Saturday, February 18, 2012

No Mind, No Matter

.
CHANGELESS CASTER OF CHANGING SPELLS: Particular bits of substance in space, time, or space-time do not exist in themselves, but only in respect of a Unifier, which abides only in the context of its infinite, eternal, quantitatively immeasurable potential for the present. As the Unifier exists, so also abides the eternally present context of space-time, with which it construes its apprehensions, appreciations, and pursuits of meaningfulness --- all perpetually unfolding within the spatial context of the eternal present. In themselves, space, time, matter, and energy do not exist, except secondary to the Unifier. Quantifiable substance is not determinative of, nor determined by, the Unifier. Quantifiable substance has no real quantities, apart from appearance of quantity, as determined by the quality of the quantitatively immeasurable Unifier. Rather, bits of substance are the fleeting and unfolding appearances and byproducts of the pursuit by the Unifier of that which, to it, is sought as meaningful. Quantifiable substance does not in itself exist, except as byproduced illusion under the spell of the Unifier --- the changeless caster of changing spells. Within the Unifier-Field, particles collapse into apparent existence only in respect that the Unifier determines therewith to associate potentials for perspective.
.
COMMUNICATION: No mind, no apparent matter. No apparent matter, no mind. Every thing that exists exists in respect of a present context. No present context exists except in respect that it is appreciated or recorded. No quantifiable thing is appreciated or recorded except in respect of a quality of capacity to appreciate and record. That capacity exists. That capacity directly knows itself, perhaps superior to its capacity to know, image, imagine, interpret, experience, or appreciate any other thing. That capacity knows itself from many simultaneous, synchronous, overlapping, interfunctioning, empathetically interconnecting, perspectives. A Unity of consciousness and empathetic conscience is coextensive with each interconnecting perspective, but each interconnecting perspective is not coextensive with such Unity. That Unity may be called "God."
.
SIGNAL INTERPRETATION: Technologies abide to avail us to receive, count, measure, interpret, translate, modulate, alter, and transmit broadcast signals and pulses of EMR frequencies. Matter, radios, and minds receive, emit, and transmit signal pulses. Matter does not abide in itself, but only as relational energy, stored for potential pulsing to such receiving organizations of energy as happen to have capacity to quantitatively interpret such pulsing.  Capacity to quantitatively interpret signal pulses is secondary to a perspective SO HAPPENING to be assigned therewith to interpret.
.
READING INTENTIONS AND MINDS:  It is possible for organizations of energy to evolve to produce brain centers for relating, experiencing, modulating, intending, and communicating feedback concerning interpretations of signal pulses. Means can be devised to enable brain apprehensions, intentions, and thoughts to be "read," to leverage such readings, and to deceive, misdirect, or reconfigure such readings.
.
MORTAL REALITY IS MIXED IN SUBJECTIVITY AND OBJECTIVITY: My perspective is SUBJECTIVE, yet it is reliably OBJECTIVE that my Identity, i.e., my experience of I-ness, is separate and apart from the complete control of any other particular perspective of I-ness. Other than that, it soon becomes evident that there is no other reality-in-itself by which to objectify any other particular and non-trivial reading among mortal perspectives. Yet, may the record of each perspective's truth and reality be "meta-objectified" in respect of a synchronizing God? May such meta-objectification (judgment hereafter?) be subject only to the objective interpretation of a non-mortal Unity? Regardless, such meta-objectification would be for God, not for mortals while they are mortals. Rather, for us, much depends on (1) perspective, (2) changing context of space-time, and (3) evolving purpose.
.
MORTAL LIMITATIONS: One cannot simultaneously bind one's perspective to identify solely with a mortal context and yet apprehend and appreciate the meta-holistic, harmonizing, synchronizing, connecting Unity. The capacity of the Unity --- to both connect us and to separate us, to flux between fields and particles, to morph its face (character and aspect) as we phase through the fuzz of perceptual boundaries, to flux among modes of determinism (from the substantively fixed to the randomly bounded to the subjectively chosen), to separate the spiritually qualitative from the substantively quantitative, to referee the relation between the infinite and the eternal, to abide as the changeless-changer --- is simply beyond the kin of our mortal logic or comprehension.
.
CONNECTING THE OBJECTIVE AND THE SUBJECTIVE: Might the Unity avail to us some signal frequency to mediate relations among particular mortal perspectives and the Unity? Might such a frequency avail God and mortals to communicate quantitatively and objectively? Or must such a frequency remain ranged beyond the capacity of any mortal to receive, except in QUALITIES of empathetic intuition and metaphors, as opposed to perfectly correlative models of objective quantification? Does the demise of a mortal perspective and that which avails it to experience an illusion of separation from the Unity avail it to be reabsorbed into the Unity? Does the entire identity of a mortal perspective die with it, or does some aspect of such Identity reabsorb into the Unity? What is necessary to answer or believe, to conduce to a meaningful, moral life?
.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Darwin argument proves too much! What we have now IS a product of natural selection, and we agree it's not so good! The natural selection notion looks back to "explain" EVERYTHING as if it were the product of "the fittest." The notion of the fittest becomes nothing more than label for every result. By its proponents' trying to use it to prove too much, they prove nothing. I agree that our problem is too much centralization of too many concerns that "should" be less centralized. However, to say why they should be less centralized, in relation to what test or ideology, one needs an ideology that is more than a blanket for everything. To me, affairs need to be less subject to centralized authority because respect should be availed to freedom of expression and enterprise of adults ... so long as such freedom is not tipping and rotting a culture into unsustainability of its ideals. But that test necessitates inculcation of, and respect for, ideals that mean more than natural selection (for everything that is, is selected by nature) or unfettered freedom (for there is no such thing as freedom that is free of nature). You do make an interesting point: Atheists who feign to know best, yet tend to worship at the altar of natural selection, as if it somehow proved they are "most fit" to control that which the rest of us should do. But many freedom lovers also rationalize an odd notion of an empathetic God, who yet abhors any projection of charity onto secular society that would fetter those blessed with means to exercise their freedom. To me, the problem is this: How can we reasonably preserve both economic freedom and a representative republic? As we blind ourselves to either, we risk losing both

Anonymous said...

REGARDING THE RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION: Just another Lib setting up a gotcha game with childishly linear and absolutist slogans! Rights, rights, rights! Do these rights float down in daydreams of liberals? Before the constitution, before the cosmos, there was form without substance. The Author of the cosmos can ordain howsoever He/She pleases. A State that's under the harsh rule of a dictator can perform many outrages, as its ruler pleases. To suggest that what is cannot be is to argue as a child. However, a representative republic will not sustain its freedom unless it continuously inculcates its citizenry with capacity to reason about what's necessary to sustain freedom. A citizenry that's easily stampeded by slogans posing as thoughts becomes mere cattle for gotcha-playing cynics, hedge artists, crisis stampeders, and sociopaths. A society conditioned to think its dis-assimilation into diversely cut divisions is a good thing will be easily stampeded into whatever corrals its rulers devise. Once the people think only in slogans, no candidate for leadership can appeal to a majority without espousing inconsistent slogans ("flip-flopping") at each stop. It then becomes an art form to repackage so-called flip flogs as consistent principles. The people become so mesmerized by the gotcha game that they become as children, incapable of being trusted to think intelligently about complex issues. Woe to the candidate who tries to reason in adult language to children trained to know it all and to frame questions in terms of slogans! At that point, the republic becomes representative in form only, and the crisis stampeders and cronies take over. It would be an interesting experiment to follow a candidate who actually tried to talk in terms of ideas beyond gotcha games. However, that kind of candidate would probably have acquired wisdom only after compiling a record of mistakes, which would then be blown into gotcha ads. Maybe someday we'll become more skilled in detecting sociopaths and in restricting the right to frame questions to candidates and to vote to people who're actually inclined to think beyond servicing cronies. Just don't hold your breath.