To anyone asking for an objectively TRUE religion: Quantitatively objective matter and objective morality do not exist as things-in-themselves, free of qualitatively subjective experience and interpretation (observer effect). Thus, there is neither true objective morality for scientists to find, nor for religionists to see revealed. Rather, concerns regarding morality are inherently subjective to each observer. However, this does NOT mean that each person is morally free to do as he pleases, because each observer is only a perspective of the same shared cone of reconciling, synchronizing, empathetic, give and take, consciousness.
.
No logic of a nirvana of un-experienced nothingness, nor of a heavenly experience of an end-to-time, can make completely objective sense to the subjective perspective of any mortal. There are at least as many moral choices for subjective states of being as there are subjective perspectives of consciousness. (This is why Western societies do not want dictators setting "objectively best" market prices.) Were there one, unifying, objectively true, correct interpretation of one book, in order to detail a common and correct answer to every moral dilemma faced from every perspective, then there could be no subjective perspective, but only the perspective of mindless, preset Bots of one mindless Borg. You would be implicating that God created everything, pre-prescribed the unfolding of all of space-time, fully knew in advance what each of us would do, yet pre-prescribed our rewards and punishments, for exercising our "free wills" --- which were never "really" free. Such an idea of free will reduces it to non-causal, epiphenomenal, absurd delusion.
.
That would be a lot to swallow, much less to try to use as a “true” basis for prescribing "objectively" moral conduct. End-time religion may sound pretty to some, but I don’t find much in it that can be made “objectively” consistent with any system of logic. I agree there come points where axioms and moral principles must be accepted or chosen on faith. However, I think such faith ought thereafter avail more internal consistency than I find in typical end-time, final-judgment, religious authorities.
.
I do not believe the cosmos would delegate capacity for contemporaneous determination (a kind of free will?) among perspectives of consciousness in order to give them only one "correct" moral choice for how to encounter each situation. I do not believe there abides only one, revealed, correct way-of-being for every situation. Rather, I believe degrees and parameters of freedom are availed for appreciating moral choices that further each perspective’s free pursuit of happy, meaningful, purposeful fulfillment. I do not believe there is a single, pre-prescribed, objective, robotic, standard of morality. Instead, I believe there is one subjective standard and commandment, and that standard can be expressed in two words (subsuming the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule): “Be empathetic!” All else is metaphor and commentary.
.
This does not mean that there is no real morality. Rather, it means there is no purely objective reality or morality. There is, instead, a real, subjective Reconciler of morally qualitative purposefulness --- i.e., a reconciling cosmos or field of consciousness. As particular and limited perspectives of such unnecessary-to-be-named consciousness, our participatory purposefulness is synchronized, reconciled, and conserved.
.
Common objections to such a conceptual model include: (1) It gives no hope of salvation of conscious experience after death; (2) It invites pride that elevates selfishness over God, and it fails to provide clear rules that can be sanctioned by earthly interpreters and authorities; (3) It does not condemn any particular conduct as being inherently sinful or evil in itself; (4) It does not provide a common language or system of guidance for assimilating a culture, society, or government; and (5) It conflicts with what we know from empiricism.
.
All such objections are wrong headed.
.
First, there is salvation, in that Information is preserved. The conscious cosmos stores information and “learns” from it. Conscious Identity ought not be confused with avatars, which only provide perspectives of focus in respect of shared cones of experience. Whatever “you” make think yourself in respect of your avatar (body-as-signified), your information is fully preserved in mathematical potential for future repetition, alteration, and/or expansion. What should be of more concern relates to evaluation of the Information that is made manifest and recorded.
.
Second, the sensible purpose for a shared religion is to guide a civilizing cone for decent and meaningful expression and communication, whereby cultures and nations may work out such legal systems as may aid in their pursuits of moral purposefulness. The purpose is not to prescribe fine details for every aspect of mortal nourishment, reproduction, and entertainment. As to Pride: It is perpetually sanctioned, as it is continuously struck down by the unfolding and reconciling cosmos.
.
Third, it makes little sense to suggest that any possible, particularly-expressed behavior can be said to be immoral-in-itself (just as it makes little sense to suppose an objective-physical-thing-in-itself), without taking into account the wider context, which necessarily brings qualitative appreciation into the accounting. There is a mathematically digital dance of feedback, appreciation, judgment, reconciliation, and further unfoldment. As one participates in choosing a way of being (or a cone of common interest) --- such as an interest in establishing and preserving a governing framework for facilitating decent freedom of expression and enterprise (i.e., a sustainable republic) --- then one may agree upon more particular cultural mores and legal rules, such as are set out in the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. It is in respect of the choice and desire to preserve human freedom and dignity that the Ten Commandments guide moral purposefulness. Those who do not choose to respect life, liberty, dignity, family, humanity, or God would not find the Ten Commandments, in themselves, to be “objectively” true. In effect, those falsely "enlightened" persons who are ready to disregard family-based commandments are ready to bring down family-based civilization.
.
Fourth, the idea of a subjectively conscious cosmos need not entail a new religion or a conflict with metaphoric or traditional interpretations, significations, and communications in respect of any worthwhile and sacred parables, stories, or sects. Subjective communication is inherently qualitative and metaphoric, aided by signification in respect of that which only APPEARS to be purely physical. Thus, there is no physically objective, true interpretation of the Bible for binding every decision in fine.
.
Fifth, objective, quantitative empiricism can never fully account for the role of the qualitative subjective (collective unconscious?). Rather, determinism abides in a three-part mix, which defies complete reduction to the objectively quantifiable. That mix may be conceptualized as consisting of (1) the pre-determined (preset laws of nature); (2) the un-determined (random interfunctioning within conserved degrees of freedom); and (3) the contemporaneously determined (i.e., the “freely willed,” i.e., the consciously willed and reconciled collapse on account of inter-functioning of each outer context with each inner brain or program of preset or artificial intelligence). In short, the objective-quantitative will never truly or entirely reduce the subjective-qualitative. My faith is that a time approaches when mature civilization will so apprehend.
.
NO NEW RELIGION NEEDED: I do not seek a quarrel with catholic faith. Rather, I seek appreciation that the idea of an infallible mortal messenger is subjective, not objective. I think pretense of an objectively real connection with God — as found in Catholicism, Mormonism, and Islam — tends to be unnecessarily ambiguous and confusing to those who tend to be most easily taken advantage of. Apart from the verbal confusion, I do tend to admire much of the music, ceremony, atmosphere, and reverence.
.
.
No logic of a nirvana of un-experienced nothingness, nor of a heavenly experience of an end-to-time, can make completely objective sense to the subjective perspective of any mortal. There are at least as many moral choices for subjective states of being as there are subjective perspectives of consciousness. (This is why Western societies do not want dictators setting "objectively best" market prices.) Were there one, unifying, objectively true, correct interpretation of one book, in order to detail a common and correct answer to every moral dilemma faced from every perspective, then there could be no subjective perspective, but only the perspective of mindless, preset Bots of one mindless Borg. You would be implicating that God created everything, pre-prescribed the unfolding of all of space-time, fully knew in advance what each of us would do, yet pre-prescribed our rewards and punishments, for exercising our "free wills" --- which were never "really" free. Such an idea of free will reduces it to non-causal, epiphenomenal, absurd delusion.
.
That would be a lot to swallow, much less to try to use as a “true” basis for prescribing "objectively" moral conduct. End-time religion may sound pretty to some, but I don’t find much in it that can be made “objectively” consistent with any system of logic. I agree there come points where axioms and moral principles must be accepted or chosen on faith. However, I think such faith ought thereafter avail more internal consistency than I find in typical end-time, final-judgment, religious authorities.
.
I do not believe the cosmos would delegate capacity for contemporaneous determination (a kind of free will?) among perspectives of consciousness in order to give them only one "correct" moral choice for how to encounter each situation. I do not believe there abides only one, revealed, correct way-of-being for every situation. Rather, I believe degrees and parameters of freedom are availed for appreciating moral choices that further each perspective’s free pursuit of happy, meaningful, purposeful fulfillment. I do not believe there is a single, pre-prescribed, objective, robotic, standard of morality. Instead, I believe there is one subjective standard and commandment, and that standard can be expressed in two words (subsuming the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule): “Be empathetic!” All else is metaphor and commentary.
.
This does not mean that there is no real morality. Rather, it means there is no purely objective reality or morality. There is, instead, a real, subjective Reconciler of morally qualitative purposefulness --- i.e., a reconciling cosmos or field of consciousness. As particular and limited perspectives of such unnecessary-to-be-named consciousness, our participatory purposefulness is synchronized, reconciled, and conserved.
.
Common objections to such a conceptual model include: (1) It gives no hope of salvation of conscious experience after death; (2) It invites pride that elevates selfishness over God, and it fails to provide clear rules that can be sanctioned by earthly interpreters and authorities; (3) It does not condemn any particular conduct as being inherently sinful or evil in itself; (4) It does not provide a common language or system of guidance for assimilating a culture, society, or government; and (5) It conflicts with what we know from empiricism.
.
All such objections are wrong headed.
.
First, there is salvation, in that Information is preserved. The conscious cosmos stores information and “learns” from it. Conscious Identity ought not be confused with avatars, which only provide perspectives of focus in respect of shared cones of experience. Whatever “you” make think yourself in respect of your avatar (body-as-signified), your information is fully preserved in mathematical potential for future repetition, alteration, and/or expansion. What should be of more concern relates to evaluation of the Information that is made manifest and recorded.
.
Second, the sensible purpose for a shared religion is to guide a civilizing cone for decent and meaningful expression and communication, whereby cultures and nations may work out such legal systems as may aid in their pursuits of moral purposefulness. The purpose is not to prescribe fine details for every aspect of mortal nourishment, reproduction, and entertainment. As to Pride: It is perpetually sanctioned, as it is continuously struck down by the unfolding and reconciling cosmos.
.
Third, it makes little sense to suggest that any possible, particularly-expressed behavior can be said to be immoral-in-itself (just as it makes little sense to suppose an objective-physical-thing-in-itself), without taking into account the wider context, which necessarily brings qualitative appreciation into the accounting. There is a mathematically digital dance of feedback, appreciation, judgment, reconciliation, and further unfoldment. As one participates in choosing a way of being (or a cone of common interest) --- such as an interest in establishing and preserving a governing framework for facilitating decent freedom of expression and enterprise (i.e., a sustainable republic) --- then one may agree upon more particular cultural mores and legal rules, such as are set out in the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. It is in respect of the choice and desire to preserve human freedom and dignity that the Ten Commandments guide moral purposefulness. Those who do not choose to respect life, liberty, dignity, family, humanity, or God would not find the Ten Commandments, in themselves, to be “objectively” true. In effect, those falsely "enlightened" persons who are ready to disregard family-based commandments are ready to bring down family-based civilization.
.
Fourth, the idea of a subjectively conscious cosmos need not entail a new religion or a conflict with metaphoric or traditional interpretations, significations, and communications in respect of any worthwhile and sacred parables, stories, or sects. Subjective communication is inherently qualitative and metaphoric, aided by signification in respect of that which only APPEARS to be purely physical. Thus, there is no physically objective, true interpretation of the Bible for binding every decision in fine.
.
Fifth, objective, quantitative empiricism can never fully account for the role of the qualitative subjective (collective unconscious?). Rather, determinism abides in a three-part mix, which defies complete reduction to the objectively quantifiable. That mix may be conceptualized as consisting of (1) the pre-determined (preset laws of nature); (2) the un-determined (random interfunctioning within conserved degrees of freedom); and (3) the contemporaneously determined (i.e., the “freely willed,” i.e., the consciously willed and reconciled collapse on account of inter-functioning of each outer context with each inner brain or program of preset or artificial intelligence). In short, the objective-quantitative will never truly or entirely reduce the subjective-qualitative. My faith is that a time approaches when mature civilization will so apprehend.
.
NO NEW RELIGION NEEDED: I do not seek a quarrel with catholic faith. Rather, I seek appreciation that the idea of an infallible mortal messenger is subjective, not objective. I think pretense of an objectively real connection with God — as found in Catholicism, Mormonism, and Islam — tends to be unnecessarily ambiguous and confusing to those who tend to be most easily taken advantage of. Apart from the verbal confusion, I do tend to admire much of the music, ceremony, atmosphere, and reverence.
.
MYSTERY: Of the qualitative mystery of an Entity that is beyond quantitative reduction: Can IT completely explain ITSELF to mere mortals, such that we can reasonably hope to comprehend IT? Can we reasonably believe that IT would so explain ITSELF to we who sense from mortal state, if IT could? Can we reasonably believe that IT has done so? Can we reasonably believe that, from mortal perspective, we can have means, apart from SUBJECTIVE empathy, to appreciate among claimed “TRUE interpretations” of IT, in order to distinguish which are OBJECTIVELY true or false? I doubt as much. Rather, my very FAITH in the perpetual, reconciling, spiritual quality of such Entity is BASED ON my innate intuition regarding its quality for being beyond our quantitatively objective kin! I believe IT synchronously transmits and responds, in qualitative appreciation of feedback from and through our disparate avatars (perspectives of its consciousness), and I believe such feedback has not been entirely preset. Thus, I decline to believe IT is in any non-subjective way OBJECTIVELY knowable to us with regard to fine details of IT’s “TRUE” orders and purposes. Indeed, I believe many details concerning IT’s orders and purposes evolve, subject to IT’s continuously fluxing appreciation and evaluation of IT’s relations with IT’s particularly fluxing perspectives. I don’t believe God can be finely confined to an objective program or book, no matter how “rigorous” its terminology or its prophetic interpretation. Rather, I believe God is to be continuously and constantly experienced, subjectively, not bound to any unchanging (objective) program or to literalistic verbiage that could be comprehensible to any mortal (whether or not professing to be a perfect messenger). Indeed, I suspect this is why Jesus is professed to have spoken so much in parables. I believe we should reasonably grant each well-functioning adult the dignity to pray, meditate, and be receptive --- subject to his/her own good faith and good will.
.
2 comments:
Well, you seem to be asking for an objectively true religion. However, I don't see how objective matter or objective morality could exist, as things-in-themselves, free of subjective experience and interpretation (observer effect). I don't see how there could be either TRUE objective morality for scientists to find, or for religionists to see revealed. Concerns regarding morality seem inherently subjective to each observer. This does NOT mean that each is morally free to do as he pleases, because each observer is only a perspective of the same shared cone of reconciling, synchronizing, empathetic consciousness.
There are at least as many moral choices for subjective states of being as there are perspectives of consciousness. (This is why Western societies do not want dictators setting "objectively best" market prices.) Were there one, unifying, objectively true, correct interpretation of one book, in order to detail a common and correct answer to every moral dilemma faced from every perspective, then I doubt there could be any subjective perspective, apart from preset Bots of a single mindless program. The iimplication would be that God created everything, pre-prescribed the unfolding of all of space-time, fully knew in advance what each of us would do, yet pre-prescribed our rewards and punishments, for exercising our "free wills" --- which were never "really" free. Such an idea of free will seems to reduce it to non-causal, epiphenomenal, absurd delusion.
That would be a lot to swallow, much less to try to use as a “true” basis for prescribing "objectively" moral conduct. End-time religion may sound pretty to some, but I don’t find much in it that can be made “objectively” consistent with any system of logic. I agree there come points where axioms and moral principles must be accepted or chosen on faith. However, I think such faith ought thereafter avail more internal consistency than I find in typical end-time, final-judgment, religious authorities.
I doubt the cosmos would delegate capacity for contemporaneous determination (a kind of free will?) among perspectives of consciousness in order to give them only one "correct" moral choice for how to encounter each situation. I do not believe there abides only one, revealed, correct way-of-being for every situation. Rather, I believe degrees and parameters of freedom are availed for appreciating moral choices that further each perspective’s free pursuit of happy, meaningful, purposeful fulfillment. I do not believe there is an objective standard of morality. Instead, I believe there is one subjective standard and commandment, and that standard can be expressed in two words (subsuming the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule): “Be empathetic!” All else is metaphor and commentary.
This need not mean that there is no real morality. Rather, it means there is no purely objective reality or morality. There is, instead, a real, subjective Reconciler of morally qualitative purposefulness --- i.e., a reconciling cosmos or field of consciousness. As particular and limited perspectives of an unnecessary-to-be-named consciousness, our participatory purposefulness is synchronized, reconciled, and conserved.
Common objections to such a conceptual model include: (1) It gives no hope of salvation of conscious experience after death; (2) It invites pride that elevates selfishness over God, and it fails to provide clear rules that can be sanctioned by earthly interpreters and authorities; (3) It does not condemn any particular conduct as being inherently sinful or evil in itself; (4) It does not provide a common language or system of guidance for assimilating a culture, society, or government; and (5) It conflicts with what we know from empiricism. I believe a little thought would show all such objections to be wrong headed, but this reply is too long already.
I think there is good reason why Jesus is professed to have spoken so much in parables. I believe we should reasonably grant each well-functioning adult the dignity to pray, meditate, and be receptive --- subject to his/her own good faith and good will.
I do not seek a quarrel with catholic faith. Rather, I seek appreciation that the idea of an infallible mortal messenger is subjective, not objective. I think pretense of an objectively real connection with God — as found in Catholicism, Mormonism, and Islam — tends to add unnecessary ambiguity and confusion for many who may be easily taken advantage of. Apart from the verbal confusion, I do tend to admire much of the music, ceremony, atmosphere, and reverence.
Post a Comment