Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Free Will and Contemporaneous Participation

Free Will and Contemporaneous Participation:
.
From my perspective, what I do, as in a game of rock-paper-scissors, often seems random, qualitative, unpredictable. Yet, a computer may be fitted (perhaps even “unconsciously”) to “read” my body, predict my plays, and thus beat me every time. It could be preset to read the salient context, perhaps sense my brain waves, and predict my actions before my own consciousness were aware of each of my decisions that preceded every play. However: Could I, unknown to it, fit a second computer, likewise to read it? And could I then upset the balance by keeping each play ambiguous, until I got a read from the second computer? One may object and say no amount of biologically-sponsored ambiguity and cunning could be fast enough to upset an electronically-wired opponent that did not have to integrate with biological processes. I doubt that is true. I suspect human-like consciousness can be merged with cyborg-like leveraging. I suspect individuated perspectives of consciousness are ultimately the expressions of a meta field, not mere byproducts of randomly chaotic biological evolution.
.
So, instead of multiple hierarchies of consciousness of contemporaneous determination, I wonder whether there may abide chaotic and circular feedback (within a reconciling-network or meta-internet of avatars for receiving and transmitting quantitative signals of qualitative intentions)? How abides capacity to determine and manifest measurable significations (whether preset, contemporaneous, or revised)? Is the process entirely LINEAR, or may the process be more CIRCULAR (or digital) — entailing perpetual feedback (appreciation and reconciliation between perspectives of wholes and of parts, between consciousness of contexts and points of view)? Generally, the process of determination for each unfoldment of sequencing seems necessarily to entail a dance of the qualitative with the quantitative ... even though “which-is-quantitative-and-which-is-qualitative” may depend on context and point of view.
.
Sense might more often be better communicated by replacing the notion of “free will” with a substitute: Instead of “free will,” reason in respect of “a qualitative sensation of contemporaneously effecting a determination.” Through the avatar of my body, “I” can empathize morally so long as I experience a sense of contemporaneously participating in effecting determinations. Were society to inculcate more regard for a concept of a reconciling and connecting field of empathetic consciousness, it would seem an unnecessary complication to moral philosophy to further belabor an individuated concept of free will. “Free will” may exist, but it would seem better to conceptualize it as that Immeasurable which purposes to determine and reconcile both the universal field of measurable context and all its possible points of view — something like a class with a membership of one, which seems to abide, even as it defies constraint to mortal sense of logic or morality. At such a meta level, free will would seem to be only of intuitive relevance to thinking society. As such a meta concept, free will would tend to be interesting for specific applications only to easily impressed followers of such mad men as deem themselves exclusive messengers of a God who is otherwise impotent to guide anyone else. For such Will, however, the significations of each and every one of our bodies and measurable cosmos would constitute only the avatars and agencies for conveying messages, not The Actor. That is, the Will-that-is-done experiences identification (individuated I-ness), and evaluates and guides and reconciles unfolding expressions, as such expressions are signed through the various avatars with which our Perspectives of IT are identified. It is the sense and feedback of contemporaneous participation that inspires our perspectives, not control of (or entire representation of) the holism of Will.
.
****************
.
Some Reconciling Entity seems to be taking feedback and fashioning it to give representation to a system in which participants may eventually promote cooperation over competition. But getting to that level seems to entail a path through competition. However, suppose we reach a point where most material wants are easily satisfied. Suppose you were able to go to the store (or atom builder) and simply take whatever may meet your specifications. You would have no need to own such a store or to fill your home with its produce. Not enduring scarcity, you may need to occupy yourself with satisfying other pursuits. I wonder what such occupations would be? Would you identify with a body to condition yourself to have other cravings, so you could find release in seeking to satiate them? Would you seek spiritual recognition, promotion, or power? Would you simply be absorbed into a superior reconciling pursuer? If so, what may be IT's meta pursuits? Would IT design and guide systems of worlds, riddles, and challenges in order to satisfy an inherent or spiritual craving for artistic creativity and empathetic feedback? May it be the lot of consciousness to perpetually occupy itself with pursuing appreciation of self conserving limits for working through self created systems? Maybe the imagined geometry of possibilities is both the muse and the albatross of consciousness, the yin and yang that drives morally empathetic feedback.
.
Morally empathetic feedback:  I haven't yet read Byrne's The Secret. I think I will. I think maybe the imagined geometry of possibilities is both the muse and the albatross of consciousness, the yin and yang, back and forth that digitally drives morally empathetic feedback: To pursue one's way in order to be receptive to such arts of others as incline to help one to inspire one's own expressions of art in return. This necessitates a context of perpetually unfolding challenges. With such context, each of us both competes and cooperates to participate in the unfolding expression of artistically spiritual and meaningful pursuits. This is not about false "progress" merely to bring forth gaudy technologies or satiation of material wants. There abides a spiritual complement to our physical sighs. Through our experiences, that complement may be what the Almighty finds perpetually leading in meaningfulness: Not making cripples for the purpose of seeming to cure them only in order to dominate them, but making systems for the purpose of venting and sharing artistic expressions of perspectives of conscious self. I think this yin and yang is what much of the East found long ago, and what the West has largely repressed in false linearity.
.
 
 

 

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I suspect much of political drag is a consequence of false consciousness about "progress" -- whether it should be based in linearly competitive technology (individualism), circularly cooperative spirituality (collectivism), or an artistic balance of both (artist-ivism). Maybe the imagined geometry of possibilities is both the muse and the albatross of consciousness, the yin and yang, back and forth that digitally drives morally empathetic feedback: To pursue one's way in order to be receptive to such arts of others as incline to help one to inspire one's own expressions of art in return. This necessitates a context of perpetually unfolding challenges. With such context, each of us both competes and cooperates to participate in the unfolding expression of artistically spiritual and meaningful pursuits. This is not about false "progress" merely to bring forth gaudy technologies or satiation of material wants. There seems to abide a spiritual complement to our physical sighs. Through our experiences, that complement may be what the Almighty (whether it be a mere conserving field or a meta consciousness) facilitates as a perpetual lead to meaningfulness: Not making cripples for the purpose of seeming to cure them only in order to dominate them, but making systems for the purpose of venting and sharing artistic expressions of perspectives of conscious self. This yin and yang seems to be what much of the East found long ago, and what the West has largely repressed in false linearity. That may point a better way to balance competition and cooperation.

Anonymous said...

It often seems Lefties despise all moral values. One might expect that Lefties would sense, even in a relativistic world, that at least a meta-morality remains essential: That is, enough sense of morality to preserve one's place in respect of a decent, sustainable civilization. Lefties, however, appear to feel that any civilization that wants to preserve sustainable values cannot be decent, especially when its values inhibit their immediate gratifications. You can't fix this kind of deep, stupid sickness.

Anonymous said...

Re: Politicians Can't
Well, the politicians are only the help, and the article assumes they are hired by ordinary Americans. However, ordinary Americans are dis-assimilated. The real employers are elsewhere, driven by their own agenda. The agenda is not an American agenda. Politicians cannot practice their trade unless they are hired and bankrolled, and they are not hired or bankrolled by any assimilated culture of Americans. The signs are beyond obvious. Obama is acid to what used to be American values. Everyone knows that, yet Obama is not fired. If the powers that shape things wanted to dump Obama, they could flick him away. He would be impeached. He is barely a figurehead, more like a golf caddy than a golfer.

I hope Romney can be an improvement. If he is, it will be because of his faith in spiritual purposefulness. Were he without such faith, common sense suggests he would remain beholden to much the same elitist agenda that now owns most institutions of mind twisting, banking, and force. That agenda, driven by faithless need and greed, drives Obama and buys politicians everywhere. Mainly, we're talking bread and circuses; divide, distract, and rule. Ordinary Americans are oblivious and do not think; they are led to feel. They baa to let the agenda-driven and owned media do their thinking for them. No charismatic leadership, and certainly no coterie of Ivy thinkers, has derived, inspired, or convinced Americans of any real need to think or of any real system of values around which to assimilate and organize decent society. Nearly everything has become a matter of convenience to feelings: need and greed. Judeo-Christian values are being ground out by seemingly unstoppable forces of darkness and dehumanization.

Meanwhile, la la people assume all will be well if everyone simply attracts happy thoughts, per The Secret. I don't mean to be misunderstood. I happen to believe in a connecting field of consciousness. I just don't think it's all about lovey-dovey. It's illuminating to read The Secret alongside Darkness at Noon. Idealism is fine, but we need eyes opened. Unfortunately, I much doubt enough eyes will be opened until hard times actually hit us on our collective foreheads. Even then, rebuilding and re-assmiliating decency will take a long time. Meantime, fraudsters will commit fraud until fiat money can no longer buy politicians.