The New Racists:
Ed Koch believes Obama is orchestrating distortions against Israel. So, are those who disagree with Mr. Koch, a Jew, racists (as in Jew-a-phobes)? It is not for me to judge the souls of NYT style Dinos and Rinos (Ainos). But I do judge their appearances, and they do appear to leave the sort of droppings one might expect of amoral zombies. As to higher moral purposefulness among Ainos, is there any there, there? How can anyone reasonably expect that Ainos who believe in no higher purpose will ever set aside base interests and consent to be guided by higher principles when it comes to casting their political votes? So long as the middle class continues to abandon effective politics to Ainos, how can our politics ever amount to anything more than professional wrestling (with all profit proceeds going to owners)? Until the middle class gets disgusted enough to decide to become a potent, principled, political force and to demand accountability, both from Dinos and Rinos, all one need do is follow the bi-political money -- as it turns the Ainos it bites into moral zombies. It may be interesting to look to who owns the NYT and what their long term financial interests are.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Constitutional Convention for Economists
Is it time for a Constitutional Convention for Economists? See [blogs.reuters.com]. Well, Soros says we need more central planning. And, hint, people like him are just the ones to give it to us. We need to be taken care of. And he is willing to do the care taking. For a non-competitive fee. And he will care for us equally. So no one needs to worry about anyone getting more than their fair share just by "acting white." No doubt, Obama will provide us with some smart 27 year old czars to fix all this for us.
Now it’s the Recourse Rule. Well, it seems that every time an analyst figures out “the economic cause” of a problem with the market and sells a solution to conventional wisdom, the government will try to graft the solution into a regulation, as if the combination of economic analysis and legislation can give us long term, “scientific fixes.” Of course, whatever the legislated “solution,” opportunists, like downhill irrigators, will find the leaks. More opportunists will accumulate, the leaks will expand, and a new flood of abuse will burble forth. If we want stability and human dignity rather than snake oil Obama-nanigans and insufferable Big Gov, the precisely wrong way to go for it is to graft 2000 page pieces of comprehensive legislation, to be enforced by innumerable and comprehensively empowered regulatory bodies. Find a simple system of checks and balances that can unleash the vision, initiative, and energy of the people. We need something like a new economic Congress, called to simplify, check, and get government the hell out of our economics.
Now it’s the Recourse Rule. Well, it seems that every time an analyst figures out “the economic cause” of a problem with the market and sells a solution to conventional wisdom, the government will try to graft the solution into a regulation, as if the combination of economic analysis and legislation can give us long term, “scientific fixes.” Of course, whatever the legislated “solution,” opportunists, like downhill irrigators, will find the leaks. More opportunists will accumulate, the leaks will expand, and a new flood of abuse will burble forth. If we want stability and human dignity rather than snake oil Obama-nanigans and insufferable Big Gov, the precisely wrong way to go for it is to graft 2000 page pieces of comprehensive legislation, to be enforced by innumerable and comprehensively empowered regulatory bodies. Find a simple system of checks and balances that can unleash the vision, initiative, and energy of the people. We need something like a new economic Congress, called to simplify, check, and get government the hell out of our economics.
META LOCUS OF NATURE
META LOCUS OF NATURE:
SUPPOSE: Suppose all parameter-potentials allowed in space and matter are already set in mathematical form. Suppose meta space and matter are “steady state” in their logical, mathematical potentials, so that the “Big Bang” was only an explosion of parameter-obeying perspectives of consciousness in respect of a parameter-enforcing holistic consciousness? Suppose the “locus of nature” consists entirely derivative of mathematical parameter-constraints, as enforced by a Synchronizer of Consciousness and as enjoyed by perspectives of consciousness? Suppose the appearance of matter in the form of energy is only an interpretation that is made by perspectives that happen to share their being-ness in respect of a unifying, Synchronizing Consciousness.
FUNCTION OF PERSPECTIVES OF PERCEPTION: Suppose the appearances of sequential, dimensional movements of matter through space-time are purely secondary and derivative of sequential relations among “inter-functioning perspectives,” which on some meta level “sense” and organize their relations as feedback, such perspectives not being allowed to retain or communicate their consciousness except in respect of feedback that is derivative of their synchronizing Source. Suppose the meta force or function that pulls us about consists in innate empathy and feedback among perspectives, each for the other.
QUESTIONING INBUILT ASSUMPTIONS: In any event, to ask more about “how” such meta-perspectives accomplish that in material or mechanistic terms is already to ASSUME that matter is primary. But I see no necessary, good, or rational reason to assume that matter is primary, or to assume that dumb matter can entirely account for conscious choice-making or the indeterminacy in the appearance of events.
SOURCE OF CAUSATION AND NATURAL LAW: This quickly leads me to ask: Why is science so reliable in material terms, at least in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, if matter is not primary? (Note: I do not consider studies outside of mathematics, physics, and chemistry to constitute reliable “science,” but only to constitute experiential accumulations of instructive moral guidance or wisdom. For those who profess in such subjects to arrogate to themselves the title of “SCIENTISTS” is hubristic.)
MATHEMATICAL RELIABILITY OF NATURE: But to “answer” the question as to the why of the RELIABILITY of science, I defer to the why of the beginning of the mathematical system (“Big Bang”) as it is and has been put in place by the Synchronizer. That is, I purport no non-metaphysical explanation for the initial “material appearance” (or illusion) of the so-called Big Bang.
METE ORIGINS: But then, neither do physicists offer any non-metaphysical explanation for the ORIGIN, either of the Big Bang, or of Life, or of the mathematically demonstrable FUNCTIONS (“laws of nature”) that continue to limit our parameters. Certainly, their multiverse and many worlds “explanations” are metaphysical. (Has anyone ever empirically, materially, measured a parallel world?)
BEINGNESS – INDIFFERENT OR CARING: Regardless of whether the appearance of matter is regarded as existentially primary or secondary, given a meta system of inviolable mathematical constraints, the appearances and permutations of space, time, matter, energy, and of conscious perspectives of being-ness may be interpreted as “INDIFFERENT FACTS.” Yet, the fact of each such interpretation, and each parameter-allowed care-to-choose would be: subjective, not indifferent, appreciative of feedback, CARING, relationally involved, emotive, conscious, and derivative of what is allowed under parameters availed by the Synchronizer. By definition, each such expression of subjective consciousness is beyond the indifferent, scientific, complete control or comprehension of any particular expression of subjective consciousness.
MEANING AND MORAL PURPOSEFULNESS: So, what may be “the meaning” of availing such non-scientifically, non-materially ruled, caring perspectives of consciousness? What is “the purpose” of the Synchronizer in synchronizing such a system of feedback-charged choice-making? Indeed, is there a meta purpose, pursuit, or battle being waged?
MORAL BATTLES: If there is such a PURPOSE, it would not seem to be in material terms that Higher Consciousness may “win” the battle of individual good faith, good will, and moral empathy. Rather, if such a battle is won, it may only be in the sense of instilling meaning and purposefulness among individual perspectives of consciousness. As to that kind of meaning and purposefulness, no mere material battle can ever defeat it.
TELEOLOGY OF WILL: My consciousness intuits and believes that what is most ardently desired by Holistic Consciousness (the Synchronizer, aka “God”) and each mortal perspective of consciousness is that each of us should come to appreciate our common need, in respect of our separate dignity, to humble and assimilate ourselves in good faith to “God” and in good will towards one another.
FALSENESS OF FORCE: But, if that is done only because of force of governmental arms, then it is not really done. Certainly, it is not done by those who conceit to accomplish it by controlling government via “indifferent science.”
It is a bit entertaining, however, to watch materialistic Marxists try to “explain” that which we should CARE to do in terms of that which consists in INDIFFERENT facts.
SUPPOSE: Suppose all parameter-potentials allowed in space and matter are already set in mathematical form. Suppose meta space and matter are “steady state” in their logical, mathematical potentials, so that the “Big Bang” was only an explosion of parameter-obeying perspectives of consciousness in respect of a parameter-enforcing holistic consciousness? Suppose the “locus of nature” consists entirely derivative of mathematical parameter-constraints, as enforced by a Synchronizer of Consciousness and as enjoyed by perspectives of consciousness? Suppose the appearance of matter in the form of energy is only an interpretation that is made by perspectives that happen to share their being-ness in respect of a unifying, Synchronizing Consciousness.
FUNCTION OF PERSPECTIVES OF PERCEPTION: Suppose the appearances of sequential, dimensional movements of matter through space-time are purely secondary and derivative of sequential relations among “inter-functioning perspectives,” which on some meta level “sense” and organize their relations as feedback, such perspectives not being allowed to retain or communicate their consciousness except in respect of feedback that is derivative of their synchronizing Source. Suppose the meta force or function that pulls us about consists in innate empathy and feedback among perspectives, each for the other.
QUESTIONING INBUILT ASSUMPTIONS: In any event, to ask more about “how” such meta-perspectives accomplish that in material or mechanistic terms is already to ASSUME that matter is primary. But I see no necessary, good, or rational reason to assume that matter is primary, or to assume that dumb matter can entirely account for conscious choice-making or the indeterminacy in the appearance of events.
SOURCE OF CAUSATION AND NATURAL LAW: This quickly leads me to ask: Why is science so reliable in material terms, at least in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, if matter is not primary? (Note: I do not consider studies outside of mathematics, physics, and chemistry to constitute reliable “science,” but only to constitute experiential accumulations of instructive moral guidance or wisdom. For those who profess in such subjects to arrogate to themselves the title of “SCIENTISTS” is hubristic.)
MATHEMATICAL RELIABILITY OF NATURE: But to “answer” the question as to the why of the RELIABILITY of science, I defer to the why of the beginning of the mathematical system (“Big Bang”) as it is and has been put in place by the Synchronizer. That is, I purport no non-metaphysical explanation for the initial “material appearance” (or illusion) of the so-called Big Bang.
METE ORIGINS: But then, neither do physicists offer any non-metaphysical explanation for the ORIGIN, either of the Big Bang, or of Life, or of the mathematically demonstrable FUNCTIONS (“laws of nature”) that continue to limit our parameters. Certainly, their multiverse and many worlds “explanations” are metaphysical. (Has anyone ever empirically, materially, measured a parallel world?)
BEINGNESS – INDIFFERENT OR CARING: Regardless of whether the appearance of matter is regarded as existentially primary or secondary, given a meta system of inviolable mathematical constraints, the appearances and permutations of space, time, matter, energy, and of conscious perspectives of being-ness may be interpreted as “INDIFFERENT FACTS.” Yet, the fact of each such interpretation, and each parameter-allowed care-to-choose would be: subjective, not indifferent, appreciative of feedback, CARING, relationally involved, emotive, conscious, and derivative of what is allowed under parameters availed by the Synchronizer. By definition, each such expression of subjective consciousness is beyond the indifferent, scientific, complete control or comprehension of any particular expression of subjective consciousness.
MEANING AND MORAL PURPOSEFULNESS: So, what may be “the meaning” of availing such non-scientifically, non-materially ruled, caring perspectives of consciousness? What is “the purpose” of the Synchronizer in synchronizing such a system of feedback-charged choice-making? Indeed, is there a meta purpose, pursuit, or battle being waged?
MORAL BATTLES: If there is such a PURPOSE, it would not seem to be in material terms that Higher Consciousness may “win” the battle of individual good faith, good will, and moral empathy. Rather, if such a battle is won, it may only be in the sense of instilling meaning and purposefulness among individual perspectives of consciousness. As to that kind of meaning and purposefulness, no mere material battle can ever defeat it.
TELEOLOGY OF WILL: My consciousness intuits and believes that what is most ardently desired by Holistic Consciousness (the Synchronizer, aka “God”) and each mortal perspective of consciousness is that each of us should come to appreciate our common need, in respect of our separate dignity, to humble and assimilate ourselves in good faith to “God” and in good will towards one another.
FALSENESS OF FORCE: But, if that is done only because of force of governmental arms, then it is not really done. Certainly, it is not done by those who conceit to accomplish it by controlling government via “indifferent science.”
It is a bit entertaining, however, to watch materialistic Marxists try to “explain” that which we should CARE to do in terms of that which consists in INDIFFERENT facts.
Monday, April 12, 2010
One Party Progressivism
One Party (cynical, godless) Progressivism:
Considering the overlap among corporate contributors to Dinos and Rinos, are they really two separate parties? If not, are we talking about a third party, or just about a Real second party -- one that actually represents traditional American, middle class, common sense values of individual freedom and dignity? Well, if Rinos will allow Conservatives to assume leadership of the Republican Party, and if the Republican Party will then follow through, then we will not need a third party. But that’s a Big IF!
If we turn out the Dems, Pelosi, and Reid, and if Rinos then give us comprehensive immigration reform anyway, changing our electorate forever, then what? Well, if Republicans want to head off Paul, the best way to do that is for them to learn to stop denigrating the sustainable values of Conservatives.
However, Paul does seem to have non-nuanced notions about free trade. It may be one thing to decline to avail protection to oligopolistic industries (since that would insulate non-competitive sclerosis). But among industries that are competitive, that make good products except that they compete for labor in America (a higher wage market), it would seem that protectionism may sometimes make sense. Otherwise, even competitive industries are eventually forced to relocate in cheaper labor markets overseas. While bleeding out American industry may be to the interests of international corporatists, it does not seem to be much in the interest of America, as its own national and economic entity.
IOW, the good faith interests of middle class Americans are apart from the more cynical interests of both Dinos and Rinos. Both Dino Style Socialism and Rino Style Corporatism are calculated to reduce the influence of the middle class, to make it a political non-entity. For a middle class of good will to survive, it needs to recognize that the villain it faces is a bi-political snake, either head of which is poisonous to traditional American values and to a representative republic.
Considering the overlap among corporate contributors to Dinos and Rinos, are they really two separate parties? If not, are we talking about a third party, or just about a Real second party -- one that actually represents traditional American, middle class, common sense values of individual freedom and dignity? Well, if Rinos will allow Conservatives to assume leadership of the Republican Party, and if the Republican Party will then follow through, then we will not need a third party. But that’s a Big IF!
If we turn out the Dems, Pelosi, and Reid, and if Rinos then give us comprehensive immigration reform anyway, changing our electorate forever, then what? Well, if Republicans want to head off Paul, the best way to do that is for them to learn to stop denigrating the sustainable values of Conservatives.
However, Paul does seem to have non-nuanced notions about free trade. It may be one thing to decline to avail protection to oligopolistic industries (since that would insulate non-competitive sclerosis). But among industries that are competitive, that make good products except that they compete for labor in America (a higher wage market), it would seem that protectionism may sometimes make sense. Otherwise, even competitive industries are eventually forced to relocate in cheaper labor markets overseas. While bleeding out American industry may be to the interests of international corporatists, it does not seem to be much in the interest of America, as its own national and economic entity.
IOW, the good faith interests of middle class Americans are apart from the more cynical interests of both Dinos and Rinos. Both Dino Style Socialism and Rino Style Corporatism are calculated to reduce the influence of the middle class, to make it a political non-entity. For a middle class of good will to survive, it needs to recognize that the villain it faces is a bi-political snake, either head of which is poisonous to traditional American values and to a representative republic.
FASCIST CORPORATISTS
FASCIST CORPORATISTS:
What should you call it, when a regime seeks to control oil and carbon dioxide so as to let us produce just enough to live, barely, so long as we give it what it wants? Suppose high rolling fascist-collectivists start betting they can bend Uncle Sam to their will, now that their political fronts have been elected? Fronts who are inclined: to disburse punishments by withholding the stuff of life (or national defense); to disburse rewards by shaking bonus money from the fiat tree for those they like; to choose which corporations to allow to live as they like; and to destroy such corporate competitors as they do not like? Sure, we now have some lower level, expendable pols sweating. But have Soros and his coalition’s frontman, Obama, changed their course in any major way? Anyone seen them sweating?
What’s so hard about suspecting that billionaires who have learned to play dirty may well be inclined to sniff one another out and form new world coalitions, sort of like a worldwide Quickening, in which traditional national boundaries are only diversionary opium for the masses? What do you call it when an extra-national wolf pack of amoral, billionaire corporatists finds its entertainment by uniting to buy and cannibalize entire governments, countries, and industries? Would that really be what the common folk consider to be "socialism?"
Bottom line: If all we do is toss out Dinos in order to replace them with Rinos, who thinks Corporatists will not continue merrily on their course? There is a vast difference between an arms length marketplace for competing free enterprisers and thug enforced corporate favoritism. Corporatism is not free enterprise.
What should you call it, when a regime seeks to control oil and carbon dioxide so as to let us produce just enough to live, barely, so long as we give it what it wants? Suppose high rolling fascist-collectivists start betting they can bend Uncle Sam to their will, now that their political fronts have been elected? Fronts who are inclined: to disburse punishments by withholding the stuff of life (or national defense); to disburse rewards by shaking bonus money from the fiat tree for those they like; to choose which corporations to allow to live as they like; and to destroy such corporate competitors as they do not like? Sure, we now have some lower level, expendable pols sweating. But have Soros and his coalition’s frontman, Obama, changed their course in any major way? Anyone seen them sweating?
What’s so hard about suspecting that billionaires who have learned to play dirty may well be inclined to sniff one another out and form new world coalitions, sort of like a worldwide Quickening, in which traditional national boundaries are only diversionary opium for the masses? What do you call it when an extra-national wolf pack of amoral, billionaire corporatists finds its entertainment by uniting to buy and cannibalize entire governments, countries, and industries? Would that really be what the common folk consider to be "socialism?"
Bottom line: If all we do is toss out Dinos in order to replace them with Rinos, who thinks Corporatists will not continue merrily on their course? There is a vast difference between an arms length marketplace for competing free enterprisers and thug enforced corporate favoritism. Corporatism is not free enterprise.
Friday, April 2, 2010
REASON AND METAPHYSICS
REASON AND METAPHYSICS:
DIVIDING METAPHYSICS FROM PHYSICS: In terms of reason, what is the line between the metaphysical and the empirical? What can we reasonably intuit, infer, deduce, know, or hope about the “meta territory?” That it is: purposeful, willful, powerful, creative, mysterious, astonishing? Can we reasonably hope that our perspectives of consciousness may already in some permanent way be adjoined with it? Well, at different times and places, we each think differently about that.
DIVIDING MODELS FROM REALITY: It is oft noted that “the map (model, theory, or math) is not the territory. Or that a class is not a cow. Well, it is correct that they are qualitatively different. But what is the line for explicating the difference between the empirical versus the metaphysical? (Or for showing any non-trivial thing that is clearly or purely one or the other: either empirical or metaphysical; either empathetic or measurable; either intuitive or scientific; either meaningful or not?)
DIVIDING REALITY FROM ILLUSION: In a way of thinking, “the territory” (space, time, matter, energy, or any combination or web thereof) is a real illusion (or an illusionary real). The territory is born to existence and beingness out of meta inter-action and inter-empathy between meta Consciousness and meta Information. That is, “the territory” is inferior byproduct from the meta. There is no space, time, matter or energy, or any combination thereof, per se. There are only variously measurable perspectives (possibilities) and measured perspectives (manifestations). Each such perspective carries an absolute aspect and relative aspects. That they each “carry a property of existence and beingness” is absolute. How they change in particular relations and perspectives is relative, depending on mix of point of view and contextual frame of reference.
DELAYED ACTION FROM PSYCHIC DISTANCE: As I appreciate you, the byproduct is change in the information we share, and that changes our physics. Our brains manifest physical changes a split sequence after our minds determine a course. Real decisions are made a split second before the trace of their material signal. The physics is byproduct.
DIVIDING GOD FROM MORTALS: Even if all possible particular points of view and frames of reference could be added, reduced numbered, measured, and considered, they would still not form a sum or complete a picture which would account for any view from the whole. Does any holistic aspect of Consciousness function to enjoy, translate, or synchronize all existing, functioning, inferior, particular perspectives of consciousness? If so, functioning as such a holistic perspective is qualitatively different in a meta way from functioning as a particular perspective.
DUALISM OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INFORMATION: I assume, on intuition, axiom, and faith, that Consciousness cannot know itself except indirectly, as a result of feedback from how it interrelates with Information. So Consciousness cannot exist, meaningfully, apart from Information. On some meta level, Consciousness and Information came into existence together, simultaneously; they participate together to account for all else of existence.
Meta-mechanics for how Consciousness and Information came together, and continue to function together, is beyond worthwhile logic or speculation. Except that the relationship between Consciousness and Information must be one of dualistic feedback, instead of from superior to inferior. Neither Consciousness nor Information is, in itself, complete.
FEEDBACK FUNCTIONALITY OF EXISTENCE, BEINGNESS, AND EVOLUTION: Consciousness participates by making choices; Information participates by inspiring choices. Functioning together, they cause the course of EVOLUTION, i.e., they determine which patterns or bundles of mathematical systems are “fittest” to survive, replicate, and unfold.
DIVIDING CONSTANCY OF ESSENCE FROM CHANGE OF FORMS: This begs a question: Do Consciousness and Information change one another? Which is cause and which is effect? If Information is causal, then Consciousness is subordinate. If Consciousness is causal, then Information is subordinate. In either possibility, the following are byproducts: Space, time, matter, and energy. If Consciousness and Information can change one another, then may either or both have an essence or potential that cannot be changed?
ESSENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INFORMATION: Yes, Consciousness and Information do have unchangeable essences. That is, Math exists at a meta level, such that its underlying logic does not change. And Consciousness exists at a meta level, such that its potential for empathetic appreciation of Mathematical Information, from various whole-part perspectives, does not change, even though its particular appreciations from any contextual perspective do change.
WHAT CHANGES: So, what of the “bundles of math” does change? Well, even though the rules of logic do not change, how the logic is presented does change, depending on how Consciousness uses logic and math to leverage its perspectives.
HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS EFFECT MATERIAL CHANGE: So, how does Consciousness use logic and math to leverage its perspectives, and what guides its synchronous choices of what to appreciate or seek? Well, that “just is.” It is “meta.” It “will be what it will be.”
INTER-EMPATHY WITH HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS: God (Holistic Consciousness), depending on level of involvement with system contextual information, participates with us, and has not “left us.” “God” may stand superior to our limited versions of space-time, but not outside meta-interpenetration with mathematical information.
NO SCIENCE OF MORALITY: Math, measurements, and empiricism do not, in themselves, avail “explanations” for existence or for what we morally should be doing or believing about what we should be doing. They are merely tools that may or may not enhance some of the particular perspectives of consciousness among us. There is no science of morality. Yet, there tends to be general consensus about morality in larger senses. The basis for that is not in material science, but in spiritual intuition and empathy. We can choose to heed and foster that empathy (which is a legitimate function for CHURCHES and their context-sensitive sacred parables), or we can choose to turn from it, in indifference (which is a function for leveraging mechanics, or SCIENCE). On some meta level, meta evolution would seem more inclined towards fostering empathy than turning from it.
ULTIMATE META SOURCE OF GOD AND BEINGNESS: As to the Source of Consciousness and Information, or what the Source’s purpose may be, I cannot pierce, either logically or empathetically.
META MATH: Except in punting to meta dualism, every attempt to use mortal math and logic to try to nest all physical forms under a logical classification that begins with non-physical consciousness fails. CONSIDER: Each mortal, particular perspective of consciousness is a member of the class of consciousness. But is there a “holistic perspective?” Problem: For mortals, that seems to entail an oxymoron. After all, how can a perspective be holistic? There may be a sum effect of a class of perspectives of consciousness. But how can our math make empirical sense of a “holistic perspective” of any such a sum effect? Well, math as it is availed to us seems insufficient to allow us to understand how such may be. But, may some kind of “meta math” be availed to “God?” May God, by thinking mathematically, manifest universes? There is no empirical sense available to me in such speculation. Yet, there seems to be intuitive, empathetic sense. There seems to be moral basis for good faith coming together to try to promote empathetic guidance in exercising collective good will.
SLEIGHTS OF WORDS: As “elites” search and communicate about notions of empirical certainty, they easily and often deceive themselves (and the rest of us) with "meta words," oxymorons, and “sleights of words,” merely by forgetting or omitting to mark switches from singular to plural, from parts to wholes, from sub-contexts to more encompassing contexts, from subparts to fallacies of composition. Attitude, inspiration, and empathy: these are communicated by contextual feedback and feel, not by pure or precise mathematical logic. And that is why removing governance to a non-local distance tends to defeat moral interaction.
CONSCIOUSNESS – HOLISTIC, PARTICULAR, WHOLE-PART (HOLON): Holistic God is aware of the fluxing web of math. Perspectives of consciousness may become aware of such bundles of information within the web as are or can be translated to their mortal, changing, incomplete points of view based on their changing frames of reference.
BUBBLES OF UNIVERSES: How many separate universes, i.e., system webs of bundles of mathematical information, may there be? I cannot say. But any such a system, to exist in any meaningful way, must necessarily relate to some level of consciousness. In each case, to appreciate a system of math would entail an appreciation of its point of beginning as an appreciable system. It would not entail immediate appreciation of the entirety for how it must unfold, insofar as parameter limits are availed for making choices. By definition, choices are not known in advance of their sequential presentment. In each case, what “came before” its system universe would be beyond the contextual access of any non-holistic perspective, assigned within its own universe.
IN THE BEGINNING: In meta beginning, Consciousness and Information existed together. From them, the mathematical system that displays our universe is derivative. Being Holistic Consciousness, God did not create our universe out of nothing. As to the Source of God, I cannot say. Our universe is born out of meta interaction of God and Information. Traces of such interaction necessarily remain and run throughout the unfolding expression of our universe.
DIVIDING METAPHYSICS FROM PHYSICS: In terms of reason, what is the line between the metaphysical and the empirical? What can we reasonably intuit, infer, deduce, know, or hope about the “meta territory?” That it is: purposeful, willful, powerful, creative, mysterious, astonishing? Can we reasonably hope that our perspectives of consciousness may already in some permanent way be adjoined with it? Well, at different times and places, we each think differently about that.
DIVIDING MODELS FROM REALITY: It is oft noted that “the map (model, theory, or math) is not the territory. Or that a class is not a cow. Well, it is correct that they are qualitatively different. But what is the line for explicating the difference between the empirical versus the metaphysical? (Or for showing any non-trivial thing that is clearly or purely one or the other: either empirical or metaphysical; either empathetic or measurable; either intuitive or scientific; either meaningful or not?)
DIVIDING REALITY FROM ILLUSION: In a way of thinking, “the territory” (space, time, matter, energy, or any combination or web thereof) is a real illusion (or an illusionary real). The territory is born to existence and beingness out of meta inter-action and inter-empathy between meta Consciousness and meta Information. That is, “the territory” is inferior byproduct from the meta. There is no space, time, matter or energy, or any combination thereof, per se. There are only variously measurable perspectives (possibilities) and measured perspectives (manifestations). Each such perspective carries an absolute aspect and relative aspects. That they each “carry a property of existence and beingness” is absolute. How they change in particular relations and perspectives is relative, depending on mix of point of view and contextual frame of reference.
DELAYED ACTION FROM PSYCHIC DISTANCE: As I appreciate you, the byproduct is change in the information we share, and that changes our physics. Our brains manifest physical changes a split sequence after our minds determine a course. Real decisions are made a split second before the trace of their material signal. The physics is byproduct.
DIVIDING GOD FROM MORTALS: Even if all possible particular points of view and frames of reference could be added, reduced numbered, measured, and considered, they would still not form a sum or complete a picture which would account for any view from the whole. Does any holistic aspect of Consciousness function to enjoy, translate, or synchronize all existing, functioning, inferior, particular perspectives of consciousness? If so, functioning as such a holistic perspective is qualitatively different in a meta way from functioning as a particular perspective.
DUALISM OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INFORMATION: I assume, on intuition, axiom, and faith, that Consciousness cannot know itself except indirectly, as a result of feedback from how it interrelates with Information. So Consciousness cannot exist, meaningfully, apart from Information. On some meta level, Consciousness and Information came into existence together, simultaneously; they participate together to account for all else of existence.
Meta-mechanics for how Consciousness and Information came together, and continue to function together, is beyond worthwhile logic or speculation. Except that the relationship between Consciousness and Information must be one of dualistic feedback, instead of from superior to inferior. Neither Consciousness nor Information is, in itself, complete.
FEEDBACK FUNCTIONALITY OF EXISTENCE, BEINGNESS, AND EVOLUTION: Consciousness participates by making choices; Information participates by inspiring choices. Functioning together, they cause the course of EVOLUTION, i.e., they determine which patterns or bundles of mathematical systems are “fittest” to survive, replicate, and unfold.
DIVIDING CONSTANCY OF ESSENCE FROM CHANGE OF FORMS: This begs a question: Do Consciousness and Information change one another? Which is cause and which is effect? If Information is causal, then Consciousness is subordinate. If Consciousness is causal, then Information is subordinate. In either possibility, the following are byproducts: Space, time, matter, and energy. If Consciousness and Information can change one another, then may either or both have an essence or potential that cannot be changed?
ESSENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INFORMATION: Yes, Consciousness and Information do have unchangeable essences. That is, Math exists at a meta level, such that its underlying logic does not change. And Consciousness exists at a meta level, such that its potential for empathetic appreciation of Mathematical Information, from various whole-part perspectives, does not change, even though its particular appreciations from any contextual perspective do change.
WHAT CHANGES: So, what of the “bundles of math” does change? Well, even though the rules of logic do not change, how the logic is presented does change, depending on how Consciousness uses logic and math to leverage its perspectives.
HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS EFFECT MATERIAL CHANGE: So, how does Consciousness use logic and math to leverage its perspectives, and what guides its synchronous choices of what to appreciate or seek? Well, that “just is.” It is “meta.” It “will be what it will be.”
INTER-EMPATHY WITH HOLISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS: God (Holistic Consciousness), depending on level of involvement with system contextual information, participates with us, and has not “left us.” “God” may stand superior to our limited versions of space-time, but not outside meta-interpenetration with mathematical information.
NO SCIENCE OF MORALITY: Math, measurements, and empiricism do not, in themselves, avail “explanations” for existence or for what we morally should be doing or believing about what we should be doing. They are merely tools that may or may not enhance some of the particular perspectives of consciousness among us. There is no science of morality. Yet, there tends to be general consensus about morality in larger senses. The basis for that is not in material science, but in spiritual intuition and empathy. We can choose to heed and foster that empathy (which is a legitimate function for CHURCHES and their context-sensitive sacred parables), or we can choose to turn from it, in indifference (which is a function for leveraging mechanics, or SCIENCE). On some meta level, meta evolution would seem more inclined towards fostering empathy than turning from it.
ULTIMATE META SOURCE OF GOD AND BEINGNESS: As to the Source of Consciousness and Information, or what the Source’s purpose may be, I cannot pierce, either logically or empathetically.
META MATH: Except in punting to meta dualism, every attempt to use mortal math and logic to try to nest all physical forms under a logical classification that begins with non-physical consciousness fails. CONSIDER: Each mortal, particular perspective of consciousness is a member of the class of consciousness. But is there a “holistic perspective?” Problem: For mortals, that seems to entail an oxymoron. After all, how can a perspective be holistic? There may be a sum effect of a class of perspectives of consciousness. But how can our math make empirical sense of a “holistic perspective” of any such a sum effect? Well, math as it is availed to us seems insufficient to allow us to understand how such may be. But, may some kind of “meta math” be availed to “God?” May God, by thinking mathematically, manifest universes? There is no empirical sense available to me in such speculation. Yet, there seems to be intuitive, empathetic sense. There seems to be moral basis for good faith coming together to try to promote empathetic guidance in exercising collective good will.
SLEIGHTS OF WORDS: As “elites” search and communicate about notions of empirical certainty, they easily and often deceive themselves (and the rest of us) with "meta words," oxymorons, and “sleights of words,” merely by forgetting or omitting to mark switches from singular to plural, from parts to wholes, from sub-contexts to more encompassing contexts, from subparts to fallacies of composition. Attitude, inspiration, and empathy: these are communicated by contextual feedback and feel, not by pure or precise mathematical logic. And that is why removing governance to a non-local distance tends to defeat moral interaction.
CONSCIOUSNESS – HOLISTIC, PARTICULAR, WHOLE-PART (HOLON): Holistic God is aware of the fluxing web of math. Perspectives of consciousness may become aware of such bundles of information within the web as are or can be translated to their mortal, changing, incomplete points of view based on their changing frames of reference.
BUBBLES OF UNIVERSES: How many separate universes, i.e., system webs of bundles of mathematical information, may there be? I cannot say. But any such a system, to exist in any meaningful way, must necessarily relate to some level of consciousness. In each case, to appreciate a system of math would entail an appreciation of its point of beginning as an appreciable system. It would not entail immediate appreciation of the entirety for how it must unfold, insofar as parameter limits are availed for making choices. By definition, choices are not known in advance of their sequential presentment. In each case, what “came before” its system universe would be beyond the contextual access of any non-holistic perspective, assigned within its own universe.
IN THE BEGINNING: In meta beginning, Consciousness and Information existed together. From them, the mathematical system that displays our universe is derivative. Being Holistic Consciousness, God did not create our universe out of nothing. As to the Source of God, I cannot say. Our universe is born out of meta interaction of God and Information. Traces of such interaction necessarily remain and run throughout the unfolding expression of our universe.
WEB OF CONSCIOUSNESS
WEB OF CONSCIOUSNESS: There exists a Web of Consciousness. The Web may function holistically and in bundles of perspectives. Insofar as it functions in bundles of perspectives, each perspective remains bound to such mathematical parameters as pertain to all, in order to define the Web. Only by respecting mathematical parameters is holistic Consciousness able to fashion webs in respect of which particular perspectives can relate.
Consciousness, to function in holistic aspect, requires feedback to be conscious of. So also do particular perspectives of consciousness require feedback. To experience and generate feedback, mathematical parameters have to be devised and respected. Mathematical parameters implicate translations of perspectives among dimensions in respect of point (particulate) of relation or view versus frame (web, field, wave) of reference.
EXTENT OF SELF KNOWLEDGE: Neither holistic consciousness nor any particular perspective of it “knows” what it was before it became imbued with web-like mathematical perspective, vibrating between levels of holistic and particular perspectives.
META COMPLETENESS: Somehow, without knowing how, consciousness merged with math to create a web of relational existence, which, in some unknowable way, is complete, consistent, and coherent. Even though, if considered separately, neither consciousness nor math would be complete, consistent, and coherent.
GOD ALWAYS ABOUT IN THE QUOD: Inanimate bundles of information, at seemingly far away distances in space-time, seem, upon observation, to intuit, feel, recognize, communicate with, and interact with one another. But that is an illusion, secondary to interpretation by a holistic web of Consciousness, even when no particular, less than holistic, perspectives of consciousness appear to be in or about the premises.
PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVES OF FEEDBACK: Can holistic consciousness interject and experience itself within a new web of math, without simultaneously injecting individual, particular perspectives of itself (even if such bundles remain at an inanimate sublevel of non-self-awareness), in order to give meaning to the interacting bundles of mathematical information?
HOW DOES CONSCIOUS EMPATHY AFFECT MATERIAL CAUSATION OR UNFOLDING EMERGENCE OF NEW UNIVERSES: How is consciousness injected or made to interpenetrate? At the beginning of each math system, as it is imagined, and then admired from without …. If God can or does happen to imagine a math system, as a system, then that system can hold consciousness …. But what is necessary to bring such systems into actuality of manifestation? Well, it is the injection of consciousness. Insofar as mathematical systems exist, potentially, in imagination, the number of universes that could be brought into actuality is infinite.
Consciousness, to function in holistic aspect, requires feedback to be conscious of. So also do particular perspectives of consciousness require feedback. To experience and generate feedback, mathematical parameters have to be devised and respected. Mathematical parameters implicate translations of perspectives among dimensions in respect of point (particulate) of relation or view versus frame (web, field, wave) of reference.
EXTENT OF SELF KNOWLEDGE: Neither holistic consciousness nor any particular perspective of it “knows” what it was before it became imbued with web-like mathematical perspective, vibrating between levels of holistic and particular perspectives.
META COMPLETENESS: Somehow, without knowing how, consciousness merged with math to create a web of relational existence, which, in some unknowable way, is complete, consistent, and coherent. Even though, if considered separately, neither consciousness nor math would be complete, consistent, and coherent.
GOD ALWAYS ABOUT IN THE QUOD: Inanimate bundles of information, at seemingly far away distances in space-time, seem, upon observation, to intuit, feel, recognize, communicate with, and interact with one another. But that is an illusion, secondary to interpretation by a holistic web of Consciousness, even when no particular, less than holistic, perspectives of consciousness appear to be in or about the premises.
PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVES OF FEEDBACK: Can holistic consciousness interject and experience itself within a new web of math, without simultaneously injecting individual, particular perspectives of itself (even if such bundles remain at an inanimate sublevel of non-self-awareness), in order to give meaning to the interacting bundles of mathematical information?
HOW DOES CONSCIOUS EMPATHY AFFECT MATERIAL CAUSATION OR UNFOLDING EMERGENCE OF NEW UNIVERSES: How is consciousness injected or made to interpenetrate? At the beginning of each math system, as it is imagined, and then admired from without …. If God can or does happen to imagine a math system, as a system, then that system can hold consciousness …. But what is necessary to bring such systems into actuality of manifestation? Well, it is the injection of consciousness. Insofar as mathematical systems exist, potentially, in imagination, the number of universes that could be brought into actuality is infinite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
