MODELING: Insofar as one may choose to model our universe, one may conceptualize as follows: There abides a Field which has capacity to condense or represent itself in variously limited and discrete particles of perspectives; each particle is a qualitative representation of the entire field; ultimately and individually, each particle’s only relationship is with the field; that relationship is, in ultimate aspect, of an immeasurable quality; the field avails such particles with capacity to organize; depending upon choice of focus, different layers and levels of organizations of such discrete particles can be recognized by the field, described in their digitally measurable relations, translated to various forms of mathematical representations, and made part of the ground of being or parameter limits for the qualitative experience of variously sharing perspectives of consciousness; organizations of particles avail more complex relationships with the field; each organization of particles is a contextual representation of the field; from such organizations, perspectives may arise for expressing and experiencing qualities of conscious will and self awareness; from such qualities may arise capacities for experiencing measurable relations based on representations of representations with other such organizations of particles; from such relations may arise complex orbits of storable, measurable information, as well as societies of information-transmitting, conscious beings (Mortals). Thus, conscious experiences of relationships evolve from a capacity for feedback that abides between a singular field and various of its contextually organized representations of particles.
If Particles consist of representations of the field, then Information may consist of representations of particles (i.e., representations of representations). Thus, Conscious will may abide with representations of representations of particles, and self Aware perspectives of conscious will may abide with representations of representations of representations of particles.
QUESTION: May the Field be Imbued with caring or consciousness, in any way for which human beings should reasonably hope to relate, analogize, or be "saved"? Answer: Your faith, your purpose, your choice.
TRIUNE RECONCILIATION:
Experience implicates measurable Information being stored or Modeled, as it Changes, with an Identity which itself, in some Qualitative and not completely Measurable capacity, remains unchanged.
There must be information about events which is stored, representatively, and there must be information that is changing.
An Identity which senses qualitative aspects about changes in Relations experiences Consciousness.
An identity which senses changes or increases in the information it stores experiences or represents a present Memory of what its quality of Self is and was before and after reference points, fields, or contexts of change.
Information pertains to measurable Representations of relations Among Representations of relations.
Information does not pertain to any Thing in itself.
Sensing a quality of being abides in the character of qualitative Feeling, rather than in the nature of quantitative information, even though the qualitative experience of such being will be accompanied by aspects that may, Fuzzily, be represented in correlative (“habit-stance”) measurements.
Whatever the identity that stores information, it cannot be completely represented, as an independent thing in itself.
Rather, the only ultimate (Triune?) thing, substance, or identity must be that which sponsors and avails Consciousness.
For that which Sponsors Consciousness to sponsor comparably measurable, storable, and communicable experience, it must have capacity to consider its experiences and information from perspectives that are differently oriented within a same, reconciling Field.
That is, whatever sponsors Consciousness must experience its capacity qualitatively, in respect of Feedback that is partially measurable in relations among its entire field with particular and fuzzy representations of itself from different perspectives.
That which sponsors Consciousness, as a (Triune?) Identity, abides, but it is not experienced by Mortals, except in connection with the communication of relations.
That is, consciousness itself is not directly experienced, yet it is intuitively apprehended in respect of communications of feedback.
That which experiences consciousness as feedback is influenced to choose or prefer to experience feedback that it finds to be meaningfully fulfilling --- and to avoid, to ignore, or to put on logarithmically determinative or random Autopilot ... such feedback as it deems to constitute noise, or to which it is Indifferent.
Depending on purpose or choice of consideration or perspective, consciousness may, in feedback, represent an analysis of various levels and layers of Organized experiences as being indicative of: (1) choices effected by Free Will; or (2) unfoldments obeying, pre-set, clock like Determinants; (3) or Random happenstances constrained under logarithmic parameters; or (4) remnants of Fractal survivalists engaged in Naturally Selective probability competitions to represent and replicate themselves.
In any event, “my consciousness” is not constrained to the limits of what I may take to constitute my body.
Rather, experience of the quality of consciousness, even from “my” perspective, is artifactual of a Field of Consciousness that is Imbued with a Meta charge and Potential, which is beyond the capacity of that which I take to constitute my body to reduce to any relative measure.
“My” notion of Morality is, therefore, inferior to the purposes of the Field at large.
To be Guided by the Field, to hope vaguely to participate with the unfolding development and discernment of ITs purposes, my Perspective needs to represent a Willingness to be Receptive.
Unless and until I take personal Responsibility, that is, represent willingness to be receptive to higher help and higher values, I can hardly hope to continue to represent the Field’s interest, care, concern, or potential.
Consciousness does not consist in either a field or a particle.
Rather, Consciousness (Spirit, Holy Ghost?) Emerges in respect of a Meta Capacity (God?) that unfolds in respect of Identity’s (Jesus'?) inter-appreciation of Experience of Arch Type Perspectives of Representations (Us).
This Trinity — Consciousness, Capacity, and Identity — is inextricably intertwined, so that one Universe abides — derived and reconciled, changeless and ever changing, immeasurable and measurable, qualitative and quantitative — chosen, determined, random, and synchronously and purposely guided and selected.
MORALITY: Modern life leaves many restless to discard old religions, metaphors, and values. With patience and consideration of context, the old books could be reconciled, and that would allow us to retain a connection with our past. However, such reconciliation necessitates patience, ability, effort, and disposition. Many moderns feel too hurried to engage in a luxury of contextual renormalization. So, many seek to short circuit God, as well as all concepts about God. They hypothesize that God and religion are harmful, not helpful, and should be supplanted, by any and all reasonable means (even ridicule).
ASK: What is it about organized religion that most antagonizes those who oppose or seek to discredit it? Are they not most reproachful that religions tend to advocate literalistic formulas for salvation and moral living? So ask further: Beyond inane generalities, what are the moral strictures with which such opponents seek to supplant the old books? How is their basis (if any) for any moral code any more reasonable, reliable, helpful, testable, or FALSIFIABLE in regard to the sustenance and defense of decent society? What are their steps in any logical proof of validity? Ask them to set out in detail the moral values and lines they would draw (if any), and then to defend such lines — in math, logic, and science. Let them explain how “Nature Based Morality” is not merely cover for pagan religion. Test whether the distinctions they profess make more for quibbling than for sense.
Ask them: If the literalistic strictures of the old books are "morally deficient or wrongheaded," then what literalistic strictures would you replace them with? If they say, well, representatives of the citizenry should legislate, then ask: What strictures do you consider that Nature should recommend to be legislated? Or do you not have ANY? If not, how do you expect legislators to derive “moral laws from nature”? (BTW, don’t Progs usually advise Conservatives that “you cannot legislate morality”?) Ask them to please explain, in respect that we seek merely to understand. Ask: Which of the Ten Commandments should be deemed wrong, and please explain how Nature proves them wrong? Please explain what those commandments should be replaced with, and in what context?
Ask: Have you thought about the sort of civilization you expect would devolve from your moral system? If not, why are you advocating it? If yes, what is the empirical or historical basis for your expectation? What results are you prepared to say would FALSIFY your advocacy? How bad would things have to turn, before you would confess you were wrong about the legitimacy and efficacy of your moral code? Given what you expect would devolve, how would that be morally better than what we have now?
Ask: What is your test for “morally better”? Is your test based on allocations in respect of justice, merit, need, entitlement, moral hazard, reprieve from moral responsibility, sustainability of country, greatest happiness, greatest pleasure (overall, long term, immediate, or deserving) for the greatest number, or what?
Ask: Do you consider life a curse or blessing? Consistent with Nature and saving the planet, how many people should be depopulated by using some grand orgasm-inducing final needle? Who would you suggest is qualified “to read the entrails of nature,” to make such “greatest happiness” decisions for the people at large?
PAGAN NATURALISM: If Nature, not God, sponsors our moral values, then ask: How does nature do that? Are moral values objective, or “should” everyone simply do as he thinks best for himself? When a person thinks about what is best for himself, are there any objective factors that he should weigh more than others? Does “best” mean anything, or is it only a label to mark whatever any person decides he wants to do? Apart from man made laws, does any parent, neighbor, or person have any moral interest or right to seek to influence the opinions of others about what is morally proper or best in specific real or potential cases? What makes any person's interest or right “moral,” in any sense that is not so arbitrary as to be devoid of meaning except as a circular label? Should every perspective of consciousness be considered licensed to determine, circularly, that which is moral for itself, notwithstanding the interests of its social fellows? Can that sort of formulizaton make good or consistent sense? Is whatever one happens to choose always for the best? If so, is this already and always the “best of all possible worlds”? If this is already the best of all possible worlds, why suppose it “moral” to discredit traditional values and parables? If the representation of the previous instant does not constitute the best representation of all possible worlds, then how should improvements be sought or preserved, and why so? Finally, ask: How is a belief that only Nature avails a moral code not pagan?
FALSIFICATION: If you believe we ought not morally be guided by literalisms of old sacred books of values, then what literalisms would you prescribe as replacements? If you have none, then how is your morality of nature of any practical use? If you do have some, then how are your literalisms “better”? Do you suppose your replacements should produce better people, citizens, or societies? How so? Were your replacements to fail to live up to your expectations, when should you agree that your code of nature had been falsified? Is your notion of rational morality rationally testable in any meaningful sense?
WHY DO I HAVE FAITH THAT A CONCEPT OF RECONCILIATION IN GOD SHOULD HELP SUPPORT OR IMPROVE MORAL SOCIETY? Well, to intuit God is to intuit that the consciousness that is active in oneself is of the same consciousness that is active in others. To respect my own purposes and arts becomes to respect the purposes and arts of others. To believe in good faith and good will becomes to seek to reason together, to foster a more fulfilling society, composed of more spiritually attuned and empathetic members. This encourages mutual regard and appreciation. It puts pure materialism at a lower step. It facilitates cooperative design concerning that which we wish for to become, for ourselves and our progeny. It avails us with individual “buy in” as to an unfolding purposefulness and pursuit of fulfillment beyond the mere temporal acquisition of materially measurable stuff.
If Particles consist of representations of the field, then Information may consist of representations of particles (i.e., representations of representations). Thus, Conscious will may abide with representations of representations of particles, and self Aware perspectives of conscious will may abide with representations of representations of representations of particles.
QUESTION: May the Field be Imbued with caring or consciousness, in any way for which human beings should reasonably hope to relate, analogize, or be "saved"? Answer: Your faith, your purpose, your choice.
TRIUNE RECONCILIATION:
Experience implicates measurable Information being stored or Modeled, as it Changes, with an Identity which itself, in some Qualitative and not completely Measurable capacity, remains unchanged.
There must be information about events which is stored, representatively, and there must be information that is changing.
An Identity which senses qualitative aspects about changes in Relations experiences Consciousness.
An identity which senses changes or increases in the information it stores experiences or represents a present Memory of what its quality of Self is and was before and after reference points, fields, or contexts of change.
Information pertains to measurable Representations of relations Among Representations of relations.
Information does not pertain to any Thing in itself.
Sensing a quality of being abides in the character of qualitative Feeling, rather than in the nature of quantitative information, even though the qualitative experience of such being will be accompanied by aspects that may, Fuzzily, be represented in correlative (“habit-stance”) measurements.
Whatever the identity that stores information, it cannot be completely represented, as an independent thing in itself.
Rather, the only ultimate (Triune?) thing, substance, or identity must be that which sponsors and avails Consciousness.
For that which Sponsors Consciousness to sponsor comparably measurable, storable, and communicable experience, it must have capacity to consider its experiences and information from perspectives that are differently oriented within a same, reconciling Field.
That is, whatever sponsors Consciousness must experience its capacity qualitatively, in respect of Feedback that is partially measurable in relations among its entire field with particular and fuzzy representations of itself from different perspectives.
That which sponsors Consciousness, as a (Triune?) Identity, abides, but it is not experienced by Mortals, except in connection with the communication of relations.
That is, consciousness itself is not directly experienced, yet it is intuitively apprehended in respect of communications of feedback.
That which experiences consciousness as feedback is influenced to choose or prefer to experience feedback that it finds to be meaningfully fulfilling --- and to avoid, to ignore, or to put on logarithmically determinative or random Autopilot ... such feedback as it deems to constitute noise, or to which it is Indifferent.
Depending on purpose or choice of consideration or perspective, consciousness may, in feedback, represent an analysis of various levels and layers of Organized experiences as being indicative of: (1) choices effected by Free Will; or (2) unfoldments obeying, pre-set, clock like Determinants; (3) or Random happenstances constrained under logarithmic parameters; or (4) remnants of Fractal survivalists engaged in Naturally Selective probability competitions to represent and replicate themselves.
In any event, “my consciousness” is not constrained to the limits of what I may take to constitute my body.
Rather, experience of the quality of consciousness, even from “my” perspective, is artifactual of a Field of Consciousness that is Imbued with a Meta charge and Potential, which is beyond the capacity of that which I take to constitute my body to reduce to any relative measure.
“My” notion of Morality is, therefore, inferior to the purposes of the Field at large.
To be Guided by the Field, to hope vaguely to participate with the unfolding development and discernment of ITs purposes, my Perspective needs to represent a Willingness to be Receptive.
Unless and until I take personal Responsibility, that is, represent willingness to be receptive to higher help and higher values, I can hardly hope to continue to represent the Field’s interest, care, concern, or potential.
Consciousness does not consist in either a field or a particle.
Rather, Consciousness (Spirit, Holy Ghost?) Emerges in respect of a Meta Capacity (God?) that unfolds in respect of Identity’s (Jesus'?) inter-appreciation of Experience of Arch Type Perspectives of Representations (Us).
This Trinity — Consciousness, Capacity, and Identity — is inextricably intertwined, so that one Universe abides — derived and reconciled, changeless and ever changing, immeasurable and measurable, qualitative and quantitative — chosen, determined, random, and synchronously and purposely guided and selected.
MORALITY: Modern life leaves many restless to discard old religions, metaphors, and values. With patience and consideration of context, the old books could be reconciled, and that would allow us to retain a connection with our past. However, such reconciliation necessitates patience, ability, effort, and disposition. Many moderns feel too hurried to engage in a luxury of contextual renormalization. So, many seek to short circuit God, as well as all concepts about God. They hypothesize that God and religion are harmful, not helpful, and should be supplanted, by any and all reasonable means (even ridicule).
ASK: What is it about organized religion that most antagonizes those who oppose or seek to discredit it? Are they not most reproachful that religions tend to advocate literalistic formulas for salvation and moral living? So ask further: Beyond inane generalities, what are the moral strictures with which such opponents seek to supplant the old books? How is their basis (if any) for any moral code any more reasonable, reliable, helpful, testable, or FALSIFIABLE in regard to the sustenance and defense of decent society? What are their steps in any logical proof of validity? Ask them to set out in detail the moral values and lines they would draw (if any), and then to defend such lines — in math, logic, and science. Let them explain how “Nature Based Morality” is not merely cover for pagan religion. Test whether the distinctions they profess make more for quibbling than for sense.
Ask them: If the literalistic strictures of the old books are "morally deficient or wrongheaded," then what literalistic strictures would you replace them with? If they say, well, representatives of the citizenry should legislate, then ask: What strictures do you consider that Nature should recommend to be legislated? Or do you not have ANY? If not, how do you expect legislators to derive “moral laws from nature”? (BTW, don’t Progs usually advise Conservatives that “you cannot legislate morality”?) Ask them to please explain, in respect that we seek merely to understand. Ask: Which of the Ten Commandments should be deemed wrong, and please explain how Nature proves them wrong? Please explain what those commandments should be replaced with, and in what context?
Ask: Have you thought about the sort of civilization you expect would devolve from your moral system? If not, why are you advocating it? If yes, what is the empirical or historical basis for your expectation? What results are you prepared to say would FALSIFY your advocacy? How bad would things have to turn, before you would confess you were wrong about the legitimacy and efficacy of your moral code? Given what you expect would devolve, how would that be morally better than what we have now?
Ask: What is your test for “morally better”? Is your test based on allocations in respect of justice, merit, need, entitlement, moral hazard, reprieve from moral responsibility, sustainability of country, greatest happiness, greatest pleasure (overall, long term, immediate, or deserving) for the greatest number, or what?
Ask: Do you consider life a curse or blessing? Consistent with Nature and saving the planet, how many people should be depopulated by using some grand orgasm-inducing final needle? Who would you suggest is qualified “to read the entrails of nature,” to make such “greatest happiness” decisions for the people at large?
PAGAN NATURALISM: If Nature, not God, sponsors our moral values, then ask: How does nature do that? Are moral values objective, or “should” everyone simply do as he thinks best for himself? When a person thinks about what is best for himself, are there any objective factors that he should weigh more than others? Does “best” mean anything, or is it only a label to mark whatever any person decides he wants to do? Apart from man made laws, does any parent, neighbor, or person have any moral interest or right to seek to influence the opinions of others about what is morally proper or best in specific real or potential cases? What makes any person's interest or right “moral,” in any sense that is not so arbitrary as to be devoid of meaning except as a circular label? Should every perspective of consciousness be considered licensed to determine, circularly, that which is moral for itself, notwithstanding the interests of its social fellows? Can that sort of formulizaton make good or consistent sense? Is whatever one happens to choose always for the best? If so, is this already and always the “best of all possible worlds”? If this is already the best of all possible worlds, why suppose it “moral” to discredit traditional values and parables? If the representation of the previous instant does not constitute the best representation of all possible worlds, then how should improvements be sought or preserved, and why so? Finally, ask: How is a belief that only Nature avails a moral code not pagan?
FALSIFICATION: If you believe we ought not morally be guided by literalisms of old sacred books of values, then what literalisms would you prescribe as replacements? If you have none, then how is your morality of nature of any practical use? If you do have some, then how are your literalisms “better”? Do you suppose your replacements should produce better people, citizens, or societies? How so? Were your replacements to fail to live up to your expectations, when should you agree that your code of nature had been falsified? Is your notion of rational morality rationally testable in any meaningful sense?
WHY DO I HAVE FAITH THAT A CONCEPT OF RECONCILIATION IN GOD SHOULD HELP SUPPORT OR IMPROVE MORAL SOCIETY? Well, to intuit God is to intuit that the consciousness that is active in oneself is of the same consciousness that is active in others. To respect my own purposes and arts becomes to respect the purposes and arts of others. To believe in good faith and good will becomes to seek to reason together, to foster a more fulfilling society, composed of more spiritually attuned and empathetic members. This encourages mutual regard and appreciation. It puts pure materialism at a lower step. It facilitates cooperative design concerning that which we wish for to become, for ourselves and our progeny. It avails us with individual “buy in” as to an unfolding purposefulness and pursuit of fulfillment beyond the mere temporal acquisition of materially measurable stuff.
2 comments:
Morality can be considered in relation to unfolding context, world, civilization, society, family, and self. It can be considered in relation to levels and layers of consciousness, goals, genetics, science, laws, mores, habits, and exemplars. It can be considered in relation to empathy, power, pleasure, and fulfillment. It can be considered in relation to how one might imagine God may wish to unfold for us a decent, sustainable, defensible, and evolving society for the expression and enterprise of free thinkers. It can be considered in relation to how to define and limit that which should be entrusted or sacrificed to the control of government, how determine the persons who should run such government, and whether, when, and how to limit and resist intrusions under such government. It can be considered in relation to the quality and quantity of recognition, encouragement, discipline, and patience that one should direct towards events, ideas, and persons. Regardless of how morality is considered, it needs to be considered in a relation, and each relation may be collateral or subordinate to a hierarchy of relations. Eventually, one tends to find it necessary to moderate and prioritize one's notions about morality, recognizing opportunity costs, i.e., that some notions must be sacrificed or made subordinate to others, leading to a sort of ultimate notion about morality. Morality can be considered in relation to those more objectives values which ought not change versus those more subjective values which very well may change. In many cases, a group may consider, more objectively, that it ought to be tolerant of some of the more subjective interests of various of its individual members.
A code that is thought by a member of a society to be appropriate, regardless of and contrary to the code of the society generally, tends to be considered more subjective. A code that is thought by a society to be appropriate to its membership generally tends to be considered more objective. In any event, is there any aspect that tends to make a moral code more than a mere label for blessing whatever its sponsor may be pleased to choose to do? In other words, does any entity avail cover to a choice, as being a real exercise in morality? I believe there is. To my intuitive belief, that entity consists of a field that reconciles our different perspectives of the same holistic field of conscious will.
Why is it helpful or perhaps even necessary to refer to or implicate that Field? At the level of habit, it may not be necessary, especially in a relatively stable and slow changing society. But what about at pressure points, between competing empires, and during periods of rapid sociological, scientific, and technological upheaval? That is when insight and inspiration take on greater import. During stasis, one may do well enough simply by respecting whatever moral code suffices to sustain those aspects which one has been conditioned to consider the better parts of a stable society. During upheavel, one may need to ask what does or should the shared Field of consciousness want. Regardless, insofar as one seeks to anticipate where society should be going, how it should be changing, indeed, how the very form of man should be changing, then, regardless of any particular choices, one will confront the question: Why? Why should anyone participate or care whether or how society or the form of man may be led to unfold? Why should any vision for any level of application be preferred over any other? Why should we believe God wants to commune with a decent civilization of relatively free thinking human beings? Well, if God is the Field of Consciousness, why suppost anything to the contrary? And, if that has truth value, why not suppose such value would be enhanced, were such belief exemplified, taught, and discussed?
GOD AND GOOD: How closely related are the words good and god? Consider the origin of Goodbye --- From http://www.yourdictionary.com/goodbye:
"Word History: No doubt more than one reader has wondered exactly how goodbye is derived from the phrase “God be with you.” To understand this, it is helpful to see earlier forms of the expression, such as God be wy you, god b'w'y, godbwye, god buy' ye, and good-b'wy. The first word of the expression is now good and not God, for good replaced God by analogy with such expressions as good day, perhaps after people no longer had a clear idea of the original sense of the expression. A letter of 1573 written by Gabriel Harvey contains the first recorded use of goodbye: “To requite your gallonde [gallon] of godbwyes, I regive you a pottle of howdyes,” recalling another contraction that is still used."
FREE WILL: It is not mere secondary illusions and physical bodies that cause or exercise our experiences of free will. It is Mind (consciousness). We do not rule or cause that Mind; rather, our experiences of its free will, while real, are subordinately synchronous with it.
I hear some say, "Well, why should I submit my mind to some spiritual dictator?" As if they were in a heroic fight against a meta-Stalin. (Lol.) But it's not like that. Because it was never "your mind" to begin with. It was always just a limited perspective of God's mind, made purposeful in respect of opportunities to communicate meaning among others who, likewise, are just limited perspectives of the one reconciling Mind. As metaphor, it can be helpful to conceptualize that God feels both our pains and our triumphs. Though we are quantitatively tiny, our qualitative struggles represent the arch stuff that all reality is made of.
Post a Comment