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.