Tuesday, May 26, 2015

ONTIC OPENING AND ELECTIVE AFFINITY

ONTIC OPENING AND ELECTIVE AFFINITY:

I would agree that every particular thing that is measurably expressed by the godhead (meta-source) is expressed in math-based terms. But I think that does not necessarily mean what seems to be commonly supposed. I would just as well conceptualize that the Reconciling Essence-Source is the common host for all that unfolds to neasurable sensation. All that is defined by vectored math. Regardless of whatever choices the Reconciler elects to express, they will be expressed in quanticized terms of vectored math. Discrete jumps and continuous changes among phase-shifting appearances of dimensions that are definable in maths.

The fact that whatever is measurable conforms to maths that enable its measure is no sound proof of lack of a Reconciler. The fact that whatever is chosen to be measured out will conform to measuring maths seems more like a truism than an insight.

If the math-based conserving-feedback of a controlling Reconciler were absent, there would be no basis for order to arise out of chaos or for consciousness ever to manifest out of potentiality.
The dance of feedback between holism and part-icipants is mathematically appreciable, not entirely pre-determined, not entirely random, and more than a mere mix of the pre-determined and the random. The dance abides in respect of an unfolding process of determining, but not pre-determined, (conscious) appreciation between and among the godhead and its perspectivistic part-icipants. More like a Jungian collective un-consciousness than a soul-dead collective non-consciousness. All that is materially measurable is merely the fleeting expression of an underlying immeasurable, i.e., the Essence-Source, Qualitative-Quantifier, Uncaused-Causer, Changing-Changer, Conserving-Reconciler.

I doubt there is any ultimate, building block, inanimate, particle-in-itself. I doubt there is any handle by which to completely close off every leap of faith in respect of an ontic opening.  IAE, for a purpose of moral conceptualization (not empirical investigation), it seems to make more sense to model as if a Trinitarian Godhead avails the unfolding expression of Consciousness-Substance-Information.  That is, as if there abides a meta-moral dignity in how we choose to pursue and elect to appreciate our affinities.  There abides mysterious dignity in asking: Why did God choose to like this cosmos? What determines/causes liking? Why should any human choose to like/appreciate anything?  What is the character/nature of a moral agent's exercise of  part-icipatory choice/election to like/appreciate?

************************

This is as good a place as any to begin an amusing musing about some new word usages I came across:  "Ontic opening" (leap of meta faith) and "elective affinity" (participating in how your choices are determined).  The words seem unusual, but the concepts are not.

As to ontic opening:  I don't see how anyone can avoid an orientation to a leap of meta faith of some kind. 

For example, Muslims believe everything is predetermined (and we see the extreme cruelty and craziness to which their kind of faith often leads).  Extreme determinist scientists may adhere to a similar idea.  But the reasonable ones recognize limits to the testing of their cause-effect (pin-ball) meme, as well as limits to the completeness (Godel) of their systems of logic.  Excepting some silliness from Sam Harris, they tend to recognize that general (as opposed to contingent) moral "oughts" are not derivable from empirical "is's."  For a meme or conceptualization from which to discuss moral derivation, the notion of quantum randomness leading to order arising out of chaos seems no better.

Whatever conceptual meme one may choose (whether consciously, inferentially, or unconsciously), one has no choice, if one chooses to try to function in respect of "reason,"  but to adopt some leap of ontologically based faith.

When one functions "scientifically" (concerning empirical measurables), one accepts a cause-effect meme that relies on concepts of randomness or determination, or some mix thereof.  However, when one functions "morally" (concerning choices, whether or not such choices are ultimately caused or elected because of controlling affinities), it becomes necessary to accord moral actors with a quality of dignity beyond that of a pin ball.  Then, it becomes helpful to conceptualize a moral connection among and between an ontological Creator-Connector and other conscious part-icipants within the creation.  That is how one may conceptually derive the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

Regardless of what one may believe about the "ultimate or final" reality of substantive bodies or part-icles, the story that was exemplified in the life of Jesus made "flesh of the Word" of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  In that sense, at least, it is no disservice to discuss Jesus as the Son of God.


IAE, without some such leap of faith, society would lack a concept, parable, and language with which to communicate moral empathies.  An atheist may think to take issue with bible based literalisms, but an atheist who claims to "be as moral as any Christian" makes no sense unless he first implicates a belief in an ontological basis for some kind of morality.  That is, an "ontic opening."

*****



We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency. But no known or knowable math confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfectly free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.
In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.


*****

If God were omni-perfect without feedback from fluxing patterns and mortal perspectives, than God would not seem to have any need or interest in mortals. From mortal perspective, we are not equipped to imagine how any Being could be conscious at all, without interfunctioning with any flux of patterns to be conscious of. Why should I entertain an opinion about that which is not essential to a system of moral belief and of which I am without capacity to explain?

I think an opinion about a meta-Being or meta-state-of-affairs is needed ... to guide and facilitate communications concerning moral purposefulness. But I see no need to try to resolve in one's imagination whether such Being may be with or without fore-knowledge or power to change His own mind. Indeed, Muslims have bound up the idea of pre-determination to misled them into imagining God to be a fascist monster.

While mortal, no person is free to do whatever he wants merely by willing it. But every human being is conscious of participating in effecting choices. He makes his choices not in a void, but based on contextual affinities. He is not the entire cause of his own affinities. In this sense, no person has entire free will, but every person does have participatory will. Respect for the humanity of each person necessitates that he, as an adult, be accorded respect for his participatory will, i.e., his right and responsibility under God and within bounds of decency to make his own choices based on his own affinities.

We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency. But no math known to any mortal confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfect free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.

In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.

Without some such leap of faith, society would lack a concept, parable, and language with which to communicate moral empathies. An atheist may think to take issue with bible-based literalisms, but an atheist who claims to "be as moral as any Christian" makes no sense unless he first implicates a belief in an ontological basis for some kind of morality. That is, an "ontic opening."

It is a truism that whatever is measurable, to be measurable, will conform to (i.e., be conserved, synchronized, and reconciled to) measuring maths. Experience tends to confirm that similar results correlate with similar patterns. As we become more proficient in predicting how patterns of correlations unfold, we incline to interpret correlates as causes. We may call each pin ball the cause of each following effect, while ignoring the originating set up for each system of pin ball collisions. Or, we may imagine that some meta and immeasurable pin ball underlies everything, as the originator of all subsequent interactions.

Depending on our purposes, we may imagine the originator as dumb and inanimate, mathematically pre-bound, entirely pre-determined, bizarrely random, or electively appreciative of unfolding affinitiies. We may conceptualize that some level of holistic or meta consciousness abides as an innate attribute, or that consciousness is a quality that emerges only in respect of unfolding patterns of underlying and complex interactions of inanimate part-icles that are bound to math-based properties.

Regardless of preferred conceptualization, the implication of an Essence-Source, Uncaused-Causer, Changeless-Changer, Conserving-Reconciler, is, in itself, immeasurable. Since it is immeasurable, whatever the meta-properties one may conceptually attribute to it, such will entail a leap of faith, like a spark of imagination. For empirical investigations, one's imagination tends to be sparked with a cause-effect meme of analysis. For moral recommendations, one's faith tends to correlate with and leap to teleological purposes.

When one functions "scientifically" (concerning empirical measurables), one accepts a cause-effect meme that relies on concepts of randomness or determination, or some mix thereof. However, when one functions "morally" (concerning choices, whether or not such choices are ultimately caused or elected because of controlling affinities), it becomes necessary to accord moral actors with a quality of dignity beyond that of a pin ball. Then, it becomes helpful to conceptualize a moral connection among and between an ontological Creator-Connector-Connection and other conscious part-icipants within the creation. That is how one may conceptually derive, imagine, or communicate concerning the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Suppose there abides, beyond our ken, a meta-perpetual-present, which is perpetually renormalized to every mortal perspective.
A mortal cannot experience ot travel in continuosity through such meta-present-time.
But, may a mortal leave his renormalized time and pop into a distant point in space-time?
Perhaps.
Perhaps, by exceeding the speed of light in traveling from one spatial point to another, a mortal would, during such travel, have no experience of passage of time.
Whenever-wherever he arrived, he would be unaware of what had transpired at his old locus.
He would seem to have arrived instantaneously at his new locus.
He would have no way to go back to his original locus in space-time.
But he could try to travel back to his comparatively same old spatial locus.
And if he were able to take a faster than light return trip, he would experience generally similar effects to those of his trip out.
He himself would experience his travel time as zero.
But his "return" would be to a place much changed in time.
Perhaps, with sufficient technological advances, calculations could be determined in advance of each trip with reard to general effects on time renormalization for the traveler.
In any event, it would seem that travel faster than light may be possible by leaving the continuoty of renormalizing space-time and jumping through meta-space-time through a math-based wormhole.
The problem is, how could a flight out ensure its return flight back?
Have we been visited by wormhole travelers?
I suspect we have.
Does danger of collision with ordinary matter vanish upon exceeding the speed of light?
Perhaps no mass-based substance could meet the speed of light.
But, could mass-based bodies be temporarily translated into standing photon-waves and as a standing field be thus transferred through a wormhole and then at a safe house at the other end be translated back to material form?
Or, could a conscious body exist as a standing photon field of no mass?
Problem: Does not a standing collection or organization of photons have mass?

Anonymous said...

Rubio is correct that the agenda of those who deem it hate speech to speak against same sex marriage will turn next to make the fundaments of competent Christianity out to be hate speech. The attack on family competency will inevitably turn to attack faith, then to attack fidelity to the nation itself. In quick steps, such attacks will open the way for NWO despotism to replace representative republicanism.

A decent republic cannot be sustained by faith in nothing but the State, family in polyamory, and communist fidelity to entitlement mongering.

Byzantine Rome did not fall until 1453, after the West had been weakened by plague and war. During the 11th Century, the use of hash hish became common among Muslims.* It seems polygamy-minded Muslims high on Allah and hash hish invaded in search of booty, young virgin sex, and work slaves. This is how harems are made.

The modern West is being weakened by a plague of metrosexual pedophiles and disloyal oligarchs who are maleducating the populace, to prepare the way for eventual wide acceptance of polygamy, child grooming, and hash hish. The way Muslim despots took Byzantine may easily be repeated in America.

Metrosexual deviants, child groomers, sex traffickers, and polygamy-advocates appear to be a vanguard for despotism. Once the traditional family is de-defined and destroyed, non-harem owning men would perversely search out cousins, other men, and goats to satisfy their urges. Women would be relegated to roles of servitude. Once Progs eliminate faith, family and fidelity, the way is cleared for despotic totalitarianism.

What about Mexico? Its religious, social, and family values are those of a two-class, collectivist society. Mexico is not an exemplar of the kind of independent and Protestant faith, family values, and national fidelity that can sustain a decent society. Faith in Mexico encompasses a hodge podge of superstitions. Family values are more like clan-collectivist values than values that promote respect for individual freedom and competence. The nation is regulated as a two-class society of collective dependents, without a competent middle class of values that could assimilate national loyalty or fidelity.

Similarly, the Middle East is filled with collectivist and incompetent cults that, without oil and despotic force, would be ill equipped to sustain national loyalties. Its faith and fidelity are to collectivizing sharia and caliphate, not to any nation. It has no family values that could be competent to sustain a decent republic.

Anonymous said...

In popping out of locally renormalized space-time and quanta-vectoring to a different locus, a person would, "during" such projective popping, lose time. He would be outside renormalizing time, and not in any continuous way in meta-time. He would lose time in a way that would be renormalized only when he popped back into his destination.

Anonymous said...

I am not fond of Rico. Many of its abuses could be eliminated by eliminating much of the war on drugs. Which I advocate. Trim laws before enacting more laws.

I do not believe more gov can be the solution to bad gov. So I advocate decentralization. I recognize, however, that decentralization requires respect for local decisions -- even bad ones. So I advocate for the right of localities to make some bad decisions. So long as they live with them, and do not claim entitlement to be bailed out by their federal parents.

Meantime, so long as bad laws remain on the books, they should, where possible, be deployed against Progs and their foundations. Progs, whether Rino or Dino, should have their own bad laws used against them. Level the playing field, so to speak. Use Rico against the Regime.

Anonymous said...

The game is, "Who's the craziest?" Ali, with his crazy act, scared Liston into taking what looked like an early dive. (Smokin' Joe Frazier, otoh, wasn't fazed by the crazy talk.)

Rinos tell Conservatives they have no place else to go. Conservatives tell Rinos, if that's the case, they may as well stay home. If Rinos are not in bed to destroy America, then they will stop acting like it. While they advocate, and act, against enforcing the border, there can be few clearer signs that they will do nothing to save the republic. At that point, it becomes clear that politics will have to be carried on by other means.

Evidently, this is too hard for Rinos to understand. So, I expect things will boil until ordinary Americans will be rioting against the Rino-Dino alliance, said alliance constituting what Carson would probably call treason.

I agree that reform will be difficult. However, the system, as it is, is producing much disquiet. The post-racial prezy has thrown gas on racial tensions. Soon, the system will produce gnashing of teeth. When it produces enough of that, the people will begin to listen to people like Ted Cruz. The way to gauge that is to keep sending forth people like Cruz, until more people begin to listen.

No one expects reform in a day. But neither will there be reform so long as it is thought impossible. Even if Cruz fails to inspire enough people to engage their minds this time around, he can lay groundwork. Then, when they see he was prescient, they will tend to take a closer look next time around. Meantime, it remains important to keep decent *faith.

*********************

*Were people angels, we would not have needed the example of Jesus.

We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency.

But no known or knowable math confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfectly free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.

In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.

Anonymous said...

In aligning against traditional marriage, Scotus is aligning with NWO interests that seek to marginalize independent nations and republics and realign all governance under the fluxing rule of elitists of secular and religious fascism, i.e., communist nomenklatura (eastasia), crony oligarchs (oceania), and jihadi mullahs and imams (westasia). The corporate state is your new Big Daddy. Mommy is soon to be a dirty word.

Anonymous said...

Rubio is correct that the agenda of those who deem it hate speech to speak against same sex marriage will turn next to make the fundaments of competent Christianity out to be hate speech. The attack on family competency will inevitably turn to attack faith, then to attack fidelity to the nation itself. In quick steps, such attacks will open the way for NWO despotism to replace representative republicanism.

A decent republic cannot be sustained by faith in nothing but the State, family in polyamory, and communist fidelity to entitlement mongering.

Byzantine Rome did not fall until 1453, after the West had been weakened by plague and war. During the 11th Century, the use of hash hish became common among Muslims.* It seems polygamy-minded Muslims high on Allah and hash hish invaded in search of booty, young virgin sex, and work slaves. This is how harems are made.

The modern West is being weakened by a plague of metrosexual pedophiles and disloyal oligarchs who are maleducating the populace, to prepare the way for eventual wide acceptance of polygamy, child grooming, and hash hish. The way Muslim despots took Byzantine may easily be repeated in America.

Metrosexual deviants, child groomers, sex traffickers, and polygamy-advocates appear to be a vanguard for despotism. Once the traditional family is de-defined and destroyed, non-harem owning men would perversely search out cousins, other men, and goats to satisfy their urges. Women would be relegated to roles of servitude. Once Progs eliminate faith, family and fidelity, the way is cleared for despotic totalitarianism.

What about Mexico? Its religious, social, and family values are those of a two-class, collectivist society. Mexico is not an exemplar of the kind of independent and Protestant faith, family values, and national fidelity that can sustain a decent society. Faith in Mexico encompasses a hodge podge of superstitions. Family values are more like clan-collectivist values than values that promote respect for individual freedom and competence. The nation is regulated as a two-class society of collective dependents, without a competent middle class of values that could assimilate national loyalty or fidelity.

Similarly, the Middle East is filled with collectivist and incompetent cults that, without oil and despotic force, would be ill equipped to sustain national loyalties. Its faith and fidelity are to collectivizing sharia and caliphate, not to any nation. It has no family values that could be competent to sustain a decent republic.

The NWO means to apply similar techniques to nations of the West, to undermine republics and replace them with oligarchic-corporatist rulers of syndicated territories within a borderless, global, two-class regimen. Its oligarchs imagine they will prevail over Muslims and somehow evade the tendency of Muslims to kill one another until there is only one global despotism.

Anonymous said...

Like free will, free trade is a deceptive misnomer. There is participatory will and there is participatory trade. But there is no free will or free trade. A proper aspiration may be to broaden participatory trade in order to leverage economies of scale, diversification and competition. But the idea of "free trade" in an era when oligarchs trade massively in buying and selling gov favors, incentives, regulations and licenses seems mainly to serve as a disguise for hold up artists and mass people farmers.

How can "free trade" occur netween populations that are not free? Most people are now so heavily regulated, so devoid of property, and so politically un-influential that it seems perverse to call trade between them "free."

Free trade hardly occurs when our gov freely sells our collective souls, resources and infrastructure to Chinese princelings of state capitalism, in exchange for campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation kickbacks. (Don't worry. As globalists, it's just debt we owe ourselves. Once all republics are subjugated, then there will be freedom for all. S/)

To turn everyone into a drone for the global oligarchy, it is helpful to start them out as debt slaves. Put them into deep debt at the get go, so they can never free themselves from their new international masters. Don't let any individual own property. No one is to have any autonomy except by acquiring crony chits for regulating the "regimon" (regime hegemon).