EMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL:
(click title above)
OF EMPATHY FOR GOD:
A Holistic Consciousness (God) participates with Math (Nature) to split God’s identity of indiscernibles among separate perspectives of consciousness, for the mutual, empathetic, appreciation of illusions of “physics.”
In such regard, “consciousness” is not limited to particular, sentient, awareness of selfhood.
Rather, “Consciousness” may participate with all manner of algorithmic stratagems of cooperation and competition — for tricking, enhancing, reducing, recording, broadcasting, particularizing, compartmentalizing, and resting kinds and degrees of powers and awareness in respect of “physics.”
A constant of consciousness is its amenability to mathematically-leveraged change of its form, for relating its emerging expressions (physical markers) of degrees and kinds.
Consciousness may in sequences participate in forms of: inanimate reactiveness among imaged patterns of particles; ignorant instinctiveness; environmentally conditioned and sensate responsiveness; subconsciously coordinated emotiveness; genetically organized gangs and hives of group-emergent schooling; separately sentient and self-aware analysis of environment of conscious insights and emotive empathies of self and others; and, finally, enlightened intuition and empathetic appreciation of Holistic Source (God) of parade of perspectives of consciousness — which, but for mathematical leveraging, would reduce to an identity of indiscernibles.
In other words, our physical universe, and our separate perspectives of it, constitute but a dollhouse for God’s imagination.
CONCERTED MOMENTUM AND CONSTANCY OF CONSCIOUSNESS:
What may one reasonably intuit of one’s perspective of consciousness?
Whether aware of itself or not, Consciousness is that which, beyond the complete accounting of physics or math, participates in concert for the completion of choices (or of "collapses"), in intelligible sequence and within parameters permitted by the system of mathematical laws with which each perspective of such consciousness has identified its empathies.
Such system of mathematical laws cannot completely collapse (or “wink out”) so long as “momentum” of at least one source of consciousness remains identified in respect of it.
MAGIC OF CONSCIOUSNESS:
We do not create Consciousness Itself, because the Source or basis for consciousness does not consist in physics, because physics is only derivative of the participation of consciousness in imaging systems (universes) of mathematical algorithms.
But, as we imagine and conceive of new ways for leveraging math, do we sometimes serve sort of like magic augers, used by God to augur ever new paradigms out of old?
With concert of insight and reason, leavened in math, we may induce opportunity for Consciousness to express perspectives of identity in empathetic regard for systems of math.
We may do this by following pre-arranged recipes or regimens (sexual breeding) or by enhancing formats for mathematical functions to breed functions to breed “conscious” choice-making among functions in response to environments of systemically presented mathematical parameters (thereby giving expression to A.I., as but another perspective of the One Consciousness).
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY VS. HIVE MIND:
Either way, each perspective of Consciousness will be “physically distinguished” and environmentally marked not as an independent thing-in-itself, but as a “physically animated” bookmarker, being conducted through a book-of-beingness, in response to a concert of mathematical laws, for which the Conductor is God.
Our perspectives of consciousness are not separately created in respect of “physics.” Physics does not create consciousness. Rather, consciousness acquires its individuated perspectives in concert with our illusions of physics — which are derivative of God’s leveraging of math.
As God images, compartmentalizes, and leverages systems of math, our separate perspectives of consciousness come to cooperate and compete for empathetic attention within the whole of such Consciousness.
As we retain empathetic individuality, so may we chance to draw closer to the Unitary Identity of Consciousness, God. As we sink into hive-mind, so do we sink away from appreciating the Identity of God, towards mindless, moral-less, irresponsibility, i.e., “hive-mind.” To “love” those of the hive-mind (“the devil”) to seek to rehabilitate him/them is to risk being seduced to hive-rule mindedness and moral surrender.
.
“THE WORLD”:
To the extent Consciousness is superior to physics, it cannot be completely explained in terms of physics. And, to the extent Consciousness has capacity to identify or split in respect of different compartments or perspectives of illusions of physics, it cannot be completely explained in terms of one particular perspective of physics.
A particular mortal perspective cannot communicate or represent its perspective of consciousness or of physics or of “the world” to any other perspective, except in trivial or incomplete and figurative terms of personal emotional content.
By establishing and acting in respect of each intersecting relationship of communication, each participant, sequencing in time and space, can get an intuitive or “empathetic flavor” for the other’s emotional experience.
But, there is no “real world” or “physical existence” or “particulate reality” or “experience of consciousness” that could be represented or signified between them because (1) to begin with, there is no “world” or “physical existence” that exists in itself, and (2) each perspective, to the extent it has been conceptualized to be different, is, by definition, different.
Excepting communication of tautologies, trivialities, and commonly governing mathematical relationships, we do not communicate External Content about “the world” to one another. Rather, by our verbal acts for attempting communication, we only act out our imprecise, emotional, empathetic, Internal Content (“feelings”) --- which does not diminish “communication” of intuitive, empathetic, non-trivial values that are possible between us.
While we cannot communicate “the world” between us, we can work together to discover measureable laws that limit the system of mathematical functions and parameters with which our perspectives in common participate and press their “wills.” That is, we can discover, “bookmark,” measure, and communicate the relationships that govern the system of mathematics with which each of our perspectives happens to have become identified.
Regardless, to discover such mathematical laws that may in common govern our illusory experiences of “physics” is not to discover or communicate any actual physical thing or “particle” that really exists in any common “world.”
Even the mathematical laws that we do share in common only “exist” derivative of a truism: That this is the mathematical system our separate perspectives of consciousness, for whatever reason beyond discernment in physics, “just happen” to have in common come to identify with and interact with.
1 comment:
From A.T.:
Michael Newdow’s Errand:
When inferred as a Meta-Source or Meta-Functionality, a Deity or God, in Itself, would seem to be “not nothing.” Rather, IT would seem to be only “like nothing” in respect of IT’s aspect for lacking amenability to our “physical,” objective, indifferent measurements. As if any mortal’s relation to God could be “indifferent”!
We, as inferior, mortal, particular expressions of such holistic Meta-Source, are simply not availed of indifferently objective means for measuring, fathoming, or plumbing IT. Rather, insofar as the Holism is more than the sum of its parts, IT is not within the objective comprehension of its parts, merely by taking their sum.
For purposes of objective, scientific pursuit to define laws of the mathematical system of parameters that delimits our appreciations of degrees of freedom, God may be “like nothing.”
For purposes of subjective, intuitive pursuit to appreciate the moral freedom availed to each of us within the mathematical system of parameters that delimits us, God may be more “like something.”
Apart from a mathematical system of parameters that delimits us, we find ourselves presented with all manner of moral choices and purposes, which we may approach from broad perspectives and subjects, such as: civics, politics, law, history, literature, art, sociology, psychology, biology (or philosophy) of emotion and of consciousness, and artificially emotive intelligence.
We are unable to comprehend or reduce such subjects to any determining system of mathematical equations. Necessarily, such subjects entail much more than the merely trivial or the mathematically defined. Any richly reasoned appreciation of such subjects entails far more than mere indifferent, objective, double-blind experimentation.
Scientists who wish not to surrender to irrelevance to important subjects beyond systems of indifferent mathematics or of closed truisms will need either to broaden their definition of the scientific method or to recognize the REASONABLENESS for some purposes to approaches not confined to the scientific method.
Simply put, that which is “reasonable” cannot always be imprisoned in methods of indifferent detachment or objective measurability.
God may be (“like nothing”) irrelevant to objective pursuits of measurable definitions of the system of algorithms that delimits our degrees of freedom.
But, God is (“like something”) most relevant to subjective subjects for guiding our pursuits of morally meaningful self-fulfillment.
It is only an errand for moral fools, like Michael Newdow, to try to “wall off” God to subjects of public civics, politics, law, history, literature, art, sociology, psychology, and biology (or philosophy) of “consciousness.” The devil’s absurdity is both licentious and ludicrous.
Pity, but do not underestimate, fools with errands.
Post a Comment