.
Arguing Morality With Quantity Reductionists and Other Fundies:
.
Does the Universe define Consciousness, or does Consciousness define the Universe? What defines the definer? Does there abide a trivalent logic for a meta holism, which simply does not submit to bivalently quantifying logic of mortals? Does the Universe, as a Unity, exist? Presently exist? Synchronously exist? Can it be defined? Can it be defined hypothetically, in any way that is consistent, coherent, and complete --- for all perspectives, contexts, and purposes? Can a model of Universe be reasonably tested? In respect of what measure or conscious definer can it be reasonably and intelligently defined, either as a holistic thing or as a consciousness of abiding?
.
In having capacity to model possibilities that have no known correlative experience in history, our consciousness, perhaps somewhat like God's, seems to stand outside or beyond the quantifying explications and confines of substance-based physics.
.
Every conscious experience or recording of experience of the here and now necessitates a committment of some perspective of, or shared participation of consciousness in (either contemporaneously or pre-set), whatever local physical context and bodily avatar that then and there happens to find itself being committed to. Once freed of a presently unfolding and contextually physical avatar, each particular perspective of consciousness may simply be reabsorbed into the holism, perhaps from there to be sequentially reassigned. And so one. Each assignment of perspective will experience a qualitative share of happiness and despair. Yet, God may spiritually feel and be with all, to lift the load when it becomes unbearably heavy.
.
Bottom line: We won't find meaning or good faith in attempts to reduce God and/or Universe to any single, quantifiably consistent, coherent, and complete model of physics. There is little point in arguing morality or spiritual logic with any Islamist or spiritually literalistic fundamentalist. We need instead to be receptive to a good faith, qualitative pursuit of good will. There is no objective way to prove subjective morality or spiritual good faith. Rather, there is vision and receptivity to pursuits in good faith of sustainable meaning, liberty, opportunity, and social decency.
.
5 comments:
The problem: how to provide a minimally civilized safety net, without encouraging people to live on the dole. That's ver hard because pols find it convenient to buy votes from people who don't really want to work. Even so, a modern republic will not sustain intelligent representation by espousing that there should be no safety net! That theory would fall as soon as times became hard and bread lines became long. So a way has to be found for government and charities to take care of the most unfortunate, without growing an unwieldy, central welfare state. Moreover, employers ought not be required to provide health insurance. Tough love is needed, but central pols are more into buy-your-vote love. They are not much subject to local supervision, but are tempted with all manner of international and disloyal crony bucks.
The theory for employer based insurance coverage has been that risk should be spread to those who profit. That has become non-realisitc, because American manufacturing has been hollowed out. Many American businesses can no longer carry that cost and still make the hypothetical profit. Especially wehn there's little quid pro quo for reducing tort exposure of business that provide the coverage. Essentially, it's too easy for central, federal representatives to buy votes and worry about the costs later.
Fundamentally, government needs to be decentralized! Take the blank check book away. No new expenditures without immediate offsetting cuts. Would you empower moral toddlers to make you liable for blank checks, even if some sponsor said we really need the stimulus? Congress and Obama have NO credibility to be selling any informed adults on ways to stimulate the economy when they show NO discipline for making cuts in central expenditures. Every thinking person knows Obama covets opportunity to fundamentally change America into a society in which lower classes are served what's "best for them" by elites. He wants no middle class, no real democratic influence, and a free hand for the central regime. And he has boatloads of ignorami frothing to help him.
This seems to be making the rounds:
.
Will (and Ariel) Durant, the famous pulitizer prize winner and very insightful historian and philosopher, has a simple, short book I bought on Audible, titled Lessons of History. Durant considered that the state ought not allow just anyone to have children. (Presumably, he would feel the same about adoptions.) This made me wonder: Just how much of this genetic drag should we expect our kids to finance? I assume Durant might not have been so carefree about so called victimless habits.
.
Now, I find an email regarding a Time Magazine article of a couple of years ago, about an epigenetic mechanism for evolution! So, what happens when these people have 11 kids and cannot provide for them? Friedrich Nietzche, the darling of the Nazis, is reputed to have said, "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Actually, I don't think that kind of strident universal makes much sense, and I suspect the saying has been around since the early Greeks and Romans. Probably, habits and patterns of thought lead to rewiring of synapse connections, and possibly of genetic signals.
.
As you no doubt know, Lysenko got Stalin's blessing to gamble on Russia's grain farming and was thereby instrumental in causing the slow death by starvation of millions. However, he might not have been entirely wrong! If only he had been much less strident! And if he had thought to theorize about an "epigenetic mechanism!" (My name for it: evolutionary moson?)
.
**********
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/bu-nrs022712.php
.
Excerpt:
"PROVIDENCE, R.I. – In a look at how major stressors during childhood can change a person's biological risk for psychiatric disorders, researchers at Butler Hospital have discovered a genetic alteration at the root of the association. The research, published online in PLoS ONE on January 25, 2012, suggests that childhood adversity may lead to epigenetic changes in the human glucocorticoid receptor gene, an important regulator of the biological stress response that may increase risk for psychiatric disorders.
.
The association between childhood adversity, including parental loss and childhood maltreatment, and risk for psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety has been established in multiple studies. However, researchers have yet to define how and why this association exists in humans. "We need to understand the biology of this effect in order to develop better treatment and prevention programs," said Audrey Tyrka, MD, PhD, director of the Laboratory for Clinical and Translational Neuroscience at Butler Hospital and associate professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at Brown University. "Our research group turned to the field of epigenetics to determine how environmental conditions in childhood can influence the biological stress response."
.
Epigenetics is the study of changes to the genome that do not alter the DNA sequence, but influence whether genes will be expressed, or "turned on," versus whether they will be silenced. Knowing that the connection between childhood maltreatment and psychiatric disorders has been linked to the hormone system that coordinates biological stress responses, the researchers sought to identify the root cause at a genetic level."
.
"In order to discover new lands, one must be willing to lose sight of the shore for a very long time. (Andre Gide)"
.
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony ... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." -Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment"
Sounds like Elmer Gantry cross dressing as a scientist. Beware the pretense of artists of fundamental change and their capacity to dupe armies of true believing followers. Their imagination in the service of tyranny knows no bounds. Perhaps the best goal is the pursuit of greater quality of happiness --- so long as totalitarians don't try to force us to believe happiness can be quantified along a single dimensional party line. That way lies Lysenko and the great snike hunt. No doubt, some NWO types will be exploring a replacement. Instead of measuring GDP, they will be filling mush heads with new ways for measuring GNH (gross national happiness). Or even GNW (gross national warming). Monty Python, where are you?
Regarding conservers of liberty: Think about the argumentation that's so often deployed by the twisted, the unscrupulous, and the sociopathic. They can say things that're obviously nutty, yet cloaked behind seeming logic. Indeed, ratings for their outlets depend on it. They will deploy intimidation or monopolize media in order to justify: 911; the Ground Zero Mosque; reparations to be paid by uninvolved persons a hundred years later; equal rights for every conceivable sexual pretzel; taxpayer hijacked funding to teach tolerance for gay poodle days (unless you're a bigot, so they say, why not?); and on an on. At such level of argumentation, no wonder the marketplace of political ideas has become so absurd. As a thought experiement, set aside the Marxist playbook and literalistic fundie religious texts. Instead, approach in respect of a fresh standard. Whether based in faith or ideology, consider: What should local and federal governmental agencies implement in order to preserve a land that can avail decent opportunities for freedom of expression and enterprise?
In respect of that standard, would we better avoid being so easily sidetracked by people who "argue" (with noise, threats, and intimidation) such nutty things as: One may be a decent Muslim and still not condemn the 911 operation; Whitey owes (in perpetuity); children should be taught that all moral standards regarding sexual expression are anachronistic; it's good for fed pols who troll for cheap votes to help erase borders, enfranchise the illiterate, and pay for the breeding, care, and feeding of ever more easily bribed voters; Whitey has no right to question the birth certificate of a socialist man of the people; and on and on.
Typical toddler/lib tactics: clean up your mess, you little heathen / wah, you called me a heathen. There, there, why don't you go out now and play? Lost in the translation: any turn to responsibility. Simply put, elites are successfully mobilizing amoral toddlers against responsible parents. Even turning them into heroines and champions. Thus, to advocate for individual responsibility becomes fodder for ridicule by Stewart, Colbert, & co. Capacity for individual responsibility falls. All are reduced to amoral toddlers and their elite managers. This is the layered inferno that's being made of earth. Soon, we will be down to the last few responsible Americans on earth. Know thyself; know thy enemy. All vestiges of decent, middle class society are being dissolved in acrid amorality, while villains for the main political parties run interference, behind cover of smiles.
Post a Comment