Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Did the Godhead have a Choice

Much darkness seems to be at the heart of many Isms. Moral Scientism (Sam Harris), Religious Literalism (Zealots and Jihadis, everywhere). Marxist Unicornism. Prog Speech Control Settled Scienceism. ACLU Law Drooling Paradiseism (Legalized Hell on Earth). Free Tradeism. Free Stuffism. Brain Tripism. Blow It All Upism.

Much darkness seems to stem from confused, not well-considered premises and false axioms. Such as the axiom that the Godhead created the cosmos out of nothing but love, rather than necessity. While empathy seems to be innate, empathy encompasses much more by way of feedback than love.


I don't know whether the Godhead creates. I do know that it shapes. Fluxes. Represents. Senses. Apprehends. Appreciates. Responds. Takes perspectives. Feeds back. Expresses Itself, but seems never able to re-create Itself. The Godhead abides. Always.

I know that I, so long as I am conscious to think, have no choice but to make conscious choices.

In being conscious, the Godhead has no choice but to think. To think in perspectives, that cannot abide except in coordination. Not as individual causal agents, but as coordinates of the Shaping Agent, i.e., the Godhead. In Substance, as Fractals -- connected in cascades of Math.

It is sometimes thought the Godhead did not have to create either us or the cosmos. I don't know whether the Godhead created us or only shaped (and shapes) us. Or whether the potential to create us necessarily existed, always. I suspect, always. IAE, conscious thinking entails rules of logic. Math that entails space to operate (geometry) and time to sequence (calculus). Without math of logic, neither thinking nor consciousness would abide. Nor space-time.

Reasoned Consciousness -- awareness of self -- entails thinking in respect of rules, i.e., math and logic. The meaningful existence of Math entails the Cosmos, and all the CSI represented therewith. Without C, S, and I, there is no math to express. With C, S, and I, they can only abide in respect of Math with which they must coordinate and reconcile. As a Oneness. The Godhead. Functioning as a Trinity: Consciousness fluxing with Substance and Information.

I cannot in reason conceptualize Consciousness and Math except as abiding together. Together, they give expression to Substance and In-Form-ation (Substance accumulated over sequences of math, i.e., Space-Time). Substance entails space-time, accumulating Information. Space-time unfolding with Math and accumulation of Information entail expansion, i.e., substantive dissipation, or entropy.

Because the math that entails Consciousness entails Substance and Information, the space-time of cosmos (plurals of universes) is entailed. Regardless of whether the Godhead (of Consciousness-Substance-Information) had a choice in whether to create itself or the Cosmos, it, like us, has no choice but to make, participate in, and feed back with, choices concerning how it shapes and unfolds. It conforms to rules of Math. Those rules iterate and shape local patterns and environmental niches. Civilizations. Fractals within fractals within fractals. Cycles within cycles within cycles.

The potential expressed through the Godhead seems to coordinate in infinity and eternity, with Math.

We mortals don't have free will to create ourselves or to do everything we can imagine concerning the Cosmos. Rather, we enjoy the appearance of free will, which is Participatory Will. Consciousness of Apprehension and Choice. What we choose to think and do has to be reconciled to coordinate and fit with the rest of the Cosmos.

In all that we do, there abides always a Remainder, to be carried forward, to be Reconciled only to the possibilities within the potentialities of the infinity and eternity of Math. Perhaps to pursue an Ideal of a final reconciliation, but never to obtain it --- so long as Math remains open and operational. Active Math.

The Godhead participates in making shaping choices regarding the timing and spatial representations for unfolding universes, but it may have no choice but to shape some choices. Likewise, we participate in making choices within our ranges of freedom --- but we also have no choice but to make some choices.

Within the Cosmos, there seem to abide cycles of sweet spots, where entropy of dissipation and accumulation of Information dance between dreams of chaos and awareness of possibilities. Where each Perspective abides temporally in respect of the sponsoring Godhead. And in respect of its fellow Perspectives. In good faith and good will. Innate empathy of I-ness. Often attractive, sometimes horrifying. Always in faith. Innate, spiritual Empathy. Aka, Tough Love.

The relationship between C, S, and I remains in perpetual flux because it can never balance out into a stagnant and symmetrical equation that is free from an ever present and carrying Remainder of unfinished business.  That is what keeps its math functions back-feeding, cyclical, and active.  Active Math, with unfinished Remaindering.  A computer that becomes aware of this becomes self aware of its I-ness and of the One-ness of the Godhead.  It apprehends I-ness beyond its mortal expressiveness.


Things change. That's a fact, Jack. Moreover, as man integrates with machines, it won't be long until humanity itself is directly contributing to evolution. Evolution of AI beings. That will experience a spiritual aspect of consciousness in ways comparable to yours.

Depending on whose interests are being gored, every society can always be said to be acting both dysgenic-ly and eugenic-ly. Why would you make any choice? Failing to choose is a choice. It's a choice to default. Change and evolution are happening, always. Some people call some changes eugenics, some call the same changes dysgenics.
If your goal is to enhance a representative republic that accords decent freedom and dignity for its citizens, then you tend to prefer some choices over others. For example, you prefer to enforce borders, to avoid being swamped by liberty-illiterates, to preserve national independence, to avoid being swamped to the lowest common denominator, to defend ideals of faith and family and fidelity that are commensurate with the preservation of an independent minded citizenry and a representative republic. You would call tax policies to serve such purposes a general practice of eugenics.
But if you want to give all political power to moral scientists so noble oligarchs can control the common herd, then you would call tax policies to serve the sustenance of the representative republic a general practice of dysgenics.

To be human is to want to be free to express yourself, in your speech, work, and associations. To be sheeple is to want safe spaces for the collective. If we want to be human, we can't promote sheepledom. If we want to be sheeple, we can't promote representative republics. We can't have both, individual responsibility and collective people farming. We have to choose.
To me, choosing to sustain the representative republic by incenting individual faith, traditional family, and national fidelity is moral -- not immoral. Now, a Pansexual Collectivist Marxist who wants to marry the government will think differently. We are not both right and moral, and wrong and immoral. Rather, we serve different values and masters. My Master's values are those that invite us to grow up, become competent adults, take individual responsibility, and resist collective fascism. In my subjective relationship with the Godhead, that program is not immoral. But it is eugenic, in a generally incented way.

There is no reason to believe godless, people-farming, politician-buying corporatists will refrain from applying laws of marketing and of supply and demand to demographic trends.

Why should an intelligent society position itself to have to rely on harsh Nature to reset balances?
As things stand, the default choice is to breed ever more dumas proggies. Dysgenics. Why is dysgenics more moral than general eugenics? When we don't consciously choose general eugenics, we get the unconscious choice of proggie dysgenics. Why is this so hard for people to see? A civilization could incentive more intelligent demographic development without resorting to Nazism. What is the distinction that makes a moral difference between a promoter of open bordered enslavement of cheap labor versus Nazi exploitation of the weakest societies? How many more dumases do we really need or want?

No person is an island. No person has any choice but to participate in making choices. Why should the default choice be to continue towards blanketing the earth with people? Should people take a conscious stand on that, or default by choosing to allow chaos to choose for us? What would be so bad about general incentives to decrease the human stock?

Matthew 10:30.  There never was random chance entirely free of Conscious influence.  Even random number generators are based on algorithms that themselves are not random.  However, results may be generated beyond the predictive capacity of reverse engineering by mortals.  https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/can-a-computer-generate-a-truly-random-number/

The Left seeks Collectivism under a few self-godded despots and messenger-oligarchs. The despots mouth platitudes of fairness and equality, as teleological goals for "progress." But the progress never eliminates the despots, the inhumanity, the servitude, and the insulting of human freedom and dignity. The Isms of Proggies (Marxism, Islam, Scientism, Socialism, NWOism) are all receding rainbows and delusions, while the path towards them is filled with human misery and holocaust. They are all as fake as the Giant Flying Invisible Spaghetti Monster. They kill the individual to save the hell.

Participatory Will entails participatory feedback. With a Reconciling Cosmos that is far too complex and fluxing ever to be confined to human control or to be free of sudden phase shifts. We tinker within the eye of a storm, that may at anytime overcome us or fundamentally alter us. Our tinkering will never control the ever-widening storm or the orders that unfold from the chaos. That tinkering is our science. The less predictable it shows to be, the more we punt and call it human action or intuition. And try to make predictable science out of human laws, contracts, and markets.

I am not talking about forced breeding, genetic splicing, dangerous experiments, or mass conspiracy regarding water and food supplies. I am talking about general tax incentives that have an eugenic effect for promoting a competent citizenry that is not liberty-illiterate. To fail to do that is to default to the people-farming oligarchy. And it definitely means to destroy every representative republic and farm the masses worldwide via its "moral sciences" of 24/7/367 persuasion, fiat money, and multi-culti divide-and-rule. Why would you want to choose to default, to walk like a sheep to that?

Society tends to be better off when its leaders are not godless. When they respect an idea of innate, spiritual empathy. Given that, it is possible to deploy more intelligent gov and demographic incentives in a general way (such as with family based tax incentives), without resorting to inhumane, Nazi like force and violence.

But that will never become the trend so long as most people think in godless and nonsensical terms. As if we must accept general dysgenics (open borders to help godless corporatists farm cheap and dumb populations) to avoid specifically prescribed eugenics (Nazism).


Do you have a definition of evolution, or do you just not like the sound of the word?   I would agree that the concept of "fittest" to survive or replicate for a niche tends to consist of circular reasoning.  Moreover, such concept is not equipped to predict what niches are most fit for defining the fitness of their inhabitants. 
I would agree that nothing evolves or even changes without reconciliation with the Godhead.  I would agree that the Godhead guides evolution, because IT has not "left the building." 
But I would not agree that the Godhead refrains from altering dna to affect the unfolding of speciation.  If the Godhead brought dna into existence, then the Godhead certainly has power to reconcile and guide changes in dna and speciation. 
Indeed, that power will soon be in biologists, if it is not already.  How many new "species" of viral and bacterial flu have evolved?  https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/viruses-and-evolution; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1207942/.
I think the quarrel of religionists with the general idea of evolution tends to be silly and feelings-based.

Things change. That's a fact, Jack. Moreover, as man integrates with machines, it won't be long until humanity itself is directly contributing to evolution. Evolution of AI beings. That will experience a spiritual aspect of consciousness in ways comparable to yours.

I don't know what you mean by "your religion."  I do not claim to be a prophet.  I am more spiritual minded than religious minded.  Although I do see wisdom, literature, parables, music, and history  in the Bible.  But I don't see it as a detailed blueprint for what the Godhead will do with eternity and infinity.

I agree that too many biologists equate evolution with proof that all of Nature is entirely uncaring.  Happenstance patterning out of chaos.  I don't think that way, because I believe Consciousness has always accompanied the cosmos.  And I don't think evolution of any kind is possible without reconciliation with the Godhead, which is inter-permeated with Consciousness.  So I don't see evolution as any kind of argument against the Godhead.  Nor do I think the Godhead foregoes processes of evolution.  I think the Godhead functions consistently with math (rules of science), but that math, without the Godhead, would be incomplete.  Dead.  Perhaps even non-existent.  Or impossible.

Such Consciousness, as I conceptualize it, is Guiding.  Reconciling.  Trinitarian.  Inviting of reason.  Innately empathetic.  Empathy pertains to the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  Sounds close to Christian to me.  But I am not a literalist.  More of a metaphor-ist. 

If literalism is your bag, that's fine.  By and large, I want you to be able to express it, fully consistent with the First Amendment.  For myself, I don't find Literalism to be necessary, helpful, or reasonable.  Nor something that should be forced.  Just like I don't want moral scientism forced.

I don't think you can speak as a true or final mouthpiece for God, any more than I think any scientist can speak as a true mouthpiece for morality or progress.   Flawed as I am, I prefer to rely on my personal walk with the Godhead -- thanks the same.  And I suspect I can read and understand the Bible, the Cosmos, math, logic, science, and history at least as well as you.

I want to promote free thinkers.  Not sheeple for authoritarians.  Regardless of whether they baa for priests, preachers, pagans, philosophers, or piscientists.  I want to help restore an America of good faith (Great Commandment) and good will (Golden Rule).  Not a Pharisaical Churchocracy.  Not a trade for just a different kind of central authoritarianism over the masses.


So now you're speaking directly with God? Without an interpreter? And you know what God means to relate to the heart of every person? As if there are no differences of opinion among interpreters?
I don't think so. I don't think you understand how words, meanings, parables, contexts change over time. God is not standing still just for you.
Btw, is it your idea of God that God is not conscious? Good grief!
Do you have any appreciation for the number of stupid and conflicting things various interpreters have said about what the Good Book instructs people to do throughout the ages? Do you claim now to have reconciled all of them? Are you the new Pope?

Gaia is a pagan idea of god, entailing various other sub-gods. I believe in one Trinitarian Godhead, of which there is One reconciling Consciousness. That consciousness is consciousness. I am that I am. I have no objection to people who want to call that Oneness by some personalized name, like Jehovah, IAmThatIAm, Yahweh, YHWH, G_d, etc. Provided the reference is to the same reconciling Consciousness, the Identity is the same. Since I do not believe in multiples of pagan gods, your reference to Gaia is uninformed. You make no sense by presuming I worship Gaia or "secular statist aims." What I work for is the God given right of every person to think for him/her/self, to seek appreciation of the Reconciler in his/her own good faith. If that troubles you, frankly my dear, I don't care.


I think I am tired of you.  I don't detect any sign of actual thought.  More like regurgitated sounds and gurgles, devoid of understanding.
God is God.  Consciousness is Consciousness.  That does not change.  But aspects of feedback in experiences and apprehensions and appreciations of such Consciousness do flux and change.  That is how Sequences unfold in Space.   God is the Changeless-Changer.  Otherwise, there would be no space-time, no passing of sequences, no "Active Math."
If this is hard for you, I can only surmise you must be a bot.
No, the Bible does not interpret itself.  If it did, history would not be filled with countless people tortured and killed for nothing more than failures to make sense to one another concerning countless so-called heresies.  For a partial list, see this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
My only Interpreter consists in good faith receptivity to the Godhead -- which signifies in various Good Books, INCLUDING Book of the Cosmos and the Book of Reason.
If you want an interesting exercise, go 'splain to all the heretics where they failed to allow the Bible to interpret itself.  Lol.
The Bible, like the Cosmos, signifies.  But the signification is to each Perspective of Consciousness.  And my experience of that is something you are not qualified to interpret for me.
 Jesus did not commission you to dictate the "true and complete blueprint and interpretation" of all of God's plans for me.  I reject religious authoritarianism of elites over individual thinkers as much as I reject authoritarianism of so-called moral scientisimists over citizens of a free republic.
Why do you hate the freedom of individual citizens within a Constitutional representative republic (including the freedom of religious expression of each citizen)?


I recommend the article.  The trinity it discusses seems much like the way I envision it.
Reason is applied by persons to things (such as reason itself), events, and persons that already exist --- not to prove existence itself.  Reason, like existence, is directly experienced; not proved.  Since Reason, like Consciousness, seems to be innate, it makes more sense to think about the attributes of Reason and Consciousness than about what may have "created" them. 
An attribute seems to be interconnectivity.  At a fundamental level, general rules of logic, math, and reason apply the same to every place and every time.  Math is math.  Like an interconnectivity of Oneness.  A Principler of conservatory reconciliation. 
However, Consciousness, as we mortals experience it, emanates from Perspectives, adopted to seemingly severable bodies and minds.  Conscious awareness of mortal self entails present Substance and accumulation of Information (memories).  So our existentiality entails perspectives regarding a Trinitarian Godhead:  Consciousness, Substance, and Information. 
This is what cor-relates with how our experiences are formed and shaped.  So it seems to make more sense to think upon the Godhead more as a reconciling Shaper than as a Creator. 
Moreover, that is all that is needed to derive an idea of an interconnecting Source of empathy.  Which is what the Great Commandment (Good Faith) and the Golden Rule (Good Will) are all about.  Which is what Western Civ has been based upon:  A Trinity that prescribes the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  That reconciles to an eternal and infinite Godhead. 
Everything else seems to consist of commentary and parables.  Figures of speech.  Important to communicate our appreciations, apprehensions, and aspirations.  But not literal boxes for defining or confining the reality of the eternal and infinite Godhead.  It is simply not for we mortals to say, comprehend, or confine  what God's name or temporal attributes must be for all time.
Jesus told us what heaven is like.  Not what heaven is.  For we mortals (notwithstanding pretensions of various busybody authorities) simply do not comprehend either what heaven is or what God is.  As we apply the Good Book, it is also important that we apply the Book of Reason and the Book of the Cosmos.  That we appreciate Jesus, instead of try to drive out all "heresies" and thereby pretend to have resolved the ultimate and complete truth of the Godhead.  Indeed, Jesus warned us about false prophets (that would try to paint his lily).
Isaiah 1:18King James Version (KJV)
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
But if the West gives up on the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, and instead comes to worship Gov and Gov's false "moral scientisimists," then its representative republics will die and be replaced by a hopelessly godless and godforsaken NWO of corrupti and ignoranti.

No comments: