Creation Myth
For a modern twist on the parable of the blind men and the elephant, suppose: all ultimate particles were paradoxical points, otherwise without size or shape. Upon collapse of the field that gives them expression, would the field itself become without size and shape, and also without motion or direction? Or would it retain potential, capacity, and charge enough to flux with feedback in itself?
What would be the potential of such a collapsed, holistic field to store and remember information, to express or convey information, and to apprehend or learn of new contingencies? Is there a Character that wills a contingent capacity for giving expression to such a charged field? So long as the field remains charged, can it ever be collapsed into a single point of no shape or size? What manner of point could this be, and does it have capacity to count or to represent, model, and remember information? Upon collapse, may such a field in fact become a mere point, so that it can reasonably be conceptualized as illusion or contingent representation or translation of information, like binary bits activated by some meta computer?
Well, that is one possible popularization, intuitively mixing the quantitatively measurable with the qualitatively immeasurable in order to construct a creation myth. Note that the creation myth may image a Creator character just as reasonably as a random bubble in the void. Actually, insofar as a Creator myth avails intuitions of connections in moral empathy, it may be more suitable for inspiring and sustaining civilization. Obviously, myths have a self fulfilling aspect, almost as if reality can be directed or even created by bootstrapping from invented contingencies. Maybe God is the greatest story teller. Alternatively, a Sisyphus may opt to try to confine God to a “scientific” approach, to make a math fetish out of often absurd modeling (see global warming), contrived from confluences of necessarily incomplete perspectives (as if mortal creatures could stand outside their context to measure or confine God or creation).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Point-particles themselves have no independent reality, except contingent upon and relative to some meta, holistic, synchronizing, interconnecting, empathetic-in-feedback aspect of Will (aka God), which is coextensive — in levels, layers, and organization — in operation with the field that necessarily accompanies and encompasses all such particles. It is the context of that relation among God, field, and particles that avails point-particles with their reality, i.e., their capacity to organize, and the capacity of their organizations to interpret, translate, and relate information — such as information regarding direction, motion, speed, charge, attraction, repulsion, radiation, absorption, reaction, density, field-point-binary-duality, and feedback. In other words, the field is a necessary accompaniment to how point particles are availed their mass, when they represent mass.
Thus, the independent, unchanged-and-changing reality is the meta aspect, i.e., God. The dependent, unchanged-and-changing contingency is the Field. The derivative, additive information is the communication that is conveyed among organized perspectives of the field, of which our bodies and brains are organizations for translating such information. We perspectives of conscious will are vehicles through which God wills and appreciates feedback regarding our variously recorded and manifested experiences of the field. The information we organize and communicate after sensing and processing it consists in synchronized representations of representations of representations. The higher, conscious will we experience is conterminous with levels and layers of overlapping operations among binary bits (digital algorithms) of information, whose independent author is God. Information in itself is not conscious. The conscious will that expresses information is not itself binary information, but the author of binary information. In that, it stands above logic; that is, it is not bivalent but trivalent, or “trinity valent” (i.e., God-Field-Particle).
God can present us with representations of representations of representations which, though contingent upon God, display for us a shared and relatively constant or “objective” reality. We also can imagine representations of representations of representations, even divorced from any grounding in the nature or field that is availed to us in common by God. When we do, we may even inspire followers, sometimes to do fulfilling things, sometimes to do insane things. When we so concoct, we may leverage, inspire, or repel followers, but we will not demonstrate replicable reality that is “objectively” shared in common by, or demonstrable to, all.
Humanist, moral zombie -- it's the same to me. Some think natural selection (the altruistic gene or the selfish gene?) is the entire explanation for morality, and they often posit this natural selection may operate both at the group level (communal, union, antpile, most ruthless corrupter of governmental power) and at the individual business level (last gang of cells or corporate oligarchy standing). They share a sense of being "moral" only so long as there abides a unifying foil (i.e., Whitey, or America).
However, natural selection need not express any principle of restraint, except in the sense that whatever happens to prevail may be said, trivially, to have restrained all else. So, those who think only a jungle of material competition should rule our moral trade (billionaire collectivizers, fiscal conservatives, and international n.w.o. types), tend to brush aside meta hot spots. To perpetuate themselves, they tend to promote subalterns who likewise have little restraint. Once material competition organizes to move remorselessly into the commodity of governmental favors, these proponents of material morality through natural selection will, in the end, enjoy no more satisfaction or peace than Mistah Kurtz.
If we can learn and communicate anything more meaningful than unrestrained conflict and noise, it is intuitive that there must be some independent sponsor or connector of truth, beauty, and morality --- some changeless sponsor of change, a Being not contingent on anything else. It's hard to relate to or to appreciate how such a sponsor could be anything that was fundamentally dumb, unconscious, or without will. Can truth, beauty, or morality abide without consciousness? Can we feel fidelity to, or sin against, a bubble that happens to prevail against all others to erupt from a vacuum? God, field, particles -- apart from that trinity, I don't quite get how atheists expect to intuit ought from is -- except by condemning ought as an idle distraction from the jungle.
As far as absolute morality, I think that gets into one of those conundrums about changeless sponsors of change. IOW, God may not change in potential, but may change in interests, based on apprehension of feedback from the interplay of fields and particular perspectives. God's interests may change, but the circumstance that God has interests remains constant. We, being given consciousness, have capacity to participate in receptive good faith and good will. We are given intuitive and empathetic capacity to appreciate and learn about the unfoldment of truth, beauty, and morality. In that sense, there is a synchronizing Power against which we can learn when we have dared too much to approach a meta hot spot. Absent respect and receptivity to such Power, the word "moral" takes on an aspect of zombie machine speak, come now to theaters worldwide.
Post a Comment