CONSTRUCTING MORAL MEANINGFULNESS:
MEANING VS. NOISE: One has no choice but to avail expression to purposeful choices. If one adopts the stance that rules of reason, logic, and in-form-ation are not appropriate to one’s conscious pursuit of meaningful and moral change, communication, and fulfillment, then, by default, one adopts noise. For meaningful in-form-ation to unfold, forms must, in some particular, have potential to avail manifestation to consciousness.
IDEALS AND FORMS: Philosophers have long been concerned with a notion of ideal forms. For example, one may imagine rules by which to prescribe a perfect circle. However, no perfect circle can be manifested in any physical representation. Although imperfections casued by blots in the ink used to trace a circle may not be detectable with instrumentation that is confined to a limited order of precision, such imperfections will eventually show, as precision is improved. Indeed, precision will reach a point where the mere act of applying instrumentation to an observation will render the thing observed uncertain, thus imperfect in manifestation. Indeed, no form that is precisely regulated in math can be perfectly manifested in actual observation. While math itself can be calculated upon, math itself cannot be manifested to measure. So, in what way, if any, may any ideal form be “real,” either as a universal or as a participant?
EXISTENCE – KINDS, CONTINUITIES, FEEDBACK: Suppose a meta holism were to avail a “property of existence” to two participating fields. One field (meta nature) avails a kind of reality to all forms and ideals that are possible. The other field (meta mind) avails a quality of idea, that selects among such possibilities, such selection being coordinate with a stream of conscious experience and feedback, ... such feedback affecting apprehensions, interpretations, insights, intuitions, visions, forecasts, cares, and will, ... such will affecting pursuits of meaning, morality, communication, and companionship. Thus, the upshot of the participatory inter-functioning of the two fields would be an unfolding synchronization of consciousness — holistic and particular.
CONSCIOUSNESS — HOLISTIC AND PARTICULAR: The upshot would be a field of consciousness, and particles for organizing perspectives of consciousness. The upshot of the interaction of the meta field-of-possibilities with the meta field-of-selection would consist in an unfolding or collapsing of the merely potential into a continuous stream of the actually manifest. If so, the transcendent movement or functioning of meta-mind through meta nature actuates our ideals and gives rise to that part of reality which manifests to the quantitative and qualitative experience of our various, mortal perspectives of consciousness.
POSSIBILITIES AND MANIFESTATIONS: Thus, all possible forms and ideals exist, in potentiality, but only some are collapsed into in-form-ation that is stored or unfolded for the conscious apprehension of experience made manifest.
PAY GRADE: Question: What becomes of possibilities that exist only to a context, which remain “unchosen?” Does an opportunity cost erase the unchosen from all existence? Given the apparent infinitude of our universe of possibilities, can any mortal imagine a situation in which it would not be possible for the inter-functioning of the two meta fields to bring into manifestation, somewhere in the context of space-time? I suspect that is “above our pay grades.”
TRINITY: A kind of Trinitarian Holism, subject to trivalent logic, remains: Nature (quantitative), Mind (qualitative), Will (upshot).
FREE WILL: Depending on point of view, frame of reference, and conscious purpose, various manifestations may be conceptualized as being the upshot of (1) a predetermined course, (2) a random course, (3) a course of natural selection of the most fit for continued replication, or (4) a course of selection based on conscious appreciation of feedback (synchronization of moral interests of various perspectives of free will). None of said four concepts is suitable to all purposes. Attempts can be made to imagine each of the four concepts as basis for a complete explanation, but only, figuratively, by pounding square pegs into round holes.
MORALITY: Regardless, the only concept that fits very well for the purpose of a moral philosophy is the fourth. To make the fourth fit for the other three, "particles of consciousness" may be imagined, modeled, or conceptualized as having their quality for experiencing consciousness being dependent upon their contextual organization. Thus, the most poorly organized among particles of consciousness may just as well be considered as functioning in an essentially "random" way, while particles that have been fitted to a kinetic purpose can just as well be considered as functioning in an essentially "predetermined" way. Particles organized to function in a predetermined way in response to regular yet somewhat pulsing forces or inputs may just as well be considered as functioning in respect of a survival or replication of "the fittest." Particles organized to function in respect of an immeasurable quality of appreciation for their environment may just as well be considered to function based on "free will." Regardless, meta mind ("God"), inter-functioning with a meta field of possibilities ("Nature"), experiences a quality of consciousness of feedback through multiple perspectives of differentiation, which accounts, reasonably, for moral purposefulness and free will. But for God (conscious will), it is vain to expect to account for meaningful morality as being entirely derivative of nothing more than an unconscious field of possibilities. Morality is qualitative. Nature, without God, is purely quantitative. One cannot, in pure bivalent logic or math, derive a qualitative from a quantitative. Or, if and when one does, one will have found "God."
INCOMPLETENESS IN MEASURABILITY AND PREDICTION: That of which consciousness is aware is a consequence of feedback in the unfolding, inter-functioning of a meta field of possibilities (Nature -- which avails us with interpretations of quantities) with a meta field of selection (God -- which avails us with interpretations of qualities). This feedback results in manifestations that carry both measurable aspects and qualitatively appreciable aspects. Neither kind of aspect is perfectly convertible to the other, but the measure or appreciation of each depends upon a point of view (or an "as if" focus of modeling) and a frame of reference (context) regarding the other. Thus, relative concepts and analyses fuzz variably, according to purpose, especially as between purposes that are empirical versus moral. That is, conception or analysis in terms of so-called ("as if") ultimate particles or fields will never provide empirically perfect explanations, nor morally perfect guidance. That is, Morality is not perfectly derivable from Nature, nor is Nature perfectly derivable from Morality. The process by which some choices are brought into manifestation out of all the choices that are possible simply defies our perfect explanation. At best, we can, for different purposes, avail ourselves of imperfect concepts and incomplete language in order to provide ways of interpreting, thinking, and communicating about our potentials and our choices. When scientists and theologists conceit to the contrary, it may be because, out of too single-minded devotion, they have simply become too over-muscled in one overly-simplistic way of thinking and too under-muscled in another. Simply put, neither the empirically quantitative nor the empathetically qualitative approach has a monopoly on being "correct." No doubt, we will muddle through. However, the ride would seem likely more enjoyable when mind and brain "muscles" are more evenly developed. Rather than pursuing the measurable truth about an immeasurable God, perhaps we would do better to pursue the God who is about the appreciable truth.
MEANING VS. NOISE: One has no choice but to avail expression to purposeful choices. If one adopts the stance that rules of reason, logic, and in-form-ation are not appropriate to one’s conscious pursuit of meaningful and moral change, communication, and fulfillment, then, by default, one adopts noise. For meaningful in-form-ation to unfold, forms must, in some particular, have potential to avail manifestation to consciousness.
IDEALS AND FORMS: Philosophers have long been concerned with a notion of ideal forms. For example, one may imagine rules by which to prescribe a perfect circle. However, no perfect circle can be manifested in any physical representation. Although imperfections casued by blots in the ink used to trace a circle may not be detectable with instrumentation that is confined to a limited order of precision, such imperfections will eventually show, as precision is improved. Indeed, precision will reach a point where the mere act of applying instrumentation to an observation will render the thing observed uncertain, thus imperfect in manifestation. Indeed, no form that is precisely regulated in math can be perfectly manifested in actual observation. While math itself can be calculated upon, math itself cannot be manifested to measure. So, in what way, if any, may any ideal form be “real,” either as a universal or as a participant?
EXISTENCE – KINDS, CONTINUITIES, FEEDBACK: Suppose a meta holism were to avail a “property of existence” to two participating fields. One field (meta nature) avails a kind of reality to all forms and ideals that are possible. The other field (meta mind) avails a quality of idea, that selects among such possibilities, such selection being coordinate with a stream of conscious experience and feedback, ... such feedback affecting apprehensions, interpretations, insights, intuitions, visions, forecasts, cares, and will, ... such will affecting pursuits of meaning, morality, communication, and companionship. Thus, the upshot of the participatory inter-functioning of the two fields would be an unfolding synchronization of consciousness — holistic and particular.
CONSCIOUSNESS — HOLISTIC AND PARTICULAR: The upshot would be a field of consciousness, and particles for organizing perspectives of consciousness. The upshot of the interaction of the meta field-of-possibilities with the meta field-of-selection would consist in an unfolding or collapsing of the merely potential into a continuous stream of the actually manifest. If so, the transcendent movement or functioning of meta-mind through meta nature actuates our ideals and gives rise to that part of reality which manifests to the quantitative and qualitative experience of our various, mortal perspectives of consciousness.
POSSIBILITIES AND MANIFESTATIONS: Thus, all possible forms and ideals exist, in potentiality, but only some are collapsed into in-form-ation that is stored or unfolded for the conscious apprehension of experience made manifest.
PAY GRADE: Question: What becomes of possibilities that exist only to a context, which remain “unchosen?” Does an opportunity cost erase the unchosen from all existence? Given the apparent infinitude of our universe of possibilities, can any mortal imagine a situation in which it would not be possible for the inter-functioning of the two meta fields to bring into manifestation, somewhere in the context of space-time? I suspect that is “above our pay grades.”
TRINITY: A kind of Trinitarian Holism, subject to trivalent logic, remains: Nature (quantitative), Mind (qualitative), Will (upshot).
FREE WILL: Depending on point of view, frame of reference, and conscious purpose, various manifestations may be conceptualized as being the upshot of (1) a predetermined course, (2) a random course, (3) a course of natural selection of the most fit for continued replication, or (4) a course of selection based on conscious appreciation of feedback (synchronization of moral interests of various perspectives of free will). None of said four concepts is suitable to all purposes. Attempts can be made to imagine each of the four concepts as basis for a complete explanation, but only, figuratively, by pounding square pegs into round holes.
MORALITY: Regardless, the only concept that fits very well for the purpose of a moral philosophy is the fourth. To make the fourth fit for the other three, "particles of consciousness" may be imagined, modeled, or conceptualized as having their quality for experiencing consciousness being dependent upon their contextual organization. Thus, the most poorly organized among particles of consciousness may just as well be considered as functioning in an essentially "random" way, while particles that have been fitted to a kinetic purpose can just as well be considered as functioning in an essentially "predetermined" way. Particles organized to function in a predetermined way in response to regular yet somewhat pulsing forces or inputs may just as well be considered as functioning in respect of a survival or replication of "the fittest." Particles organized to function in respect of an immeasurable quality of appreciation for their environment may just as well be considered to function based on "free will." Regardless, meta mind ("God"), inter-functioning with a meta field of possibilities ("Nature"), experiences a quality of consciousness of feedback through multiple perspectives of differentiation, which accounts, reasonably, for moral purposefulness and free will. But for God (conscious will), it is vain to expect to account for meaningful morality as being entirely derivative of nothing more than an unconscious field of possibilities. Morality is qualitative. Nature, without God, is purely quantitative. One cannot, in pure bivalent logic or math, derive a qualitative from a quantitative. Or, if and when one does, one will have found "God."
INCOMPLETENESS IN MEASURABILITY AND PREDICTION: That of which consciousness is aware is a consequence of feedback in the unfolding, inter-functioning of a meta field of possibilities (Nature -- which avails us with interpretations of quantities) with a meta field of selection (God -- which avails us with interpretations of qualities). This feedback results in manifestations that carry both measurable aspects and qualitatively appreciable aspects. Neither kind of aspect is perfectly convertible to the other, but the measure or appreciation of each depends upon a point of view (or an "as if" focus of modeling) and a frame of reference (context) regarding the other. Thus, relative concepts and analyses fuzz variably, according to purpose, especially as between purposes that are empirical versus moral. That is, conception or analysis in terms of so-called ("as if") ultimate particles or fields will never provide empirically perfect explanations, nor morally perfect guidance. That is, Morality is not perfectly derivable from Nature, nor is Nature perfectly derivable from Morality. The process by which some choices are brought into manifestation out of all the choices that are possible simply defies our perfect explanation. At best, we can, for different purposes, avail ourselves of imperfect concepts and incomplete language in order to provide ways of interpreting, thinking, and communicating about our potentials and our choices. When scientists and theologists conceit to the contrary, it may be because, out of too single-minded devotion, they have simply become too over-muscled in one overly-simplistic way of thinking and too under-muscled in another. Simply put, neither the empirically quantitative nor the empathetically qualitative approach has a monopoly on being "correct." No doubt, we will muddle through. However, the ride would seem likely more enjoyable when mind and brain "muscles" are more evenly developed. Rather than pursuing the measurable truth about an immeasurable God, perhaps we would do better to pursue the God who is about the appreciable truth.
1 comment:
Prescience:
May there be meta layers and levels of meta organization of consciousness? May choices be the upshot of meta competitions among ambiguous appreciations, overlapping decisions, kinds and degrees of Will, mind leaking, etc., leading to instances of vision or intuition of meta intention before the event?
May there abide some meta clutch, that can hold a portion of that which seems to be manifested in a state of fuzz, yet not committed to any unfoldment of logic gates? May a meta selector retain a clutch capacity, to borrow from intentions (about virtual particles?) from the future in order to alter what otherwise would unfold in the present?
Should each perspective meta train its consciousness, i.e., the consciousness that couples and identifies with its body, in order to accept feedback, from the body as a servant, to the purposes and glory of the wider field of consciousness?
Post a Comment