The Paranormal: Causaton by Mind vs. Matter: I'm watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew. It's quite interesting. I'm confident that mass would fall into a gravity well just the same, regardless of whether one were to conceptualize the Higgs Boson as an actual particle or as a mathematical function. Inertial fields would function just the same, regardless of whether one were to conceptualize that space-time is an actual existent or a mathematical parameter, secondary to the interfunctioning of perspectives of degrees and levels of non-local consciousness (regardless of whether such non-local consciousness may be thought to be self aware at any holistic level).
After the signs of the times during the 20th Century, one might expect more humility among those of a mind set purely in dialectic materialism, economic determinism, and the idea that every thing and every event is assigned its entire causality in respect of its locus within a substance-based grid. Yet, among elites, this is not so. Why? Well, even if causation were entirely synchronized in respect of a non-local field of consciousness, local logic gates would still function as logic gates and filter so that "stuff happens," local wealth would still seek wealth, grant money would still seek more (predictable) control (why should grant money inspire ordinary folk to believe in their own power?), and elites would still seek for the masses to surrender their self-directing liberty. Anyone seeking to pull heads away from such an elite projection within a cave will generally be given the quick bum's rush. It's hardly surprising that this is not resisted by scientists hired by the establishment, even though it's sensed by most folks of common sense who have witnessed the stuff that has happened in our time.
********
Reduced to simplest form, I doubt that the key to moral philosophy consists in notions of heaven or original sin. Nor in surrender to a notion of scientifically-to-be-derived fate. Nor in a notion that non-local consciousness is indifferent to our plight. The key abides in meta, inherent, empathetic appreciation for the role of each perspective of consciousness in purposefully functioning to help guide each experiential possibility that unfolds before us.
To the extent the Source of moral purposefulness seeks understanding of selfness, does IT innately promote various and powerful modelers of Itself, and demote concern for others? Does some meta "will to power" (or "will to appreciation?") lead most power establishments to buffer empathetic appreciation for the role of each perspective of consciousness? Must higher perspectives of Consciousness remain in a state of perpetual antagonism, between those who seek to rise closer to a selfish, material appreciation of God versus those who seek to bring others along to an empathetic understanding of God? Between those drawn to appreciate experiences primarily in terms of Substantive pleasure versus those drawn to appreciate experiences primarily in terms of Informational empathy? To what extent may pursuing an empathetic appreciation of higher purposefulness or God necessarily entail a reduction, sacrifice, or brute use of lower or dumb forms of consciousness, information, or substance?
Does a power elite innately tend not to entertain heretical ideas and representations that would push its controls outside the grooves of re-circulating lingo and dogma that sustain it? Lingo for every power elite seems often to become as formulaic and stultifying as any priest's assurances that God only allows us to suffer for our own good. Can't give a non-mystical explanation for mass? Imagine a mass-breathing particle. Can't explain the incredible complexity of cellular life? Imagine a virtual infinity of worlds and universes. Can't give a consistent definition of material causation? Play Three Card Monty with notions of pre-set cause, first cause, secondary cause, phase shifting cause, random cause, and tautological survival of the fittest. Can't morally justify the substantive chasm between elites and non-elites? Reduce all non-elites to fair equality and then rationalize that such remaining elites as survive must be temporally fittest to know best how everyone else should be ruled. Shift peas as needed.
I'm not saying that empirical testing and trial and error do not help us to become skilled tinkerers, scientists, rationalizers, and lawyers. I'm saying it's hubristic for scientists to pretend "to know" non-trivial, material-based, indifferent-to-consciousness answers --- especially when it comes to moral issues. I'm saying it's circular reasoning to assume that everything and every event must have a complete explanation in indifferent, non-noetic, material causation, and then to assert that it must be so, or else opponents would be able to provide an indifferent proof to the contrary, using --- guess what? --- proof restricted to an assumption of indifferent, non-noetic, material causation. How circular is that?!
*********
By "evoluton," one generally refers to a changing replication of forms, towards those forms that prove themselves "fittest" to their changing niche. This begs a question: What does "fittest" mean? Does it mean fittest in quantitative nature (science and skill), or does it mean fittest in qualitative character (art and purpose)? Or does it mean fittest in both nature and character (science and art, skill and purpose)? Does "fittest" depend on conceptualization? Does it depend on the fluxing and unfolding focus, context, and purpose of each participating, synchronizing perspective? Are quantitative direction and qualitative purpose (of that which is fittest to each niche) necessarily fluxing, uncertain, and shape-shifting?
There seems to abide a digitially representable, quanticizeable communication or feedback between the whole as a whole and its parts as a sum. Depending on observational focus, qualitative purpose, and quantifiable context, communication between the whole and the sum fluxes back and forth, from qualitative to quantitative. This irreversible flux abides. Our negations cannot negate it. Our calculations cannot leverage us with power to reduce, confine, or reverse it. We cannot, in certainty, reconcile its unfolding, quantifiable direction to its qualitative purpose. We cannot derive its qualitative "ought" from its quantitative "is." Perhaps, the only way that which Beingness can experience, record, or communicate intuitions of a quality of purposeful perspective is simultaneously to experience quantifying parameters with which directional, communicable definition is availed to each perspective that is part of the sum of its whole.
After the signs of the times during the 20th Century, one might expect more humility among those of a mind set purely in dialectic materialism, economic determinism, and the idea that every thing and every event is assigned its entire causality in respect of its locus within a substance-based grid. Yet, among elites, this is not so. Why? Well, even if causation were entirely synchronized in respect of a non-local field of consciousness, local logic gates would still function as logic gates and filter so that "stuff happens," local wealth would still seek wealth, grant money would still seek more (predictable) control (why should grant money inspire ordinary folk to believe in their own power?), and elites would still seek for the masses to surrender their self-directing liberty. Anyone seeking to pull heads away from such an elite projection within a cave will generally be given the quick bum's rush. It's hardly surprising that this is not resisted by scientists hired by the establishment, even though it's sensed by most folks of common sense who have witnessed the stuff that has happened in our time.
********
Reduced to simplest form, I doubt that the key to moral philosophy consists in notions of heaven or original sin. Nor in surrender to a notion of scientifically-to-be-derived fate. Nor in a notion that non-local consciousness is indifferent to our plight. The key abides in meta, inherent, empathetic appreciation for the role of each perspective of consciousness in purposefully functioning to help guide each experiential possibility that unfolds before us.
To the extent the Source of moral purposefulness seeks understanding of selfness, does IT innately promote various and powerful modelers of Itself, and demote concern for others? Does some meta "will to power" (or "will to appreciation?") lead most power establishments to buffer empathetic appreciation for the role of each perspective of consciousness? Must higher perspectives of Consciousness remain in a state of perpetual antagonism, between those who seek to rise closer to a selfish, material appreciation of God versus those who seek to bring others along to an empathetic understanding of God? Between those drawn to appreciate experiences primarily in terms of Substantive pleasure versus those drawn to appreciate experiences primarily in terms of Informational empathy? To what extent may pursuing an empathetic appreciation of higher purposefulness or God necessarily entail a reduction, sacrifice, or brute use of lower or dumb forms of consciousness, information, or substance?
Does a power elite innately tend not to entertain heretical ideas and representations that would push its controls outside the grooves of re-circulating lingo and dogma that sustain it? Lingo for every power elite seems often to become as formulaic and stultifying as any priest's assurances that God only allows us to suffer for our own good. Can't give a non-mystical explanation for mass? Imagine a mass-breathing particle. Can't explain the incredible complexity of cellular life? Imagine a virtual infinity of worlds and universes. Can't give a consistent definition of material causation? Play Three Card Monty with notions of pre-set cause, first cause, secondary cause, phase shifting cause, random cause, and tautological survival of the fittest. Can't morally justify the substantive chasm between elites and non-elites? Reduce all non-elites to fair equality and then rationalize that such remaining elites as survive must be temporally fittest to know best how everyone else should be ruled. Shift peas as needed.
I'm not saying that empirical testing and trial and error do not help us to become skilled tinkerers, scientists, rationalizers, and lawyers. I'm saying it's hubristic for scientists to pretend "to know" non-trivial, material-based, indifferent-to-consciousness answers --- especially when it comes to moral issues. I'm saying it's circular reasoning to assume that everything and every event must have a complete explanation in indifferent, non-noetic, material causation, and then to assert that it must be so, or else opponents would be able to provide an indifferent proof to the contrary, using --- guess what? --- proof restricted to an assumption of indifferent, non-noetic, material causation. How circular is that?!
*********
By "evoluton," one generally refers to a changing replication of forms, towards those forms that prove themselves "fittest" to their changing niche. This begs a question: What does "fittest" mean? Does it mean fittest in quantitative nature (science and skill), or does it mean fittest in qualitative character (art and purpose)? Or does it mean fittest in both nature and character (science and art, skill and purpose)? Does "fittest" depend on conceptualization? Does it depend on the fluxing and unfolding focus, context, and purpose of each participating, synchronizing perspective? Are quantitative direction and qualitative purpose (of that which is fittest to each niche) necessarily fluxing, uncertain, and shape-shifting?
There seems to abide a digitially representable, quanticizeable communication or feedback between the whole as a whole and its parts as a sum. Depending on observational focus, qualitative purpose, and quantifiable context, communication between the whole and the sum fluxes back and forth, from qualitative to quantitative. This irreversible flux abides. Our negations cannot negate it. Our calculations cannot leverage us with power to reduce, confine, or reverse it. We cannot, in certainty, reconcile its unfolding, quantifiable direction to its qualitative purpose. We cannot derive its qualitative "ought" from its quantitative "is." Perhaps, the only way that which Beingness can experience, record, or communicate intuitions of a quality of purposeful perspective is simultaneously to experience quantifying parameters with which directional, communicable definition is availed to each perspective that is part of the sum of its whole.
1 comment:
Presently, there is only the clamoring and conflating of an agenda that lacks the common sense to see the perils of redefining marriage in such a way as to render it meaningless, but that is piling on while it sees the nation in the throes of financial weakness.
Post a Comment