.
SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE:
All of our conscious experience is in the present. We have no subjective understanding of any actual past, but only an always-present, SUBJECTIVE interpretation of it.
We come easily to believe “our past” actually exists, or is “objectively accounted for,” either in some physical respect or in some exact representation or mathematics.
However, as we look to the past, we have nothing by which to appreciate it, apart from our limited understanding of a record of experience as is collapsed or represented to us, which we, by study, convince ourselves is “OBJECTIVE.”
Assuming each of us remains always in his or her subjectively present relationship to God (whether or not knowing it), each of us may come easily to self-deceive that God, as Holistic Consciousness, has no role or hand in what we subjectively interpret as our objective past.
A mortal cannot relate to God in any actual past. But this does not mean that any actual past necessarily exists, independent of God, as its own cause or effect, free of conscious (or subconscious) choice.
Rather, one may intuit that any “real reliability” in one’s interpretations of records of the past depends upon the “real reliability” of one’s trust and faith in God. Believing one’s consciousness is a perspective of God, one may believe one’s faith and trust in God is worthy. Assuming God remains meaningful and worthy of one’s trust and faith, each record of the past that is presented to one’s subjective consciousness is meaningful and worthy of study and consideration. Even though no “physically real” past exists in itself, apart from God --- who exists independent of all that presents to us as and in time, space, matter, and energy.
All of our conscious experience is in the present. We have no subjective understanding of any actual past, but only an always-present, SUBJECTIVE interpretation of it.
We come easily to believe “our past” actually exists, or is “objectively accounted for,” either in some physical respect or in some exact representation or mathematics.
However, as we look to the past, we have nothing by which to appreciate it, apart from our limited understanding of a record of experience as is collapsed or represented to us, which we, by study, convince ourselves is “OBJECTIVE.”
Assuming each of us remains always in his or her subjectively present relationship to God (whether or not knowing it), each of us may come easily to self-deceive that God, as Holistic Consciousness, has no role or hand in what we subjectively interpret as our objective past.
A mortal cannot relate to God in any actual past. But this does not mean that any actual past necessarily exists, independent of God, as its own cause or effect, free of conscious (or subconscious) choice.
Rather, one may intuit that any “real reliability” in one’s interpretations of records of the past depends upon the “real reliability” of one’s trust and faith in God. Believing one’s consciousness is a perspective of God, one may believe one’s faith and trust in God is worthy. Assuming God remains meaningful and worthy of one’s trust and faith, each record of the past that is presented to one’s subjective consciousness is meaningful and worthy of study and consideration. Even though no “physically real” past exists in itself, apart from God --- who exists independent of all that presents to us as and in time, space, matter, and energy.
.
Ultimate Particle:
Within our universe, we do share a most “fundamental faux particle,” which is less a particle in itself than a fundamental shared property, like a mathematical function which operates in respect of degrees of freedom within parameters. In respect of such fundamental function for collapsing and transferring appearances of mass, all of Nature is availed to appear to be “physical.”
Yet, how does such fundamental mathematical function “choose” how to exercise itself within its allowed degrees of freedom? Intuitively, Something else avails choices within such degrees of freedom. “Something” (God) avails choice making at and across various levels of consciousness and recognition of available or spiritual pattern interactions. How God does this is beyond mortal comprehension. Maybe God does this by leveraging mathematics to help God assign God’s self with various levels, layers, and perspectives of conscious supervision for attending to various “choices.”
Ultimately, I intuit all of Nature is derivative not of the interaction of particles in themselves, but of the interaction of mathematical functions, as imagined, assigned, and compartmentalized, in respect of Conscious Will of God. How, then, are such mathematical functions chosen, collapsed, or measured to “cause” our various perspectives of experential existentiality? While in mortal perspective, I cannot know.
Within our universe, we do share a most “fundamental faux particle,” which is less a particle in itself than a fundamental shared property, like a mathematical function which operates in respect of degrees of freedom within parameters. In respect of such fundamental function for collapsing and transferring appearances of mass, all of Nature is availed to appear to be “physical.”
Yet, how does such fundamental mathematical function “choose” how to exercise itself within its allowed degrees of freedom? Intuitively, Something else avails choices within such degrees of freedom. “Something” (God) avails choice making at and across various levels of consciousness and recognition of available or spiritual pattern interactions. How God does this is beyond mortal comprehension. Maybe God does this by leveraging mathematics to help God assign God’s self with various levels, layers, and perspectives of conscious supervision for attending to various “choices.”
Ultimately, I intuit all of Nature is derivative not of the interaction of particles in themselves, but of the interaction of mathematical functions, as imagined, assigned, and compartmentalized, in respect of Conscious Will of God. How, then, are such mathematical functions chosen, collapsed, or measured to “cause” our various perspectives of experential existentiality? While in mortal perspective, I cannot know.
.
STARE DECISIS IN NATURE:
The Apostle: Tell me what to do, Lord ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTVo9ymHBSc
Rupert Sheldrake: “habits of nature” ----
http://www.primalspirit.com/pr1_1sheldrake_nature_as_alive.htm
******
GOD CHOOSING: Suppose Physical Nature is illusory trickery, i.e., epiphenomena derivative of God making choices about how to imagine perspectives of interrelations among algorithmic functions of math.
GOD ENSLAVEMENT: But, billions upon billions of minute and many varied interrelations, even though limited within constraining parameters, appear too random to be governed by deterministic functions. So, how could anyone suppose that a Holistic Consciousness (God), as we may think of it/him/her, should be content to be enslaved or made responsible to consider and make each and every one of such choices?
GOD RELIEF: May some higher system of mathematics have been fashioned by Holistic Consciousness, in order to leverage, inter-permeate, spread, draw together, compartmentalize, and delegate relational powers, so that, at various hierarchical, fluxing, overlapping levels, each Perspective of Consciousness may sometimes be: purely reactive; inanimately dormant; asleep; pre-set, absent detection of interesting developments to draw its attention; on autopilot; instinctive; subconscious; dimly aware of other perspectives; keenly sensitive to collective, emergent schooling among forms similar to itself; self-aware of its own perspective; closely observant and interested regarding its relationships with other perspectives; intelligently involved in measuring, predicting, and controlling aspects of its relationships with other perspectives; and intuitively interested in appreciating and being receptive to whatever may be the Source or Holistic Consciousness in respect of which its own Perspective is synchronized?
In other words, how may Holistic Consciousness be thought to relieve itself from close involvement with mundane and routine concerns, while freeing it to be deeply empathetic of interesting and challenging concerns?
Has God leveraged math to help categorize and recognize emerging patterns of interrelations that can safely be left to appearances of randomness, in respect of evolving “Habits of Nature”? (See http://www.primalspirit.com/pr1_1sheldrake_nature_as_alive.htm.)
GOD STARE DECISIS: May God, in deciding a situation, thus pre-decide future appearances of similar situations? May future appearances thus be dispatched in respect of pre-set algorithmic functions? May such future occurrences thus appear to be more controlled in respect of principles or habits of natural science than of choice making by God?
In other words, may God impose “stare decisis” to allocate a burden of persuasion, so that epiphenomenal Nature will tend reliably to repeat itself in similar situations?
GOD CASES OF FIRST IMPRESSION: Must circumstances become sufficiently distinguishable from previous occurrences in order to attract or justify God’s close attention and concern at highest levels? When God’s close attention is brought to bear, may God balance moral sensibilities, so that a new rule of nature is made, or an exception to an old? Once so decided, may each such precedent become like stare decisis, as a new “Law of Nature”? Thus, may experimentation and comparison of past results yield ever new insights for evolving principles of “science”?
GOD CHALLENGES: Even so, future challenges would remain, as concerns more for our spiritual intuition and sense of moral conscience than for science. In other words, the close influence of God’s consciousness may recede in relation to the past, but remain near our Perspectives of Consciousness regarding challenges of the present. Otherwise, absent interaction of conscious choice, what natural law or precedent could guide the resolution of new existential challenges for which there has not yet been sufficient precedent?
GOD COMFORT: When may God’s interest be close? As we become sufficiently convinced to pray, may that sometimes augur that precedents are not yet sufficient to comfort God in autopilot? How, based on signs of patterns of illusions of physics, may God notice or decide to apply principles of Stare Decisis as opposed to close, conscious, sentient involvement? Perhaps, through us? Perhaps, through other forms of consciousness? Perhaps, through direct contact with algorithms of the system of math that defines our interactions?
GOD PURPOSEFULNESS: How may God compare present circumstances with past, to weigh how much to lean on past deference to precedent vs. how much to devote to present conscious decision making? How may God abstract, filter out, interpret, and consider only salient or determining factors? By arbitrary randomness? By ultimate building blocks of meaning? Or, in relation to higher, meta-forms of purposefulness?
Might a higher, meta-form of purposefulness be for us to better appreciate and understand God, and for God to better appreciate and understand him/her-self?
*******
SUBJECTIVE FORESIGHT: Until a choice is chosen, what choice one should choose may entail more of evaluation that is subjective. Until a choice is chosen, the chooser may evaluate in respect of degrees of freedom. This is entailed in “social studies.”
OBJECTIVE HINDSIGHT: After a choice has been made and consigned to the recorded past, measuring such record may entail more of evaluation that is objective. After a choice has occurred, it may be evaluated in respect of historical records of randomness. This is entailed in “science.”
HINDSIGHT RANDOMNESS: Proceeding from a perspective of objective hindsight, one may extend and widen one’s frame of reference until any particular choice can be fitted as having been consistent with statistical randomness or probability. Even if a choice were so rare that no frame of reference within our universe could possibly fit or cloak it as having been consistent with random probability, one could always “fix” such a discrepancy in order to discount any source of Free Choice (God) simply by imagining whatever number of universes as may be necessary in order to make the choice appear to be a matter of “routine,” random occurrence.
THREE CARD MONTY: Thus, scientists and statisticians have learned how to be “useful” for re-orienting our language, sort of like “Three Card Monty,” to help us “re-frame” present perceptions of miracles of God empathy into hindsight appreciations of indifferent probabilities.
REDEEMING RESOLUTION: But, should not Holistic Consciousness (God) have means and power for leveraging and delegating expressions of free-will and choice-making in respect of various auxiliary algorithms? In other words, merely because math can always, in hindsight, be fitted from some perspective or frame of reference to make a choice seem to have been routine, why should such trivial capacity of math be thought to make trivial the subjective choices of perspectives of Consciousness, in foresight?
“God-As-Something” is involved in our present, subjective choices;
“God-As-Nothing” is assessed in our hindsight, objective evaluations.
CONUNDRUM OF INDIFFERENCE: Were it any other way, God would be objectively and indifferently measurable to statistical analysis. But, how could we be able indifferently to measure a Super-Meta-Being who, in relation to us, is anything but “indifferent”?
AMBIGUITY OF GOD: That God functions metaphysically and ambiguously, as we transition from past to present to future, need hardly surprise us, as we go about our practical applications of logic.
STARE DECISIS IN NATURE:
The Apostle: Tell me what to do, Lord ---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTVo9ymHBSc
Rupert Sheldrake: “habits of nature” ----
http://www.primalspirit.com/pr1_1sheldrake_nature_as_alive.htm
******
GOD CHOOSING: Suppose Physical Nature is illusory trickery, i.e., epiphenomena derivative of God making choices about how to imagine perspectives of interrelations among algorithmic functions of math.
GOD ENSLAVEMENT: But, billions upon billions of minute and many varied interrelations, even though limited within constraining parameters, appear too random to be governed by deterministic functions. So, how could anyone suppose that a Holistic Consciousness (God), as we may think of it/him/her, should be content to be enslaved or made responsible to consider and make each and every one of such choices?
GOD RELIEF: May some higher system of mathematics have been fashioned by Holistic Consciousness, in order to leverage, inter-permeate, spread, draw together, compartmentalize, and delegate relational powers, so that, at various hierarchical, fluxing, overlapping levels, each Perspective of Consciousness may sometimes be: purely reactive; inanimately dormant; asleep; pre-set, absent detection of interesting developments to draw its attention; on autopilot; instinctive; subconscious; dimly aware of other perspectives; keenly sensitive to collective, emergent schooling among forms similar to itself; self-aware of its own perspective; closely observant and interested regarding its relationships with other perspectives; intelligently involved in measuring, predicting, and controlling aspects of its relationships with other perspectives; and intuitively interested in appreciating and being receptive to whatever may be the Source or Holistic Consciousness in respect of which its own Perspective is synchronized?
In other words, how may Holistic Consciousness be thought to relieve itself from close involvement with mundane and routine concerns, while freeing it to be deeply empathetic of interesting and challenging concerns?
Has God leveraged math to help categorize and recognize emerging patterns of interrelations that can safely be left to appearances of randomness, in respect of evolving “Habits of Nature”? (See http://www.primalspirit.com/pr1_1sheldrake_nature_as_alive.htm.)
GOD STARE DECISIS: May God, in deciding a situation, thus pre-decide future appearances of similar situations? May future appearances thus be dispatched in respect of pre-set algorithmic functions? May such future occurrences thus appear to be more controlled in respect of principles or habits of natural science than of choice making by God?
In other words, may God impose “stare decisis” to allocate a burden of persuasion, so that epiphenomenal Nature will tend reliably to repeat itself in similar situations?
GOD CASES OF FIRST IMPRESSION: Must circumstances become sufficiently distinguishable from previous occurrences in order to attract or justify God’s close attention and concern at highest levels? When God’s close attention is brought to bear, may God balance moral sensibilities, so that a new rule of nature is made, or an exception to an old? Once so decided, may each such precedent become like stare decisis, as a new “Law of Nature”? Thus, may experimentation and comparison of past results yield ever new insights for evolving principles of “science”?
GOD CHALLENGES: Even so, future challenges would remain, as concerns more for our spiritual intuition and sense of moral conscience than for science. In other words, the close influence of God’s consciousness may recede in relation to the past, but remain near our Perspectives of Consciousness regarding challenges of the present. Otherwise, absent interaction of conscious choice, what natural law or precedent could guide the resolution of new existential challenges for which there has not yet been sufficient precedent?
GOD COMFORT: When may God’s interest be close? As we become sufficiently convinced to pray, may that sometimes augur that precedents are not yet sufficient to comfort God in autopilot? How, based on signs of patterns of illusions of physics, may God notice or decide to apply principles of Stare Decisis as opposed to close, conscious, sentient involvement? Perhaps, through us? Perhaps, through other forms of consciousness? Perhaps, through direct contact with algorithms of the system of math that defines our interactions?
GOD PURPOSEFULNESS: How may God compare present circumstances with past, to weigh how much to lean on past deference to precedent vs. how much to devote to present conscious decision making? How may God abstract, filter out, interpret, and consider only salient or determining factors? By arbitrary randomness? By ultimate building blocks of meaning? Or, in relation to higher, meta-forms of purposefulness?
Might a higher, meta-form of purposefulness be for us to better appreciate and understand God, and for God to better appreciate and understand him/her-self?
*******
SUBJECTIVE FORESIGHT: Until a choice is chosen, what choice one should choose may entail more of evaluation that is subjective. Until a choice is chosen, the chooser may evaluate in respect of degrees of freedom. This is entailed in “social studies.”
OBJECTIVE HINDSIGHT: After a choice has been made and consigned to the recorded past, measuring such record may entail more of evaluation that is objective. After a choice has occurred, it may be evaluated in respect of historical records of randomness. This is entailed in “science.”
HINDSIGHT RANDOMNESS: Proceeding from a perspective of objective hindsight, one may extend and widen one’s frame of reference until any particular choice can be fitted as having been consistent with statistical randomness or probability. Even if a choice were so rare that no frame of reference within our universe could possibly fit or cloak it as having been consistent with random probability, one could always “fix” such a discrepancy in order to discount any source of Free Choice (God) simply by imagining whatever number of universes as may be necessary in order to make the choice appear to be a matter of “routine,” random occurrence.
THREE CARD MONTY: Thus, scientists and statisticians have learned how to be “useful” for re-orienting our language, sort of like “Three Card Monty,” to help us “re-frame” present perceptions of miracles of God empathy into hindsight appreciations of indifferent probabilities.
REDEEMING RESOLUTION: But, should not Holistic Consciousness (God) have means and power for leveraging and delegating expressions of free-will and choice-making in respect of various auxiliary algorithms? In other words, merely because math can always, in hindsight, be fitted from some perspective or frame of reference to make a choice seem to have been routine, why should such trivial capacity of math be thought to make trivial the subjective choices of perspectives of Consciousness, in foresight?
“God-As-Something” is involved in our present, subjective choices;
“God-As-Nothing” is assessed in our hindsight, objective evaluations.
CONUNDRUM OF INDIFFERENCE: Were it any other way, God would be objectively and indifferently measurable to statistical analysis. But, how could we be able indifferently to measure a Super-Meta-Being who, in relation to us, is anything but “indifferent”?
AMBIGUITY OF GOD: That God functions metaphysically and ambiguously, as we transition from past to present to future, need hardly surprise us, as we go about our practical applications of logic.
1 comment:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/is_religion_necessary.html:
"In other words, if your political position is in the "progressive" minority, you, according to MSM and academia, no longer have the burden of proof to justify changing the status quo."
Well, business owners competing for diminishing dollars in a declining economy tend to feed on one another. To attract or corner interested buyers, media owners, like sharks that have to constantly swim to avoid sinking, become continuously driven to generate and feed on controversy, even when the controversy thus generated imperils the survival of their own home. But the epoch of shark MSM is drawing to a close. Their misplacement of the burden of proof has only drawn out their death agonies.
Post a Comment