Truth

Progs say they want to save the planet. I ask them, why should I care? Insofar as even Progs tend to believe in a source of higher moral truths, ask: why is it important to them to convince anyone to believe anything to be true, in terms of values or non-trivial facts? How is it that some Progs believe middle class America is evil, if they don’t believe in a higher standard of right and wrong? What is their standard? If middle class America is evil, then in what ways are other countries good?

Based on Progs’ uncertain, fevered pacing, one may intuit they deem it important to convey truth of some kind. So, what is this truth, which they seek to convey, which “just happens” to abide? Is this truth somehow alive or conscious, so that it knows and can communicate itself? If not, why “should” I believe? Why should I not simply relax and roll along my own entropic path (whatever that is)? Aha, they say, follow me because we are fittest to survive and replicate. Aha, I say, if so, time will tell, so my belief should be of no consequence to you.

If truth is to be unifyingly, meaningfully, consciously represented, does it require a reconciling consciousness as a source? What is the character of any implicated or intuited source of truth? Does truth implicate good reason not to believe that either determinism, randomness, or natural selection constitutes the superior force that governs and directs us? Or does physical and moral truth seem more comfortable with a conceptualization of itself as being inferior to a reconciling field of consciousness?

Consciousness syncs with the directing of my body, as my body relates to different values and representations for its different parts and sensors. Thus, a context is reconciled, whereby my body is presented as a synchronized truth to all its parts and aspects. IOW, my body expresses a kind of unifying of consciousness, or identity.

Perhaps free will is similarly experienced, in a quality of conscious appreciation of feedback (“mirror empathy?”). Perhaps, neither God nor a mortal brain can predict the precise or entire effect of any episode of empathetic feedback. Rather, each decision in response to feedback seems to be effected a split sequence before a brain (or apparent organization of matter or of relative information) processes and experiences a synchronisation of an abstract model or representation, by which to inform its consciousness of each movement, decision, or preface to a decision ... which has Already Been Made. Insofar as a field of consciousness knows of no superior source, it may take its changes in tastes to constitute its experiences of an unfolding, synchronizing, field of Conscious Will, which it may interpret as its own Will. Trying to prove that there abides a meta meta material determinator, which ultimately overrides all free will, seems but a way to confusion, moral hazard, or madness.

By definition, if one could unambiguously adduce anything or any event as being entirely and empirically artifactual of matter (or of empirically measurable “substance”), such a thing or event would not in itself constitute an expression of free will, nor would it be the First Cause, nor would it be God. Rather, it would simply be assumed to be derivative of, and inferior to, “matter.” Matter, consistent with such an adducement (or assumption), would necessarily, mathematically, be taken to constitute the unclosed, open, incompletely defined, encompassing, originator and ongoing sponsor of our state of being — in all its ambiguous incompleteness. IOW, “matter,” so conceived, would be used as a sort of trash concept, in respect of which one would throw up one’s hands, throw in all one’s uncertainties, and simply say “matterdidit.” Such a one may even pat himself on the back, congratulating himself thereby for having expelled God from the garden of our conceits.

Intuition may relate to a qualitative or quantitative explanation or prediction, while empathy may relate to a feeling or measure of appreciation of others in respect of some standard by which one values or sees one's own identity. As to conscious, empathetic Will, at most fundamental level, I prefer to reserve “empathy” as a term for something which is, in itself, neither good nor bad, but simply abides. Such empathy is in the character of a meta charge that abides between and among the superior field (the holism) of consciousness and its condensate of particular perspectives (the parts), whereby there is availed the experience of feedback of conscious will and pursuit of meaningfully civilized communication.

Well, then, what is the qualia of what it’s like to be you? What is the qualia of what it’s like to be God or to experience each or us, as God? Well, such issue, being qualitative, I seem unable quantitatively to answer. Yet, I experience qualitative, empathetic intuitions. And therein abides the moral potential.

Perhaps we should spend less time reconciling with the truth that is about Consciousness (God) than reconciling with the Consciousness (God) that is about truth.