Morality is closely tied to a concept of free or conscious will. If there is no quality of free will, then every event is either predetermined or random or driven entirely by some process for bringing order out of chaos, such as natural selection, wherein the pattern that then and there happens to survive to provide the context for the next succeeding pattern is deemed, trivially, the fittest, or the cause. When it comes to causation and correction, most moralists sense there is something trivial or incomplete about the concept of physical causation under terms of determinism, randomness, or natural selection.
Firstly, what is the nature of these patterns that are being fluxed, repeated, and changed? Are they fully modeled in respect of a potential for expressing themselves to observers in dualistic, alternating capacities as fields and particles? What is the role of perspectives of consciousness in effecting the manner of representation of these field-particles? Should consciousness itself best be modeled as having capacity to express and communicate itself in some alternating form of field-particle feedback? May that capacity sponsor the signification of non-conscious organizations of patterns of appearance?
Secondly, why is it that humanist moralists, who do not believe conscious free will is other than derivative artifact of physicalism, nevertheless deem it necessary or proper for a civilization to act as if (i.e., pretend) free will were a real existent? If all of decent society is merely a matter of proper (B.F. Skinner) conditioning based on that which is, rather than that which ought to be, then why bow to a notion of morality at all?
Well, the fly in such ointment is in the word "proper." It is necessary to choose (or believe, based on conscious free will?) that conditioning which is proper. It is necessary to choose who should decide and the principles under which they should decide. So, most humanist moralists eventually bow to the expediency of at least pretending to believe in free will.
This begs a quesion: Having bowed to the need to pretend to believe in free will, why then do humanist moralists stiffen their necks not to bow to a common or interconnecting Source for such free will? If morality consists in empathetic good will towards other perspectives of consciousness, why, absent some connection with such other perspectives, should I be empathetic? If morality is taught among "Brights" to be only a front for survival of the fittest, why should I not be devious and enslaving? If morality consists only in a genetic predisposition brought upon us by evolution of selfish or altrusitic genes (btw -- are these consciously selfish and altruistic genes?), and if evolution is morally blind, then, for my own most selfish and fittest advancement, why should I not seek to establish a superior order of sociopathic beings whose genes are mutated so that they have no qualms about reducing all other Americans (and the entire middle class) to mere serfs, to do as they are instructed or bribed? Why should I not seek to participate in directing my own superior evolution? Indeed, why should any reasonably intelligent humanist trust any other humanist?
If a moralist can believe in conscious free will, and the quality of consciousness is empirically inexplicable, then why should not a moralist believe in spiritual free will, or free will based on an interconnection of field-particle aspects that are of a quality that, at some superior level, simply defy individual empirical analysis?
****
The measurement problem: Within the reality tunnel, did every physical thing come from no physical thing, based on acts of measurement somehow made and communicated among various perspectives of a single reconciling Consciousness? Is there no such thing as a single particle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dpRPTwsKJs&feature=related
Is consciousness the only experience we know to be true? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8AXmJdmzfM&feature=related
Are reality and information built out of participatory belief? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhX1KxV0obY&feature=related
Do neurons instantiate meaning? If so, how? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWmTJALe1w
Are you me? Is this just a ride? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnnQYQeL98s&feature=related
I suspect Pagans tend to relate more to a panopoly of empirically measurable energy fields, while Theists tend to relate more to an immeasurable and single field of consciousness. For a Pagan to take the step to become an empathetic Theist may be little more than taking the step to intuit the ultimate quality or character of conscious energy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What does the Field of consciousness envision for the future progress of our civilization? What should we seek to influence God to wish for us? Among empiricists, some say we become what we eat. Among spiritualists, some say we become what we think. If so, what mores should we think most conducive to meaningful civilization? How fundamental are individual and family values and the concept of marriage? What becomes of civilization, as we cheapen our goals to deem nothing more worthwhile than doped up highs from public sex, drugs, and treatment of conscious beings as mere things?
What sociopathic slips in relationships occur as our concepts devolve from family, marriage, gay marriage, group marriage, child marriage, beast sex, obsolescence of marriage, state raised children, state entitlement to soma, entitlement to sell oneself into slavery, bull fighting, dog fighting, colliseums of violent contests, snuff movies, videographed beheadings, public lotteries for sacrifices to entertainment, and unbridled capitalistic races to individual and cultural suicide? All such events have occurred, have a built in sociopathic market to recur, and have monied interests ready to market them.
There is easy money to be made along every step of the above listed devolvement. As money finds its momentum, what in the Prog ethos can stop it? What lines can Progs defend? Ask them to state their logic or basis and to show their work. They will laugh and say they only want the pleasure of group exhibitionism and drugs, not the pain. As if our bodies were built to tolerate ever increasing doses of sex, drugs, and mindless pleasure -- with no down side. They will say they have no intention of slipping past the pleasure point. Really? What about those who take pleasure in inducing others past their pleasure points? Do Progs know nothing of sociopaths? Are sociopaths not enriched and empowered to political control, as Progs become ever more addicted to the next flashy thing?
What is next for America, as political parties of mindless group sex and drugs come into temporary majorities? Well, they will not tend to be very successful in replenishing the next generation. What will fill that vacuum? Control freaks at least seem able to replenish themselves. Muslims stand ready. Illiterate communalists on our southern border stand ready. What does this bode? Why do we seem to want it? Is this prelude to some kind of cyclic cleansing? To reduce us to serve ... what? After sounding warnings, at some point, what remains for thinking people to do, apart from removing themselves as much as possible from the area of chaos?
Most people seem unable or unwilling to look beyond their next high. People who are both intelligent and self disciplined seem not so much to need religious literalism or commandments. Those people are rare. Undisciplined Progs fancy that mere intelligence frees them from dependency on literalistic formulations of mores that have suceeded in the past. However, Progs are the very ones most in need -- especially the addicts among them. Our culture, however, somehow convinces Progs they are too bright to need to cling to old parables, values, and belief systems that made and guided America.
From A.T. --
Re: "Keep in mind that that to Obama and Thomas Jefferson, liberty means very, very different things"
Yes! One needs to keep in mind a world view. Sort of what one envisions "God" may want. Does God desire feedback and companionship with members of a civilization that allows its citizens to be authentic, in terms of expressing and pursuing that which they really believe in? What mores are needed to sustain such a civilization? If we can evolve a civilization to what we think, what should we think to wish to evolve to? Do we want to be automotons, to do as Big Borg Gov tells us, so that we are "good" so long as we follow the programming that is set by our superior controllers? Or does that simply reduce us to inauthentic, moral zombies? Did God avail us with powerful minds so we could stupefy them in drugs and obedience to Borg? When we fall into communal stupor, are we disappointing something higher about our capacities?
What is the qualia of what it's like to be God, to translate, merge, and reconcile all that we experience into the quality that is experienced by God? By or with what experiences is God significantly influenced or interested?
Post a Comment