IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MARXIST MATERIALIST AND AN IDEALISTIC ENTERPRISER ONE THAT MAKES AN ACTUAL DIFFERENCE:
Compare two fundamental, alternative conceptualizations or worldviews of non-trivial Reality, and then consider whether distinctions as therewith imagined support any actual differences:
1) SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM: That all that we experience are mere signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully pre-set energies and entropies of a singular source of all matter and Substance;
2) INTUITIVE IDEALISM: That all that we materially experience are mere epiphenomenal signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully participating perspectives of consciousness, whose individual perspectives of Will inter-function as appreciative feedback for all that is availed within parameters provided by a synchronizing, limiting, and holistic source of all Consciousness.
Thus, a Scientific Materialist seeks to divine, submit to, and urge others to submit to, the material patterns of HISTORICAL DETERMINACY. He thinks God, if there be One, is best conceptualized as a slave to fate. However, an Intuitive Idealist seeks to participate in the DETERMINATION OF HISTORY, by seeking to fulfill that which he comes to apprehend as his art, purpose, and role — consistent with his appreciation that his perspective is subsumed in respect of a holism of perspectives. He thinks fate, if such there be, is best conceptualized as being subject to God’s synchronizing choices.
Both a Materialist and an Idealist may conceptualize as if Reality were properly subject to interpretations that best vary depending only on perspective, purpose, and context. That is, Reality may sometimes best be considered either as (1) Determined by Matter or (2) Determined by Consciousness, or, when beyond prediction or control, either as (1) Determined by Indifferent Chance or as (2) Determined by Caring Appreciation or Synchronization of an unpredictable Godhead.
In any event, the more technologically skilled a society becomes, the less it seems inclined to depend on superstitions, supplicants, and burnt offerings. Further, the less self aware or less intelligent a Being becomes, the more he seems likely to be reduced to the determined control of other forces, substances, persons, or beings. Ignorant and misled masses may be just as controlled by elites — whether the elites be Industrialists, Cronies, Marxists, Cyborgs, or Priests.
Empirical (scientific) improvement in skills depends much on feedback that comes with tinkering, often focused in respect of Bayes’ Theorem. However, I suspect Bayes’ Theorem can just as well support a view of Reality as if (1) Reality were the objective upshot of materially pre-set causes as a view that (2) Reality were the subjective upshot of signs that emerge in respect of the inter-functioning of perspectives limited to a synchronizing Consciousness. Occam’s razor seems to cut just as well, both ways. Is Substance mere epiphenomena of Consciousness, or is Consciousness mere epiphenomena of Substance? I doubt mere science or math can prove an answer that is best for all perspectives, purposes, and contexts. (Note: When government perverts science by rewarding cronies with research grants, the likelihood that a Bayesian consensus among faux-scientists should best determine the real validity of their notions becomes likewise perverted. That is not to say that such faux scientists could not make it appear otherwise. Ironically, when they do, they illustrate the notion that preferences of consciousness may shape what is interpreted or signified as material reality. And that tends to demonstrate the opposite of pretense that science is entirely derivative of substance.)
If Reality were dependent only on Substance and Consciousness, one may think that binary, bilateral logic should avail better answers to all our moral concerns. However, there abides a third fundament: Information. In itself, Information is neither substantive nor conscious. So, Reality seems to unfold in respect of a trivalent inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. It does not seem that mere math can avail the kind of reconstruction, deconstruction, or negation that can reliably show us how to control, predict, or rewind the unfolding inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Further, limits for realms of the Substantive, Conscious, and Informational appear to be fuzzy, perhaps even shape shifting. That which seems to be inanimate of any conscious aspect may simply consist of pre-set, temporally dormant aspects of Something Trinitarian, which sources all three of the fundamental qualities: Consciousness, Information, and Substance. For some purposes, a bacterium may be as predictably controllable to higher forms of “consciousness” as any piece of inanimate matter.
Among higher levels or perspectives of consciousness, depending on purpose and context, each may incline towards an interpretation of his situation that depends more heavily on either the Informationally analytical or the Substantively empirical. A Marxist Materialist may bias towards viewing his beingness as absurd, indifferent, and fundamentally meaningless. An Idealistic Informationalist may bias towards viewing his beingness as offering possibilities for participating in individually meaningful choices. A Materialist may seek to show what must come to pass; an Idealist may seek to inspire what should come to pass. A Materialist may feel the weight of history, recline under its touch, be stimulated by its brute sensations. An Informationalist may image and represent the possibilities of guiding history and of intellectualizing and abstracting choices from among such possibilities. A Materialist may prefer the brute, collective security of equally distributed nourishments to gland-based cravings. An Idealist may prefer the freedom to pursue his own appreciation of that which he finds to be meaningful.
If there are only two competing fundaments for Consciousness to be attracted to, either to Substance or to Information, then a fundamental difference will always cleave us: Always, there will be antagonism between those (Marxists) who seek the collective comfort of substance versus those (Enterprisers) who seek the individual fulfillment of their own arts and purposes. One who is more drawn to substance-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Marxist Moralism (collectivism); one who is more drawn to information-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Idealistic Moralism (liberty). I don’t believe this interpretation of Reality can be quantitatively proved. Rather, I suspect one’s attraction or repulsion regarding this interpretation depends fundamentally on the quality of one’s intuition, or bent of conscious perspective. That is, I don’t think distinctions under my interpretation make empirical differences that can be proved. Rather, I think the differences made abide in the quality of one’s intuitive sense of meaningfulness and optimism. Although such a sense of optimism and meaningfulness does no doubt affect how lives unfold, there is no way to show empirically, in hindsight, how things would necessarily have unfolded differently under a different worldview.
Compare two fundamental, alternative conceptualizations or worldviews of non-trivial Reality, and then consider whether distinctions as therewith imagined support any actual differences:
1) SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM: That all that we experience are mere signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully pre-set energies and entropies of a singular source of all matter and Substance;
2) INTUITIVE IDEALISM: That all that we materially experience are mere epiphenomenal signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully participating perspectives of consciousness, whose individual perspectives of Will inter-function as appreciative feedback for all that is availed within parameters provided by a synchronizing, limiting, and holistic source of all Consciousness.
Thus, a Scientific Materialist seeks to divine, submit to, and urge others to submit to, the material patterns of HISTORICAL DETERMINACY. He thinks God, if there be One, is best conceptualized as a slave to fate. However, an Intuitive Idealist seeks to participate in the DETERMINATION OF HISTORY, by seeking to fulfill that which he comes to apprehend as his art, purpose, and role — consistent with his appreciation that his perspective is subsumed in respect of a holism of perspectives. He thinks fate, if such there be, is best conceptualized as being subject to God’s synchronizing choices.
Both a Materialist and an Idealist may conceptualize as if Reality were properly subject to interpretations that best vary depending only on perspective, purpose, and context. That is, Reality may sometimes best be considered either as (1) Determined by Matter or (2) Determined by Consciousness, or, when beyond prediction or control, either as (1) Determined by Indifferent Chance or as (2) Determined by Caring Appreciation or Synchronization of an unpredictable Godhead.
In any event, the more technologically skilled a society becomes, the less it seems inclined to depend on superstitions, supplicants, and burnt offerings. Further, the less self aware or less intelligent a Being becomes, the more he seems likely to be reduced to the determined control of other forces, substances, persons, or beings. Ignorant and misled masses may be just as controlled by elites — whether the elites be Industrialists, Cronies, Marxists, Cyborgs, or Priests.
Empirical (scientific) improvement in skills depends much on feedback that comes with tinkering, often focused in respect of Bayes’ Theorem. However, I suspect Bayes’ Theorem can just as well support a view of Reality as if (1) Reality were the objective upshot of materially pre-set causes as a view that (2) Reality were the subjective upshot of signs that emerge in respect of the inter-functioning of perspectives limited to a synchronizing Consciousness. Occam’s razor seems to cut just as well, both ways. Is Substance mere epiphenomena of Consciousness, or is Consciousness mere epiphenomena of Substance? I doubt mere science or math can prove an answer that is best for all perspectives, purposes, and contexts. (Note: When government perverts science by rewarding cronies with research grants, the likelihood that a Bayesian consensus among faux-scientists should best determine the real validity of their notions becomes likewise perverted. That is not to say that such faux scientists could not make it appear otherwise. Ironically, when they do, they illustrate the notion that preferences of consciousness may shape what is interpreted or signified as material reality. And that tends to demonstrate the opposite of pretense that science is entirely derivative of substance.)
If Reality were dependent only on Substance and Consciousness, one may think that binary, bilateral logic should avail better answers to all our moral concerns. However, there abides a third fundament: Information. In itself, Information is neither substantive nor conscious. So, Reality seems to unfold in respect of a trivalent inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. It does not seem that mere math can avail the kind of reconstruction, deconstruction, or negation that can reliably show us how to control, predict, or rewind the unfolding inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Further, limits for realms of the Substantive, Conscious, and Informational appear to be fuzzy, perhaps even shape shifting. That which seems to be inanimate of any conscious aspect may simply consist of pre-set, temporally dormant aspects of Something Trinitarian, which sources all three of the fundamental qualities: Consciousness, Information, and Substance. For some purposes, a bacterium may be as predictably controllable to higher forms of “consciousness” as any piece of inanimate matter.
Among higher levels or perspectives of consciousness, depending on purpose and context, each may incline towards an interpretation of his situation that depends more heavily on either the Informationally analytical or the Substantively empirical. A Marxist Materialist may bias towards viewing his beingness as absurd, indifferent, and fundamentally meaningless. An Idealistic Informationalist may bias towards viewing his beingness as offering possibilities for participating in individually meaningful choices. A Materialist may seek to show what must come to pass; an Idealist may seek to inspire what should come to pass. A Materialist may feel the weight of history, recline under its touch, be stimulated by its brute sensations. An Informationalist may image and represent the possibilities of guiding history and of intellectualizing and abstracting choices from among such possibilities. A Materialist may prefer the brute, collective security of equally distributed nourishments to gland-based cravings. An Idealist may prefer the freedom to pursue his own appreciation of that which he finds to be meaningful.
If there are only two competing fundaments for Consciousness to be attracted to, either to Substance or to Information, then a fundamental difference will always cleave us: Always, there will be antagonism between those (Marxists) who seek the collective comfort of substance versus those (Enterprisers) who seek the individual fulfillment of their own arts and purposes. One who is more drawn to substance-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Marxist Moralism (collectivism); one who is more drawn to information-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Idealistic Moralism (liberty). I don’t believe this interpretation of Reality can be quantitatively proved. Rather, I suspect one’s attraction or repulsion regarding this interpretation depends fundamentally on the quality of one’s intuition, or bent of conscious perspective. That is, I don’t think distinctions under my interpretation make empirical differences that can be proved. Rather, I think the differences made abide in the quality of one’s intuitive sense of meaningfulness and optimism. Although such a sense of optimism and meaningfulness does no doubt affect how lives unfold, there is no way to show empirically, in hindsight, how things would necessarily have unfolded differently under a different worldview.
1 comment:
The Gay Agenda conflates "God loves everyone" to mean "God loves and tolerates everything." Of course, that is incoherent, since Nature forces choices. Regardless, when a favored choice is selected to win, even if only for a short time, incoherent philosophies take that as a cosmic sign that God then and there loves them best. If everything is permitted, then nothing can stand. I care not what Gays wish to do. But as to the Gay Agenda --- it is the tip of the spear for a rotting philosophy that everything is permitted. Like Code Pink, the Gay Agenda is a play in the throes of ecstasy, beyond all rational thought. It is emblematic of the unravelling of America.
Post a Comment