RIGHT MAKES MIGHT:
In consort with math, Consciousness enjoys a kind of “perfection.” That is, within infinity and eternity, Consciousness has all the power of consciousness that there is to have. A puzzle: without math, God is not a perfect nothing. With math, God is actively, consciously involved. It is with the self-fulfilling faith of our Consciousness that rightness eventually makes us mighty, whereby our meaningful interaction, communication, civilization, and empathies are enhanced.
That which Consciousness reconciles to civilizing fulfillment tends to rightness. Each of us is responsible to participate in the reconciliation of rightness, to help give experiential definition to that which is good versus evil. It is not that might makes right, but that RIGHT EVENTUALLY MAKES MIGHT.
Consciousness, in constantly, continuously testing, seeking, and fore-sensing, seeks ways to avail communications and civilizations that are fulfilling to Consciousness’ entertainment, appreciation, empathy, and intuition. In so proceeding, Consciousness may have no choice but to seek to make and effect choices. In making choices, Consciousness strives to separate the good from the bad, the sour from the sweet, the depressing from the fulfilling.
Yet, Consciousness may not “know” that which is infinitely or eternally evil. Rather, Consciousness may simply seek to effect that which it intuits and senses to be most fulfilling to IT’s ever changing and evolving purposes. Consciousness performs this function by somehow reconciling among perspectives that are holistic, particular, continuous, discrete, complete, and incomplete. Each participant, from each perspective, makes its judgments, and all function together to effect reconciliation. All play a role; history and tradition help guide. Right eventually makes might.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Conceptualize God as something like “Living Word.” Conceptualize organizations of mass, matter and physical bodies as mere signs by which the Word is stored, remembered, and communicated. The hair, fingernails, etc., that Jesus sloughed off during time on earth were not God per se, but part of signs by which The Word is communicated forward. Consider Jefferson’s New Testament, reduced as much as thought possible to the words Jesus spoke. Consider the need for such words to speak to everyone, continuously, hence, necessarily not free of temporal ambiguity --- like parables, appropriate to context. The Words Jesus spoke, given the extent of their celebration throughout modern recorded history, may be said to constitute a sign, appropriate to all who are receptive, to show the way. Yet, of that way, each remains responsible to seek and follow the interpretation as he or she best understands. IOW, each still needs to meditate and reflect, in good faith and good will. Thus, the Buddha.
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/1/523460/523838.html#msg-523838
About “I-ness”: Been reading interesting stuff lately, about “I am.” Berlinski’s “The Devil’s Delusion,” Godwin’s “One Cosmos,” Lederman’s “The God Particle.” Now Klingman’s “The Atheist and the God Particle.”
Must say, of them all, Klingman’s take is the most interesting and provocative. Needs to be read front, back, all mixed up, and then repeat. Often. Lots of ideas!
For quote jockeys, Klingman references (and builds on) some keepers:
“Consciousness is singular, all happenings are played out in one consciousness only.” Edwin Schrodinger
“There is no location in the brain where the “I” is located.” Roy Varghese
As to perspectives of I-ness: Why do so many of us look askance when someone like Obama monopolizes the “I-reference”? Well, I am wary whether Obama comprehends, appreciates, or intuits that there is a whole “I-ness field of consciousness,” which permeates and extends well beyond his skin.
I am wary whether his empathetic celebration of “I-ness” extends much beyond his skin. Where is his concern to protect the free expression of other individual perspectives of I-ness? Why must we all be regulated under the guiding wisdom of his collectivist control? Why have he, Pelosi, and Reid been so dogmatic and adamant, as if their regulatory visions must be valued above all other perspectives?
I am concerned that their combined contacts with the higher Field have atrophied into poor substitutes, confined to their particular selves.
See: http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/523928.html
I don’t feel a strong need to believe that everyone or every purpose can be saved. I have no experience, words, or models by which to exemplify or communicate the real essence of the hereafter or heaven. For the here and now, it seems enough to intuit that a meta Source permeates, with conscious* power and interest to communicate and save that which IT wishes to save. I have little doubt that such arts and purposes as remain of ongoing interest to such Source will continue to find meaningful expression and be communicated among us.
To me, it is intuitive that each of us expresses a perspective of that common Source. I think appreciation of meaningfulness is communicable among us to the extent we share empathy in respect of such Source --- regardless of whether we refer to the Source of moral authority in traditional names of Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, or Vishnu.
That said, communication is enhanced within a culture to the extent one becomes familiar with the sacred metaphors of the culture. Insofar as America is founded on Judeo-Christian values, and such values are not inconsistent with individual liberty in human enterprise and expression, it is folly for an American to ignore the assimilative value of Judeo-Christian traditions.
And, it is destructive of all that is of worth in being human to adopt religious metaphors and concepts that are antithetical to each human being’s individual pursuit of that which is appreciated and communicated by and through him or her as being meaningful. We need to respect religious traditions that are essential to the glue that allows our civilization to flourish. It is folly to sacrifice such traditions to bet the house on a Marxist Mirage or an Islamic Umma.
*Note: There is quite an interesting theory about a C-field, which has mathematical and testable implications. See “The Atheist and the God Particle.”
From A.T. -- Mark Roth noted, “Islam is not a religion, but an allah-based tyrannical political philosophy. The problem in dealing with Islam is that, appearing to be a religion, it is given instinctive protection in many quarters.”
This meme seems not altogether unlike the mafia behavior exhibited among some species of birds, that lay similar looking eggs in others’ nests, or even go so far as to ransack nests whose occupants refuse the caretaking job.
I stake no claim to understanding omniscience or omnipotence (or infinity or eternity). What I try to appreciate is a Source of empathetic appreciation (regardless of whether such empathy is expressed as love or as revulsion). Is there a meaningful alternative? To choose (or mean?) to broadcast that there is no meaning would seem rather pointless. What could be the point of seeking meaning in artifice, such as Marxist or Collectivist utopia, unless there is already basis for faith that there is meaning (or enlightenment) to seek? And if there already is such basis for seeking meaningfulness (or happiness), then should not a decent people’s governance avail its citizens with opportunity to pursue it? For that, I see no disqualification in Buddhism. If anything, in a country steeped in Judeo-Christian values, I see Buddhism as a lonelier, perhaps less supportive path. Maybe Buddhism simply appeals to folks who somehow have come to trust their own judgment and receptivity to the Source more than they trust the madding crowd.
Darcy said, "The good I try to do now, I do not do to earn heaven, but to thank God for giving me the gift of His Son and heaven too."
Indeed, it is well and good that many find meaning in faith in Jesus. Many others, however, are steeped and brought up in faiths more common to different cultures. Yet, all can find faith, that it is well to try to do good for one another.
The notion of spiritual connectedness need not be antithetical to that. Not everyone who intuits, believes, or hypothesizes about a connecting field of higher consciousness (as an alternative -- or even supplement -- to one's beliefs about God) buys into any notion that we should employ government (collectivizing force) to try to make heaven on earth. Or that we should force people to trade their individual dignity and will for enforced collective security.
Rather, insofar as a singular field of Consciousness exercises free will, each perspective that is enhanced with such consciousness would seem naturally inclined, in intuition or empathy, to respect that Consciousness, especially insofar as it is expressed among sentient beings. I think learning to appreciate such Consciousness would incline more of us to seek decent, cooperative, civilizing understanding (empathy) for one another.
As I say, not everyone will be a Christian. Of them, I would prefer that they not seek salvation by forcing Big Government upon all of civilization. If intuition of connection with higher Consciousness can guide them to value human dignity over forced security, I see that as a good thing. I think most atheists and believers in Big Government tend not to intuit or believe in any higher Consciousness. They think such belief is too metaphysical to be worthwhile, either in philosophical application or in experimental application. In that I think they are wrong. See The Atheist and the God Particle.
Caroline said, "I didn't see anything about forgiveness or redemption in Buddhism."
As you know, forgiveness or redemption are best found in God, Consciousness, and people -- not purely in doctrine.
I don't see anything in Buddhism that would preclude or hinder one from learning empathy and respect, leading to forgiveness.
On the redemption part, I think I concur. I think people who are lost have a better chance at redemption when in the power of The Word.
I suspect the "fundie" branches of Christianity have considerable more success in helping to put addicts, alcoholics, and derelicts back on a path towards fulfillment. For that, and much more, they merit praise. All the best.
Re: "Search for higher meaning and purpose in life, but leave that which belongs in Heaven, in Heaven."
I quite disagree. No one can, nor should, push receptivity to Higher Consciousness into irrelevancy to everyday life. That would be a prescription for rendering all higher principle meaningless to ordinary and political life and communication. It would be a prescription an atheist could love. The difference is between ignoring an inactive and uninvolved deity versus trying to be receptive to a living God, and being willing to communicate and hear how that God touches you and those you are involved with.
Maybe the difficulty is semantics. Who but an atheistic materialist, believing everything of significance or meaning is entirely reducible to random interactions of matter, should prescribe that the Holy should be entirely reducible in intentions to that which is materially controllable by Man? I would agree that one can ill afford to be dogmatic in a scientific sense, as if to say such and such empirically proves that God wants so and so. But one can and should feel free to communicate that such and such, in the context of one's faith, leads one to believe that one should do so and so.
As for final reconciliation or judgment, that may come in due time. Meantime, we have no choice but to make and rationalize our everyday choices, doing the best we can to be receptive to "good" choices -- which cannot be left simply to "those who know best."
Re: A.T. -- The Anachronism of Apostasy:
Commenter Logus said, "As for killing apostates... well, what do you do to traitors? Taking their thought processes to their logical conclusions, death for apostasy according to Islam makes sense - as wrong headed as we see that it truly is. "
Well, that sounds a bit like "Minority Report." But yes, by condemning traitors, we do punish the conclusion of their thought processes. However, only because the perps acted on such processes, to threaten or harm lives or property. We do not punish people for preaching that we ought to think differently about God -- except when preaching pushes to threaten life or property.
PROBLEM: May defending America against Islamofascism come to necessitate strict exclusions of believers and practitioners of Islam? Or bombing runs to neutralize potential jihadis? Or prisons for forcible mind reformation and re-education? Or punishment and monitoring based on thought processes? Well, history readily shows how quickly humanity can tumble into madness and despair. What would seem evil in present context may come to be a blessing. So my comments are for present context, assuming America will continue awhile longer as a beacon of decent civilization. (It will not, if parenting continues its downward spiral, even as government tumbles after.)
About present context: Religious leaders who organize followers as troops against countrymen are not, in that respect, practicing religion, but piracy and insurrection. It need not be given that preaching the killing of infidels should be Constitutionally protected practicing of "religion." It may "make sense" to advocate forcible dismantling ("killing") or reprogramming of a robot. For a human, not so. Not morally, religiously, or civically.
"Religion" should be based on what one truly believes about highest principles. Stockholm Syndrome is based on what one pretends to believe or becomes habituated to believe, because one fears consequences if authorities suspect sincerity. Stockholm Syndrome is life in prison, under constant watch of thought police. It is an abomination. If we fail to defend America, it is where we shall return.
Re: "A promise to an unethical deceptive person is not promise at all."
Indeed, is there any other way to deal sensibly with religious and secular fascists? What is the point of keeping one's word while dealing with people who feel little restraint from stabbing you in the back or sawing off your head? Trust but verify?
Well, here's the problem: Obama will be in power 3 more years. And he is not going to stop with his zombie revivals. After all, he has the financial backing of international thugs, and he has means to keep piling the cost onto the future of middle class America. So he has plenty of time to retaliate. Can he make us say "Uncle?" And what is the cost if we don't? Tea Partiers had best stay riled, and keep close tabs on ways to bring this gangster regime up on charges as soon as it is politically feasible.
Post a Comment