Of Spiritual Merit:
Perhaps, the Beinigness of any perspective of consciousness is less a “test of merit” than a participatory, unfolding, organizing of Consciousness as it couples in various perspectives with Information. Perhaps, like the InterNet, bits of information may be spread out in the BeingNet -- among all, while coupling most integrally or intensely among a relative few or particular perspectives.
In choosing and selecting in order to organize and make manifest certain information among the infinite potential of information, it may be that intuition, empathy, appreciation, feedback, prayer, purpose, and practiced proficiency all play a role.
Thus, all perspectives of consciousness may share a stake in how the Field of consciousness learns, apprehends, and manifests.
However, in fundamental capacity, an aspect of each perspective of consciousness is an identical reiteration of all others. The potential to differentially manifest intelligence and emotion is not in respect of any intrinsic or differentiating merit in any particular perspective of consciousness, but in the organization of informational context with which each perspective couples.
Merit may self-select in respect of a feedback process for coupling perspectives of consciousness with various organizations of accumulating and leveraging information. Such self selection may also result in de-merits, or the quarantining (hell committing?) of various kinds of couplings that are deemed unworthy to the Field, pending release to such time, place and context as may warrant their rehabilitation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
To believe that any mere human being can perfectly translate, recite, and convey to us the non-trivial intention of God is to interpose between us a superior “partner” with God. IOW, Mohammed’s message contains the seed of its own refutation, in that the message sets up Mohammed as a partner qualified to speak perfectly and for all time for God. Yes, there is one God, who we should be respectful of and receptive to. No, we have no good reason to imagine that we are qualified in respect of any book of instructions to men to carry out vengeance in God’s name. Mohammed was simply the most successful of interlopers, leveraging and delegating authority over others by claiming to be perfect channellers of God. I rather suppose God calls to us, “Speak for yourself, John.”
Christians may judge the acts of others, but most do not claim divine authority to impose God's discipline upon others or to judge, condemn, commit, or behead the souls of others. To claim authority to rule others based purely in the name of a cookbook about God is not a religion, but a recipe for secular tyranny. No such a cookbook is deserving of constitutional protection.
Post a Comment