We need more appreciation of what may be entailed in communication, competition, cooperation, conservation, and causation, i.e., interrelations between expressive individuals and reconciling collectives and fields. Too many seem too stuck on assumptions they deem convenient, such as:
That the time between one's death and one's reincarnation must be experienced as more than the blink of an eye;
That what is measurable physics cannot evolve with its measurers;
That the field of consciousness cannot connect sequences except through such delayed transfers among particles as each particular point of view happens to have capacity to experience;
That we can never harness technology to connect sequences beyond limits that seem to constrain measurable physics;
That individual freedom can avail meaning without respect for one's collective context, and that collective context can avail meaning without respect for individual focus;
That any of our cells, conceptual centers, customs, cultures, and countries is other than significative of a swarm (unfolding field) of ideas and perspectives, cooperating and competing to give expression to a meaningfully connected point of view within an unfolding context;
That future causation is simultaneously fixed (unavoidable), yet also predictable (avoidable);
That measurable physics is the sole meaningful cause of the birth and death of each perspective of consciousness;
That the field of consciousness must be devoid of capacity to express itself except as the effect, rather than as the reconciling cause, of such relational absolutes as happen to conserve the cosmos we are presently induced to measure our avatars against.
2 comments:
I suspect many of the Tea Party do not consider it empathetic for able-bodied, crony louts to align with corrupt lords to sit on a wagon while buying and selling laws to force middle class workers to pull, while liesurely gorging and entitling themselves on gambling games, drugs, and sex.
Interesting stuff. Even though everything connects, we still must participate in reconciling the connections. For that, I think Three Fundamental Ideas are competing rather than cooperating: (1) That consciousness is inferior to (entirely reducible to, or derivative of) substance; (2) that substance is inferior to consciousness; and (3) that consciousness and substance necessarily function in tandem (substance being the unavoidably measurable expession of immeasurable reconciliation among perspectives of a unifying field of consciousness). What seems to confound us is that the various ways we have tried to establish bright, logical lines between the three ideas seem to blur as contexts change. (Set theory itself becomes blurry, especially when it used to try to quantify the qualitative.) For awhile, the prevailing idea seemed to be that all of metahysics is discredited, because nothing is worthwhile unless it can be reduced to explanation entirely within the measurable substantive. It took Chalmers to "make metaphysics respectable again," perhaps to reduce hubris among fanatic empiricists-of-reduction.
Meantime, worldviews have polarized, weighing many attempts to use words rigorously with overtones of worldview bias, often confounding attempts to signify or communicate interests in good faith. My hope (and bet) is on a synthesis of Ideas 2 and 3. I suspect they may be assimilated in a consistent way that need not damage scientific pursuits. We need to restore faith in real possibilities for reconciling ideas and ways for empathy and goodness to rise and lead the swarm. (For example, I would not consider it empathetic or good for able-bodied, crony louts to align with corrupt lords to sit on a wagon while buying and selling politicians, in order to force middle class workers to pull while louts and lords liesurely gorge and entitle themselves on power trips, drugs, and sex. At least, not unless we "progress" to a brave new economy based on robotic slaves, programmed to enjoy being slaves.)
Post a Comment