Lunacy of applying only Logic to explicate the Enigma of Existence

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOvpF4tKTRU&feature=related

Regarding the enigma of existence and logical lunacy: It is perhaps a truism that, within the field of Consciousness, to attempt to measure “particles” of Consciousness is simultaneously to alter them. In essential aspect, Consciousness abides at a level that is beyond logical proof. The existence of Consciousness Itself is beyond explanation in “”Either-Or” logic. Consciousness just is.


Only those quantities and qualities which are secondary to Consciousness are subject to such leveraging power of logic and math as are availed to us. Our logic dances with an essential substrate (physics) that necessarily conforms to certain limits that are conducive to interactions for the purposeful patterning and leveraging of that which is measurable. Without limits, there would abide no logic; without law, there would be no freedom.

Either-Or reasoning can help one plan how to leverage control over such phenomena as are measurable. Either-Or reasoning will not avail proof that one “should” seek to give expression to any particular plan. There is no objective way to measure whether a desire, thing, or event accords with God or morality. So of course there is no objective way to measure whether the behavior of any group of atheists tends to be more or less moral than the behavior of any group of non-atheists. Nor will Either-Or reasoning help one to leverage control over that which is immeasurable. For that, one needs Will, i.e., direct, intuitive, receptive empathy.

To my sense, it has become apparent that Obysmalite Progressives mean to coerce everyone into a temporal collective of lost souls. Until all are confined, Obysmalites will remain unrequited. It matters little whether this spreads misery, for the miserable love company. Obysmalites are all about objective equality in misery, and all against individual dignity. To seek to be an individual is to be politically incorrect.

Anti-Obysmalites, via cultural and family-friendly traditions, as much as is decently possible, mean to free each human perspective of consciousness to grow and express its own unfolding sense of purposefulness. For Obysmalites, the purpose of the collective is to facilitate as much equality as is sustainable, regardless of affront to individual human dignity. In essence, Obysmalites view “progress” as moving from 1984 to Brave New World. For Anti-Obysmalites, the purpose of the collective is to facilitate as much freedom of expression and enterprise as is decently sustainable.

A kind of Either-Or reasoning does have an application to morality. That is, one either will or one will not respect that an unfolding and purposeful Consciousness abides, beyond proof in logic. One who intuits, empathizes, and respects that such Consciousness does abide will experientially sense an unfolding purposefulness. He or she will accord good faith and good will, subjectively, beyond objective measure as such. One who does not will despair of meaninglessness. He will see little point to good faith or good will. Until karma avails enough schooling in hard knocks, such a one may easily seek refuge in the temporal collective economy of lost souls, where consciousness is imagined merely to be artifactual of the “either-or” logic of physics and where trickle-up material abundance and the Higgs Boson are coming, as surely as the Great Flying Santa Claus Monster.

Bottom line: As to each particle or perspective of Will, to not profane due and mutual respect, one ought not subjectively to imagine or avail that Obama or anyone else should enjoy hegemonic rule over the economy of the collective, as if perfectly and objectively representative of the entire field or purpose of God or "Progress."

*****

I don't think much about which among Judaism, Christianity, or Islam is closest to literal truth. As far as I can tell, none can be true in any literal sense. This is because God is beyond our literal description. For all, the truth value consists in whatever the figurative or representative sense that is meaningful to a participant in the then and there context. In that light, the more significant question is: which is conducive to decent civilization and which is not? In that, I think the answer is clear to any person of minimal experience, education, intelligence, empathy, and decency. In that respect, Islam is fundamentally antithetical to empathy, decency, beauty, and truth.

A concept occurs to me: That there exists a holistic perspective or field of consciousness, in respect of which there abide limits on that which any imperfect, incomplete, particular perspective of the entire field can be availed to comprehend.

However, from any perspective that is less than that of the entire field (universe), by definition, there is no way to know limits of that which is the potentiality of the whole, as the whole. There is no way a part, while a part, can know or apportion itself to the limits of the whole of potentiality, as a whole. Attempts by leveraging math and infinities to try to approach the whole, as whole, will always transmogrify (or switch peas) short of success. The most we may ascertain may be contextual limits for like situated perspectives. We can sum perspectives of parts, but such sums do not equal a perspective of the whole.

In consequence, each attempt from a particular perspective to try to model and focus its situational context in proportionate relation to the whole of potentiality will necessarily remain uncertain and fuzzy as it approaches the edges of its experiential capacity. Every interpretative model of a particular situation will necessarily break down, switch peas, or transmogrify as it switches across fuzzy limits among points of view and frames of reference.

It seems that a perspective of the Field may somehow be availing and apportioning us, but we have no means by which to know how we may apportion in relation to it. The wonder and potentiality of all that the whole may unfold to our adventure would seem to defy our imagination. We can choose in good faith to appreciate it together, or we can, in frustration, profess that it is entirely artifactual and instead seek mindless diversion in “moral surrender” to the good feelies of the sum of the abysmal collective.