Neo-Transcendentalism

Neo-Transcendentalism:

A “rock” is not a rock, as such. Nor, ultimately, is a rock matter or energy, which are concepts (albeit, concepts shared at some level of appreciation by every perspective of consciousness that shares in and relates to our universe). Rather, a rock is a locus of stored information for affecting unfolding mathematical relationships, which represent mathematical potential within the holistic web, upon which we draw for such purposes as are permitted by our shared mathematical constants and limits. Nor is the “locus” of the rock in space-time, as such. Rather, it also is stored information, i.e., information stored to the imaginative appreciation of a meta-Source of holistic potential and ever-present consciousness. IOW, a rock (and the quarks it is made of and the space-time it occupies) is a symbolic placeholder for information that is stored for the common appreciation and use of every perspective of consciousness that encounters or considers it and that may, in potential, encounter or consider it. IOW, every rock is naught but the sensible byproduct or “logos” of the interaction of consciousness, imagination, will, and purposefulness among all particular, holistic, and potential perspectives of consciousness. IOW, without at least the contemporaneous or prior potential for consciousness, there could not be any rock, in any meaningful sense.


******

Of intuition, empathy, morality, and purposefulness:

Is empathy necessarily at least contemporaneous with creation of “physics,” perhaps even pre-cedent? What so-called inanimate or animate “matter” or point of view can function, receive and store information, or effect “choices,” without somehow being “empathetic of,” or receptive to, its more holistic or encompassing surroundings or frame of reference? What non-triviality can sensibly be said to abide, apart from a conceptual frame? “The Dude” abides, man!

Our memories of sequences find rational assortment in respect of models. In physics, a standard model conceptualizes that there are four fundamental forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational. However, we can hardly conceptualize how such forces, and the holistic web of space-time-matter-energy within which they arose, arise, and persist, may have unfolded derivative of a meta Source (or even a meta Nothingness?). That is, fundamental forces seem to be shadowed with a meta aspect. Does the meta aspect synchronize the mathematics of the holistic web in some instantaneously sequential way, to impart some kind of ultimate or objective reality to each universal sequence? Are “forces” nothing but mathematically synchronized musings of a meta-holism?

Does a meta-holism, which we conceptualize as expressing agents of “force” or “causation,” operate in two aspects, one being holistically and instantaneously respectful of (self-imposed?) universal, mathematically limiting laws, the other being perceptible and measurable to each perspective of the sum of mortals, thus being intuitable only in respect of such mathematical parameters as can be made sensible to the unfolding, sequential experience of mortal perspectives?

In other words, is space-time, on some level, an illusion, so that all that seems to happen subject to “forces” or “causes” is, on that level, merely secondary to the imagination and potential of a meta Source, which, in such potential, never really changes, but simply, always and forever, abides in an unchanging, uncaused, unforced, “meta-universal present?”

In other words, does that which we conceptualize as “gravity” operate in two aspects, one being instantaneously respectful of universal, mathematically limiting laws, the other being perceptible and measurable to mortals, subject to such measurements being limited to the speed of light?

Should the purpose for which one is considering “gravity” affect whether one conceptualizes its effect as proceeding instantaneously versus proceeding at the limiting speed of light? Do we thus tend to fall into error as we slide or conflate our purposes and concepts, from the particular to the holistic, from the local frame of reference to the universal cosmos? Can a particular mortal relate to the holistic cosmos measurably, or only intuitively and empathetically? To the extent one can contemplate the infinite potential of the cosmos, is one thereby made puny or great? Does that issue not turn on the attitude or karma of one’s state of consciousness?

Perhaps there is no material hell, but only a cessation of a perspective of consciousness. Perhaps, the nirvana of true atheists is not hell, but meta R.I.P. Perhaps, those perspectives which feel a balance of value and meaning in abiding, continue the journey of consciousness, cycling through various perspectives and potentials. Perhaps, perspectives of consciousness are in constant and continuous relationships, whereby potentials are sorted out, some as being dead ends, some as being interested in continued unfolding. Given the infinite potential of math, what’s a few trillion trillion years or universes, to the unfolding of sequential iterations on the same shared theme of consciousness? In all of this, what does God want? What does self expression want? In what manner of civilization does empathy find its most cherished dignity, freedom, and expression?