In Whom Do We Trust?

To my intuition, mortals share what may as well be conceptualized as an unresolved and unknown set of unconscious fuzz (Jungian collective unconscious?). That Source (God?), which is fuzz to us, is the origin of all that synchronizes before us, in sequential manifestations of patterns, shape, focus, matter, and logos. Our varying, individuating perspectives constitute that which we consciously experience in meta sequencing, after that of which we are unconscious, i.e., the origin of our Will, has already designed and “decided.”

The reality we share -- as inferior, mortal perspectives of an encompassing, eternal whole -- is a constant, yet continuously changing, synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity. “Behind” that which we individuate, there abides a real synchronizing Source of reality, in respect of which the entire combination of all that we experience – subjectively and objectively – unfolds and finds expression. That which we experience and appreciate feeds back to, and affects, the Synchronizer. In that way, the Synchronizer cares for, relates to, and participates in, our experiences.

If so, what may that entail, in terms of math and bivalent (true vs. untrue) logic? How may the universe of the subjective relate to the universe of the objective? How may purpose, point of view, and context or frame of reference combine and react in order to allow us to communicate meaningfully about that which is assumed to be (1) indifferently random, (2) appreciably chosen, or (3) physically determined? Is any sequence “really” random, chosen, or physically determined – or do such concepts only convey meaning depending upon purpose, perspective, and context?

Does any valid conception of reality entail more than bivalent truth and non-truth? Ultimately, does matter reduce to Logos? Are there partitions and individuations of truth that depend upon purpose, perspective, and context? Is there a kind of “truth” or “non-truth” which abides only to the extent one approaches, or recedes from, that “Other,” which one pursues as fulfilling to oneself? What is the “truth” about running from the evil, ugly, or noisy in order to pursue and communicate about the good, beautiful, or musical?

Must a perspective, to be “scientific,” confine one with a subjective mind to bivalent truth values about a reality one must assume to be entirely reducible to “physics,” but which one may not prove to be so? Well, the “how” of technological advancement sometimes seems to dictate so. But the “why” of choices about how best to sustain a morally meaningful civilization does not. Therein lays a rub between those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the bivalent measurability of science versus those whose minds are focused almost exclusively in the feedback-fluxing and ambivalent history of civilization.

Intuitively, God means to facilitate closer appreciation for how communication and appreciation are synchronized and fed back and forth between the perspectives of the whole and of the parts. By what process of design is this done? Through an evolutionary and recycling process that entails experiences of perspectives of birth, growth, demise, and death ... and rebirth.


This cycle of growth, corruption, and demise applies to all forms for expressions of consciousness and concepts, even to institutions and nations. The matter of America is being corrupted and changed before our eyes. The Idea of America will be steeled by the experience, and the Idea, in due turn, will return closer to its Source.

Is there a standard of morality that can save us from the despair engendered by radically relativistic (anarchic) or arbitrary (totalitarian) moral values? I think, yes. That standard is this: Be decently empathetic to one another in respect of a meta-Synchronizer. Stated alternatively, cooperate to assimilate and sustain civilization by which family friendly values can be meaningfully communicated among generations.

****

How we relate to God affects how God relates to us. But we are more than our bodies and brains. The Identity -- for each of us -- stretches in consciousness well beyond the apparent physical limits of our skins -- not magically or omnipotently, but in due course and time.


When we love, respect, and honor God, we believe. When we do not, we cause unnecessary pain for everyone, including ourselves. This is because our consciousness cannot flourish apart from the collecting consciousness of God. God uses the logos of carrots and sticks to help guide us back. Until we learn logic, God relies on superstition. Until we learn empiricism, God relies on logic. Until we bring intuition to consciousness, to fill holes that cannot otherwise be filled in reason, God relies on empiricism. Until we firmly accept God, God relies on intuition.

Regardless, the potential of that which we intuit as the Collective Unconscious seems trinitarian: Its holistic aspect is constant; its individuating aspect is continuous; its relational aspect is reconciling.

How may reasoned intuition suggest that the Judeo-Christian narrative is closer to the truth about God than the Mohammedan? Consider: Is God's purpose to guide us, to the extent we have been gifted with thinking minds and free will, to appreciate God as God abides and is intuitively pertinent? If so, God's pertinence is readily intuitable, in respect of God's being: existential accompanier; art communicator; empathy experiencer; care inspirer; civilizing performer; and synchronizer of feedback in meta relations among wholes and parts.

***

For seeking collective rights and duties, we can look mainly to God or to Big Gov.  To the extent we unnecessarily replace God with Big Gov, we tend to increase problems.  For assimilating or collectivizing mores, we ought to look more to traditional ideas about God that have worked well in history to assimilate happy, flourishing, and defensible civilizations.