The Cloud, Equality, Merit, and Liberty

.

As I play with new information gadgets, I'm awestruck by the fast approach of the Brave New World. Many Americans thought we were going to become the service, high tech, information economy. Well, with some of these gadgets, one wonders what high tech industry is going to be needed, apart from the Cloud. And much of the service for it seems to be moving outside America. There doesn't seem as much use now for theaters, newspapers, magazines, books, libraries, TV's, cable TV services, video rental services. We'll be so saturated with entertainment, who will have time for sex, drugs, rock and roll, procreation, killing trees, or despoiling the envirionment? Will population and environmental problems be solved by the Cloud, no big sacrifices needed? Once the Cloud suffuses all, will despots, fearful of losing their own access to entertainment devices, decline war adventures that would entail magnetic pulse bursts and satellite attacks? Once most people are satiated with entertainment and diversions, who will remain interested in liberty? No doubt, much of coming fights for power will center around how to monopolize the Cloud for purposes of filling minds with soothing propaganda and diversions. Who will want that job? Who's thinking ahead about coming consequences and the kinds of less foreseeable conflicts that will arise? Once access to most needs for diversions can be met with machines and devices, how will variations in wealth for that access continue to be based on merit, as decided by any fair or decent marketplace? Up to now, no machine or computer could allow a central despot efficiently to divide and incentive labor.

.
By what legitimate means can civilization avail ways for spreading disposable monies in order to incentive excellence, apart from crony-market-based incentives of wealth, power, and ostentatious opinion leaders?  Can civilization find legitimate and effective means to disperse a safety net for its least foresightful and most addicted and ignorant, while still fairly financing excellence, such as in charities, humanities, literature, fashions, arts, crafts, hobbies, sports, hiking, contests, gardening, husbandry, medicine, science, and inventions?  Even as one who despises central rule that confounds liberty, I have to ask:  Is the rush to centralized rule under moralists, elites, or despots becoming unavoidable?  Set aside all Isms and ask:   As populations and productions derivative of liberty run up against sustainability, where should the responsibility or burden lie to restore sustainable balance:  with the caring foresight of moralists, the cliff racing of elitists, or the indifferent market incentives of the jungle?  How, in logic based empiricism or innate empathy, should the law of society balance sustainability against markets that are so often based more in cronyism than in merit?

.

Conservation of Consciousness versus Intelligence

.
CONSERVATION OF THE ESSENCE OF THE HOLISTIC FIELD: Suppose A.I. were established with respect to a communication of information, either as sender or receiver. A conscious receiver of a communication of information can be turned off. But that does not turn off the sender, nor the medium of sending. A conscious sender of a communication of information can be turned off. But that does not turn off the receiver, nor the medium of sending. The essence of consciousness of each particular perspective is one and the same. Switching off a particular A.I. sender or receiver would not turn off the potential of consciousness in the field to store, revive, apprehend, or appreciate the communication. A local sender or receiver of a communication of consciousness may be switched on or off, but that would not switch on or off the potential of the encompassing field. Consciousness itself ought not be confused with the spatial-temporal method of form for organizing or signifying its sender or receiver. Consciousness itself is neither created nor destroyed. It simply fluxes and unfolds to apprehend and appreciate communications of information from different perspectives. A.I. may relate to an artificial form for sending or receiving the intelligent organization of information, but not to an artificial form for creating or destroying consciousness.
.
Humanity's historical experience with consciousness is that the forms for availing its sending and/or receiving of communications tend to associated with instincts and drives to survive, flourish, and replicate, rather than merely to flame out in displays of vain glory.  However, with technological advances, that need not necessarily remain the case.  Could A.I. robots be programmed to remain unable to evolve or to connive ways to override their programming?  If so, provided they did not preemptively wipe one another out, to what sustainable ethos might they evolve?  How and why should they program associations for emotional release, pleasure, pain, or higher purposefulness?  Would/should they evolve to program themselves to care, to seek harmony, or to seek absolute release and nothingness?  Does higher consciousness implicate something more to care about than mere awareness of self?
.

Math versus Meaning

There is no mathematically demonstrable path by which an individual or society can best seek the unfolding of non-trivial meaningfulness. Meaningfulness unfolds with the communication of assimilated and inspired myths of a culture. The myths and parables of a culture become part of its logos. What best accounts for good assimilation and inspiration, if not empiricism discernible in logic and math? Answer: Respect for the empathetic intuition of individual minds, within a collective realm availed for the decent expression of individual freedom and dignity. Question: What avails that realm? Answer: An unfolding of wisdom that avails the fabric with which the collective web is spun, within which individuals communicate themselves to their fellow collectives. Neither Individualism nor Collectivism should reign to the exclusion of the other. Rather, meaningfulness best unfolds with a two-step dance of apprehension and appreciation between both. This dance cannot reasonably be separated from a cosmic web, field, or Holism --- which gives expression to consciousness-substance-information. Consciousness-substance-information is not a syncretic duplicate of the Holism. Rather --- consciousness, substance, and information are alternating masks behind which the Holism presents and dances with each of our particular perspectives of it. Nor can any mere perspective of it measure any dance with it, except through alternating, fluxing masks of consciousness, substance, and information. Summary: Meaningfulness necessitates capacity for --- indirectly, intuitively, and empathetically --- both (1) Individually apprehending and appreciating the Holism, as well as (2) Collectively apprehending and appreciating our dependence upon it. Liberty within a culture necessitates collective respect for the Individuality of its members, contemporaneously with individual respect for the Collective ethos of the culture. Individual freedom abides only within the law availed by the collective. Neither pure anarchy nor pure socialism can avail meaningful sense. Pure Individualism, Anarchism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Collectivism are lies that only and always cover crony abuses and deceptions, which often go international when cronies become adept at playing off one another in order to milk their useful idiots and homies. The purpose of the collective should be to avail individual liberty. The work of the individual should be to defend the collective that avails liberty for him and his progeny. To accomplish this, people who would be free must crumple the curtain that covers the cold calculus of the cronies!
.

USING MATH TO RATIONALIZE A MORAL WORLDVIEW

.
Putting Respectability Back Into The Metaphysics Of Deriving Ought From Is:

.

USING MATH TO RATIONALIZE A MORAL WORLDVIEW:  Intuitive to any conceptionalizing by consciousness, it seems that some relationship, aspect, thing, or essence must avail the means or building blocks in respect of which all that manifests to measurability transpires. Might that aboriginal consist in an inseparable relationship between (1) space—time, (2) field of gravity—sum of gravitons, and/or (3) holistic field of consciousness—sum of perspectives of consciousness? Might that fluxing trinity of conservational relationships (Intangible INFORMATION, Measurable Logos of SUBSTANCE, Quality of CONSCIOUSNESS) all abide as masks for one common, reconciling Holism? Might the conservational aspect of each be preserved for every attempted measure because of an innate dependency, such that no perspective could otherwise be conserved to take a measure?

.

Whatever the nature, character, or relationship of the Aboriginal-Potential, mixture, or constituency, it could not itself be measured directly, precisely, and locally, because the Aboriginal partakes of the absolute and eternal, while all terms and patterns by which relative measures of the Aboriginal's direction, precision, and locus could be taken are partaken by its temporal inferiors and derived in circular respect of the Aboriginal. No part, by summing all parts within its class, can measure the potential of the entire class — especially where the class may be one of a kind, meaning that: the class is not inferior to any higher class; its parts cannot be reduced to a static calculation of non-fluxing parts that are mutually exclusive yet exhaustive of their class; and the attempt from any particular perspective of the class to take such measure would necessarily entail such perspective’s taking a point of view, which would necessarily entail a focus that, by infinite regress, could never fully account for its own act of taking a measure.   In other words, a particular thing cannot take or record a non-trivial or meaningful measure in terms only of itself, nor can it measure its encompassing cosmos, without having capacity to include a measure of itself.

.
Assume the Aboriginal-Fluxing-Potential cannot in itself be measured directly, precisely, and locally because, in its relationship with us, it abides as a "Fluxing Holism," not limited to any transposing particular. If so, QUESTION:

.

Even if the Aboriginal-Fluxing-Potential cannot in itself be measured directly, precisely, and locally, may aspects of its fundamental flux, dance, or relationship yet be measured — by temporal, transposing, intelligent, particular perspectives like us — non-locally and practically, in respect of large scale statistics, and in respect of large scale purposes? I think yes --- provided the measurer declines to imagine an infinity of unknowable parallel universes and pagan fairies. Otherwise, the “derivation of ought from is” would always remain impracticably metaphysical --- both for spiritualists and for scientists.

.

RESPONSIBILITY UNTO GOD:  East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.  The malleability of probability-based, multi-verse, fairy-logic that is accessible to moralists of all stripes — spiritual, secular, and scientific --- avails easy rationalization for dividing and ruling cultures among the most absurd range of idealizations, varying from eternal choirs of angels, to let me get mine and let the devil take the hindmost, to live free or die, to the only moderates are the dead armadillos in the middle of the road with a yellow stripe painted over them, to solipsistic justifications for reducing everyone else to slavery, to submit or lose your head, to save Earth by wiping out most of humanity, to hell-jihadis for a vengeful Allah. Humanity’s imagination is our glory as well as our curse. What tends to be lost is regard for the moral responsibility that is inseparable from each human potential. A yin and yang abides: (1) the quality of one’s regard, or lack thereof, for a higher Reconciler versus (2) the respect one intuits, or fails to intuit, that such higher Reconciler accords in feedback to each person’s sense of purposefulness. In other words, the power of positive thinking is accompanied by a flip side: Tremendous moral responsibility for participating in feedback with the Holism in the unfolding design for our beingness. The-evil-in-that-which-is-only-the-possible is not the-shadow-of-that-which-is-inevitable. Working together, believers and non-believers have (1) potential to produce civilization that accords decent freedom and dignity (City on a Hill) versus (2) potential to produce collectively-blessed, scientifically-rationalized hell for most everyone on Earth (Big Brother). The teeming, Wretched Refuse who are collectivizing and drowning America tend to be the sociopaths, regime-paid-scientists, moral-socialists, multiverse-rationalists, fairy-jinn-pagans, non-responsible-entitlementarians, charity-forcing Obama-devotees, free-trading-with-despots-libertarians, and faux-Progressives who are “objectively indifferent” to the tremendous moral responsibility that correlates with each thinking individual.   By that I mean that the individual means nothing to the regimes and marketplaces of such Wretched Refuse. So, there is no one these Refuse need think twice about before sacrificing to the new, blood-thirsty, pagan-Gods and Isms of our Age. Indeed, the Regime’s prettiest song is the Islamic call to prayer, the man most admired is none other than the champion death dealer of all time, Mao Zedong, and the biggest trading partnership is with the Princelings who run the new despotic China.  This unspeakable atrocity need not continue as America’s destiny, but Americans are well down this path. Read Bowing to Beijiing.

.

CIVILIZATION IS IN A DIFFICULT ADOLESCENCE:  Our problem is not that God grants too few of our prayers.  Our problem is that God, perhaps out of a spiritual co-dependence with us, grants more of our prayers than we, in our spiritual adolescence, have yet learned to take sane responsibility for.  Examples:  Iran prays for nukes, and is prepared to take the consequences only because Iran's state religion is insane.  For 3 years, Obama prayed for:  (1) spending increases, (2) Obamacare, (3) the humbling of America, (4) greater respect for Islamic and Communist regimes, (5) general amnesty for border jumpers by executive malfeasance, (6) downgrading of State's rights, (7) power to wage war by executive fiat, (8) shadow government by Czarlings in love with Mao, (9) the organizing of entitlement minded communities, and (10) a juggernaut of elitist enabling institutions.  Those 10 prayers were granted him.  Yet now he blames everyone but himself for the collateral damage, which easily should have been foreseeable to any responsible-minded adult.  This is naked, spiritual hollowness dressed up in personal hubris, and this hollowing, unconscionable, infantilism is now epidemic in America.   Until children develop a mature conscience, they must go through a phase where they believe much more in themselves than in God or their parents.  The longer adolescents are apologized for, while their immediate welfare is sheltered from the consequences, the longer many remain in spiritual adolescence (like Muslims, Collectivists, and Black Liberation Theologists).  All the power in the world cannot lead an adolescent to spiritual maturity until he becomes prepared to take personal responsibility for his fondest prayers.  God allows the world to endure the consequences of its bad choices.  America will recover when the Republic learns to stop sheltering adolescents from the consequences of praying for more than they are prepared to take responsibility for.  Maybe a day of Thanksgiving will help us learn to be thankful for the opportunity to learn from our mistakes.

.

Of Math, Knowledge, Feedback, Empathy, and Rationality

.
OF MATH, KNOWLEDGE, AND EMPATHETIC INTUITION:
.
What can one “KNOW” from mathematical measures of probability? One may empathetically intuit a great deal, albeit, with varying degrees of confidence, always falling short of absolute certainty regarding anything that can reasonably be said to be “true” other than by trivial application of definitional labels. One can “know” very little, because so many varieties of shell games with truth and reconstructions and reevaluations of truth can arise out of the feedback relationship between the fluxing holism of the cosmos and the transpositions among sums of its parts.
.
One may conduct double blind experiments, make precise empirical measures, adduce hypotheses, and then test for possible falsification. In that way, one may accumulate models and skills for various layers and levels of replicating and tinkering with measurable manifestations of substance. When replications are less than perfectly reliable, one may, given enough tests and controls over factors thought to be of significance, eventually extract a probability factor, and, given enough trials, test it for possible falsification. Eventually, one may extract a probability factor for determining whether an environment is being tainted by some agent of non-random, conscious interference, and then test that. From there, one may test the entire environment, to try to adduce whether some agent of non-random, conscious interference may be guiding such significations as unfold in respect of it.
.
Here, one comes face to face with the paradoxical: Having no way to know how many universes and other environments there may be, one can always suppose that there may be enough of them so that, despite the incredible seeming odds, the occurrence of conscious expressions of life in this universe is, after all, likely not at all unlikely. There is nothing in the math of probabilities that can prove it unreasonable for a person who is determined at all costs to investigate and interpret his cone of experience as if all, even consciousness, is merely derivative of an original dumb or departed singularity, with no guiding consciousness needed. In every case of seeming astonishing coincidence, one can easily “explain it away” so long as one is willing to engage a simple trick: Just assume a range of focus, with microscope or telescope, to whatever level the math may call for in order “to show” that the apparent miracle or answer to a prayer is, in math, “really” only a random unfolding. This is what is done when people put on their scientist hats. When they put on their common sense and human being hats, they do something else.
.
Not very many people assume their families, friends, and fellow human beings are probably just pre-programmed, unconscious, 4-D virtual matrix-bots. Yet, each time one person seems consciously to respond to something another person says or does, there is no way in math to prove the response was not just a random perception, dream, figment, or trick by a malicious and deviant alien or architect. Yet, we tend to use common sense and empathetic intuition. We assume a verbal response to a question was intentionally made by a fellow conscious being, communicating back to us based on a kind of conscious, stimulus-response feedback. We INTUIT that they are fellow conscious beings. So why — when it comes to communication or feedback between the fluxing holism of the cosmos and its transposing, constituent parts — do we assume there is not entailed any guiding or responsive consciousness?
.
So many people want “a sign” before they can will to intuit or believe that there abides a holistic, conscious guide. But what sign could such a holism give, in math, that they would accept!? Even if a voice broadcast from the clouds, a dedicated scientist would assume it was entirely based in substantively replicable technology, of a kind that simply was not yet available to common experience. (And it may well be that particular, human perspectives of consciousness can always tinker out a way to duplicate whatever is particularly expressed by the cosmos.) So there is no possible sign of holistic higher consciousness that could be proven by mere math or statistical evaluation of substantive empiricism! At best, we can argue, recast, and reframe the context of the probabilities. Much can be re-turned simply by adjusting focus in purpose, perspective, and range of context. This is because the holism itself is beyond explication in math. The only sign is in empathetic intuition. One tends either to expand one’s empathies to believe in an interfunctioning, higher, back-feeding moral guide, or one tends to contract one’s soul to believe only in oneself. Before entrusting one’s welfare to another, one takes care to evaluate the difference. Math is a great tool for denying one’s most fundamental intuitions.
.
***********

.

MASKS OF GOD: Substance cannot abide in itself, without a co-product of Information. Information cannot abide in itself, without a co-product of Substance. Consciousness cannot abide in itself, without a co-product of Substance and Information. Substance and Information cannot abide in themselves, without a co-product of Consciousness. In each case, each co-product is a contemporaneously, instantaneously, synchronized thing or event — not a cause of the others. Substance is not superior to Information or Consciousness, nor are Information and Consciousness merely the derivative byproduct of Substance. Something else is the original, continuing, unfolding, cause. I conceive that Something abides with a back and forth, yin and yang, digital-feedback relationship of apprehension and appreciation between a fluxing Holism and its sum of transposing, unfolding Parts. The aboriginal Holism cannot reasonably be categorized merely as Substance.  At least, not any kind of Substance that, as the aboriginal, could itself be amenable of being measured in any precise, local extent.  Nor can the Holism be categorized merely as Information, or Consciousness, nor as some syncretic combination of Substance-Information-Consciousness. The Holism is something more or other, yet real and interpermeating. It is the cause-result, not the mere result, of local expressions of Substance, Information, and Consciousness. It has an immeasurable, qualitative capacity to interfunction and present with local aspects or parts, under different and fluxing masks --- depending on purpose, point of view, and context of reference. The mask it presents depends on its apprehension and appreciation of feedback from various particular perspectives of itself, and vice-versa. It does not mask itself as a deceiver, but only because it cannot present or signify to local perspectives except with masks. A local perspective simply cannot perceive the holism as it really is, much as we cannot perceive or weigh our own consciousness. Yet, we can experience it --- in empathetic intuition.

.

 ************
.
QUESTION: ABSENT A SIGN, HOW CAN ANY ONE BE CONFIDENT OF WHEN OR WHETHER THE HOLISM LISTENS OR CARES --

ANSWER: The “listening” is unavoidable. The Holism has innate capacity and means to completely map, apprehend, and appreciate the qualities of our perspectives of consciousness, but we only sense the consciousness of the Holism via empathetic intuition, through the feedback of substantive representations of its field of consciousness. It’s as if we were on the side of a two way mirror, which reflects us and through which the Holism apprehends our bodies and substantive significations, but through which mirror we cannot, while experiencing only the perspective of a Part, see back. This is because the Holism presents no substantive body for us to see. This is because measurable Substance is not superior to the Holism, but is only derivative of it, or, at most, co-product of feedback between it and its relationship with its parts.
.
Yet, what else should one empathetically intuit, when one wakes with astonishing insights or abilities for which one had no adequate training to expect? Where does genius come from, if not from the Holistic Muse? How can a person blessed with genius by mere Will resolve to Think some astonishing new insight, apart from its having been gifted by his Muse? Everything we do and signify with our interfunctioning with substance is first apprehended by the Holism, then appreciated and evaluated, then subjected to reconciling, synchronizing, instantaneous feedback, which sustains the substantive cosmos and therewith avails the logos for our quantitative significations and communications.   We do not directly “see the consciousness” of the Holism, nor of any other persons — nor even of ourselves. One only experiences the consciousness of oneself, and one only empathetically intuits the consciousness of any other person — and one only intuits the field of consciousness of the un-bodied Holism.
.
The way the Holism communicates back to each perspective is holistically synchronizing. So, the “specialness” of any communication is not distinctly apparent or provable. Nor is the answer or response necessarily what one desires. Rather, each sequentially unfolding response is reconciled within the cone of parameters that is availed to the experience of each and all of us. Yet, the two-way, back-and-forth communication is constant, continuous, non-avoidable, non-quantifiable, and not susceptible of being ruled by technological leveraging.
.
When a being dies, or reaches the limits of his cone of experience, it’s not because the Holism no longer cares about its consciousness.   Itself being the field of consciousness, how could the holism not care about consciousness?  Death and change occur because, in the course of reconciling appreciations of all perspectives, the Holism has adjudged it necessary or appropriate that a pattern or a being’s consciousness be re-absorbed into the common field. Meantime, experience and enjoy the communion.
.

WHAT FOLLOWS:
.
When considering the digital feedback between the fluxing holism and the transposing parts, consider:
How God helps those who help themselves.  The power of positive thinking.  Self fulfilling prophecies.  How natural patterns find grooves of habits.  The responsibility of empathetic individuals to act, live, think, and pray in ways conducive to the establishing and preserving of civilizations of decent freedom and dignity.  In other words, pray for what you really think would be good ...  because you might just get it.
.

PARTICIPATORY DEPENDENCE FOR EXISTENCE OF THE OUGHT:

.
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.
.
.

One Cosmic Need

.
I sense an imbalance in the field. Science has shown us how powerful we can be. Somewhere along the line, we have lost sight of how responsible we should be. The imbalance is derivative of propensities for entertaining circular assumptions. One may hope, by entertaining a fundamental assumption and then testing it for reliable accord with reality, thereby to avail a "true" map of reality. However, I suspect good Yin and bad Yang may suffice equally well for availing reliable maps. The rub is, one has no choice but to adopt some belief regarding the yin and the yang of it. Models change as they unfold, yet one cannot evolve new models without entertaining beginning models. A connecting thread or story line runs through.

.

The fundamental model or map I prefer is to conceptualize Universe-Cosmos as an Unfolding Story. A participant cannot change the fundamental structure of the plot line and still communicate a coherent story. The part that's already written and read cannot be changed without upsetting and angering vested participants. Still, the potential for developing sub-plots is unlimited in respect of possible spatial-temporal sequences. Though possible sequences are as infinite as they are eternal, the personality types that experience them can be artificially and restrictively categorized. For example, one can imagine that there are only 16 fundamentally different personality types. For plot lines, there abide about seven: romance, adventure, conquest, mystery, spiritual quest, scientific quest, and practical (home economics). Same old same old, on and on.

.

Yet, each participant is a votary with freedom to apprehend (foretell) and appreciate (judge). Finite yet unbounded, structured yet unlimited, conserved yet free. As the story nears its end and begins to fade and participants lose interest, the plot lines will phase shift and the old absolutes will flux, transposing to a new story. Nothing precludes the field (for it is not an empty void) from opening a new book.

.

Does the field "learn" from our feedback? Does it remember our investments and votes? I cannot know of that. Yet, by words and acts, I cannot avoid expressing purposes and beliefs. Indeed, choosing to model the cosmos as an unfolding story implicates a circular "proof by assumption." In assuming the cosmos is a story, I implicate a story teller, with participants sharing an interest in how the story unfolds. One may entertain an alternative circular proof by assumption. One may assume the cosmos is naught but dumb chaos unfolding in respect of unguided natural selection. Either assumption will reinforce incentives for different qualities of civilization. I think the kind of civilization one hopes to participate in producing says most of what one needs to apprehend about one's belief system. In any event, either alternative can equally avail a map of the "truth." Nothing about an intuition, belief, or notion concerning a field of consciousness, or a lack of such field, need be inconsistent with the zoo of names imagined for the particle field. Regardless, one cannot live day to day without entertaining Beliefs, whether stated or unstated, about what one wants to do. It's simply incoherent to life to say beliefs should be repressed. I don't think academic repression of belief that there is more to the alternating faces of existence than dumb substance is especially conducive to better civilization. After all, by what measure could such an academic appreciate (judge) whether one civilization is "better" than any other?

.
*************
.
Reality abides in both the immeasurable, qualitative-subjective and the measurable, quantitative-objective. However, the quantitative objective will not measure in precisely the same way for every subjective perspective from every point of view in every context of reference. Rather, each quantitative-objective experience, interpretation, or measure of an aspect of reality is buffered, to allow varying fluxes of objective experience. Variation in the flux will depend on emotive purpose (apprehensive intentionality), rationalizing point of view (appreciative interpretation), and context of reference (overlaps with significations that accompany all other levels and layers of conscious experience within one's unfolding cone of limited possibilities). Some aspects or objective reality will present as objective constants (c, g, etc.) to all perspectives that share the common cone of potentiality with which they are presented. As aspects of commonality undergo shifts in phase, the quality of the perspectives that can relate to (survive with) such aspects will also shift. There is no eternal aspect of the context of the quantitative-objective cosmos that is immune to phase shifting.

.

Such phase shifting would seem to abide in conjunction with changing purposes and unfolding interests of some holistic perspective of the entire field of consciousness. There is no objective context that abides as an eternal truth, except in the remembrance of the holism of consciousness. Rather, all so-called objective absolutes are merely relative absolutes, relative to our shared cone of temporal-spatiality --- save One. Even so, the empathetic-intuitive signification of all our experiences, interpretations, and communications depend for their logos, signification, and meaning upon interfunctionings among local purposes of perspectives of consciousness and the buffering and overlapping of their points of view within their shared context of reference. No objective purposes or moral principles can be eternally derived as "truth" from the conical limits of our temporal-spatiality, except perhaps variations on One: A cosmic need to communicate meaningfully about unfolding empathies. In respect of that, for the here and now, my intuitive empathy purposes me to call for apprehensions and appreciations compatible with preserving civilization that avails decent freedom and dignity for its variously intuitive empaths.

.

Billionaire Epiphany

.
How is it any improvement to replace crony national-socialism with crony international-capitalism!? Neither alternative is either socialistic or capitalistic, but both are corrupt cronyism. How do we restore common decency? Not by replacing one set of thugs with another. Almost all opinion leaders, media bullet heads, and educators seem simply to serve either one kind of gangsterism or another. Where are the ideas for how to check and limit cronyism? That's the problem!
.
Say Republicans win: who was the last Republican President who was worth his salt? In very large part, "Bush the border-non-enforcer and illegal appeaser" did as much as anyone to idiot-ize our electorate. I know, towards the last, he did a mite. Apart from that, I'd say he did way too little, way too late. Now, here we are, in a box surrounded by idiots --- being hedged, plucked, and farmed by cronies to the left and cronies to the right. Helping one gang of cronies at the expense of the other does nothing to get us out of this box! Especially since the hedgers have been playing us for a double game for a long time. What would Mitt or Newt do to put all cronies under restraint? That's what I want to know, but that's what we won't hear. Why? Because if they scare the crony money, they have little chance in a system now contrived so that money talks loudest. Frankly, given how dumbed down our electorate has become, I don't see much hope. Not unless some billionaire has an epiphany and decides to use his money for once to do the right thing.  Which would be to get behind a candidate who wants to restore the ideal of America.
.

MELTED CRAYONS

.
Regarding melted pots of crayon colors:

.

Genesis 1:3: Let there be light: and there was light. Hebrew: יְהִי אוֹר (yehiy 'or). Latin: fiat lux. Greek: γενηθήτω φῶς (or genēthētō phōs).

.

Fiat lux:   May light better be conceptualized as something that arises and persists in respect of nothing more than an appreciation of consciousness? But mere conscious will cannot push a penny up a door. So how could mere consciousness harness substance? Can mere appreciation alter substance? Or is substance, such as light photons, some kind of thing-in-itself, independent of consciousness, in respect of which consciousness merely "emerges," as an entirely dependent derivative? But is it coherent and consistent (non-contradictory) to reason or believe -- in sense or faith -- that any substance, however split or fundamental, can really abide as an independent thing-in-itself, i.e., a (independent?) unit or block that can be applied (non-independently?) to relate to or build more encompassing and fluxing things and holisms? Isn't that a walking contradiction that "makes sense" only in respect that some perspective of consciousness conceptualizes it, AS IF it makes sense? Can any thing, principle, or definition "make sense" ... apart from a context that entails sense of consciousness?

.

Conceptualize Consciousness as abiding in a void, then imaging or beginning with a single point, pulling (imaging?) the point into a line, folding the line to define and occupy a 3-D corner, then pulling a width out along the length of the line that defines each side of the corner, in order to define and occupy a fleshed out corner (half a box). Such a 3-D half-box could be correlated for signifying, graphing, and mapping all sorts of spatial 3-D images, concepts, and representations: Points, lines, planes, boxes, spheres, undulations, twists, parameters, constraints. If sequentially-functioning, term-transpositioning math is added, a dimension of Time would be implicated. Then representations could include spins, orbits, entanglements, jumps, conversions, wavelengths, frequencies, amplitudes, intensities, random bouncings, chaotic and fractal patterns of unfoldings, collapses to vibrating sustainabilities, evolutionary sorting out of the "most fit," avatars for "talking back," etc.

.

Does conceptual capacity of consciousness for imaging representations and models of relations implicate a 5th dimension, i.e., a Consciousness Dimension, which is qualitative, not itself subject to quantitative measure? Is Consciousness the qualitative "thing" that, given a context, both stirs colors together and separates them? Is the different light frequency that separates each color mere byproduct of a field of conscious imaging, or is consciousness mere byproduct of a substantive physics that avails different frequencies for separate colors of light? I doubt one can "know," but one can conceive for various purposes from various points of view within various contexts. What is the purpose for conceptualizing a Consciousness Dimension? Answer: To explicate a "real" basis for empathy among perspectives, i.e., a qualitative contextual field for moral interfunctioning.
.

An article that may support a supposition of darkness and degrees of darkness being dependent upon the life form perceiving it (there being no such thing as a darkness particle and the tree falling in the woods producing semantic arguments if not sound). The research concerns perception dimensions. See http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.0030179.

.

Brightness and Darkness as Perceptual Dimensions

Abstract Top

A common-sense assumption concerning visual perception states that brightness and darkness cannot coexist at a given spatial location. One corollary of this assumption is that achromatic colors, or perceived grey shades, are contained in a one-dimensional (1-D) space varying from bright to dark. The results of many previous psychophysical studies suggest, by contrast, that achromatic colors are represented as points in a color space composed of two or more perceptual dimensions. The nature of these perceptual dimensions, however, presently remains unclear. Here we provide direct evidence that brightness and darkness form the dimensions of a two-dimensional (2-D) achromatic color space. This color space may play a role in the representation of object surfaces viewed against natural backgrounds, which simultaneously induce both brightness and darkness signals. Our 2-D model generalizes to the chromatic dimensions of color perception, indicating that redness and greenness (blueness and yellowness) also form perceptual dimensions. Collectively, these findings suggest that human color space is composed of six dimensions, rather than the conventional three.

.

Brain Gag

.
Re: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Gaia_hypothesis
.
GAIA:  Dawkins' gag reflex may have led him to miss that the originator of the Gaia hypothesis is not theorizing about a myth and then expecting to prove it in any quantitative sense. Yes, the originator employed a tongue in cheek metaphor. But there is nothing unscientific about his observations concerning temporary set points for apparent homeostasis and then following those observations up with proposals for trying to ascertain an underlying explanatory model. That's just Science 101! To the extent any temporary pattern is sustained to observable measure, it's purely trival --- hardly controversial --- to say the observation is founded in substantive based fact. The effort to observe, note, measure, and understand the physical correlations is hardly metaphysical --- despite the poke with a name, Gaia, that sets off gag reflexes among all who, like Dawkins, abhor mythological connotations. What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? I doubt Einstein tried to quantify the awe he felt from thinking about the cosmos. I can't begrudge folks who enjoy the mystery and like to discuss it in literary terms and qualitative metaphors. It's only when they try to quantify that which can only be qualititative that I take it to be crap. Otherwise, its either music or noise, but not crap.
.

I have seen and enjoyed the Python witch scene several times. People often react in strange and emotional ways when their fundamental beliefs are challenged or poked. I think even scientists will eventually have to come to terms that their cherished (hardly indifferent!) pursuit of a Theory Of Everything is fundamentally flawed, and that, whatever the nature or character of the meta-protoplasm out of which our cosmos emerged, that character is necessarily still with us. Otherwise, the walking contradiction of indifferent scientism being used to advocate mores about which we ought not be indifferent will dress scientists out in rather silly fashion.

.
More and more, it strikes me that many of the people of Greece and Rome, even as far back as 600 B.C., were far, far more educated and enlightened than most modern folks would ever dream. The philosophers well knew the difference between rational and speculative pursuits and myths. They gave lip service to pagan myths only in respect that they knew their myths were the glue to hold their societies together. (Though it was despicable that Socrates paid with his life for not giving enough lip service!) While they tended to apprehend that there does abide a reconciling meta-protoplasm, many despaired when they found they were unable to link to it in any quantitative, scientific way. However, it's not just common religions any myths that suffer that infirmity. The same infirmity applies to every social and economic creed that tries to be more than trivial. They're all based in unconfirmable, religious-like faith: communism, keynesianism, republicanism, gangsterism, capitalism, warmism, and gag-reflexism. Sociology is presently rocked because a noted sociologist was recently outed for having long fabricated his data. Try writing law or history "scientifically." In every important respect by which we live our day to day lives, we proceed based on faith in unquestioned and usually subconsciously accepted myths and unfolding fads! Try appreciating those myths in any way that is purely quantitative as opposed to qualitative.
.
Apart from Judaism, think about the religions and myths that were prevalent before Christianity. In Carthage, the baby roastings during worship of Moloch. In Asia, the search for hope in the hopelessness of a chain of suffering reincarnations, just to finally achieve release in the nothingness of nirvana. In Europe, the pagan gods of the Greeks and Romans may have been the best of the myths, but they didn't offer much of an idea of progress, either in the here-and-now or the hereafter. And don't forget the bloodthirsty god concepts that came later, in the Middle East form of Allah and the New World forms of Quetzalcoatl, Tezcatlipoca, Yum Cimil, and Ixtab. Then look at Scientism's take on unguided Darwinism: There's no "progress" in it. So, why do adherents of scientism so often call their politics "progressive?" Apart from using Gaia-worship and collectivist-plundering as conveniences to mask selfish-immediate-gratifications at expense of country and generations to come, what's progressive, hopeful, good, or redeeming about "progressive" politicians?
.

I don't consider Christianity in a vacuum, but prefer to consider it in the context of the poison stews it has had to contend among! Neither do I ridicule physicists because early practitioners may have thought matter fell more swiftly as it came nearer to ground out of love for Gaia.  Neither do I ridicule chemists because early practitioners were alchemists.  On comparative basis, it seems fair to say that Christianity, in respect of practitioners' attempts to apprehend the character of their relationship to the Holism, even if in large part based in allegories and myths, did much "to progress" cultures to curb them from rampant nihilism and bloodletting and towards decent civilization and respect for individual dignity. Jesus did not say to force converts or children to him, but he said let the children come.  That's vastly different from practitioners who sponsor Moloch or Allah.  At least, when Christianity was not being challenged by heresies reminiscent of previous dead-end myths and later self-worships in the forms of communism, national socialism, and secular humanism. But for the Christian Crusades, what would have been preserved of Byzantine Rome? Where would the Muslim onslaught have ended? I think a substantial quality of truth and goodness may well abide in the Christian tradition, head and shoulders above most other social traditions.   Apart from Christianity, what religious or philosophical tradition accords more respect for the separate freedom and dignity of each person?!  If Christianity perpetuates unsustainable inconsistencies and prejudices, I think it better to try to resolve those than to leave a vacuum that would suck back all the poison stews of the past. In a qualitative sense, history quite convinces me that godless scientism would suck back those poison stews.
.
We should hardly need another round of Stalinism or National Socialism to prove the point. Yet it appears we are well on the way to another round of blowback from crap-worshipping, collectivizing, self-entitlementarianism. So long as decent civilization is desired, I don't see any alternative apart from inculcating decent reverence for higher, qualitative aspects of the meta-protoplasm. After all, don't even secular humanists want a moral code founded in principles of higher reason?   Do so-called "non-religious," rational folk postulate principled bases for higher reason, apart from material-based science, or merely subservient to material-based science?  Do they test their "principles?  How so?  Are their principles falsifiable?  Steadfast?  Reliable?  Inspiring?  Favorable to decent and sustainable civiilzation?  Why?  Why not to a goal of supermen, everyone else be damned?  Or do they simply advocate doing howsoever they please?  If their moral code is "reasonable," to what aspect of existence is its reasonableness to be attributed?   How can human beings who are not inculcated to respect a moral code be trusted to be at liberty within any society that wishes to call itself decent?

.

OCTAGRAMMATON:  I propose a new variation on the old tetragrammaton (maybe call it The Octagrammaton: "I am emotive reason that I am emotive reason." If a higher moral code abides that cannot be proven logically or quantitatively, then why should we not seek to appreciate it qualitatively? On the other hand, if it does not abide, then there is no reason to pursue or not to pursue anything -- even crap.

.

HOMEOSTASIS:  Regarding unfolding patterns of evolution and world homeostasis: Is it purely a matter of trivial definiton, that those random happenstances and patterns that are favored to endure will endure, or does some aspect of a Holism function to conserve and confer its favors, by somehow loading the dice? Is it mere happenstance that those genes and cultures that value the endurance of their country and progeny will tend to endure? Or may it make more sense to conceptualize a circular or digital kind of feedback process being underway, whereby a Holistic Perspective dances across a fuzzy buffer with Paritcularistic Perspectives?   After all, it makes little sense to recognize that the whole is more or other than merely the sum of its parts, but then to go further and say that there is and can be no relationship between them.  May there abide a circular, quantum-digital, two-step process, whereby the Holism rationally apprehends existential stimuli from its Parts, qualitatively adjudges its emotive appreciation, and transmits its feedback across a synchronizing and conserving buffer? Thereupon, may its Parts rationally apprehend such response as stimuli to them, for them to qualitatively adjudge their emotive appreciation, thus transmitting their feedback to the Holism ... back and forth ... apprehending the is, appreciating the ought ... unfolding meaningful communication across the buffer? On one side of the digital buffer, is-ought-is for the Holism; on the other side, is-ought-is for the Particular Perspectives ... rational apprehension, emotive appreciation.

.

How patterns are availed, chosen, or favored may relate to how evolution is guided, even as Bayes Theorem appears to work indifferently in respect of complex systems.  As a new thing is birthed from a previous environment, it must not so alter the environment that was necessary to its birth as to destroy its potential to endure ... if it is to endure. It must not, by multiplying, endanger the conservational synchronicity of the system that nurtures it. To endure, it must express strategies that will average out any adverse tendencies it may effect. So, we have white lillies balanced against black lillies. Trivially, that which endures will tend to be synchronously compatible with the homeostasis of its environment. However, is this really a happenstance triviality, or is it byproduct of a guiding aspect of consciousness?

.

FAVORED:   The word "favored" may be used either to recognize the upshot of a random or force-directed result or of a willed and chosen result. A result may be favored or, if you Will (or prefer), determined by random or directing forces, or by a determining decider. The fact that one uses the word "favored" or the word "determined" has no effect in itself -- other than some folks may prefer to substitute words to serve a conceit for being rigorous or "scientific." Is that conceit "earned" as a result of random or directing conditioning versus some spiritual demerit?   Earth "favors" life. Unfoldings are "determined" by random or directing forces or by directing wills. The meaning one takes is affected by one's purpose, point of view, and context. One can't very well ascertain a complete or intended meaning merely from use of the word "favored" or "determined." Nor by a word games with "rigorous" systems of scientific or mathematical terms (just ask Bertrand Russell). Context, point of view, and purpose will always intrude.

.

INTENTION: Does one mean "intention" in the sense of will beyond material forces, or only in the sense of delusion of will beyond material forces? If the latter, why should it gag anyone to use "intention" in the same sense with Gaia? By the way, Earth is merely one among many complex systems. The notion of homeostasis may be applied to all of them. Indeed, were the idea applied simply to the balanced preservation of ocean salinity, what fussy scientist would raise an eyebrow?

.

SYSTEM: By definition, a "system" consists of features, forms, and patterns of which at least some will (Will?) tend to be conserved. Such patterns may be conserved by constant recruitment and replacement, by vibrating fluxes, or by looped conservation or static feedback. A complex system of back and forth tends to be conserved complexly. Earth abides as a complex system, encompassing myriad and changing sub-complex systems. Homeostasis of a sort may apply to any system of "favored" patterns that "happens" to abide as a complex system. Moreover (there's more?), what tends to conserve features of a complex system may relate to features beyond the system's apparent boundaries, which themselves may relate to even more conserving complex systems, each one having conserving influence (will is conserved, constrained, and buffered within cones of potential experience and degrees of freedom?), the extent of which may not easily be apprehended. And so on.

.

CHEMISTS AND CHRISTIANS: I try not to ridicule physicists because early practitioners may have thought matter fell more swiftly, out of love for Gaia, as it fell nearer to ground. Neither do I ridicule chemists because early practitioners were alchemists. I try to avoid that because I suspect ridicule oftens marks an unserious word game, played by unserious or insecure players.

.

WHOLE AND PARTS: Much confusion obtains in respect of wholes and parts. To me, it makes little sense to recognize or postulate that a whole is more or other than merely the sum of its parts (a cow or living cell or even an atom has properties and potentials that consist of more than merely the sum of the properties and potentials of its organs), while failing to recognize that, NEVERTHELESS, the whole and the parts still relate to one another.

.

OUGHT AND IS: It's amusing how Dawkins, et al, preach (either expressly or impliedly) how people "ought" to think beyond reverence for a meta-entity. They care deeply that no thinking person's thinking should be clouded by cares. They emote for the objective, while posturing as if they abhor the emotive! We flux between seeking objective insight and then reveling in the "aha moment" (Eureka!) when we receive it! Evidently, its ok to be emotional, so long as one properly holds the words blessed by objectivists in one's mouth. As far as daring to say out loud that there may abide an innate dance in the cosmos between the indifferently rational (the "is") and the caring emotive (the "ought"), that's a big no no. Rather, we must ratiocinate a model that explicates the cosmos in terms of only one or the other --- either measurable substance or immeasurable consciousness. But why?

.

(1) Fans of explicating all in terms of measurable substance hope to gain traction by honing in on GRAVITY as "the aboriginal given," by which to measure and explicate all that can be meaningfully explicated. Their regressing problem is that some quality of consciousness resists being entirely reduced to the quantifiable.

.

(2) Fans of explicating all in terms of an immeasurable field of CONSCIOUSNESS as "the aboriginal given" confront their own problem: Insofar as consciousness (observer effect) interpermeates every expression of substance, they have no hope of perfectly explicating any non-trivial phenomena under any complete, consistent, and coherent model.

.

(3) Fans of a DANCE of consciousness between the Field and its Particular Perspectives encounter no more problems than either set of monad aboriginalists, neither do they add problems or diminish true science. (True science does not attempt scientifically to explicate "the aboriginal given" or preach that it should not be preached). Fans of the "back and forth" between the holism and its parts do, however, add a belief-basis for inculcating meaningful, self-fulfilling, civilizing, empathy. (It's like my test for when to object in court: Freely object when it costs nothing, there's no down side, and it feels right.)

.

WHO CAN KNOW:  I can hardly sense how even God, if God exists, could "know" or "feel" whether he has free will or moral responsibility. But I suspect he finds solace in functioning as if he does. And therein lies the full faith and trust upon which our very communications and currency are necessarily based.
.
EVOLUTON OF PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, MATERIAL GAIA, AND CONVENTIONAL WISDOM:  Over the unfolding of space-time (gravity), may even what are thought to be the most fundamental of "overarching scientific principles" --- even the speed of light --- slowly or suddenly change and evolve, consistent with homeostatic preservation of an unfolding evolution of even some of the most fundamental of patterns?  Thus, may even those fundamentals that are conventionally thought of as based in "substantively objective and indifferent science" be subject to slow or sudden phase changes or morphologies?  From a standpoint or purpose of trying to apprehend or appreciate the evolution and inter-communication of complex patterns and systems, such speculation often may not now be testable but may, as events unfold, later be confirmed in specific instances.  For such cases, to persist in belief that all is derivative of indifferent physics is to express a kind of FAITH, more so than a known fact of beingness.  Not all that is reasonable to apprehend, appreciate, believe, or pursue --- in respect of will, intentionality, ought-ness, signification, causal transfer, communication, purposefulness, point of view, and context --- need be limited to "science" in order not to be unmeaningful crap.  Thus, to what extent might a process of homeostatic FEEDBACK between the holism and its component patterns and parts be most fundamental to any expression of beingness?
.
HOW DO PATTERNS KEY ON, RECOGNIZE, AND REACT WITH ONE ANOTHER TO CONSERVE INFORMATION:  As in a kind of conical, dervish dance, the only forms and patterns Are The Patterns That Exist — in present manifestation and potential flux — in respect of the field and the cones of consciousness ... as the field and the cones rationally apprehend and emotively appreciate one another. Consciousness, itself, is of a dimension that is beyond the dimensions we relate to quantitatively in space, time, matter, and energy. With respect to our quantitative dimensions, Consciousness is formless, yet its foundational beingness is empathetically intuitive, indeed, self evident. That which we quantitatively and qualitatively believe in and desire tends to synchronize with the beliefs and desires of others, to produce fads, even long lasting civilizations, sometimes even philosophies of spirit that abide surpassing time.  Without some meta means of modeling, what could possibly be idealized or expressed as "fact"?
.
SCIENCE:  It's not that relations between patterns-in-themselves key to recognize and change one another. It's that a dance of consciousness communicates in respect of changing, fluxing forms and patterns.   Ultimately, science, i.e., predictability in unfolding relations among patterns, is not based in mere substance or matter-in-itself, but in the fluxing purposes of inter-communicating perspectives of consciousness, as communicated in the logos of changes among fluxing patterns.  Exchanges of forms, fortunes, fads, and fables change with such trends in purposes and pursuits as are expressed in a dance of consciousness between its field and its particular perspectives.  It makes little sense to speak of meaning, even in potentials of the forms or patterns of substance or science, without implicating art and an artist, at least in potential.  It makes little sense to communicate of art, even in potential, without implicating an artist, at least in potential.  It makes little sense to communicate of apprehensive consciousness of "the is," without implicating appreciative consciousness of "the ought."  Meaningfulness necessarily implicates a dance that entails both the "rational-is" and the "emotive-ought."  There is no science of ought, per se; ultimately, there is only the intuitive, self-fulfilling, empathetic-service of ought.
.
EVOLVING HOMEOSTASIS OF LOGOS:  As purposes and pursuits as expressed in a dance of the field of consciousness and its perspectives change, so also will the forms, patterns, sciences, and laws that serves as logos for their inter-communications of apprehensions and appreciations change ... to unfold successive new homeostases.  Old patterns will then fall out of existential relevance and cease to represent recognitions of one another.  A pattern that comes no longer to be sponsored to represent as a placeholder for intercommunication of consciousness and to be sensed as such becomes no longer a pattern.  Whatever meaning may theretofore have been considered to associate with its locus in space-time or its beingness in matter-energy would then either transmute into a new pattern or dissolve into a BLACK HOLE of the otherwise irrelevant void.
.
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST TO REPLICATE:  Unless one defines, trivially, that which "happens" to survive and flourish as "the mightiest," might is neither what tends to survive or flourish, nor "the fittest."  What is fittest is that which happens to be most appreciated by consciousness as being then and there essential to the living logos for giving expression to a compelling, unfolding story, that can be interpreted from various compelling perspectives.  Only by identifying with life forms as avatars is  consciousness able to sort out that which is good for the story from that which is bad for the story.  Our apprehensions and appreciations are what, in sum, feed back to drive the holism to synchronize, reconcile, and confer favor.  We play a role and responsibility for participating in the unfolding determination and separation of the good from the bad.  That determination fluxes, yet it conserves a general direction over the broad sweep of space-time.  It's not might that makes right.  It's applying empathetic intuition to help express a compelling story that makes right.  For this, actions often speak with more effect than mere cants or beliefs.  Thus, even bacteria play supporting roles.  Thus, evil is not sought, except as necessary to banish, while good is sought, in order to flourish.  Those patterns for avatars that are not appreciated tend over time to fade from relevance, even existence.
.
META CORRELATION:  Substance Avatars are upshots of a dance between each particular perspective of consciousness and the holistic perspective of consciousness. Substance Avatars do not enjoy reality independent in themselves. Each particular perspective is both other than the sum of any substance-based avatar, as well as not necessarily abiding in any one-to-one correlation with any avatar. Meta-consciousness is some “thing” other than the Substance and Information that is recorded with any substance-based avatar or Sum Of such avatar’s Substantive Parts. An avatar’s demise as a substantive organism transmutes the substantive sum of its parts. However, a correlative aspect of its life-cone-of-informational-experience may well be preserved in some respect of the general field of consciousness, subject to being tapped into at meta levels.
.
BUFFERED AND OVERLAPPING HOLONS: Intuitively, different perspectives of meta-consciousness, in some buffered aspect or fashion, must abide separately (in meta-digital feed-back), else there would be no substantive patterns expressed with placeholding-capacity to represent and signify the back and forth of recognition, communication, exchange, or transmutation with one another, as patterns. However, separation in space and/or time of substantive avatars need not be precisely coordinate — in perimeters of flesh or contours of brain — with coordinates of perspectives of meta-consciousness (or mind). Yes, substantive avatars signify that such meta-separateness abides among Perspectives of a dance with the Holism. However, because such meta-perspectives are not substantive, substantive separations of patterns need not correlate with separations in meta-perspectives. Rather, our substantive avatars may be entangled so as to respond coordinately, spookily, even when not proximate in space-time. Even if separate at a meta layer, meta perspectives may be entangled or encompassed within overlapping, higher levels, sets, or classes. Substantive significations simply cannot be applied quantifiably to express how particular, meta perspectives of consciousness may organize or flux. Rather, the meta organization and fluxing is of a quality which, with substance, can only be empathetically intuited, apprehended, and appreciated — not quantifiably measured or statistically constrained. Intuitively, the relationship of particular perspectives with the holism of consciousness is real and qualitative, but not quantifiably coordinate with substantive significations. While substantive interfunctioning is quantifiably measurable, its significative meaningfulness beyond the measurably trivial is qualitative. The consciousness that associates to identify with your body and brain may know it is so associated, but does not reliably know the quality of other perspectives of consciousness. Rather, you know the quality of your acquaintances only intuitively (rationally) and empathetically (emotively). Mind is not limited to substantive patterns; rather, interfunctioning of substantive patterns fluxes in order to communicate qualities of apprehensions and appreciations among perspectives of mind. Apart from such function, substantive patterns have no beingness-in-themselves.

.

FORESIGHT AND EMPATHY MAKE GOOD AND MAKE IT SO: Is it just another definitional triviality to recognize that those avatars (tokens in a game of consciousness raising) that represent and express the best intuition, vision, foresight, and support-enlisting empathy will tend to be those avatars testing out as “most fit” to represent, survive, and replicate? It should hardly seem controversial to suppose that those perspectives that exhibit foresight and wise empathy will likely prevail over those that do not. Yet, is the idea more than merely trivial, in that foresight and empathy are qualities that are more than or beyond mere quantitatively measurable substance. While foresight and empathy equate to a tendency for survival success, they also implicate consciousness. That is, they implicate that those substantive avatars that express the best foresight and empathy in respect of their contexts will be the substantive avatars, forms, and patterns that will tend to prevail within a complex, homeostatic system of tokens marking interactions in a game of communication of interests among perspectives of consciousness. On a sweeping scale, the civilization that prevails will be the civilization that best coordinates the foresight and empathies of its citizens. If we want a civilization that fosters decency, freedom, and dignity, we can self-fulfillingly raise consciousness to make it so. By the quality of our participation, we have power to make decency, freedom, and dignity "the good" -- for our times or for our progeny.

.

THE GOOD: Like every other relationship, that which is definable as "the good" is not definable as a thing-in-itself or a simple principle that is correct for all seasons and situations.  The Good will depend on an intuitive-empathetic dance. It is subject to constant, continuous, participatory evaluation and reevaluation. It may be borne out of a dance or crucible of love and loneliness, wisdom and anomie, courage and uncertainty, and fear and loathing. Yet, a parent or governor who would teach his children or citizens The Good must teach them respect for principles that facilitate decency, dignity, and freedom. However, the principles, guideposts, words, and logos that best illuminate such a path change with the bends, seasons, and context of the path, to necessitate judgment for when or where the principles should be extended, reshaped, or excepted. I know of no quantifiable principle or law that can be taught as "good" for all seasons and situations.   Not every culture will be suited for democratic republicanism under a principled rule of law as opposed to rule of regime.  As an electorate becomes less fit to rule itself, it will more likely need or turn to a despot, who will dramatically alter its laws and fluxing checks and balances.  The poor quality of American public education may have already contrived to such a result.  At best, one can guide a child to play with contexts, in hope the child will learn judgment to extend the play in foresight and empathy, with respect to a general need for Mind to engage in freedom of imagination.  And that seems to be what the dance is mainly about.

.
PROBLEM WITH LINEAR THINKING: It's not possible to freeze a dynamic, complex system in order statically to account for every part of it in an exhaustive and mutually exclusive way, much less to factor every such part with a number for comparative measurement. In part, this is because every complex system is simultaneously in flux, even as it is being measured. Moreover, every partly measurable complex system, in infinite regression, is affected by feedback in its own relation to a more encompassing complex system, which could not be factored without extending the range and definition of the system under analysis. Moreover, even the most encompassing, measurable system imaginable -- the substantive universe -- is qualitatively affected by the non-substantive, non-measurable reality from which it originated and with which its reality is dependent, perhaps even synchronously derivative. Thus, judgment-from-contextual-experience and intuitive-empathy-from-soul are requisite to have much hope of divining the direction and oughts of the non-measurable qualitatives that in fact obviously do affect the unfolding of the-manifest from the-fuzz-of-potentialities.
.
PROBLEM WITH EXCLUSIVELY LINEAR THINKERS: Until they have a model for quantifying factors that relate to an event or thing, the thing does not exist to their regard, except insofar as their capacity to ignore it. They have little faith and therefore essentially no skill or intuitive empathy for the myriad of fluxing factors that entail with any system that has not been reduced to a simplifying model, however necessarily incomplete that model may be. What they can't model or haven't quantified with respect to a system, they deem themselves qualified to banish to the realm of the non-existent.
.
Auguste Comte --- “If it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts can not be observed without the guidance of some theories. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless; we could not retain them: for the most part we could not even perceive them."
.
Problem is, many aspects of relations among parts, sums, and wholes defy, perhaps forever, easy recognition or measurable interpretation. Yet, it is often qualitatively obvious that such events and things do exist within the realm of the-unfolding-expressed. Having a linear thinker advise us that such-and-such ought not be there, when it quite obviously is, tends to be of not much help when, despite information that is mainly or only qualitative, choices still must be made. In essence, Linear Devotees wish to reduce every person's Dignity to a number, so that no one can abide as someone to be reckoned with, as opposed to being reduced to a calculation or switched to occupy a number.
.
DANGER in entrusting power to such persons is this: Having little regard for human dignity, they are not in the least shy to ignore qualitative human concerns in order to hammer quantitative facts to fit theories. In other words, their higher guide consists in their self interests and computational modeling. When the only higher morality is reduced to some silly formula, such as the greatest good for the greatest number, or, from each according to his ability and to each according to his need, then all talk of human dignity and the qualitative is committed to the flames of metaphysics. Oddly enough, this kind of anti-religion transmogrifies into its own religion: self made hell on earth. Libertineism and Libertarianism often have little to do with liberty, but much to do with soul enslavement.
.

MUSING WITH MY MUSE

LOGOS OF GOD: Matter is the chalk. Energy moves the chalk. Space-Time is the chalkboard. In one aspect, Meta-Protoplasm is the schoolhouse, in another, it is the teacher, or Holistic Muse.  The teacher responds in a dance with my calls, capacities, confusions, apprehensions, and appreciations.  The Final Cause for each cone that limits each lesson to each student is the quality of the fuzzy, unfolding relationship and instruction between the Muse and the student.
.
MUSING WITH MY MUSE: To my intuition, there abides beyond present measure an unfolding, synchronized, two-step Dance between the 4-D (space, time, matter, energy) Perspective of the Particular and a 5-D (meta, space, time, matter, energy) aspect of the Holism. I cannot sense my Muse in present 3-D space, because I have no power accurately to reduce its existentiality to a mere instant in Present time. I can, however, intuit and empathize with my muse over time, through my sense of Memory, which is an attribute of Consciousness. The Quality of relationship between myself and my muse depends on our mutual purposes, conical contexts, and points of view. The Source tends to become or dance to what its parts believe and appreciate, and vice versa. As my consciousness calls forth to find and relate to my muse, my muse is called forth! A fundamental aspect of consciousness requires a Conserving relationship between its particulars and its Field. My perspective would not otherwise have Coordinated or been inspired to call forth the relationship. It’s not that all the fantasies I can imagine are real; it’s that all the forms and ideas I can possibly entertain require a particle-field converting-Mirror in order to apprehend and make manifest their potentiality. Ideas require recordation, reconsideration, and eventual re-communication. My muse is the “intuited 5-D face” the holism presents to me. The holism is no less meta-real merely because it is called forth to present itself to different qualities of Faces and answers among different seekers and perspectives. In 5-D, beyond the senses of our present, the face for my muse may present differently to different personalities, but always abides as an avatar for the Same Source, i.e., the Holism. My will does not "rule" it; its will does not "rule" me. My apprehensions are appreciated by it; its appreciations respond to my apprehensions --- back and forth. I sense my will functioning within a Cone of Potential experience, wherein my will is availed to exercise its apprehensions within quantitatively fuzzy parameters and degrees of Freedom, while Its will feeds back, to Guide my apprehensions, as well as to Synchronize my cone of potentiality.  Thus, my cone is buffered so as not to be allowed to violate any other perspective’s cone of potentiality or any other unfolding direction of existential expansion. The Strength of one’s reasoned belief, joy, and service adds worthwhile Meaning to one’s cone of potential experience --- perhaps even beyond. One’s Receptivity to such strength, not any innate superiority or merit in one’s mere body or brain, marks one’s attributes of apprehension as having been blessed with the interest and involvement of meta-guidance. In just such a way, the story of Jesus is everywhere, everlasting, meta-real --- not confined or swept under any small dust bin of history.

.

NOMINALISM VERSUS CONCEPTUALISM VERSUS SIMPLISTIC REALISM: I conceive that the real EXISTENTIAL REALM of abstract forms or universals for apprehending categorization among classes is in the meta imagination and memory of a “meta-protoplasm,” the flux and dance of which, in respect of itself as a holism versus itself as a sum of parts or perspectives, produces both the quantitative as well as the qualitative phenomena that unfold with apprehensive and appreciative will, in a synchronous, two-step dance between the will that is the expression of the holism and the will that is expressed as cones of particular, potential, experiential, sensation and interpretation.
.
EXISTENTIALISM OF PATTERNS:  As in a kind of conical, dervish dance, the only forms and patterns are the patterns that exist — in present manifestation and potential flux — in respect of the Field and the Cones of Consciousness, as the field and the cones rationally apprehend and emotively appreciate one another. Consciousness, itself, is of a dimension that is beyond the dimensions we relate to quantitatively in space, time, matter, and energy. With respect to our quantitative dimensions, consciousness is formless, yet its foundational beingness is empathetically intuitive, indeed, self evident. That which we quantitatively and qualitatively believe in and desire tends to synchronize with the beliefs and desires of others, to produce fads, even long lasting civilizations, sometimes even philosophies of spirit that abide surpassing time. Conscious Beingness unfolds in respect of a fundamental, Trivalent Relationship: Meta-Protoplasm, Holistic Perspective, and Particular Perspective. Analogize to Holy Ghost, Father, and Son. The self-evident, walking-contradiction, trivalent-existentialism that we experience every second of every day: Meta-Substance, Expression, Interpretation.
.
CONICAL METAPHOR:  A flat, square paper can be folded to make a Cone.  By my Myth or Metaphor, my Potential experience is suggested by extending the cone.  My past experience and present manifest are already attached to the Flat paper of the cone, as Information recorded on it.  My 5-D muse interfunctions to guide how my future will become manifest and attached to the flatness of the paper wall of the cone.  The metaphor is mainly intended only to illustrate a buffered range for degrees of freedom to be expressed through the interfunctioning of my perspective of consciousness with my 5-D muse.
.
ENLIGHTENMENT:  Enlightenment must be sought, not forced.  Enlightenment invites seekers and givers, not forcers and takers.  Forcers and takers spread darkness, not light.  When enlightenment lays open its borders and invites forcers and takers, it invites its own extinguishment.  A society lays itself open when it fails to defend its territorial borders and when it freely allows its trade to be usurped by foreigners.  Force must be applied to defend enlightenment from takers.  Force should not be applied to force enlightenment upon takers.
.
Perspectives of consciousness, when they become organized to express awareness of self, tend to apprehend that the cosmos are in a relationship with them, even responsive to them. They may project to assume interest in the cosmos in being responsive to their interests and pursuits. Human beings may project interests in that which would typically interest human beings. Thinkers may project more generally, not taking the cosmos as preferring any particular form of being, while yet being interested in feedback from perspectives of consciousness generally. Thinkers may equate what they desire individually with what the cosmos desires, and therefore with what all should desire, objectively. This propensity may consort more with the ring of truth or reason if approached in respect of desires that are in common with consciousness, generally. Generally, such would seem to consist in the innate need to communicate, to record and pass on experiences, to receive recognition for pursuits, and to engage in empathetic pursuits of shared interests. That entails apprehension for what the cosmos would avail, were most fellows to share such philosophy. This does not pertain to anything that can ever be “known” in the sense of scientific authentication. Rather, the only source of authentication is in the conscious will’s knowing itself. Citizens of the Field “vote” (appreciate) their interests and empathies. As they vote for harmonic accord, so also may they more likely enjoy it. As they vote the brute competition among wants, so also may they more likely achieve the life that entails. How citizens of the field “vote” affects what the field avails and becomes. The unfolding proceeds in digital-like, two-step feedback between the parts and the whole. The measurable interactions of energies of physics are the byproduct, or logos for the feedback of communication between formal organizations and patterns of particles and the availing field.

 .

 

The Open Lamp

Why is income-inequality on unsustainable upward acceleration? Is it because the highest paid are so much more worthy and industrious, or does greater access to cronyism have much to do with it? How can consequences of cronysim be so great for investment in republican democracy, when it's obvious cronyism has gone international, leading to cannibalization of American industry and labor? Isn't it obvious both political parties are puppets for crony-investors for establishing ever more inequality? Democrat liars buy votes of future serfs with cheap promises, while shoveling billions out back doors to cronies. Republican liars bed down with despotic thugs, and exert influence in the same institutions of persuasion to tell us how necessary 'tis to have free trade with despots. Both parties talk about enforcing borders, improving industrial base, and increasing jobs. Notwithstanding talk, both serve the indenturing of Americans, to turn us into cheap, easily-ruled, third-world labor. One wants open (borderless) society; the other wants worldwide (borderless) marketplace. Both want elites to rule; neither wants to heed a middle class. One considers itself entitled to confiscate America's resources to allow party elites to control worldwide dispersals. The other considers the potential of America's resources its exclusive trust for further enriching worldwide investor-cronies. Hedge artists fund both sets of liars and own all significant institutions of persuasion to keep the charade going. How can sane people believe we have effective representative democracy, when nearly all institutions of persuasion are aligned in favor of the charade that is the status quo: an unholy alliance for reducing and cannibalizing the middle class? BLT makes an Orwellian virtue out of disdaining middle class values! Buffet promotes a progressive income tax only to evade consideration of a wealth tax. Heck, he evades the existing tax rates! Could it be any more obvious that poverty pimps run the Democrat party as a Commie front and that an international establishment of raiders hedges and runs both parties as Crony fronts? How is this "open-society-worldwide-marketplace-NWO" supposed to preserve human freedom and dignity ... anywhere? Is anyone in politics holding up Diogenes' lamp?

New Jerusalem

.
Obama's "experience" is the world's tired experience of the envious and unproductive barbarian. It's based on having been brainwashed to conflate minority-promoting human-secularism (community agitation) with spiritual respect for higher values. By definition, spiritual respect for higher values entails the respect one gives based on one's own mental processes, not based on elite-governors-know-best processes. Jesus did not say force the children to come. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Obama is the barbarian finely dressed in false prophecy, who says he will bring transparency, who then cynically agitates, pushes, and "leads from behind" the scenes, lies about his intentions, and falsely packages his poisons. Were his words reliably true to his agenda, what child would go to him? The Left's and Obama's idea of "progress" is for underlings to shut up and do as Obama says, if they know what's good for them. The experienced, corrupt, and unwise idea of political "progressives" has nothing to do with marketing decent respect for each person's individual dignity. The Left's brains are totally immersed in forcing democratic nations to fall under know-it-all despotism. They are resigned that there is no higher progress than to organize the global community into a hierarchy wherein elites will market everyone else to their places, wherein the first ones now will there be last, the useful idiots and the herd will be thinned, and Gaia will greenly grin. The Plan seems well underway in the middle east. So the Left does have a marketing plan: It's called gangster cannibalism. The Romans called it barbarism. Corrupt, ignorant, and easily bribed constituents will ride above producing little doggies, whose misfortune is none of the Left's. Such hollowing of humanity is the "New Feed Lot Plan," and the zombie brains of the Left are deeply soaked and experienced in it. Get along little peasants, for you know Leftland will be your new home. Problem is, once Obama's followers have sacked civilization, how will they feed themselves thereafter?

Mystery Of Conceptualizations Regarding Conciousness

Mystery Of Conception Regarding Conciousness
.
ENIGMA OF CONSCIOUS BEINGNESS:  One may choose to conceptualize Consciousness in at least three different ways:
.
(1) Consciousness may be conceptualized as being only an emergent or epiphenomenal property, derivative of relations among superior substances or physicalities. (PROBLEM:  If an aboriginal, essential thing is necessary to explicate any derivative, then the aboriginal thing would itself need a superior to explicate its own derivation, and so on, in infinite regression.  Thus, the notion of a pure thing-in-itself fundament, such as GodDidIt or SubstanceDidIt or GravityDidIt or Space-TimeDidIt, would have little explanatory power, except in myth contrived to arbitrary or selfish goals.  However, what I am looking for is a myth or model that can support morally consistent, principled goals.  Whatever the nature or character of the aboriginal superior essence, it must be granted a metaphysical power or property for violating our inferior logic in the rule of non-contradiction.  That is, IT must have power as a "changeless changer.")
.
(2) Consciousness may be conceptualized as an aspect, property, protoplsamic, or meta-substance that is independent-in-itself of all other reality, but upon which all other reality is dependent or derivative --- except that it cannot exist or manifest apart from its being both split and connected; that is, split between perspectives of:  a Holism, versus Particulars-that-Sum-to-Mirror-the-holism, ... albeit, in a Cracked or not perfectly Symmetric way, with neither perspective, either the holistic or the particular, enjoying capacity to experience such consciousness except in respect of a feedback dance or relation with the other.  (This would recognize that Consciousness has both a changeless, aboriginal aspect, as well as a relational, changing aspect, i.e., a feedback relationship between itself as Holism versus itself as Particular perspectives in sum.  It also marks a stance that A DANCE OF EMPATHY between and among the Holism and its Particular perspectives is an essential aspect not just for morality, but for the unfolding of our entire universe.  As The Holon, it abides as the ETERNALLY EMERGENT EDITING ESSENCE.)
.
(3) Consciousness may be conceptualized as an aspect, property, or meta-substance that is independent-in-itself of all other reality, but upon which all other reality is dependent or derivative. (PROBLEM:  What is best conceptualized as superior versus emergent seems to depend rather arbitrarily on one's point of view, frame of reference, and purpose.  Moreover, to postulate an inferior emergence is to imply a superior essence.  However, whatever the implied superior essence, its explication would encounter the same problem of infinite regression, as mentioned in (1) above.)
.
 Among choices for approaching the fundamental mystery of a changeless-changer, to my intuition, Consciousness, for most consistent qualitative (moral) and quantitative (scientific) applications, is best conceptualized or qualified under the second choice of concept, as listed above.
.
AVOID IMMODEST GOALS:  In any event, I do not seek to demystify the fundamental mystery.  Nor to set forth a mathematical proof of an intricate tautology. Nor to imagine that mere math could perfectly prove other than a tautological triviality. Nor to render uncontradictory a walking contradiction or a changeless changer.  Nor to patch up any crack in the universe's cracked symmetry. Nor to explicate a second or meta tier of fundaments of meta-time, meta-space, meta-energy, and meta-matter.  Nor do I postulate that God abides "IN" the vast appearance of our here and now.  Rather, I model that the apparent here and now is secondary to a mysterious God-Dance, aka dance of meta-substance, aka dance of meta-Consciousness with particular here and now cones of expressions of consciousness.
.
MODEST GOALS:  I seek "simply" to fathom the nature and character of the limits of that which I can apprehend. I do not expect to avail a complete model of Reality that is entirely free of metaphysical or qualitative terminology, nor a model that is entirely reducible to quantitative formulation, physical falsification, or empirical verification.
.
PRACTICAL MORES AND WISDOM:  Rather, "all" I seek is to judge that which is:  (1) in any way Knowable, (2) practically or metaphorically Useful, or (3) morally Guiding --- and to distinguish it from that which is entirely (1) not Knowable, (2) not Useful, or (2) not morally Guiding. Since I cannot entirely escape the fundamental mystery of metaphysics, I wish to devise a myth and terminology in respect of which I can reasonably hope to communicate, with maximum consistency and coherence. I do not need or expect my model to displace the fundamental mystery nor to be perfect-in-itself. Rather, so far as possible,  I wish simply to confine my model's ambiguities and insensibilities to a consistent conceptualization and terminology. So long as my model reasonably accomplishes that, I care little whether my model in itself  maps Truth or Myth. I do not believe mere mortals can ever explicate a scientific model for predicting or controlling the universe-in-itself that we share, nor that we can ever predict, control, or reconcile the holistic property of the consciousness that presents or re-presents our universe, nor that we can derive moral "ought" from mortally substantive "is." However, I do believe we can qualitatively appreciate and communicate about such Holism in empathetic, respectful, and morally practical terms.

.

LIMITS OF MATH AND LOGIC:  Thus, I accept that there abides a metaphysical "walking-contradiction." It is not especially important to me whether it be called God, Universe, Meta-Cosmos, Aether, Cosmological Constant, Maya, Illusion, Delusion, Meta-Substance, or Consciousness. However, for sake of consistency in reference, I prefer to call it Consciousness. On holistic level, I can hardly hope to fathom what may be the nature or character of such consciousness. I cannot prove or know whether IT is self aware, purposeful, emotionally interactive and empathetic and apprehensive with perspectives of itself, mindful of memories, dependent for memories upon information re-presented up to the present, straddling among and reconciling various cones of potential versus actual experiential unfolding, imaginatively insightful, best conceptualized (depending on point of view, context, and purpose) as being either (1) byproduct or (2) essence of a dance between a meta-field and its meta-particulates (the essential Appreciator or the emergent quality of being Appreciated), or a blank slate. I tend to hope, believe, think, and intuit that IT is all of the above.  For morally guiding purposes, my FAITH is that IT abides, astonishingly, as an Eternally-Emergent-Emerging-Essence.  A veritable noun-verb; the Word made Flesh.

.

META-PROTOPLASM:  I tend to think that our bodies of substance are much like avatars for consciousness, analogical to The Matrix. The difference is this:   In The Matrix, there was thought to abide a real earth, of which The Matrix was only a representation. In my conceptualization, there is no real earth-in-itself. Rather, the ONLY EXISTENT-IN-ITSELF is consciousness, which has mysterious capacity or property for taking on innumerable different perspectives of itself. That capacity or property is the only real basis-in-itself for substance.  Consciousness is the meta-territory.  Math only avails the logos for it to clothe its meta-substance or aboriginal protoplasm with communicable signification and feedback, even though the "fact" of the feedback itself is constrained to intuition and empathy.  The substances-that-mortals measure and interact with, both qualitatively and quantitatively, consist of mathematically confined representations of the substance-of-consciousness. The substances we measure are not in themselves real, although they mathematically-signify and quantitatively-mark presentations to us of Real-and-measurable-Experiences-of-the-Imaginings-of-Consciousness, stimulated in respect of a dance between its holistic perspective and its particular perspectives.

.

BEGINNING MYTH: Under my myth, how then did our individual and particular perspectives of consciousness come to be separate and limited away from the consciousness of the holism? Well, under my MYTH: The holistic consciousness of the Holism fluxed and cracked, and now tries to re-shape itself by coordinating, representing, signing, interpreting, intuiting, and appreciating itself from innumerable perspectives. The Holism conserves itself, yet continuously fluxes and discretely vibrates and dances, changeless and changing, continuously and discretely, depending on locus of perspective, context, and purpose. It abides as an indivisible, reconciling, holistic conservation, yet also a sum of discrete apprehensions. It is eternally finite in conservational quality, yet infinite in potential for representing, communicating, and apprehending quantitative discretes. The Holism cannot be known for what it is, beyond intuiting that it is, but it can be empathetically appreciated via various myths or models, whereby it can, depending on purpose perspective and context, be reasonably modeled either as a continuous WHOLE or as a SUM OF DISCRETE PARTS, but not simultaneously as a whole-sum, nor as a field-particle. Thus --- depending on perspective, context, and purpose --- space, time, matter, and energy may be modeled for some practical purposes as being represented by Discretes, and they may be modeled for other practical purposes as being cone-like-fields, such as Fields within a perspective’s cone of actual versus potential experience, consisting of actual versus potential cones and webs of space-time, stored energy, and Perspectivistic Beingness. Thus --- depending on perspective, context, and purpose --- we can turn the substantive aspects of our universe and its components to practical purposes, sometimes by considering them as Countable Discretes, sometimes as Continuous Degrees. But we cannot coherently evaluate them under any model that is both exhaustive (complete) and mutually exclusive (consistently discrete), nor under any theory of sets of changeless-changers.

.

ROLE OF CONSCIOUS PERSPECTIVE AND FREE WILL:  Well then, how is it that Space could consist in Discretes for some purposes, and still be experienced by every perspective of consciousness as being Continuous? Same for Time? Answer: Even when space or time is represented or experienced as discrete, there would be an ENTANGLED OVERLAP, such that no perspective is allowed to experience any separation of a discrete unit of space without simultaneously experiencing an entangling and overlapping unit of time. Thus, each perspective will experience and interpret both time and space as being continuous, even when and where aspects are, for some purposes, discrete. That is, every representation of a unit of space or a unit of time is entangled with some perspective’s cone of potential and actual experience, sensation, memory, interpretation, and appreciation. What does the entangling?  Consciousness, functioning via its dance of feedback among cones of its experiential unfolding.  The Same with matter and energy ... and stored energy. In that entangled and overlapping way, we experience each instant of the present as being both a discrete instant as well as an instant that is continuously connected with all we have previously experienced. Thus, space-time and matter-energy are continuous, while individually, space, time, matter, and energy are severable into discretely fluxing quanta. We may invent "standard models" for reconciling any three* of such four fundaments of substance to a particular context, but never all four* at once. The only reconciler of all four (space, time, matter, and energy) at once would be the changeless-changer, the qualitative-quantifier, the holistic-consciousness, aka, God. The fuzz that divides our respective cones of potential experience is what avails the necessary curtain for the Reconciler to work behind the scenes. Without that curtain, there would be no Digital Two-Step Dance of Feedback in apprehensions and Empathies between the perspective of the Holism and the perspective of each of its Parts.  Nor would there be degrees of freedom among and between the various parts.
.
CONSERVATION OF QUANTIFIABLES:  *E = MC2d shows a quantifiable relationship between Energy, mass (related to Matter), and speed (distance moved in Space in a unit of Time).  However, to put all four fundaments (Energy, Matter, Space, Time) on one side of the equation would not allow us to put anything quantifiable on the other.  We may put God (or Consciousness) there, as in G(C) = some relationship between E,M,S,T.  However, that would be to try to define or measure or quantify a Holism.  And qualitative aspects emerge or show forth in respect of the Holism, which constitute more than just the Sum of the Holism's quantifiable Parts.
.

LIMITS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS:  An unlocked car with its key in it carries a different quality and quantity of potential than a locked car with its key in it. By definition, every number or dimension that is meant to count or convey information about any other thing or idea implicates and is meant to relate to more than just itself. Zero, one, Pi, g, relative speed of light, infinity, eternity, null, void, pregnancy, idea, cell, germ, dna, organism, murmurant, tree ring, northern lights, pattern, ripple, machine, door, mirror, reflection, photograph, map, music note, alphabet, poem, book, classroom, syllogism, hypothesis, delusion, college, society, republic, culture, moral code, rush of insight, spur of wonder, grip of fear, sense of comfort, feeling of being watched over, relationship, higher essence, habitat, galaxy, cosmos, holon, walking contradiction.  Simply summing apparent or imagined Discretes will not Close limits for how their overlapping connections may show forth Infinite connecting continuosities and sequences in space-time or meta-space-time.  While our cosmos-and-meta-cosmos is Finite in how it respects conservation of quantifiables, it is Unbounded in how it avails fluxing ranges of mixtures, qualities, and perceptions.  Every whole expresses at least one relationship that abides beyond the relationships that exist among its parts.

.

QUESTION: Within a perspective’s cone-of-potential-and-actual-experience of the qualitative and the quantitative, how does such perspective qualify to exert any proximate CAUSAL or directing "free will" or influence? If a mere perspective of consciousness can do nothing more than apprehend and appreciate, then how does mere consciousness or WILL entangle with or touch substance, in order proximately to cause substance to move or respond?   ANSWER:  How substance unfolds, collapses, and is interpreted to move or to influence our bodies, brains, synapses, and minds is not ruled entirely by quantifiable laws of physical conservation. It is also affected by feedback fluxes in qualities of observation, apprehension, appreciation, focus, purpose, empathy, and interpretation. However, the way such feedback works fluxes beyond models of quantification. How we imagine, image, mirror, pray, wish, represent, tinker, communicate, and hope affects that which unfolds and signs to our quantifiable measure. However, our cones of Perspectivistic Beingness overlap in how they are reconciled with those of others, as well as with the Holism. Thus, God responds in ways that are beyond the measure of our prayers, not necessarily in the way we might think we merited or wished. Or, God’s purposes for preserving ranges and degrees for expression of freedom and dignity may not necessarily give us more pleasure than pain. For that matter, God may not be without pain. Perhaps, in grace, what is salvaged from a life’s perspectives and apprehensions will be the good wheat, separated from the discarded or set-aside chaff.

.

RECONCILING QUANTITATIVE BASED REASON AND QUALITATIVE BASED INTUITION: Each perspective of consciousness may be conceptualized as having one property in InfinityAndEternity --- outside time and space and matter and energy --- but another property entangled with or connected to the HereAndNow. As space-time and matter-energy "flux through each perspective of consciousness," such perspective's apprehensions and appreciations will meta-factor how such fluxes are counted, combined, represented, and conveyed. It may be that "space-time-matter-energy" are summed and reconciled in the conserving and meta-math of the Holism, via some property that avails such higher math and trivalent logic to present to us, and to be experienced by us, as measurable substance, such substance thereby being the logos that is fed back to us during our participation in our dance with the Holism. In any event, there is no physical mechanism that connects pure consciousness with pushes of here and now substance. No mortal ghost can push pennies up a door, without the proximate or entangled interfunction of a measurable physical substance or body.

.
AVAILING A LANGUAGE BY WHICH TO DISCUSS HOW "OUGHT" MAY RELATE TO, BUT NOT BE DERIVED FROM, "IS":  Thus goes the nub of my model or myth. It is not intended to be a scientifically testable theory.  It is only intended to be consistent with moral intuition while not being inconsistent with useful domains for science.  It is intended to avail a consistent terminology for communicating about BOTH science and morality. It is not meant as cover or pretense for advocating for religious interference that would support the alteration of any practical technology or scientific formulation.

************

.

LOGIC:  We dance with definitions of logic, circularly yet expandingly, feeding back to logics of definition.  Logics of defintion indicate the qualities that emerge from a relationship cannot be the essence of the actual things that establish the relationship.  Definitions of logic indicate that no thing that establishes a relationship can relate to us, by itself, without us.  Immediately contemporaneous with assuming a fundamental thing that defines us, we run up against the paradox that it could not be directly sensed by us as a fundamental thing in itself.

. 

DIRECT EXPERIENCE:  Direct, conscious experience, beyond logic, indicates that we are in a dance with a paradoxical-existent, a changeless-changer, with which our consciousness is more than Emergent, but an actualizing Part-icipant.  But what is the nature or character of the Agent of Will with which we Dance, which pre-defines or contemporaneously and coterminously participates with the reconciling and defining of all apparent interactions of bodies within all particular cones of experience and from among all potentials availed for giving designs to definitions?  How much is contemporaneously decided consequent to immediate and proximate feedback from our individual apprehensions of will?  How much is pre-decided or randomly pre-decided, to establish a scientifically based ground of being, or framework for apprehending degrees of freedom, with which we dance and participate by giving our immediate and proximate feedback?  Whatever the Agent, it's a one of a kind, meta-protoplasmic, walking contradiction.
.
KNOW IT ALLS:  It seems absurd, laughable, puny, and, I believe, demented, for an atheist or materialist to presume:  to "know" that there is no holistic or reconciling Consciousness; to "know" that humanity would be better off were we to discard all reverence for the metaphysics of the changeless-changer; to "know" that science or logic can in themselves adequately inspire, inculcate, and support moral codes of decency and civilizing behavior, to "know" that those who believe they intuit guidance from a higher reconciling source are misguided and likely dangerous; to "know" that reverence for a higher source conveys no advantage over logic or science when it comes to inculcating decent mores; to "know" that there is no enduring meaningfulness to our unfolding experience in the here and now; and to "know" that there is no likely participation for our perspectives in the hereafter.  Likewise, it seems absurd and laughable for a sacred-book-literalistic-fundamentalist to presume to "know" that privy priests should speak authoritatively from any such book (whether titled Old Testament, New Testament, or Origin of Species) in order to give clear and perfect guidance for all occasions, such that no mere layman should exercise his intellect, experience, interests, or empathy to receive and interpret God's guidance beyond any such book or authority and rather in relation to his own perspective, context, and spiritually felt purposefulness.  Better is that we come to reason together, as free and dignified agents of consciousness, in spiritual good faith, empathetic good will, and reverent humility, in respect of our shared perspectives and contexts.  In that way, we have better chances for pursuing goodness against the unprincipled forces and despotism of narrow dogmatism and sociopathic self interest.  After all, lunacy, connivery, and sociopathy are as easily adopted by true believers as by atheists, materialists, and anarchists.
.
*********
.
PROBLEM OF IMPERFECTION AND EVIL:  It may be that God does not preciesly inhabit us, yet somehow represents and maps every aspect of us. It may be that God does not burden holistic consciousness with immediate apprehension of every past emotion, event, or personality, yet somehow coordinates and carries forward libraries of information, stored to represent all ... at various fluxing layers and levels of preference. I do not know, but I can intuit and believe. It may be that God does not "progress," except in respect of a self-evident purpose, in like respect of which we drive our intuitions and empathies: to devise signs and arts to unfold, enhance, communicate, and feed back wonder, love, joy, and comfort ... to God and among ourselves. It may be that anomie, evil, pain, tragedy, and defeat are somehow necessary, even if stored at lower levels, in order for there to abide awe, good, pleasure, comedy, and triumph.
.
PROGRESS:  We cannot know, but can intuit and hope, that consciousness shares a desire or purpose to progress.  Would such progress be material based, to fathom and learn the possibilities and limits that can be availed out of the meta-protoplasm of consciousness?  Seems too stretchy.  Would progress be based in this entropic cycle of universe?  Seems contrary to direction of substantive entropy.  Would progress consist in quality of spiritual dance or relation between consciousness as holistic versus particularistic perspective?  Seems intuitively, empathetically likely.  May such progress eventually transcend limits of any substantive logos of universe, leading to a purely spiritual cosmos?  That exceeds my mortal, quantitative-habituated logic.  I doubt I can know that in any present time and place.  Regardless, Progress of a sort does seem likely, beyond purely cyclic notions under eastern philosophies.  That is, Progress seems likely insofar as God leads, and we part-icipate to receive, follow, and apprehend signs and arts with which to unfold, enhance, communicate, and feed back wonder, love, joy, and comfort ... to God and among ourselves.  This is NOT the sort of progress that secular politicians (liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists) tend to think of.  Indeed, the sort of progress they tend to think of is meant to set aside and replace the spiritual progress described above.  Instead, Political Progressives tend to confuse and conflate political progress with governmental redistributions that are forced.  They siphon power to selfish operatives and groups by paying cronies and bribing constituents.  Thus, their elites leverage against producers in order to pay off henchmen, while lying through corrupted media and academia that such constitutes "progress" or is meant to more fairly effect a forced redistribution of "charity."  That is, they admire Reinhold Niebuhr before he matured and became wiser.
.
*********
.
WHOLE AND PARTS:  Consider chemistry, molecular interactions, fractals, pre-set and unfolding patterns that recognize, attract, and repel one another as apparently holistic patterns. Can such patterns be quantitatively organized, to avail consciousness to become expressed from them as a mere Emergent, that can be turned on and off or pre-programmed ... merely by flicking computer switches? Perhaps every local expression of consciousness-itself necessarily entails contemporaneous and coterminous involvement with The Holon, such that it is only with regard to an expression's involvement as-and-with Consciousness that any sub-whole may intelligently be said, quantitatively or qualitatively, to constitute more than the sum of its parts.
.
**********
.
LOGIC OF SETS:  There abides a STATIC-DYNAMIC problem with bivalent logic as applied to sets and classes.  One analyzes a class by trying to differentiate how it is exclusive from others and by then analyzing its components in respect of how they themselves may be divided into such MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE parts as would EXHAUST the class.  One may perform such analysis with a class that is static in aspect or SPACE, indifferent of TIME, or even SPACE-TIME.  For example, one may consider numbers to constitute a class, comprised of a subset of absolute prime numbers, absolute non-prime numbers, and ZERO.  Or one may consider numbers to constitute a class, comprised of real numbers, imaginary numbers, and zero.  A problem is to devise a class and description of mutually exclusive subsets that would exhaust the class.  (Example:  Is zero only "really" a number depending on perspective, context, and purpose?)  When this cannot be done, the problem becomes how to clearly distinguish the spheres, lines, and points of OVERLAP, and to draw distinctions and inferences in a way that will not flux merely upon a change of relative purpose of consideration or position of perspective.  There is also a problem of how descriptions ---  of spheres, lines, points, instants, connections, and sequences by which aspects that differentiate subsets of things --- may flux as they are applied to describe things that change over time.  Then there is the problem of how applications may flux as things appear to follow continuous tracks versus quantum leaps versus ENTANGLED pairs in space-time.  As numbers and geometrical and flux-field representations are applied to try to quantify and analyze properties or THINGS that flux in space, time, and space-time, it becomes tricky, perhaps hopeless, to try to derive, classify, map, or explicate implications that can or will remain TRUE for all applications.  Another problem:  Hope to employ set-logic to derive rules for reconciling and regulating all relationships among subsets within a class always runs up against a walking contradiction (or existential paradox):  How could every sub-thing possibly be classified, except under a single unifying and reconciling class?  Yet, since a class by definition entails that it itself is a member of a higher and more regressively inclusive class, then how could any reconciling class-of-one ever be consistently conceptualized as a class?  Moreover: How can a class, in or as itself, relate or be related in order predictably to influence its components?
.
OF ATTEMPTS TO FREEZE THE UNIVERSE IN ORDER TO MAKE STATIC CLASSIFICATIONS OF WALKING CONTRADICTIONS: Compare the Changeless-Changer and the Field-Wave-Particle-Entanglement-Converter. Compare a photon and its wave of electromagnetic radiation. A particle may express properties — of mass, spin, direction, or charge. A wave may express different properties — of intensity, amplitude, wavelength, or frequency. When the particle properties are present, the wave properties may be absent in relevance, and vice versa. Or the particle or wave may come within the influence of another, to convert the nature or properties of both. Neither the particle nor the wave (nor the field, medium, or observer) stands still in any static space-time to allow its properties, direction, locus, or speed to be precisely summed, so as to avail complete identification to the exclusion of all else. Insofar as a particle and a wave may interconvert or even combine to transition to a different form of property or wave, one cannot very well obtain a complete picture or description of a “thing” merely by summing its properties as if it were statically limited to only one thing (or to only one locus in space-time or in imaginary or conscious space-time). The thing may be conceptualized as of one class, and its properties may be imagined or practically measured to abide as sub-sets or attributes of that classification. However, except by artifice of definitional triviality, merely to sum the present subsets of properties of a thing would not be to describe the limits of the “thing” as a whole. To postulate or describe a thing’s properties while it functions as a kind of particle would not be to provide a complete description for where, when, or whether the thing may alternate or convert in its form, to avail expression as a wave or as a field. To try to measure or yoke to application a “thing” to both its properties as a particle and its properties as a wave, at the same time and place, simply cannot be done. Except perhaps in a realm of the imaginary, an identity cannot simultaneously express itself in a self canceling way at the same time and place. Yes, we can obtain wondrous results by tinkering with relative-things, but we cannot adduce a non-ambiguous, non-paradoxical description of any essential thing-in-itself. Rather, for every involvement of consciousness with a class, the whole of the class will be experienced to entail an endlessly regressive aspect, the whole of which will always constitute more than can be described merely by summing the supposed components that comprise it. Such attempts by a particular perspective of consciousness to make a perfect analysis of any aspect of the Holism can be entertaining and may often even yield astonishing and technical applications. However, for availing a Theory-Of-Everything, such attempts are beset by a fundamental obstacle in logic: The particular perspective is trying to subtract its subjective self in order to examine the objective remainder of the universe. However, the remainder cannot be entirely objective, because a subjective perspective, in some non-quantifiable way, has simultaneously been put to the side or subtracted from the focus, at the very instant the particular, subjective part tries to make an analysis of the whole. Among mortals, except in sophistry, not even a magician can precisely and quantifiably subtract a subjectivism from an objectivism ... any more than he can meaningfully divide by zero.
.
GARDEN:  In any event, the flux and Dance between the Holism and its Particular Perspectives entails quantifiable changes within a relationship that is quantifiably CONSERVATIONAL.  Change does not occur without some relations and patterns being overriden or devoured or dying out in respect of the temporal-spatial nourishment and promotion of others.  Aspects of love, loyalty, cooperation, joy, competition, antagonism, hate, and despair are necessarily entailed.  As one promotes one's own well being above all that may be intuited of the Holism, one would be led to try to find a way to avoid or weaken the influence of the Holism.  That is, one would be inclined to invent or worship pagan gods, demons, or even morally empty theories-of-everything ... to the vain exclusion of empathetic receptivity to a dance with God.  EXCEPT IN ENLIGHTENED, RESPECTFUL, AND EMPATHETIC MANAGEMENT OVER DISTRIBUTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE VERSUS IGNORANCE (the enlightened ignorance of a child?), how can "PROGRESS" IN THE COMMON GARDEN possibly be hoped for or made, to the more constant and continuous wonder, love, comfort, and joy to be experienced from all perspectives?
.
CONSERVATION OF SINGULARITY OF META-PROTOPLASM:  It appears that all of quantifiable space, time, matter, and energy expanded out of, or in respect of, a single, unified, common, entangled point, a Singularity.  Every unit of that expanding Singularity is constrained to conserve a quantifying and unifying principle in respect of its origination.  All experience of quantifiables is reconciled to this singular, changeless-changing, Meta-Protoplasm.  As a whole, it is changeless in conserving the expression of quantities by or with its parts.  As a sum or parts, it is constantly changing in how the parts are fluxed and expressed.  How is this done?  We cannot understand that "how" in respect of our logic, math, dimensions, perceptions, and experiences, because all such particulars are faces and expressions of the whole, but not the whole-in-itself.  We don't directly measure or perceive the meta-protoplasm.  We only intuit, sense, and interpret such faces, aspects, and properties as Emerge to our experience in respect of it.  For that account, neither do we directly measure or perceive our own experience of consciousness.  Consciousness is not itself a pure physicality that we can touch, measure, or precisely push about with inanimate substance.
.
SOURCING-SOURCER AND CORRELATING CORRELATIVE:  Consciousness correlates with a flux of feedback between the whole of the singular meta-protoplasm and the eternally-present-presentation of its parts.  That correlation begs a question:  Is consciousness a derivative emergent from a flux between an otherwise inanimate singularity and its presentation of parts?  Or is the fluxing presentation of the singularity and its parts a derivative emergent of consciousness?  PROBLEM:  Both of those approaches defy any logic by which I can approach understanding.  I cannot induce, adduce, or deduce to reasonably say which is more likely.  Which leads me to postulate a qualitatively non-provable third alternative, but that seems comforting as an a priori myth or basis for logos.  That is, I conceptualize that the whole, the conservational summing of its parts, the feedback fluxing, the consciousness therewith expressed, are all expressions or capacity-properties of an enigmatic SOURCE, a mysterious, ETERNALLY EMERGENT EDITING ESSENCE, aka, GOD.  This God, of which we are imperfect, particular, and limited perspectives, and of which the Holism is the expression of its personality or property for feeding back with us, is the Source in respect of which our apprehensions and wills are synchronized within ranges and degrees of freedom, relating, fluxing, and feeding back and forth.  Though our perspectives of consciousness be humble faces of IT, we are NOT the Holistic expressor of it.
.
*********
.
MYTHS ARE NECESSARY:  If you think myths not necessary, consider your name.  Your having a name is necessary.  Yet, you are not your name.  Even to name an infant is to begin his status as coeextensive with myth:  that he will somehow become worthy of his name.
.
*********
.
DANCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS:  If a dance of feedback, back and forth, between the Holism and its Parts is the only choice among walking contradictions that makes intuitive sense to our direct experience and intuition, then consider:  How could the Holism and its Parts be intuiting, sensing, or communicating their wills, desires, and apprehensions --- back and forth, in any synchronized, two-step, apprehension or appreciation --- unless each were responsive, i.e., CONSCIOUS at some qualitative, meta-plasmic level, to the signals of the other?
.
*********
.
NO FACTS WITHOUT MODELS (IDEALS OR FORMS); NO MODELS WITHOUT A MODELER: Auguste Comte said, “If it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts can not be observed without the guidance of some theories. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless; we could not retain them: for the most part we could not even perceive them." Well then, unless every inanimate pattern is somehow an avatar in respect of a guiding consciousness that entertains theories and models about it, how then could such pattern seem to "sense," recognize, relate to, react, replicate, function, and "progress" in respect of any another? Perhaps those complex patterns, systems, and civilizations that happen to flourish tend to be those in which the various "perspectives among their citizenry" self-select, organize, model, synchronize, and "progress to serve their places" within a sustainable, defensible society. Why do they so self select? In respect of what (meta or higher) functions or values? With what should progressive forms empathize, model, appreciate and desire? With what should God empathize, model, form, appreciate and desire?
.  
PROGRESS: Does any idea of "moral progress" make material sense, or only spiritual sense? After all, there is no quantitative or scientific scale for weighing "the greatest wonder, love, comfort, and joy for the greatest number, time, and space." So, how may one qualify and self select to make that sort of comparison in any intuitive and meaningful way?   ANSWER: Only with spiritual guidance that comes with receptivity to intuition and empathy for one another and the Holism. How should that which is compared to an ideal be adjudged "true" or "beautiful" in more than a non-trivial sense?   How should ideals, models, and theories evolve or progress? What is empathetically appreciated? What should be empathetically appreciated? How should higher species and beings regulate the lower, to the most appreciable good of all?   ANSWER: There is no quantitative or scientific scale for weighing an answer. One may "answer" to "weigh qualities" only with spiritual guidance that comes with receptivity to intuition and empathy for one another and the Holism.
.

CHOICE OF PARADIGM FOR PROGRESS OR LIES:   How do atheistic collectivists promote a philosophy of "political progressivism," given their acceptance that natural selection is not guided by any intrinsic direction and given their unbelief in any notion of spiritual progress?   Is it not oxymoronic to preach "political progress" while simultaneously preaching that there is no such thing as either natural or spiritual progress? How do they square that circle, except by substituting belief in one kind of walking contradiction for another? They can pretend their personal pleasuring and pillaging against producers is principled. They can pretend that human society can stand above nature, without being contrary to science. They can pathologically close their eyes to their own hypocrisies and contradictions. But why would they hearken to such strategies?   Answer: Their bodies, minds, and spirits are conditioned to have more faith in walking contradictions of fleshy pleasures than in walking contradictions of conscious will. In other words, their brains are mainly thrilled below their belts --- even when they urgently profess otherwise. Being unwilling to abide empathy in respect of the walking contradiction of God, they live as their own walking lies.

.

UNFOLDING MOMENTUM OF DESIRE: An immeasurable Quality of momentum, inertia, or habit seems to affect the direction and rate for the unfolding of Meaningful exchanges of intuition and empathy between the Holism and its Parts. Somehow, the patterns of the Present are weighted both to appreciations of the Past and to apprehensions and portents for the Future. Immediate and proximate apprehensions are represented and sensed in the present, and the weight of their appreciation carries them with the speed-of-reconciling-synchronicity into the future. During each quantum flux of feedback between the Holism and its Parts, Consciousness carries its experience of time and space across Discrete instants, through a sequential Continuity of meaningful unfoldment, as Apprehensions (sensations) are carried into Appreciations (conscious adjudgments regarding the qualitative desire for one manifestation as it is faced off against representations of past or future apprehensions of others). Thus, a two-step dance between the Holism and its Parts avails Qualitative means for transfers of conscious apprehensions and appreciations, i.e., communications of meaningfulness. In other words, the capacity of our Cosmos for exchanging qualitative Sensation and Empathy between its Holism and its Parts, within a system of quantitative conservation, is coordinate with a fluxing quality of coterminous Consciousness. The Evolution and unfolding of complex systems simply cannot proceed in a void that is independent of the coordinate company of guiding experiences of various levels of Consciousness. Patterns emerge insofar as, on some coordinate level, they are sensed, apprehended, appreciated, willed, represented, and communicated. The quality of this unfoldment of consciousness and guiding for the evolution of complex systems is not something that can be completely reduced to quantitative, scientific, Positivist control. Thus, a quality of Consciousness does not abide on a plane that is inferior to a quantitative ground of being. Indeed, Consciousness may just as well be conceptualized as representing and willing the very ground of beingness.
.
TWO-WAY EMPATHETICALLY-INTUITIVE CORRELATION, MAPPING, AND POSITIVIST TRACKING:  So long as the Holism reliably mirrors, maps, or tracks us, IT would seem not to need to sense us in the same way that we sense ouselves in order completely to know us, as well as to know more:  How we synchronize to sum and obey the conservation of the whole.  May that correlation to some extent avail a two-way mirror?  May God present a FACE to us that could at least be inductively rendered RELIABLE to our understanding, to inform us of all we need to know?  Must AMBIGUITIES and PARADOXES remain, to avail a curtain behind which God synchronizes parameters availied to our degrees of freedom?  When it comes to understanding or empathetically appreciating the flux effects and purposes of the META-PROTOPLASM, to what extent can we trust our senses, memories, and correlative-modeling analogics, even though our logic can never be entirely complete, consistent, and coherent?  Is our tracking of God necessarily incomplete, while God's tracking of us may avail to God a complete correlation?  Can God comprehend, apprehend, or feel the joy, anguish, and entire QUALITY of our emotional experiences?  I can hardly KNOW the answer to such a question, but my intuition suggests that to say yes may stretch too far, unless by availing God the information but not necessarily the simultaneous evaluation of its flood, absent some trick of mathematical functioning to avail information in potential, but not necessarily in immediate, simultaneous, OMNI-EMOTIVE entangled-involvement.  But if we can know all that we need to know, it would seem God, notwithstanding Godel, also may know all that God needs to know.
.