FUZZ

Holistic Universe, in unfolding its story-telling via significations to be interpreted as substance, interfunctions and presents to us in discrete, quantum sequences of feedback, back and forth, from whole to parts, from parts to whole. Because of the nature of our perspectives of now-ness, we experience a shared illusion that the space-time of our universe exists as a quantifiable continuosity, as if it were substance-in-itself, a changeless-changer. Parameters for our identities are meta-fuzzed in a way that facilitates our experiences, to reconcile us with a synchronicity that preserves both the sequentiality of our experiential interpretations and the absolutes that limit our perceptions. Holonic fuzz facilitates various fundaments: the separateness (cracked symmetry) of patterns, forms, bodies, and identities of perspectives; the constant conservation of math and substance (matter and energy); the relative constants that relate to us as gravity (space) and light (time); the illusion of continuosity and sequentiality; the empathetic intuition of the moral worth of other perspectives of consciousness; and the wall of statistics that blocks access of mortals to prove, disprove, or subjugate their sponsoring Holism.


The fuzz efficiently blocks each perspective of consciousness from receiving information that would mark the destruction of the curtain that conserves the apprehensions of each perspective's experiences. Without the fuzz, all particular measures and perceptions of universe and substance would vanish. The fuzz is contemporaneous byproduct of that by which particular apprehensions are availed their kinds and degrees of freedom and dignity. The fuzz is intuited, but aspects of it are apparent, and indirect measures of it may be possible. Direct measures or controls over it are beyond mortals. In that respect, the fuzz is "dark." It doubles to constitute an aspect of what physicists may call "dark matter" or "dark energy."

 

 

The Author of the fuzz may well correlate, synchronize, and reconcile all surrounding perspectives to an opportunity to interfunction with an eternally, perennially present interpretation of a manifestation of the Author's truth, empathy, and music. From time to time, expression may be availed through a special messenger, envoy, or exemplar. In each case, the Coordinator who facilitated the envoy would be one and the same God. The envoy would be supported by inspiration and miracles. Indeed, some talents are blessed to be expressed by some people in ways so beautiful or compelling as to defy any probable explanation through mere evolution from nature. Regardless, the miraculous character of the Envoy would NOT be supported by proof in logic or science. This is because logic and science could not very well prove God without being superior to God ... which they are not.

 

 

In variously expressing points of inspiration for those all around, the Author would NOT be exercising an all powerful or all knowing capacity. Rather, the Author would be seeking to win us, while respecting our freedom and dignity. Even so, the Author would retain access to all the power and knowledge that at any present time may abide and have accumulated. From availing our various degrees of freedom and dignity, there may from time to time and place to place arise violence, disorder, and angst, as God coordinates our spiritually represented signifiers with our substantively represented signifieds. From time to time, violence may become more conducive to getting The Word out. Regardless, violence for the sake of violence is not God's way. God may carry an aspect of angst, which God generally banishes from God's better inclinations. That angst, however, may grow as God's spiritual challenges grow ... in ways beyond our fathom. So, Hell may be real, as a temporal byproduct. However, the invitation to serve God is eternal.

**************

From RichB, at http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110428113119AApBPcQ:
“The major flaw [in C.S. Lewis’ argument regarding Jesus] is the assertion that there are only three options and that those options are mutually exclusive. I think this is known as a false dichotomy (or should that be trichotomy?)

Even with the original 3 options, you have to consider the possibility that Jesus was a liar AND a lunatic, or lunatic AND Lord, or possibly all 3.

Lewis provided just 3 options because he was talking only about the Bible's depiction of Jesus. His basic argument was that the Bible doesn't give us the option of saying "I think Jesus was a good moral teacher, but I don't think he was the son of God". If you take the Bible story at face value then if Jesus is not God, he'd either have to be lying or delusional (or both), and neither of those qualities would make him a reliable moral teacher.

But if you don't take the Bible at face value (which even many self-identifying Christians don't, and people who argue Jesus was not the son of God CERTAINLY don't!), then all options are on the table, up to and including the possibility that Jesus never existed at all.

Another option that still fits in with the Biblical account of Jesus's existence is that Jesus was not the son of God, but was tricked by others into believing that he was. This would make him neither a liar nor a lunatic, it would just make him gullible.”

********

For my part, I suspect there have from time to time occurred at least composite demonstrations through envoys and exemplars such as Jesus. Some of the talents are simply overpowering. Philosophically, I don’t see that as being beyond the power or inclination of God. I have no need to consider the envoy as being other than an avatar for a representation of God’s then and there interests. I also have no need to try to use that which is inferior to God, i.e., logic and science, to try to prove God. Rather, I think intuition, experience, logic, and science join to avail a reasonable belief and faith in God. As one pursues a philosophy that can respect both science and purposefulness, I think a kind of intuitive, trivalent logic eventually leads one to apprehend God.

***********

Regarding the C. S. Lewis Trilemma:  It should be rephrased at least as a quad-lemma.  There are these possibilities:  Liar, Insane Person, or Truth Teller.  But there is also at least a fourth:  Uncertain Unknowing Believer.  That is, God Himself may have all the power and knowledge that abides, and yet be uncertain of it, and un-knowing of what He may determine to do with it.  The fourth is consistent with my belief, for it is based on faith, not knowing certainty, and it is also based on belief in human freedom and dignity, even if only on loan from God.