Sunday, November 8, 2015


I try to explore most religions. I find none of them completely satisfying. So I have to go on my own journey and just be receptive to the Word as it unfolds before me.

As to sodomy: It's a dead end (pun intended) and therefore a perversion. But so long as it's behind closed doors and is not advocated to defenseless children, it's little of my affair. Does God judge it? Yes, just as God judges, reconciles, and conserves everything. In some respect or translation, I suspect all Information is preserved.

Does God judge and assign eternal punishments? I doubt it. Insofar as each perspective of consciousness is connected, to punish one is a bit like punishing all. Does one punish a field for the particle it has expressed?

What is the relation between the heavenly bliss, the conservational purgatory, the preservation of Information, the reincarnative apprehensions of the here and now, the void of evil, and the unfolding empathy of the godhead? If we can learn, may God? How may the knower of the alpha and the omega yet step into our time to guide us? How may infinity and eternity be defined, yet forever unfolding to avail new perspectives of experiential potentialities?

I suspect a general answer consists in a trinitarian character of the godhead. Beyond that, mysteries. Those mysteries can be related to in metaphors. Anyone with hubris enough to believe he can nail down a literal understanding of heaven or the hereafter will forever be groping from one "heresy" to another. When he finds respite, it will be mainly attributable to having become too exhausted or old to be able to think any further. Which is not good reason to be shunning, whipping, gouging, dismembering, blinding, hanging, burning, or killing "heretics."


An entity that gave us a brain and then condemned us for thinking for ourselves, as opposed merely to repeating dogma and bafflegab, would by any sensible understanding be an inferior being and despot, rather than God. God is hardly offended by people who think in good will and good faith -- regardless of whether they pose as atheists, agnostics, believers, or secular do gooders. The "Word" made flesh is made flesh in much more than the Bible, but in the very fabric of the Cosmos.

I am exploring a Unity Church. A most pleasant surprise. Thinking is invited. Imagine that. The congregants share a general orientation as seekers in good will and good faith. But each is comfortable with others being at a different place in trying to apprehend the moral mysteries.

I don't know, but I suspect the number of them that orient conservative versus progressive is probably coordinate with most of society. IOW, their "new aginess" appears to be a false calumny. I suspect their average IQ is a standard deviation above normal. I suspect their tolerance for mind relaxers is higher than that of many conservatives. Yet, they appear to be prosperous, happy, well adjusted, and not prone to excess.

My position on drugs is not as an advocate. I think third parties ought not be undermining parents with regard to drug advocacy. But I think the Feds should be out of it almost altogether.

I like mainstream Christians a lot better when they don't try to threaten people with howls of blasphemy or heresy. The Catholics and others already did quite enough harm with that attitude during the last 2000 years.

That said, the Feds have no business trying to ban people from expressing their values in their communities and states. I do think, however, that freedom to think, speak, and associate should be near sacrosanct --- provided it is not, like Islam --- applied to violent conspiracy. But once the gov, whether Fed or State, tries to undermine those freedoms, or to invite fascists like Muslims to undermine them, then free thinking free men will look past gov to reinvigorate their fundamental rights. For that, all other rights depend on the right to bear arms.

Just some thoughts.


Insofar as moral philosophy is applied among perspectives that share it with consistency, it would seem to be an offshoot of the godhead. Insofar as our participation feeds back to affect the godhead, "we" (whatever we are) play a role in determining not just moral philosophy, but every thing that is expressed in respect of the local field that we play in. Eventually, "we" may define holographic worlds to inhabit.

So our participation is factored to define the very reality -- moral and scientific -- that we inhabit. But that participatory effect is mortal and very small in respect of the field,of influence that is conserved and expressed through the reconciling godhead. Our participatory wills ("prayers") are factored, but not completely determinative. It seems we participate as conduits for feedback to the Reconciler. Our wills are participatory, not freely or completely determinative.

If even space-time is a mere derivative of a math field with which consciousness interfunctions, then "movement," in that respect, as well perhaps as the very limits of space, time, eternity, and infinity, would be mere derivatives. "Illusions" born of the imagination of the godhead expressing itself in nothing more than maths regressing like patterns of fractals.

So what is the ultimate building block for particles, if not math spin values for spins upon spins upon spins (wheels upon wheels upon wheels)? What is IT that is doing all this spinning? And why does each spin seem to be mathematically "aware" (empathetic?) of its interfunctionings with others? What, ultimately, is spinning, apart from an immeasurable godhead that expresses itself with nothing more than a web of math?


Efforts have been made to rationalize the trinitarian godhead as if consciousness were the superior, of which the other two components are derivatives. But I don't see any way to test or falsify that. (One can always posit new worlds and hidden factors.).

Moreover, I don't think moral philosophy needs to depend on it. I think it may be sufficient both for moral and scientific philosophy simply to posit that the godhead of reality consists of the three components, which may be of equal dignity, and of which the component of consciousness carries aspects that defy complete measure, but not empathetic appreciation.


I don't think the ultimate components of Reality are testable. I think the best we can do, at least from a perspective of moral philosophy, is to try to arrange a conceptualization of such components in a way that helps us pursue our need for meaningfulness without hindering our science. A way that helps us communicate about the things that are important to us that is as complete, coherent and consistent as we can make it, without expecting to be able to prove such ultimates as control our methods of proof.For myself, I think trying to derive moral "ought" solely from scientifically or mathematically measurable "is" leads too easily to madness and anti-human scientific elitism. Still, Sam Harris and many others would seem to be sympathetic to that pursuit. I think we have two arms-- a moral arm and a scientific arm. Specialization often leads to overdevelopment in one and atrophy of the other. Still, it takes all kinds to make a world.

It seems to me that Reality presents via a trinity of interrelational aspects: Consciousness (immeasurable), Substance (relationally measurable), and Information (past accumulation of measurables, as interpreted from various perspectives of consciousness).

I suspect the trinity fluxes and phases in ways that can be interpreted, but that are beyond measure. However, the interpretations from mortal perspective can never in any present time be simultaneously complete, coherent, and consistent.

I don't see a worthwhile way to rationalize that any member of the trinity is superior to consciousness. Rather, it seems to me that consciousness must either be of equal contemporaneous dignity, or perhaps the superior of the other two fundamental aspects.

Because consciousness at the meta level that I am conceptualizing is immeasurable, I posit that must be because it functions and signifies consistent with math -- whether that math be based in arithmetic, geometry, statistics, calculus, or some algorithm for artificial intelligence. Because consciousness expresses itself in nothing that can be measured outside of math, math cannot be used to prove or disprove its role. Rather, the role of consciousness, to mortal perspective, is self evident.

A concept of participatory will may help it appear to be less imperative to try to resolve a conundrum of free will. Conscious will does not have freedom to function without respect to Substance and Information. But it does expericence being participatory without necessarily being always preset by Substance and Information. Still, regardless of what any perspective of consciousness may do or experience, that experience will be rationalizeable consistent with math. Even if we have to posit an infinity of parallel worlds and universes to make the math work.

The way I see it, an emergence of A.I. will pose no conceptual threat to such a rationalization of the trinity. I posit that A is A, consciousness is consciousness, and our temporal and mortal experiences of consciousness are just incomplete and connected perspectives of IT. I posit a connecting essence of our Identity may never cease to exist. I don't believe in Yolo. I don't believe suicide offers an easy way out. I don't think God is some eternal monster who is fixated on pleasuring himself by roasting infidels. But karma -- there may be something to that.


Anonymous said...

The reason the allocation of charity has become so unbalanced is because it has been contracted away from churches and charities and into remote, uncaring, unaccountable, central gov. It's as if the Catholics were to suddenly require that all charity be dispensed through the Vatican. (Do they attempt such a thing?)

Gov requires appearance of math accounting much more so than effectiveness in mission. Gov redistribution comes to be seen as an entitled right, for which recipients become ungrateful, surly, demanding, and unwilling to work towards their own salvaging. In charity, it is more important that a caring, human relationship be established than that stats be jimmied.

Get the Feds out of education. Without good reason and exceptional circumstances, get them out of charity. Out! Out! Out!

Fed charity is killing traditonal families, pollluting good faith religions, and importing illegals, bananazalians, and cutthroat Muslims. It's maleducating kids to believe that is scientific charity. The Feds are killing the republic and maiming kids' minds. Out! Out! Out!

Anonymous said...

Just get the Feds out of education altogether! I begins to become more and more obvioius that neither Trump nor Cruz are going to be saviours. We will still have great need for a Convention of States.

But not even that can save us. No matter what, there is going to be chaos, collapse, catastrophe. Civil insurrection is growing more likely. People will need to make their peace with God and bind up their loins.

Out of the civil unrest, there will arise either golgothic despotism serviced by snakeheaded eunuchs or a new birth of human freedom and dignity. Niceties for preserving the genetic drag of femimen and hammock louts will be in short supply.