Will As Representation Of Empathetic Empathy
Stack of Glasses 1
Originally uploaded by alleroo
(No Taxation Of Will Without Representation)
Will As Representation Of Empathetic Empathy:
I seem to want to intuit that there is only one Essential Mind, imagination, Will, spirit, substance, thing --- or whatever label by which one may wish to refer to IT --- as Enlightened Empathy, or “EE.”
In respect of EE, all other things, experiences, and perspectives are built, represented and made, respectively subject among themselves to being related, measured, recorded, and morphed.
Yet, any “physics” to EE remains beyond my measure, in metaphysics, subject, at most, only to intuitively figurative, and therefore incomplete, representation, modeling, or comprehension.
“Physics” of EE may just as well be thought just as spiritual or ineffable as is thought of consciousness itself. Employing experience and empiricism, EE ever invents and derives clever, yet always incomplete, ways for morphing, controlling, measuring, recording, and analogizing each and every relational representation. Mere cleverness will never avail plural or greater understanding of what is the metaphysically unifying essence in respect of which all representative experiences and perspectives are derived and synchronized.
EE, being only One, each of us, among apparently plural perspectives, is only illusory in our separateness, while real in our aloneness. Beyond transcendental illusion, in relating one to another, each one of us, in Enlightened Empathy, is relating to Oneself. That is, “Elohim” is plural in appearance, but unity in reality. In reality, there are no plural, physical, building blocks of matter. Rather, all of physical experience is in respect of metaphysical Will-To-Math.
Having EE presented to my intuition, do I (or EE), mediate some sort of existentially comforting touchstone, therewith appreciating capacity to entertain and occupy some sort of “holodeck” of imaginative diversion? EE seems to inspire towards some sort of metaphysical existence, which forever transcends physical measure.
In such investment, each of our perspectives participates. Coming to appreciate such common investment, how shall our civilization evolve?
Among Sheep (Democrat Masticators), shall government always permit none of us to imagine or climb higher than all of us?
Among Sheepdogs (Libertine Marginals), shall government always decline to disallow pleasures and never venture beyond meadow fences?
Among Wolves (Republican Marauders), shall government always be kept thin and slick as ice on pyramid mountains, favoring only those lucky or skilled enough to lift thumbs and press up from toeholds?
Among Rams (Independent Moderates), shall government be applied as found appropriate to evolving, civilizing purposes?
******
Continually, we explicate parameters in respect of which perceived things are perceived.We do not explicate ultimate Source of parameters themselves, nor do we completely predict or control the emergence or changing of any particular parameter.
Ultimately, we do not control what is presented or how it is presented.
Rather, we engage in clever modulations of incomplete models.
Essentially, we experience and interpret what is presented to us.
Which implies a PRESENTER, Who/That in some way is dependent only upon presenting, forever coming to a cave theater near you.
1 comment:
Critical Thinking Is Politically Incorrect:
Fahrenheit 541:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451:
The novel presents a future American society in which the masses are hedonistic, and critical thought through reading is outlawed. The central character, Guy Montag, is employed as a "fireman" (which, in this future, means "book burner"). The number "451" refers to the temperature (in Fahrenheit) at which a book or paper autoignites. A movie version of the novel was released in 1966, and it is anticipated that a second version will begin filming in 2008.
....
Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship; he states that Fahrenheit 451 is a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being comprised of "factoids", partial information devoid of context, e.g. Napoleon's birth date alone, without who he was.
....
Fahrenheit 451 takes place in an unspecified future time in a hedonistic and rabidly anti-intellectual America that has completely abandoned self-control, filled with lawlessness in the streets, from teenagers crashing cars into people to firemen at Montag's station who set their mechanical hound to hunt various animals for the simple and grotesque pleasure of watching them die. Anyone caught reading books is, at the minimum, confined to a mental hospital while the books are burned. Illegal books mainly include famous works of literature, such as Whitman and Faulkner, as well as The Bible, and all historical texts.
....
He said in a 2007 interview that the book explored the effects of television and mass media on the reading of literature.
....
On another occasion, Bradbury observed that the novel touches on the alienation of people by media:
“In writing the short novel Fahrenheit 451 I thought I was describing a world that might evolve in four or five decades. But only a few weeks ago, in Beverly Hills one night, a husband and wife passed me, walking their dog. I stood staring after them, absolutely stunned. The woman held in one hand a small cigarette-package-sized radio, its antenna quivering. From this sprang tiny copper wires which ended in a dainty cone plugged into her right ear. There she was, oblivious to man and dog, listening to far winds and whispers and soap-opera cries, sleep-walking, helped up and down curbs by a husband who might just as well not have been there. This was not fiction.”
Post a Comment