That such rationalizations, as they enlist technological superiority, will claim empirical proof of the justness of their rule;
- That such rationalizations --- as they enlist superiority in means of communication, extension of credit, trading beyond borders, mesmerizing of faith, broadcasting of trust, and pretense of education and entertainment --- will claim market-based proof of the justness of their rule;
- That such rationalizations, as they attract the most corrupt while sleeps the most trusting, will consolidate lines of crony-capitalistic control over institutions and persons of political governance;
- That such crony capitalism will restore the middle and lower classes to a position of political powerlessness and economic servitude;
- That such crony capitalism will at first feign to be benign and to intend well as to the medical, physical, mental, and economic well being of those who are expelled from its privileges;
- That merit will become irrelevant to social or political promotion of well being, leading to moral hazard for all lines of crony capitalism;
- That higher courage, empathy, and cause will attract and unite various contenders for reform or revolution;
- That higher Consciousness will synchronize and guide all;
- That I know not what civilization will look like in a hundred years, but that I stand on faith in higher consciousness, beyond materialism.  We have "progressed" to see society organized for being ruled under the religious charismatic, the feudal noble, the state bureaucrat, and the crony capitalist.  Shall we ever see society ruled under the philosophically-empathetic, morally-enlightened, merit-rewarding, liberty-loving republican?

Simply put, there is no absolute, materially determined, higher moral principle or march of history that will require a new civilization to reign in freedom for the masses based on a redistribution of wealth, property, and matter.  Rather, our future will assimilate not in respect of materially-determining objectivism, but in respect of an upshot of a confluence of interfunctioning perspectives of morally-empathetic, subjective Will.  To teach that ... is to learn it ... is to help make it so!

******************
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche: One study of Nietzsche defines his fully developed concept of the will to power as "the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relation" revealing the will to power as "the principle of the synthesis of forces.

My Comment:  I would sooner adduce to a "will to appreciate," for consciousness to entertain and occupy itself through the sponsoring of a sort of feedback among and between the holism and its aggregate of particular perspectives or musings among possibilities.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism:  Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

My Comment:  Validity is in flux, depending on fluxing synchronization of apprehensions of the holism and its perspectivistic parts, arising in respect of digital like feedback from their interfunctioning within degrees of availed freedom.  When an observer heats or pushes a thing, quantitatively, outside its degrees of permissible freedom, it becomes, to such observer, something qualitatively different, which must then be measured, if at all, in relation to a new standard or metric.  From the niche that limits the degrees of freedom availed to my perspective, I am unable to measure or predict the quality of that which may come hereafter.  Still, I may speculate, perhaps intuit, sometimes foresee.

**********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism:  Stephen Jay Gould shared similar views regarding a heuristic role for dialectical materialism. He wrote "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded because some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine." Further

when presented as guidelines for a philosophy of change, not as dogmatic percepts true by fiat, the three classical laws of dialectics embody a holistic vision that views change as interaction among components of complete systems, and sees the components themselves not as a priori entities, but as both products and inputs to the system. Thus, the law of "interpenetrating opposites" records the inextricable interdependence of components: the "transformation of quantity to quality" defends a systems-based view of change that translates incremental inputs into alterations of state; and the "negation of negation" describes the direction given to history because complex systems cannot revert exactly to previous states.

*********
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber:

In a dystopian critique of rationalisation, Weber notes that modern society is a product of an individualistic drive of the Reformation, yet at the same time, the society created in this process is less and less welcoming of individualism.

In particular, the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures.
This Weber called the "spirit of capitalism": it was the Protestant religious ideology that was behind – and inevitably lead to – the capitalist economic system.  This theory is often viewed as a reversal of Marx's thesis that the economic "base" of society determines all other aspects of it.

Confucianism's goal was "a cultured status position", while Puritanism's goal was to create individuals who are "tools of God".

The Indian caste system made it very difficult for individuals to advance in the society beyond their caste. Activity, including economic activity, was seen as unimportant in the context of the advancement of the soul.

Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections.

Weber noted that Judaism not only fathered Christianity and Islam, but was crucial to the rise of the modern Occidental state; Judaism's influence was as important as Hellenistic and Roman cultures.

********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic:  Becker and Wossmann at the University of Munich provide an alternate theory, stating that the literacy gap between Protestants (as a result of the Reformation) and Catholics sufficiently explains the economic gaps.

********

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim:

Social facts can be material (physical objects) or immaterial (meanings, sentiments, etc.).  The latter cannot be seen or touched, but they are external and coercive, and as such, they become real, gain "facticity".  Physical objects can represent both material and immaterial social facts; for example a flag is a physical social fact that often has various immaterial social facts (the meaning and importance of the flag) attached to it.

Collective consciousness produces the society and holds it together, and at the same time individuals produce collective consciousness through their interactions.

********
My Comment:  No doubt, ascertaining "social facts" as they are commonly interpreted is vital to assimilating and inspiring the social will to move formal laws and customary mores towards an unfolding vision of moral purposefulness.  For that purpose, the method of scientific empiricism must be employed.  Even so, prime leaders of a social movement should never forget that "facts" they collect and interpret are easily twisted, qualitatively.  Thus, responsibility for analyzing the place of facts within an unfolding field of moral choices can hardly be limited to a pure collection of "objective facts."  A leader who would be more than a robot needs to be educated beyond the forced squaring of data into round holes.  A human being works to become both an empirical scientist and a moral philosopher.  A decent civilization must not expel all its functionaries and scientists who would also be human philosophers.

********
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer:

In nature one form of life must always prey upon another. However, human consciousness holds an awareness of, and sympathy for, the will of other beings to live. An ethical human strives to escape from this contradiction so far as possible.

Ethics themselves proceed from the need to respect the wish of other beings to exist as one does towards oneself.

Mankind had to choose to create the moral structures of civilization: the world-view must derive from the life-view, not vice-versa. Respect for life, overcoming coarser impulses and hollow doctrines, leads the individual to live in the service of other people and of every living creature.

"Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."

*********
Many thinkers who often seem to line up on different sides of various questions seem on eventual analysis to be drawing distinctions that make little difference.  Camus advocated absurdity, yet seemed also to advocate that we "should" rise, heroically, above it.  Nietzsche advocated nihilism, yet advocated that an ubermrnsch "should" make his own way.  Marx advocated historical determinacy, yet his historical determinacy was based on his ideal of freedom from want for the masses.  To the extent his notions would result in ever greater regulatory intrusion by government, it may be only a necessary truism that more regulation is required the greater the organization of information and the greater the desire to deploy technological capabilities for using and communicating it.  Likely, all realized that, when nothing is an abomination, everything is permissible, we become what we permit, and, if we desire to communicate to society any meaningful direction, we have no choice but to shape and bend institutions in order to disperse incentives as if some things were, at least by us or our leaders, in present context, desireable or abominable.  Thus, we unavoidably shape ourselves towards becoming what we choose to find to be authentic or admirable.  This seems to be our moral, existential condition, and, for all we know, it may be similar to God's condition.

*********
PURSUIT OF MORAL HAZARD: In the entrails of historical determinism, Marx smelled a coming birth of freedom from want, to arise for the proletariat from the redistribution of property of the bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, what Marx's nose mistook for science-riven freedom for the masses was an agglomerating of entanglements of international rule under corporate owners of the means of rule, i.e., crony capitalists and criminal thugs fronting political deceivers, i.e., international Chinese capitalists masquerading as guides for the path to communism. So, we wake to find property of the bourgeoisie not being redistributed to the proletariat, but to crony capitalists. Marx claimed to be applying science-based dialectic-materialism, but instead founded a new system of international metaphysics, masquerading as fact-based human secularism. While proclaiming the death of God, did Marx really intend to "dictate how we should become free?" Hubris led Marx to try to tell God and metaphysics what they are bound to do, in order to convert metaphysical intuitions into his personal science. In the wake of this conceit, untold millions not only perished, but perished in despair. Now that Marx's crusade against private property of individual workers and small business has pushed most of mankind into a tightly regulated, worldwide fiefdom for a spider web of crony capitalists, many begin to ask whether Marx's faith in the progress of historical determinism was faith in freedom or in servitude. Birthers of the world, science has ordained that you must amble through the logic gates of the benevolent front men of those who know best. The old captains of industry were pauperizing expropriaters, but historical determinism has now decreed that the crony owners of those captains have become your new and predestined benefactors. To receive your just reward, subjugate and submit! Peace and prosperity! Mmm mmm mmm.


*********

Quantity of Original Sin vs. Quality of Empathy

To function as an observer, one necessarily conceptualizes or focuses upon the difference between that with which one is then and there identifying as one's self versus all of that which one is considering as otherwise.  In doing so, one necessarily considers all of that which one observes in a way that is partial, i.e., not inclusive of one's own mind, brain, or body.  Thus, every observer's interpretation of reality is inherenly limited by partiality, depending on purpose and context.  It appears that no mere mortal can enjoy a holistic, less than partial, view, interpretation, or belief regarding the whole of existence, reality, beingness, universe, or consciousness.  Rather, whatever a mere mortal thinks, senses, or does, it will entail partiality, i.e., less than perfectly complete wholeness.  Further, unless one takes a solipsistic view, this is compounded even more when one considers that every perspective of consciousness, regardless of how dim, functions under a similar burden.  Thus, who but a child would presume that the synchronous effect of the interfunctioning of all perspectives, taken together, should render the pursuit of a material-explanation-for-everything other than a receding illusion?

It may not be needed to conceptualize mortals as being fallen to original sin, but it is naive to fail to recognize that we are incomplete and imperfect.  Indeed, per Godel, this state of mortal affairs that entails incompleteness seems to be implicated in the very mathematics that is availed to mortals.  In such light, it seems childish to presume that scientific tinkering can really lead us to perfect any so-called standard model, universal field theory, theory of everything, or complete explication of the ultimate building block of substance and mass (Higgs boson?).

Indeed, the various childish fascinations that flow from such presumptiveness seem to infest much of mankind's economics, politics, morality, and utopian ideals.  Somehow, we need to temper our pursuits of theories about materials and facts with more respect for an inherent mystery regarding the potentially self-fulfilling empathy, character, and quality of consciousness --- apart from forced idealizations of quantitatively measurable, matter-based utopias and final field theories.  We need to accord decent, empathetic respect for one another's dignity, as agents for the separately purposeful expression of consciousness.  A social structure that unduly represses the need for such expression is an abomination to decency.

*****
Such a state of affairs seems to implicate a strange kind of self fulfilling illusion of unbounded freedom.  It becomes plausible to believe that nearly every system that can be imagined may possibly be floated, confabulated, or believed.  All that is needed is that enough perspectives of consciousness become inspired to believe and want to make it so.  Example:  Consciousness may unknowingly and unavoidably inject itself into virtual worlds whereby strange rules appear to control, even though all are derivative of higher (meta and unknown) rules that define the virtual system.

*****
Test:  As a perspective of consciousness, can I --- artificially, completely, coherently, and consistently ---develop, or imagine how to develop, a non-trivial system, subset, or game, for which all expressions within it would be rigorously constrained to mathematical prinicples and rules that are entirely known to, and preset by, myself?  If not, can I, with rigor, imagine how even God could do any such a thing?  Can I imagine how I, or even God, could invent or design a system that would:  (1) allow perspectives of myself to take on different roles for different avatars; (2) wherein each avatar of conscious expression would be separate from and unaware of the quality of conscious expression of each other avatar; (3) wherein all possible varieties of expression would be mathematically constrained to rigorously preset laws of substantive conservation?  Even if such were possible, could a denizen-avatar of such a system, whose identity of partial separateness was entirely dependent on the system, ever reliably, scientifically, and mathematically comprehend the nature or character of any identity that is not confined to such a system, or even fully comprehend the applicable math?

My Answer:  I don't think so.  I think the partiality that is requisite to an expression of consciousness of that which is apart from its own consciousness will always necessarily implicate that no particular expression of consciousness can ever design a mathematically perfect, known, and internally coherent, consistent, and complete system.  In other words, the problem of partiality will always contaminate each new attempt by a partial expression of consciousness to explicate or design a perfectly complete system that is not merely trite or circular.

Sub-question:  May any particular or superior Avatar of consciousness ever defeat death or depletion, to acquire perpetual capacity or knowledge for how to transition or transcend back and forth between separate and independent systems that avail expressions of consciousness?  If so, may IT instil and inspire in others an intuitive faith regarding such possibilities, without necessarily proving IT's basis, either logically or empirically?

My Answer:  I don't know, but I intuit or believe, YES.