How is stimuli from the wider field that different --- causally, quantitatively, empirically --- from stimuli from the consciously expressed words of another person? Or, if not so different, then doesn't that indicate that the feedback of consciousness extends to the wider field itself?
On the other hand, if, and insofar as, stimuli from the words of another person does somehow present differently, qualitatively, then doesn't that indicate that the consciousness of such person is somehow apart from the mere quantitative stimuli of indifferent nature?
In other words, if Indifferent and unconscious nature accounts for all, then why does Caring consciousness abide anywhere? Alternatively, if consciousness does somehow abide apart from nature, then how can its complete explicaton be reduced to a merely quantitative account of nature? May qualitative Consciousness and quantitative Physical Substance be of a same Meta Essence, receiving their qualitative versus quantitative aspects secondary to the locally fluxing purpose, perspective, and context of the Meta Essence? May substance be a form of consciousness, tending not to be recognized as such insofar as it is morally inactive, indifferent, organizationally unimbued, dormant, undirected, or random? May consciousness be a form of substance, not often treated or recognized as such insofar as it is qualitatively active, caring, continuously changing, morally directed, and defiant of being closely and completely measured?
Suppose neurologists, by targeting magnetic impulses at locations around or in skulls, became able to influence the thoughts and actions of conscious beings. Would they thereby be on a path for reducing consciousness to explanations grounded entirely in the quantitative? Or would they face an implicated and infinite regress: what controls and accounts for each of their decisions about whose skull to target, where, and how? What consciousness "decides" those questions --- if not consciousness from a wider field?
Consider the brain of a person who is contemplating morality in respect of what is needed in terms of mores and laws in order to sustain not just an individual person's immediate gratification or "well being," but the preservation and well being of a decent civilization for his progeny. Ask: what causes him to remain so stimulated, if not ongoing feedback from his wider field of participation among a continuous flux of other agents or perspectives of consciousness? In other words, is there not an intuited implication: that a fluxing quality of consciousness pervades the wider field, beyond the merely quantitative aspects of nature?
Is not a pervasive, fluxing quality of field consciousness a spiritual accompaniment, akin to a religious notion of God, to all that unfolds as quantitative regarding the manifestation of nature? Does not nature --- insofar as it is considered purely quantitative, not qualitative --- consist only as derivative signposts of the feedback and interfunctioning of perspectives of a qualitatively fluxing field of consciousness? Is not nature necessarily manifested to be dumb and indifferent precisely because it consists only of quantitative information that is stored for the appreciation, communication, and intuitive interrelation of perspectives of fluxing levels and layers of consciousness?
Is there not a meta quality of consciousness that is beyond the measure of nature, precisely because Whatever is the superior source of consciousness (moral purposefulness) is the even more superior source of nature?
On the other hand, if, and insofar as, stimuli from the words of another person does somehow present differently, qualitatively, then doesn't that indicate that the consciousness of such person is somehow apart from the mere quantitative stimuli of indifferent nature?
In other words, if Indifferent and unconscious nature accounts for all, then why does Caring consciousness abide anywhere? Alternatively, if consciousness does somehow abide apart from nature, then how can its complete explicaton be reduced to a merely quantitative account of nature? May qualitative Consciousness and quantitative Physical Substance be of a same Meta Essence, receiving their qualitative versus quantitative aspects secondary to the locally fluxing purpose, perspective, and context of the Meta Essence? May substance be a form of consciousness, tending not to be recognized as such insofar as it is morally inactive, indifferent, organizationally unimbued, dormant, undirected, or random? May consciousness be a form of substance, not often treated or recognized as such insofar as it is qualitatively active, caring, continuously changing, morally directed, and defiant of being closely and completely measured?
Suppose neurologists, by targeting magnetic impulses at locations around or in skulls, became able to influence the thoughts and actions of conscious beings. Would they thereby be on a path for reducing consciousness to explanations grounded entirely in the quantitative? Or would they face an implicated and infinite regress: what controls and accounts for each of their decisions about whose skull to target, where, and how? What consciousness "decides" those questions --- if not consciousness from a wider field?
Consider the brain of a person who is contemplating morality in respect of what is needed in terms of mores and laws in order to sustain not just an individual person's immediate gratification or "well being," but the preservation and well being of a decent civilization for his progeny. Ask: what causes him to remain so stimulated, if not ongoing feedback from his wider field of participation among a continuous flux of other agents or perspectives of consciousness? In other words, is there not an intuited implication: that a fluxing quality of consciousness pervades the wider field, beyond the merely quantitative aspects of nature?
Is not a pervasive, fluxing quality of field consciousness a spiritual accompaniment, akin to a religious notion of God, to all that unfolds as quantitative regarding the manifestation of nature? Does not nature --- insofar as it is considered purely quantitative, not qualitative --- consist only as derivative signposts of the feedback and interfunctioning of perspectives of a qualitatively fluxing field of consciousness? Is not nature necessarily manifested to be dumb and indifferent precisely because it consists only of quantitative information that is stored for the appreciation, communication, and intuitive interrelation of perspectives of fluxing levels and layers of consciousness?
Is there not a meta quality of consciousness that is beyond the measure of nature, precisely because Whatever is the superior source of consciousness (moral purposefulness) is the even more superior source of nature?
3 comments:
So long as common sense remains dead, what hope can there be? So long as common sense remains dead, what lies cannot the corruptocrats sell? Take immigration. A moderately intelligent child, not mal-educated by anti-common sense, would instantly see the problem. But not our elites. See [www.youtube.com].
What we have is unassimilated, perpetual jockeying among befogged, multi culti, special interests. Sam Harris, in The End of Faith, has noted: "If perfect coherence is to be had, each new belief must be checked against all others ... here we encounter a minor computational difficulty ... the number of necessary comparisons grows exponentially ... a computer as large as the known universe, built of components no larger than protons, with switching speeds as fast as the speed of light, all laboring in parallel from the moment of the big bang up to the present, it would still be fighting to add a 300th belief to its list. What does this say about the possibility of our ever guaranteeing that our worldview is perfectly free from contradictions? It is not even a dream within a dream."
Sam Harris knows this, yet has faith that, by replacing faith in God with faith in the “science” of “well being” and “the moral landscape” — presumably to be coerced into law once the science is settled — that we shall better sustain our moral pursuits. Go figure. One need only stumble into any tiny corner of our overly papered legal universe to see that our legislative masters – as short sighted and bereft of decent philosophy as they are – are obviously not discouraged from their legalistic, mumbo-jumbo, modern version of cheap, open-border labor and voo-doo free trade.
So long as common sense and decent attention spans are dead, those who can see the lies of pols will continue to be ruled by those pols who are the best at lying on tv. Just before his election, people you would think were reasonably intelligent would gather around the water cooler and ooh and aah about Obama's plans for delivering hope and change. Everyone making less thatn 250T was in for good times! These admirers were imbued and awed. Given the hold Obama has on MSM, I see little reason to expect these people will ever have the attention span to take a mature account of Obama's actual substance. It's as if something had been put into our very water, to poison the capacity of most people to engage in reasoned analysis of actual substance.
Do you have faith in "America?" Do you believe faith in a concept of America is worthwhile? Can you objectively define what you mean by America, or your faith in it? Regardless, is your faith, and the shared faith of others, in America, worthwhile? Does that faith carry a moral value? How is faith in "Jesus" different? Isn't Jesus a worthwhile, shorthand reference for that which many in our culture associate with the worthwhile? If you went on a crusade to convince certain people to believe America is no longer a good concept, would that be a good thing? Would a similar crusade against Jesus be a good thing, insofar as it would affect our everyday lives?
Post a Comment