.
Jesus is Logos for the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. His life was illustrative of those principles. Many people intuit those principles. That intuition cannot be confirmed in measureable empirical evidence. Even so, I suspect even atheists intuit an organizing moral principal, even if it is as hollow as self preservation at all costs. One either intuits a higher moral guide, or one does not. Some act on the basis of a higher organizing principle, even as they deny God. Their actions speak of faith, even as their words deny it. I think they are quite confused about that which is reasonably believed about moral purposefulness and yet not amenable of empirical proof. They don't get how the author of our empirical nature need not be inferior to our empiricism. IOW, they look for reason to believe in all the wrong places. However, at least they tend to be less dangerous to human decency than those who believe all others have value only as materials for advancing themselves. As to Islam, I don't find much in it or its practice that does honor to the Golden Rule. To all who have faith in the Author of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, have a Merry Christmas! To the rest, if you intuit you have no soul, I don't disagree. In your case, who knows: Maybe you're right. Just don't expect me to stand aside while you monopolize the public square with visions of free soma and condoms for kiddies merely because I believe God prefers to guide us towards a more modest society that is respectful of human freedom and dignity under an assimilating mores.
.
Jesus is Logos for the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. His life was illustrative of those principles. Many people intuit those principles. That intuition cannot be confirmed in measureable empirical evidence. Even so, I suspect even atheists intuit an organizing moral principal, even if it is as hollow as self preservation at all costs. One either intuits a higher moral guide, or one does not. Some act on the basis of a higher organizing principle, even as they deny God. Their actions speak of faith, even as their words deny it. I think they are quite confused about that which is reasonably believed about moral purposefulness and yet not amenable of empirical proof. They don't get how the author of our empirical nature need not be inferior to our empiricism. IOW, they look for reason to believe in all the wrong places. However, at least they tend to be less dangerous to human decency than those who believe all others have value only as materials for advancing themselves. As to Islam, I don't find much in it or its practice that does honor to the Golden Rule. To all who have faith in the Author of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, have a Merry Christmas! To the rest, if you intuit you have no soul, I don't disagree. In your case, who knows: Maybe you're right. Just don't expect me to stand aside while you monopolize the public square with visions of free soma and condoms for kiddies merely because I believe God prefers to guide us towards a more modest society that is respectful of human freedom and dignity under an assimilating mores.
.
4 comments:
Each perspective of consciousness experiences and communicates interpretations of a shared source of unfolding Information that is constrained and directed in subservience to a system of geometrical math (platonic geometry). The system of Information is signified to our experience as a shared grid of space-time-matter-energy, derivative of math that is based on fluxing and unfolding feedback of vibrations of vibrations, spins of spins, forms of forms --- all comprising the web/grid of Information. Participation of feedback via appreciation of conscious communication makes the system of fluxing wholes/fields and feeling parts/particles one of "Active Math," i.e., binary bits of math (Nature) plus reconciling feedback (God), perpetually seeking a subjective resolution of "how/is" and why/ought" that lies beyond the objective capacity of math-by-itself. Mere math under a supposed law of the excluded middle cannot reconcile how or why it is that the Holism should abide as a quality that is not entirely accounted for merely by summing its parts.
The psychiatric and teaching professions have been harnessed to serve a common goal: to make society more tolerant of all that is intolerant of decent society. Those who wish to rule society as a mere material thing have no compass by which to recognize or define decency or normality. They do not want a society that can assimilate to resist their hold. When a behavior is presently abnormal, or abnormal to sustainable decency, they have only to question how to "progress" to a society where it would not be abnormal. Progressive is to recognize that there is no moral progress. Nothing is abnormal! because, after all, evolution is not guided. There is no constraining feedback, no moral Reconciler. Things and behaviors "just are." So there is nothing abnormal about a collective promoting its parasites to rule its producing hosts. For the times, they are a collecting. Well, allrighty then! So there's nothing abnormal or wrong about producers re-changing "the times," to withdraw from and nullify the parasitic society. After all, a culture that cannot even resognize right from wrong, decent from indecent, and normal from grotesque cannot long stand. The fascist, parasitic Left knows this in its bones. Decent people need to learn it in their hearts.
For God to be meaningfully relevant to us, there needs to be a feedback relationship. The parts need to be interested in the whole, and the whole needs to be interested in its parts. (There is no such thing as a thing-in-itself or a self-in-itself that can be interested only in itself. There is no such thing as pure individualism or pure collectivism. There is, however, meaningful communication of individual self within a collective-context of equational-laws.)
I don't see how one can reasonably advocate for moral sense or prayer while believing everything, even God, is preset, merely to unfold from an original deity's predetermination, as if God were merely some trapped epiphenomena of Nature. If God does not take an interest in our unfolding doings, then of what moral or practical relevance is any concept about God?
I see the point of constraining and defining parameters and equations. After all, how else could there be gravity, substance, or any reliable means or logos for communication? However, within each equation and sub-equation, there abide worlds of possibilities. Unless one advocates for absurdities (such as that all that can happen in an infinity of worlds must happen), then the relationship between the Holism and its particular perspectives would seem in many particulars not to be preset, but to unfold as appreciations and reconciliations among observers unfold. (Would you be interested in counting off towards infinity, knowing in advance each number that must next follow its predecessor?) A God who knows so much that He cannot change His mind or alter His path of interests based on continuous re-evaluation of unfolding appreciations makes no sense to me in logic, morality, or inspiration. It is the appreciatively and not-entirely-predictable quality of the fluxing, chaotic, feedback, non-linear relationship between the reconciling will of the Holism and the exploring wills of particular perspectives that allows the "eternal present" of unfolding beingness to be meaningful.
Obstacles (evil?) are necessary to the meaningful expression of moral will. What would be the morality or purposefulness of being able at the flip of a wish to whip the universe into whatever shape one may then and there incline to favor? To avail meaningful expression of moral will (degrees of freedom) entails that each participant, even the Holism, will adopt interests in the competing and cooperative interests and empathies of others. The equations of Nature provide quantitative means for signifying the reconciliation of qualitative interests. Evil, like goodness, is not purely quantitative, for evil is not without its qualitative aspects. The blood of Nature is necessary in order to avail means for guiding the evolution of goodness. Maybe someday each will be guided to bear a cross that remains always much more uplifting than painful.
A ruler of a collectivist society will generally have greater need to instill fear in order to protect his regime. Much less consideration is accorded to individuals and mitigating factors than to the strict needs of the regime. What starts out as an appeal to protect or redistribute to the masses tends to end up as despotism that uses individuals as examples for inculcating fear. Since the masses are deemed illiterate, ignorant, and individually inept, they need masters to rule them, to tell them what is for the best. After awhile, the masses become convinced of their incompetence and firmly believe this is for the best. This is the result of reducing all competent middle classes to the level of the herd. This is the result of swamping a competent middle class electorate with third world incompetents. For corrupt ruling sheiks in white robes who come to own their own havens and harems, this dehumanization of mankind is their idea of a good life, brought about by cynical deployment of stockholm syndrome on a mass scale. And all the commie humanists said amen to the dehumanization of the masses.
Post a Comment