Thursday, October 11, 2012

DREAMS

 
DREAMS: Dreams are the stuff of a severable perspective's informational processing, which jump the tracks of measurably shared reality.  Dreams, though fantastical, often make sense within their context because they need not re-normalize or reconcile to a shared cone of measurable signification. This begs a question: Can a dream ever be shared, to become a cone of experience that is shared in common among multitudinous iterations of a reconciling consciousness? Well, in a way, is that not the situation of our cosmos: a dream, shared in common among iterative perspectives, rationally communicable and measurable only because we happen to share the same dream?
.
Suppose a source program were to broadcast a current interpretation of a common field to multiple receivers, such that each receiver would interpret the program to be of a quality that is convenient to its organically separate and differently structured wiring. Suppose the program also allowed receivers to exchange sensory communications among themselves. In that way, would not the source program be defining the limits and degrees of freedom allowed to each receiver within a commonly broadcast "dream"? In such a case, absent feedback allowed from the receivers to the source, the source program would be outside the measurable time and space of its receivers. That is, the source program would prescribe the potential for what may unfold, and it would reconcile the parameters, but it would not necessarily predict the sequence of what may emerge within allowed degrees of freedom. Nor must the source program itself necessarily enjoy the quality of experience of any of the receivers.
.
However, what if that which is "broadcast" consists of fields of the same consciousness-in-itself? If the cosmos is self-defining (finite yet unbounded?), then it would seem the case that consciousness itself would be that which was being iteratively broadcast. And that would suggest that the source not only defines the parameters and degrees of freedom, but also experiences, records, and reconciles a correlative to the qualtity of beingness that is experienced by every extant perspective. IOW, it suggests that God, in some respect, connects to "feel" correlatives to qualities of our sorrows and joys.
.
ITERATIONS OF AVATARS: One's perspective of consciousness has previously or potentially identified with countless iterations of avatars. Yet, the way one bonds with one's avatar and its presently accumulated cone of experience allows one to experience Nowness as if it were the only Nowness. Fundamentals for how the Source severs, iterates, and reconciles perspectives of consciousness remain constant. Variations are, qualitatively, simply different analogs for a same Entity, i.e., consciousness. Figuring this out does not seem to make the bonding process of birth and death less angst ridden.
.
EMPATHETIC COMPANIONSHIP AMONG AVATARS:  A multitude of iterations, analogs, and avatars avails Consciousness to experience empathy in all manner of quantitatives and qualitatives. The bonding of severed perspectives is what avails companionship, empathy, meaningful communication, and purposefulness. It is a never-ending, perpetually-present story.
.
 

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Marxists, Fascists, Nazis, Socialists, Jihadis, Levelers, and Obamanites all share a common propensity: When they acquire power, they are prone to collect, organize, and reduce everyone who is not part of the regime to "equality" in serf status.

Anonymous said...


Of Red Pills and Inception Architecture: Dreams seem to be the stuff of informational processing that jumps the tracks of shared reality. Dreams often seem sensible while one is in them because one need not reconcile to a measurably shared reality. This begs a question: Can a dream ever be shared, to become an experience shared in common among multitudinous iterations of a reconciling consciousness? Might that not be the situation of our cosmos: a dream, shared in common among iterative perspectives, rationally communicable and measurable only because we happen to share the same dream-cone-of-experience?
.
Suppose a source program were to broadcast a current interpretation of a common field to multiple receivers, such that each receiver would interpret the program to be of a quality that is convenient to its organically separate and differently structured wiring. Suppose the program employed sub-programs (dreams within dreams within dreams -- cue Southpark!), to allow receivers to communicate sensations among themselves. Would not such a source program be defining the limits and degrees of freedom allowed to each receiver within a commonly broadcast "dream"? In such a case, absent feedback allowed from the receivers to the source, the source program would perhaps be outside the measurable time and space of its receivers. The source program would prescribe the potential for what may unfold, and it would reconcile the parameters, but it would not necessarily predict the sequence of what may emerge within allowed degrees of freedom. Nor must the source program itself necessarily enjoy the quality of experience of any of the receivers.
.
However, what if that which is "broadcast" consists of fields of the same consciousness-in-itself? If the cosmos is self-defining, then it would seem the case that consciousness itself would be that which was being iteratively programmed, sub-programmed, and broadcast. (The Sim simulating iterations and sub-iterations of Itself.) May that suggest that the source would not only program and define the parameters and degrees of freedom, but also experience, record, and reconcile the beingness that is experienced by every particular perspective? In that case, what is "good" would seem to be what is conducive to a quality of companionship. This just in: We interrupt this program to broadcast ...

Anonymous said...

Rationalization of a meta basis for belief seems to have much to do with how social beings come to identify with, and assimilate, moral purposefulness. There seem to be important qualitative differences between societies comprised with leaders who believe in and identify with principled purposefulness versus societies that are not so comprised. I doubt moral anarchists, agnostics, or collectivists can enhance their positions without employing strategies to deceive or cajole their intended followers. A collectivist may be more inclined to resort to methods of collective persuasion apart from reason. An individualist may be more interested in what another person "really" believes. The quality of one's moral purposefulness is important. Do leaders believe all members of a collective should share equally in material satisfactions, even at cost of greatly restricting individual freedom? Do leaders believe it is morally more important to accomodate individual freedom than to ensure equality in distribution of material satisfactions? Or do leaders believe a decent society should accomodate individual freedom by nourishing checks and balances for ensuring no clique of cronies acquires wealth or power enough to buy the government or its political leaders? It makes little sense to adopt a stance of: "Oh well, it just doesn't matter whether or not a person "really" believes in any basis for assimilating moral purposefulness." I think it's important to try to fathom what "really" makes particular people tic: Are they serving a higher principle (if so, what is it?), a predatory gang, a clique of crony deceivers, or just themselves?