The Ultimate Territory:
I just got the book, “Gene Man’s World.” I cheated and went directly to the back. (I like to skim first, then re-read in detail.) As I read it, I will bring some “baggage,” as follows:
To my lay apprehension, Whitehead expressed an idea that may (?) be consistent with the following: Each whole represents or expresses more, in respect of possibilities, than any particular (random or chosen) division of itself into whatever parts that may be re-sum’d. And, the “ultimate whole” may represent more than that. Set logic does not seem to lend itself to a complete and accurate adding or measuring of the potential of the “actual territory” of a whole (as opposed merely to a numerical value).
(May the whole, “within IT’s privileged self,” constitute a “set of one,” i.e., a set of IT’s own holistic perspectives of an informational series of mathematically sequenced events, which are objectified and represented as meta mathematical sequences in IT’s Memory, which influence IT’s choices in the eternal present? Does all empathy, emotiveness, and meaningfulness abide in eternal feedback among and between particular and holistic perspectives of consciousness?)
One may conceptualize that “consciousness” is the ultimate, superior territory of reality, and that consciousness may implicate holistic aspects as well as particular (“perspectivistic?”) aspects. Working from a particular perspective of “the territory” (i.e., consciousness), what may a perspective of consciousness reason about the character or quality of a postulated whole of consciousness? Alternatively stated, may there be a privileged aspect of the whole, which encompasses appreciation of my perspective, which also appreciates a holistic view which is qualitatively apart from mine? Does IT enjoy a super position that capacitates IT to appreciate a level of math that is superior to, and beyond, the logic and math that are availed to mere mortals? If so, in respect of IT’s qualitative difference, may IT facilitate feedback and communication among sub-perspectives in obedience to parameters and functions of math, which function upon ITSELF as the territory?
In other words, is there an aspect about “the territory” that is metaphysical to our perspectives, but “physical” or direct to IT’s? Are we allowed to precisely measure fluxing perspectives about the territory, but not the territory ITSELF? Note: Insofar as we share a same fluxing perspective (or universe), we may agree upon fundamentally shared and measured values of our physics – even though such values would not measure or confine the real territory (i.e., the holistic aspect of consciousness). Still, for the mortal purposes we share, our measurements would be “objective” (measurable and testable) – even though the territory from which they are ultimately derivative is not measurable in ITSELF.
CONSIDER: Even though the ultimate territory is not measurable, may we demonstrate with the math that we do have capacity to use: (1) the necessary existentiality (reality) of “the territory”; (2) its aspect for being beyond our physical measure; and (3) the reasonableness of an intuitive and empathetic approach in respect of IT?
To my intuition (or belief system?), as mortal perspectives of consciousness interact, what unfolds to their experience is expressed and objectified as their physics. But such physics would not exist but for the mathematical feedback and synchronization that is availed through the territory of a “higher holistic Consciousness.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A lot of folks, for no well thought out reason, tend merely to assume consciousness is entirely artifactual. But it may be more consistent and coherent to conceptualize consciousness as being fundamental, like the gravity field. But what if much of what we share as our common, i.e., objective, physics is derivative of "interactions" (gravitational lensing?) of a field of conscious will with a field of gravity? May such a concept accord a way to resolve both the subjective and the objective, the intuitive and emotive with the empirical, the beyond measure with the measurable, and the "ought" with the "is"? May a field of consciousness be analogized with God, and particular condensate from the field be analogized with perspectives of God, i.e., us? May truth value in holy books be metaphorically dependent on purpose and context? As limited perspectives, to be receptive to God (or purposefulness beyond dictate from the collective), should we be receptive (intuitive and empathetic) to the context of all with which we interact? I suspect we begin to fall into error as we begin to presume that our culturally induced names for God really do confine or describe God.
Reading Gene Man's World, at p. 33 regarding The Mystery of Consciousness," I came across an interesting point made by the author, Ed Klingman:
"They [atheists] believe in magic, although they call it emergent properties. They believe meaning can emerge from randomly generated structure, filtered by randomly generated 'purpose'. This is the modern equivalent of those who believed that flies 'emerged' from meat."
Post a Comment