tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320826620507241679.post6641646830755564425..comments2023-06-21T10:26:47.525-05:00Comments on ("RAM").........Red Alert Moderates: When Nothing Makes Logical SenseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320826620507241679.post-27399791409857844852011-02-28T20:12:39.972-06:002011-02-28T20:12:39.972-06:00How one processes one's search for fulfillment...How one processes one's search for fulfillment depends on that for or with which one bonds or identifies, which depends upon that which one comes to believe is worth one's while. Fulfillment is not sought purely by reason, but often out of whimsy, borne out of feedback and unexpected feelings of association. How ought one to pursue worthwhile fulfillment? What should Occam's solution be to the "problem of ought's?" What could be simpler, for deriving ought from is, than to suppose (model, believe, or function as if) qualitative oughts are part of is, i.e., that "is" encompasses not only the quantitatively empirical (physical), but also the qualitatively spiritual and moral (non-physical). I suspect Occam would suggest that ought does not "emerge from" IS, but abides coextensively and contemporaneously with IS --- everywhere and always. As in: Perspectives of consciousness ought to pursue that which they identify as being, to them, meaningfully fulfilling. How the Synchronizer means to assimilate the various perspectives may be better apprehended by them to the extent they, in good faith and good will, remain receptive, i.e., as trying to be one God's side, i.e., the side of a caring, civilizing, assimilating Source.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320826620507241679.post-57882997268616987392011-02-28T07:38:57.364-06:002011-02-28T07:38:57.364-06:00Hey K ---, lol. My brother would call it b******...Hey K ---, lol. My brother would call it b*******, under the sign of Taurus, as there is no zodiac sign for an overstuffed horse. His take, based on pure materialism, is: "The idea of free will as something beyond mentally tangible (conceivable) is nothing more than a human creation. A dog has as much or as little as we have - but doesn't ask why. The question therfore must be contained only within our minds and therefore depends upon circular reasoning."<br /> <br />Your take seems to be based on a notion of free will and underlying good and evil, which my brother obviously denies. My thought is that both materialism and morality are accomodated, and that the notion of free will does relate to an essential idea --- one which is beyond reduction to pure science or materialism. Still, I agree with both of you, in part, that the idea of a moral or material singularity is, at its core, fundamentally self contradictory b.s.<br /> <br />Materially, if all is derivative of a big bang, that begs a question: just how many big bangs have gone before? Somehow, the notion of "an infinitude of singularities" just doesn't make much sense to me. The only way I make sense of it is to suppose there is a source of good and evil, but even that source may "change its mind," as contexts continue to unfold. If I believe that, then the below is, in relation to my belief, bullshit.<br /> <br />Regardless, I suspect any "quickening" to some all powerful presence would tumble before it could ever reach completion. After all, what would be the point of being all powerful (or all beneficial), if there were no one left to be powerful (or beneficial) over?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5320826620507241679.post-29987288164246175862011-02-28T07:35:59.131-06:002011-02-28T07:35:59.131-06:00From Dave: One of the qualities of mathematics th...From Dave: One of the qualities of mathematics that I like is the idea of proof. When one proves something in math, one does not have to test the proof against a case - or any case for that matter. The proof stands without support - and the reasoning is not circular. Although a mathematical proof is based on founding assumptions, the assumptions are accepted without question (I know you will attack this point) - eg, a straight line is the shortest distance between two points (in Euclidean space). But, the very fact that free will is a questionable concept means that it is not a founding principle or acceptable assumption. It may or may not exist, and if it does, it does so only as a concept within thought - there is no proof outside of that. Therefore, any derivatives of this concept are equally suspicious.<br /><br />*******<br /><br />Dave, you are correct (so there is nothing to attack) in that bivalent math is amenable of consistent proof --- within its axioms. You also know that what bivalent math does not account for is why there are bivalent math, mathematicians, and things to apply math to.<br /><br />For some, this stirs a concern, (a trivalent intuition?), that perhaps bivalent logic is not the end all, be all. Regardless, I agree that such concern cannot be reduced to a bivalent demonstration. One says there are no such things as morality or purpose, yet we "should" choose to act as if there were. The other says there may be such things as morality or purpose, but they are under the appreciative synchronization of a rather whimsical source. Both often do their best to seek fulfillment and get along.<br /><br />My concern is more global --- both in territiory and history. I have a suspicion, although I am by no means entirely confident of it. I think religious zealotry is often dangerous to good people and slow critters. But I also think a loss of assimilated belief in a source of shared, higher values is corrosive of decent civilization. Some think the America of religious belief is arcane and abusive. I suspect that a world whose leaders have lost all faith in a higher source of decency and purpose may, at our juncture, be more the cause than the byproduct of a sudden fall. Those who do not like a religious America are not going to love a faithless world.<br /><br />I'm reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith and The Moral Landscape. I began with the idea that he was missing much. The more I read, the more I sense that he has seen much more than I at first suspected. The one thing I don't get is why he does not see that his own ideas are much more about a higher assimilator of values than he admits. That is, except for his denials of certain words, he quite often seems, to my lights, to be highly religious indeed. Solzhenitsyn thought many of our present problems are traceable to loss of faith in a decent source of values. That's a thought that cuts both ways, and I will need to consider much more before assimilating a firm and supportable opinion out of what are presently only "my" personal suspicions and intuitions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com