.
If there can abide vibes of vibes, spins of spins, forms of forms, then why not maths of maths? Why not "Active Math?" Why not math being simulated, projected, and imaged by Active Math? Take the EROEI acronym, for Energy Recovered on Energy Invested. Instead of Energy, substutute Greed, or Cronyism, or Ignorance, Quality, or WILL TO MATH (using to math as a verb). Consider space and time separations of digital increments and sequences. May not space and time be illusions, not things in themselves, but derivatives of subparts and subsequences in math operations? May not imaging abide in translation of projections of math operations? May not time (relative chronology) abide in active identification with directional sequencing of math operations? Nothing, per se, precludes reversal of a directional sequence or path of math operations, except during the pendency (or shared habitation) of a math of operations that sustains the direction. So long as Consciousness bonds to, identifies with, or occupies an originating empty set (zero-particle-circle-sphere), then operations that sequence its subsets will record (and reduce to translatable remembrance) the path, so that partial returns or variations among perspectives along such shared path will be formed by Active Math to memory. By assuming Perspectives of Will and binding their Identities with math operations, Perspectives thus "remember" their origins and/or their way home --- even though home, direction, and time are not in themselves real.
2 comments:
The problem is this: Accepting that "fairness is subjective" does nothing to alter another fact: that we have no choice but to make choices. That is, we cannot "leave it" at fairness being subjective. Certainly, liberals do not leave it at that.
One may suppose that "fairness" should consist in altering one's context in relation to others as one would have others alter their context in respect of oneself. This would extend "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" by factoring context. Factoring context may seem a good thing, but it would not always be so. Not if one factored context by assuming one is in oneself the present apex of contextual evolution, so as to presume all others should serve oneself. In any event, "fairness," nebulous as it is, entails identifying with the well being and liberty of others to give reasonable expression to their interests. This would entail working to establish and sustain societies based on some extent of freedom of expression and enterprise. It would also entail seeking wisdom to refrain from utopian visions that presume to make the perfect the enemy of the good. For example, refraining from attempting to build democracy in cultures that lack foundation for it.
See the 29 September 2012 issue of NewScientist, re: "Is Everything Made Of Numbers." A good argument can be made that everything that is measurable is best conceptualized as consisting only of numbers and equations, arising in respect of the one empty (zero) set. From there, every measurable thing can be represented in binary code, based on ones and zeros, perhaps like yin/yang or dot/dash Morse Code. But dead math gets you only so far. What gives a direction to math or to space-time or memorable experience? Platonic Geometry (arch forms)? What Immeasurable binds conscious identities of unfolding experiences to measurable representations? What avails us with purposeful degrees of freedom within limits defined by math? Some Reconciler of Active Math? Even Libs seem to claim to be purposeful. What Source drives their purposefulness, and why are they so confused that they refuse to acknowledge it, even as they assert purposefulness? They want to derive their "oughts" not from Active Math but from dead math. Everything is as dead to them as to the antagonists of Old Lodge Skins, in Little Big Man. They want to rub God out, much as a child may want to run away from home. The silliest thing is their pretext: That figures of speech often used in sacred texts cannot be literally true. Newsflash: They are figures of speech. Duh. Get over it. Look to the assimilative spiritual meanings behind them. BTW -- the "physics" some assume to be so real in itself is not real in itself, either. It is relationally representative. Vibrations of vibrations, spins of spins, forms of forms, maths of maths. Yet, for measurable purposes, we find their models/logos to be useful. Similarly, for immeasurable, purposeful, intuitively moral purposes, it is open to us to find spiritual models/logos (figures of speech) meaningful. The alternative is the knowitall child who knows nothing and messes in everything.
Post a Comment