Mystery Of Conceptualizations Regarding Conciousness

Mystery Of Conception Regarding Conciousness
.
ENIGMA OF CONSCIOUS BEINGNESS:  One may choose to conceptualize Consciousness in at least three different ways:
.
(1) Consciousness may be conceptualized as being only an emergent or epiphenomenal property, derivative of relations among superior substances or physicalities. (PROBLEM:  If an aboriginal, essential thing is necessary to explicate any derivative, then the aboriginal thing would itself need a superior to explicate its own derivation, and so on, in infinite regression.  Thus, the notion of a pure thing-in-itself fundament, such as GodDidIt or SubstanceDidIt or GravityDidIt or Space-TimeDidIt, would have little explanatory power, except in myth contrived to arbitrary or selfish goals.  However, what I am looking for is a myth or model that can support morally consistent, principled goals.  Whatever the nature or character of the aboriginal superior essence, it must be granted a metaphysical power or property for violating our inferior logic in the rule of non-contradiction.  That is, IT must have power as a "changeless changer.")
.
(2) Consciousness may be conceptualized as an aspect, property, protoplsamic, or meta-substance that is independent-in-itself of all other reality, but upon which all other reality is dependent or derivative --- except that it cannot exist or manifest apart from its being both split and connected; that is, split between perspectives of:  a Holism, versus Particulars-that-Sum-to-Mirror-the-holism, ... albeit, in a Cracked or not perfectly Symmetric way, with neither perspective, either the holistic or the particular, enjoying capacity to experience such consciousness except in respect of a feedback dance or relation with the other.  (This would recognize that Consciousness has both a changeless, aboriginal aspect, as well as a relational, changing aspect, i.e., a feedback relationship between itself as Holism versus itself as Particular perspectives in sum.  It also marks a stance that A DANCE OF EMPATHY between and among the Holism and its Particular perspectives is an essential aspect not just for morality, but for the unfolding of our entire universe.  As The Holon, it abides as the ETERNALLY EMERGENT EDITING ESSENCE.)
.
(3) Consciousness may be conceptualized as an aspect, property, or meta-substance that is independent-in-itself of all other reality, but upon which all other reality is dependent or derivative. (PROBLEM:  What is best conceptualized as superior versus emergent seems to depend rather arbitrarily on one's point of view, frame of reference, and purpose.  Moreover, to postulate an inferior emergence is to imply a superior essence.  However, whatever the implied superior essence, its explication would encounter the same problem of infinite regression, as mentioned in (1) above.)
.
 Among choices for approaching the fundamental mystery of a changeless-changer, to my intuition, Consciousness, for most consistent qualitative (moral) and quantitative (scientific) applications, is best conceptualized or qualified under the second choice of concept, as listed above.
.
AVOID IMMODEST GOALS:  In any event, I do not seek to demystify the fundamental mystery.  Nor to set forth a mathematical proof of an intricate tautology. Nor to imagine that mere math could perfectly prove other than a tautological triviality. Nor to render uncontradictory a walking contradiction or a changeless changer.  Nor to patch up any crack in the universe's cracked symmetry. Nor to explicate a second or meta tier of fundaments of meta-time, meta-space, meta-energy, and meta-matter.  Nor do I postulate that God abides "IN" the vast appearance of our here and now.  Rather, I model that the apparent here and now is secondary to a mysterious God-Dance, aka dance of meta-substance, aka dance of meta-Consciousness with particular here and now cones of expressions of consciousness.
.
MODEST GOALS:  I seek "simply" to fathom the nature and character of the limits of that which I can apprehend. I do not expect to avail a complete model of Reality that is entirely free of metaphysical or qualitative terminology, nor a model that is entirely reducible to quantitative formulation, physical falsification, or empirical verification.
.
PRACTICAL MORES AND WISDOM:  Rather, "all" I seek is to judge that which is:  (1) in any way Knowable, (2) practically or metaphorically Useful, or (3) morally Guiding --- and to distinguish it from that which is entirely (1) not Knowable, (2) not Useful, or (2) not morally Guiding. Since I cannot entirely escape the fundamental mystery of metaphysics, I wish to devise a myth and terminology in respect of which I can reasonably hope to communicate, with maximum consistency and coherence. I do not need or expect my model to displace the fundamental mystery nor to be perfect-in-itself. Rather, so far as possible,  I wish simply to confine my model's ambiguities and insensibilities to a consistent conceptualization and terminology. So long as my model reasonably accomplishes that, I care little whether my model in itself  maps Truth or Myth. I do not believe mere mortals can ever explicate a scientific model for predicting or controlling the universe-in-itself that we share, nor that we can ever predict, control, or reconcile the holistic property of the consciousness that presents or re-presents our universe, nor that we can derive moral "ought" from mortally substantive "is." However, I do believe we can qualitatively appreciate and communicate about such Holism in empathetic, respectful, and morally practical terms.

.

LIMITS OF MATH AND LOGIC:  Thus, I accept that there abides a metaphysical "walking-contradiction." It is not especially important to me whether it be called God, Universe, Meta-Cosmos, Aether, Cosmological Constant, Maya, Illusion, Delusion, Meta-Substance, or Consciousness. However, for sake of consistency in reference, I prefer to call it Consciousness. On holistic level, I can hardly hope to fathom what may be the nature or character of such consciousness. I cannot prove or know whether IT is self aware, purposeful, emotionally interactive and empathetic and apprehensive with perspectives of itself, mindful of memories, dependent for memories upon information re-presented up to the present, straddling among and reconciling various cones of potential versus actual experiential unfolding, imaginatively insightful, best conceptualized (depending on point of view, context, and purpose) as being either (1) byproduct or (2) essence of a dance between a meta-field and its meta-particulates (the essential Appreciator or the emergent quality of being Appreciated), or a blank slate. I tend to hope, believe, think, and intuit that IT is all of the above.  For morally guiding purposes, my FAITH is that IT abides, astonishingly, as an Eternally-Emergent-Emerging-Essence.  A veritable noun-verb; the Word made Flesh.

.

META-PROTOPLASM:  I tend to think that our bodies of substance are much like avatars for consciousness, analogical to The Matrix. The difference is this:   In The Matrix, there was thought to abide a real earth, of which The Matrix was only a representation. In my conceptualization, there is no real earth-in-itself. Rather, the ONLY EXISTENT-IN-ITSELF is consciousness, which has mysterious capacity or property for taking on innumerable different perspectives of itself. That capacity or property is the only real basis-in-itself for substance.  Consciousness is the meta-territory.  Math only avails the logos for it to clothe its meta-substance or aboriginal protoplasm with communicable signification and feedback, even though the "fact" of the feedback itself is constrained to intuition and empathy.  The substances-that-mortals measure and interact with, both qualitatively and quantitatively, consist of mathematically confined representations of the substance-of-consciousness. The substances we measure are not in themselves real, although they mathematically-signify and quantitatively-mark presentations to us of Real-and-measurable-Experiences-of-the-Imaginings-of-Consciousness, stimulated in respect of a dance between its holistic perspective and its particular perspectives.

.

BEGINNING MYTH: Under my myth, how then did our individual and particular perspectives of consciousness come to be separate and limited away from the consciousness of the holism? Well, under my MYTH: The holistic consciousness of the Holism fluxed and cracked, and now tries to re-shape itself by coordinating, representing, signing, interpreting, intuiting, and appreciating itself from innumerable perspectives. The Holism conserves itself, yet continuously fluxes and discretely vibrates and dances, changeless and changing, continuously and discretely, depending on locus of perspective, context, and purpose. It abides as an indivisible, reconciling, holistic conservation, yet also a sum of discrete apprehensions. It is eternally finite in conservational quality, yet infinite in potential for representing, communicating, and apprehending quantitative discretes. The Holism cannot be known for what it is, beyond intuiting that it is, but it can be empathetically appreciated via various myths or models, whereby it can, depending on purpose perspective and context, be reasonably modeled either as a continuous WHOLE or as a SUM OF DISCRETE PARTS, but not simultaneously as a whole-sum, nor as a field-particle. Thus --- depending on perspective, context, and purpose --- space, time, matter, and energy may be modeled for some practical purposes as being represented by Discretes, and they may be modeled for other practical purposes as being cone-like-fields, such as Fields within a perspective’s cone of actual versus potential experience, consisting of actual versus potential cones and webs of space-time, stored energy, and Perspectivistic Beingness. Thus --- depending on perspective, context, and purpose --- we can turn the substantive aspects of our universe and its components to practical purposes, sometimes by considering them as Countable Discretes, sometimes as Continuous Degrees. But we cannot coherently evaluate them under any model that is both exhaustive (complete) and mutually exclusive (consistently discrete), nor under any theory of sets of changeless-changers.

.

ROLE OF CONSCIOUS PERSPECTIVE AND FREE WILL:  Well then, how is it that Space could consist in Discretes for some purposes, and still be experienced by every perspective of consciousness as being Continuous? Same for Time? Answer: Even when space or time is represented or experienced as discrete, there would be an ENTANGLED OVERLAP, such that no perspective is allowed to experience any separation of a discrete unit of space without simultaneously experiencing an entangling and overlapping unit of time. Thus, each perspective will experience and interpret both time and space as being continuous, even when and where aspects are, for some purposes, discrete. That is, every representation of a unit of space or a unit of time is entangled with some perspective’s cone of potential and actual experience, sensation, memory, interpretation, and appreciation. What does the entangling?  Consciousness, functioning via its dance of feedback among cones of its experiential unfolding.  The Same with matter and energy ... and stored energy. In that entangled and overlapping way, we experience each instant of the present as being both a discrete instant as well as an instant that is continuously connected with all we have previously experienced. Thus, space-time and matter-energy are continuous, while individually, space, time, matter, and energy are severable into discretely fluxing quanta. We may invent "standard models" for reconciling any three* of such four fundaments of substance to a particular context, but never all four* at once. The only reconciler of all four (space, time, matter, and energy) at once would be the changeless-changer, the qualitative-quantifier, the holistic-consciousness, aka, God. The fuzz that divides our respective cones of potential experience is what avails the necessary curtain for the Reconciler to work behind the scenes. Without that curtain, there would be no Digital Two-Step Dance of Feedback in apprehensions and Empathies between the perspective of the Holism and the perspective of each of its Parts.  Nor would there be degrees of freedom among and between the various parts.
.
CONSERVATION OF QUANTIFIABLES:  *E = MC2d shows a quantifiable relationship between Energy, mass (related to Matter), and speed (distance moved in Space in a unit of Time).  However, to put all four fundaments (Energy, Matter, Space, Time) on one side of the equation would not allow us to put anything quantifiable on the other.  We may put God (or Consciousness) there, as in G(C) = some relationship between E,M,S,T.  However, that would be to try to define or measure or quantify a Holism.  And qualitative aspects emerge or show forth in respect of the Holism, which constitute more than just the Sum of the Holism's quantifiable Parts.
.

LIMITS OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS:  An unlocked car with its key in it carries a different quality and quantity of potential than a locked car with its key in it. By definition, every number or dimension that is meant to count or convey information about any other thing or idea implicates and is meant to relate to more than just itself. Zero, one, Pi, g, relative speed of light, infinity, eternity, null, void, pregnancy, idea, cell, germ, dna, organism, murmurant, tree ring, northern lights, pattern, ripple, machine, door, mirror, reflection, photograph, map, music note, alphabet, poem, book, classroom, syllogism, hypothesis, delusion, college, society, republic, culture, moral code, rush of insight, spur of wonder, grip of fear, sense of comfort, feeling of being watched over, relationship, higher essence, habitat, galaxy, cosmos, holon, walking contradiction.  Simply summing apparent or imagined Discretes will not Close limits for how their overlapping connections may show forth Infinite connecting continuosities and sequences in space-time or meta-space-time.  While our cosmos-and-meta-cosmos is Finite in how it respects conservation of quantifiables, it is Unbounded in how it avails fluxing ranges of mixtures, qualities, and perceptions.  Every whole expresses at least one relationship that abides beyond the relationships that exist among its parts.

.

QUESTION: Within a perspective’s cone-of-potential-and-actual-experience of the qualitative and the quantitative, how does such perspective qualify to exert any proximate CAUSAL or directing "free will" or influence? If a mere perspective of consciousness can do nothing more than apprehend and appreciate, then how does mere consciousness or WILL entangle with or touch substance, in order proximately to cause substance to move or respond?   ANSWER:  How substance unfolds, collapses, and is interpreted to move or to influence our bodies, brains, synapses, and minds is not ruled entirely by quantifiable laws of physical conservation. It is also affected by feedback fluxes in qualities of observation, apprehension, appreciation, focus, purpose, empathy, and interpretation. However, the way such feedback works fluxes beyond models of quantification. How we imagine, image, mirror, pray, wish, represent, tinker, communicate, and hope affects that which unfolds and signs to our quantifiable measure. However, our cones of Perspectivistic Beingness overlap in how they are reconciled with those of others, as well as with the Holism. Thus, God responds in ways that are beyond the measure of our prayers, not necessarily in the way we might think we merited or wished. Or, God’s purposes for preserving ranges and degrees for expression of freedom and dignity may not necessarily give us more pleasure than pain. For that matter, God may not be without pain. Perhaps, in grace, what is salvaged from a life’s perspectives and apprehensions will be the good wheat, separated from the discarded or set-aside chaff.

.

RECONCILING QUANTITATIVE BASED REASON AND QUALITATIVE BASED INTUITION: Each perspective of consciousness may be conceptualized as having one property in InfinityAndEternity --- outside time and space and matter and energy --- but another property entangled with or connected to the HereAndNow. As space-time and matter-energy "flux through each perspective of consciousness," such perspective's apprehensions and appreciations will meta-factor how such fluxes are counted, combined, represented, and conveyed. It may be that "space-time-matter-energy" are summed and reconciled in the conserving and meta-math of the Holism, via some property that avails such higher math and trivalent logic to present to us, and to be experienced by us, as measurable substance, such substance thereby being the logos that is fed back to us during our participation in our dance with the Holism. In any event, there is no physical mechanism that connects pure consciousness with pushes of here and now substance. No mortal ghost can push pennies up a door, without the proximate or entangled interfunction of a measurable physical substance or body.

.
AVAILING A LANGUAGE BY WHICH TO DISCUSS HOW "OUGHT" MAY RELATE TO, BUT NOT BE DERIVED FROM, "IS":  Thus goes the nub of my model or myth. It is not intended to be a scientifically testable theory.  It is only intended to be consistent with moral intuition while not being inconsistent with useful domains for science.  It is intended to avail a consistent terminology for communicating about BOTH science and morality. It is not meant as cover or pretense for advocating for religious interference that would support the alteration of any practical technology or scientific formulation.

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

.

LOGIC:  We dance with definitions of logic, circularly yet expandingly, feeding back to logics of definition.  Logics of defintion indicate the qualities that emerge from a relationship cannot be the essence of the actual things that establish the relationship.  Definitions of logic indicate that no thing that establishes a relationship can relate to us, by itself, without us.  Immediately contemporaneous with assuming a fundamental thing that defines us, we run up against the paradox that it could not be directly sensed by us as a fundamental thing in itself.

. 

DIRECT EXPERIENCE:  Direct, conscious experience, beyond logic, indicates that we are in a dance with a paradoxical-existent, a changeless-changer, with which our consciousness is more than Emergent, but an actualizing Part-icipant.  But what is the nature or character of the Agent of Will with which we Dance, which pre-defines or contemporaneously and coterminously participates with the reconciling and defining of all apparent interactions of bodies within all particular cones of experience and from among all potentials availed for giving designs to definitions?  How much is contemporaneously decided consequent to immediate and proximate feedback from our individual apprehensions of will?  How much is pre-decided or randomly pre-decided, to establish a scientifically based ground of being, or framework for apprehending degrees of freedom, with which we dance and participate by giving our immediate and proximate feedback?  Whatever the Agent, it's a one of a kind, meta-protoplasmic, walking contradiction.
.
KNOW IT ALLS:  It seems absurd, laughable, puny, and, I believe, demented, for an atheist or materialist to presume:  to "know" that there is no holistic or reconciling Consciousness; to "know" that humanity would be better off were we to discard all reverence for the metaphysics of the changeless-changer; to "know" that science or logic can in themselves adequately inspire, inculcate, and support moral codes of decency and civilizing behavior, to "know" that those who believe they intuit guidance from a higher reconciling source are misguided and likely dangerous; to "know" that reverence for a higher source conveys no advantage over logic or science when it comes to inculcating decent mores; to "know" that there is no enduring meaningfulness to our unfolding experience in the here and now; and to "know" that there is no likely participation for our perspectives in the hereafter.  Likewise, it seems absurd and laughable for a sacred-book-literalistic-fundamentalist to presume to "know" that privy priests should speak authoritatively from any such book (whether titled Old Testament, New Testament, or Origin of Species) in order to give clear and perfect guidance for all occasions, such that no mere layman should exercise his intellect, experience, interests, or empathy to receive and interpret God's guidance beyond any such book or authority and rather in relation to his own perspective, context, and spiritually felt purposefulness.  Better is that we come to reason together, as free and dignified agents of consciousness, in spiritual good faith, empathetic good will, and reverent humility, in respect of our shared perspectives and contexts.  In that way, we have better chances for pursuing goodness against the unprincipled forces and despotism of narrow dogmatism and sociopathic self interest.  After all, lunacy, connivery, and sociopathy are as easily adopted by true believers as by atheists, materialists, and anarchists.
.
*********
.
PROBLEM OF IMPERFECTION AND EVIL:  It may be that God does not preciesly inhabit us, yet somehow represents and maps every aspect of us. It may be that God does not burden holistic consciousness with immediate apprehension of every past emotion, event, or personality, yet somehow coordinates and carries forward libraries of information, stored to represent all ... at various fluxing layers and levels of preference. I do not know, but I can intuit and believe. It may be that God does not "progress," except in respect of a self-evident purpose, in like respect of which we drive our intuitions and empathies: to devise signs and arts to unfold, enhance, communicate, and feed back wonder, love, joy, and comfort ... to God and among ourselves. It may be that anomie, evil, pain, tragedy, and defeat are somehow necessary, even if stored at lower levels, in order for there to abide awe, good, pleasure, comedy, and triumph.
.
PROGRESS:  We cannot know, but can intuit and hope, that consciousness shares a desire or purpose to progress.  Would such progress be material based, to fathom and learn the possibilities and limits that can be availed out of the meta-protoplasm of consciousness?  Seems too stretchy.  Would progress be based in this entropic cycle of universe?  Seems contrary to direction of substantive entropy.  Would progress consist in quality of spiritual dance or relation between consciousness as holistic versus particularistic perspective?  Seems intuitively, empathetically likely.  May such progress eventually transcend limits of any substantive logos of universe, leading to a purely spiritual cosmos?  That exceeds my mortal, quantitative-habituated logic.  I doubt I can know that in any present time and place.  Regardless, Progress of a sort does seem likely, beyond purely cyclic notions under eastern philosophies.  That is, Progress seems likely insofar as God leads, and we part-icipate to receive, follow, and apprehend signs and arts with which to unfold, enhance, communicate, and feed back wonder, love, joy, and comfort ... to God and among ourselves.  This is NOT the sort of progress that secular politicians (liberals, progressives, socialists, Marxists) tend to think of.  Indeed, the sort of progress they tend to think of is meant to set aside and replace the spiritual progress described above.  Instead, Political Progressives tend to confuse and conflate political progress with governmental redistributions that are forced.  They siphon power to selfish operatives and groups by paying cronies and bribing constituents.  Thus, their elites leverage against producers in order to pay off henchmen, while lying through corrupted media and academia that such constitutes "progress" or is meant to more fairly effect a forced redistribution of "charity."  That is, they admire Reinhold Niebuhr before he matured and became wiser.
.
*********
.
WHOLE AND PARTS:  Consider chemistry, molecular interactions, fractals, pre-set and unfolding patterns that recognize, attract, and repel one another as apparently holistic patterns. Can such patterns be quantitatively organized, to avail consciousness to become expressed from them as a mere Emergent, that can be turned on and off or pre-programmed ... merely by flicking computer switches? Perhaps every local expression of consciousness-itself necessarily entails contemporaneous and coterminous involvement with The Holon, such that it is only with regard to an expression's involvement as-and-with Consciousness that any sub-whole may intelligently be said, quantitatively or qualitatively, to constitute more than the sum of its parts.
.
**********
.
LOGIC OF SETS:  There abides a STATIC-DYNAMIC problem with bivalent logic as applied to sets and classes.  One analyzes a class by trying to differentiate how it is exclusive from others and by then analyzing its components in respect of how they themselves may be divided into such MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE parts as would EXHAUST the class.  One may perform such analysis with a class that is static in aspect or SPACE, indifferent of TIME, or even SPACE-TIME.  For example, one may consider numbers to constitute a class, comprised of a subset of absolute prime numbers, absolute non-prime numbers, and ZERO.  Or one may consider numbers to constitute a class, comprised of real numbers, imaginary numbers, and zero.  A problem is to devise a class and description of mutually exclusive subsets that would exhaust the class.  (Example:  Is zero only "really" a number depending on perspective, context, and purpose?)  When this cannot be done, the problem becomes how to clearly distinguish the spheres, lines, and points of OVERLAP, and to draw distinctions and inferences in a way that will not flux merely upon a change of relative purpose of consideration or position of perspective.  There is also a problem of how descriptions ---  of spheres, lines, points, instants, connections, and sequences by which aspects that differentiate subsets of things --- may flux as they are applied to describe things that change over time.  Then there is the problem of how applications may flux as things appear to follow continuous tracks versus quantum leaps versus ENTANGLED pairs in space-time.  As numbers and geometrical and flux-field representations are applied to try to quantify and analyze properties or THINGS that flux in space, time, and space-time, it becomes tricky, perhaps hopeless, to try to derive, classify, map, or explicate implications that can or will remain TRUE for all applications.  Another problem:  Hope to employ set-logic to derive rules for reconciling and regulating all relationships among subsets within a class always runs up against a walking contradiction (or existential paradox):  How could every sub-thing possibly be classified, except under a single unifying and reconciling class?  Yet, since a class by definition entails that it itself is a member of a higher and more regressively inclusive class, then how could any reconciling class-of-one ever be consistently conceptualized as a class?  Moreover: How can a class, in or as itself, relate or be related in order predictably to influence its components?
.
OF ATTEMPTS TO FREEZE THE UNIVERSE IN ORDER TO MAKE STATIC CLASSIFICATIONS OF WALKING CONTRADICTIONS: Compare the Changeless-Changer and the Field-Wave-Particle-Entanglement-Converter. Compare a photon and its wave of electromagnetic radiation. A particle may express properties — of mass, spin, direction, or charge. A wave may express different properties — of intensity, amplitude, wavelength, or frequency. When the particle properties are present, the wave properties may be absent in relevance, and vice versa. Or the particle or wave may come within the influence of another, to convert the nature or properties of both. Neither the particle nor the wave (nor the field, medium, or observer) stands still in any static space-time to allow its properties, direction, locus, or speed to be precisely summed, so as to avail complete identification to the exclusion of all else. Insofar as a particle and a wave may interconvert or even combine to transition to a different form of property or wave, one cannot very well obtain a complete picture or description of a “thing” merely by summing its properties as if it were statically limited to only one thing (or to only one locus in space-time or in imaginary or conscious space-time). The thing may be conceptualized as of one class, and its properties may be imagined or practically measured to abide as sub-sets or attributes of that classification. However, except by artifice of definitional triviality, merely to sum the present subsets of properties of a thing would not be to describe the limits of the “thing” as a whole. To postulate or describe a thing’s properties while it functions as a kind of particle would not be to provide a complete description for where, when, or whether the thing may alternate or convert in its form, to avail expression as a wave or as a field. To try to measure or yoke to application a “thing” to both its properties as a particle and its properties as a wave, at the same time and place, simply cannot be done. Except perhaps in a realm of the imaginary, an identity cannot simultaneously express itself in a self canceling way at the same time and place. Yes, we can obtain wondrous results by tinkering with relative-things, but we cannot adduce a non-ambiguous, non-paradoxical description of any essential thing-in-itself. Rather, for every involvement of consciousness with a class, the whole of the class will be experienced to entail an endlessly regressive aspect, the whole of which will always constitute more than can be described merely by summing the supposed components that comprise it. Such attempts by a particular perspective of consciousness to make a perfect analysis of any aspect of the Holism can be entertaining and may often even yield astonishing and technical applications. However, for availing a Theory-Of-Everything, such attempts are beset by a fundamental obstacle in logic: The particular perspective is trying to subtract its subjective self in order to examine the objective remainder of the universe. However, the remainder cannot be entirely objective, because a subjective perspective, in some non-quantifiable way, has simultaneously been put to the side or subtracted from the focus, at the very instant the particular, subjective part tries to make an analysis of the whole. Among mortals, except in sophistry, not even a magician can precisely and quantifiably subtract a subjectivism from an objectivism ... any more than he can meaningfully divide by zero.
.
GARDEN:  In any event, the flux and Dance between the Holism and its Particular Perspectives entails quantifiable changes within a relationship that is quantifiably CONSERVATIONAL.  Change does not occur without some relations and patterns being overriden or devoured or dying out in respect of the temporal-spatial nourishment and promotion of others.  Aspects of love, loyalty, cooperation, joy, competition, antagonism, hate, and despair are necessarily entailed.  As one promotes one's own well being above all that may be intuited of the Holism, one would be led to try to find a way to avoid or weaken the influence of the Holism.  That is, one would be inclined to invent or worship pagan gods, demons, or even morally empty theories-of-everything ... to the vain exclusion of empathetic receptivity to a dance with God.  EXCEPT IN ENLIGHTENED, RESPECTFUL, AND EMPATHETIC MANAGEMENT OVER DISTRIBUTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE VERSUS IGNORANCE (the enlightened ignorance of a child?), how can "PROGRESS" IN THE COMMON GARDEN possibly be hoped for or made, to the more constant and continuous wonder, love, comfort, and joy to be experienced from all perspectives?
.
CONSERVATION OF SINGULARITY OF META-PROTOPLASM:  It appears that all of quantifiable space, time, matter, and energy expanded out of, or in respect of, a single, unified, common, entangled point, a Singularity.  Every unit of that expanding Singularity is constrained to conserve a quantifying and unifying principle in respect of its origination.  All experience of quantifiables is reconciled to this singular, changeless-changing, Meta-Protoplasm.  As a whole, it is changeless in conserving the expression of quantities by or with its parts.  As a sum or parts, it is constantly changing in how the parts are fluxed and expressed.  How is this done?  We cannot understand that "how" in respect of our logic, math, dimensions, perceptions, and experiences, because all such particulars are faces and expressions of the whole, but not the whole-in-itself.  We don't directly measure or perceive the meta-protoplasm.  We only intuit, sense, and interpret such faces, aspects, and properties as Emerge to our experience in respect of it.  For that account, neither do we directly measure or perceive our own experience of consciousness.  Consciousness is not itself a pure physicality that we can touch, measure, or precisely push about with inanimate substance.
.
SOURCING-SOURCER AND CORRELATING CORRELATIVE:  Consciousness correlates with a flux of feedback between the whole of the singular meta-protoplasm and the eternally-present-presentation of its parts.  That correlation begs a question:  Is consciousness a derivative emergent from a flux between an otherwise inanimate singularity and its presentation of parts?  Or is the fluxing presentation of the singularity and its parts a derivative emergent of consciousness?  PROBLEM:  Both of those approaches defy any logic by which I can approach understanding.  I cannot induce, adduce, or deduce to reasonably say which is more likely.  Which leads me to postulate a qualitatively non-provable third alternative, but that seems comforting as an a priori myth or basis for logos.  That is, I conceptualize that the whole, the conservational summing of its parts, the feedback fluxing, the consciousness therewith expressed, are all expressions or capacity-properties of an enigmatic SOURCE, a mysterious, ETERNALLY EMERGENT EDITING ESSENCE, aka, GOD.  This God, of which we are imperfect, particular, and limited perspectives, and of which the Holism is the expression of its personality or property for feeding back with us, is the Source in respect of which our apprehensions and wills are synchronized within ranges and degrees of freedom, relating, fluxing, and feeding back and forth.  Though our perspectives of consciousness be humble faces of IT, we are NOT the Holistic expressor of it.
.
*********
.
MYTHS ARE NECESSARY:  If you think myths not necessary, consider your name.  Your having a name is necessary.  Yet, you are not your name.  Even to name an infant is to begin his status as coeextensive with myth:  that he will somehow become worthy of his name.
.
*********
.
DANCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS:  If a dance of feedback, back and forth, between the Holism and its Parts is the only choice among walking contradictions that makes intuitive sense to our direct experience and intuition, then consider:  How could the Holism and its Parts be intuiting, sensing, or communicating their wills, desires, and apprehensions --- back and forth, in any synchronized, two-step, apprehension or appreciation --- unless each were responsive, i.e., CONSCIOUS at some qualitative, meta-plasmic level, to the signals of the other?
.
*********
.
NO FACTS WITHOUT MODELS (IDEALS OR FORMS); NO MODELS WITHOUT A MODELER: Auguste Comte said, “If it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts can not be observed without the guidance of some theories. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless; we could not retain them: for the most part we could not even perceive them." Well then, unless every inanimate pattern is somehow an avatar in respect of a guiding consciousness that entertains theories and models about it, how then could such pattern seem to "sense," recognize, relate to, react, replicate, function, and "progress" in respect of any another? Perhaps those complex patterns, systems, and civilizations that happen to flourish tend to be those in which the various "perspectives among their citizenry" self-select, organize, model, synchronize, and "progress to serve their places" within a sustainable, defensible society. Why do they so self select? In respect of what (meta or higher) functions or values? With what should progressive forms empathize, model, appreciate and desire? With what should God empathize, model, form, appreciate and desire?
.  
PROGRESS: Does any idea of "moral progress" make material sense, or only spiritual sense? After all, there is no quantitative or scientific scale for weighing "the greatest wonder, love, comfort, and joy for the greatest number, time, and space." So, how may one qualify and self select to make that sort of comparison in any intuitive and meaningful way?   ANSWER: Only with spiritual guidance that comes with receptivity to intuition and empathy for one another and the Holism. How should that which is compared to an ideal be adjudged "true" or "beautiful" in more than a non-trivial sense?   How should ideals, models, and theories evolve or progress? What is empathetically appreciated? What should be empathetically appreciated? How should higher species and beings regulate the lower, to the most appreciable good of all?   ANSWER: There is no quantitative or scientific scale for weighing an answer. One may "answer" to "weigh qualities" only with spiritual guidance that comes with receptivity to intuition and empathy for one another and the Holism.
.

CHOICE OF PARADIGM FOR PROGRESS OR LIES:   How do atheistic collectivists promote a philosophy of "political progressivism," given their acceptance that natural selection is not guided by any intrinsic direction and given their unbelief in any notion of spiritual progress?   Is it not oxymoronic to preach "political progress" while simultaneously preaching that there is no such thing as either natural or spiritual progress? How do they square that circle, except by substituting belief in one kind of walking contradiction for another? They can pretend their personal pleasuring and pillaging against producers is principled. They can pretend that human society can stand above nature, without being contrary to science. They can pathologically close their eyes to their own hypocrisies and contradictions. But why would they hearken to such strategies?   Answer: Their bodies, minds, and spirits are conditioned to have more faith in walking contradictions of fleshy pleasures than in walking contradictions of conscious will. In other words, their brains are mainly thrilled below their belts --- even when they urgently profess otherwise. Being unwilling to abide empathy in respect of the walking contradiction of God, they live as their own walking lies.

.

UNFOLDING MOMENTUM OF DESIRE: An immeasurable Quality of momentum, inertia, or habit seems to affect the direction and rate for the unfolding of Meaningful exchanges of intuition and empathy between the Holism and its Parts. Somehow, the patterns of the Present are weighted both to appreciations of the Past and to apprehensions and portents for the Future. Immediate and proximate apprehensions are represented and sensed in the present, and the weight of their appreciation carries them with the speed-of-reconciling-synchronicity into the future. During each quantum flux of feedback between the Holism and its Parts, Consciousness carries its experience of time and space across Discrete instants, through a sequential Continuity of meaningful unfoldment, as Apprehensions (sensations) are carried into Appreciations (conscious adjudgments regarding the qualitative desire for one manifestation as it is faced off against representations of past or future apprehensions of others). Thus, a two-step dance between the Holism and its Parts avails Qualitative means for transfers of conscious apprehensions and appreciations, i.e., communications of meaningfulness. In other words, the capacity of our Cosmos for exchanging qualitative Sensation and Empathy between its Holism and its Parts, within a system of quantitative conservation, is coordinate with a fluxing quality of coterminous Consciousness. The Evolution and unfolding of complex systems simply cannot proceed in a void that is independent of the coordinate company of guiding experiences of various levels of Consciousness. Patterns emerge insofar as, on some coordinate level, they are sensed, apprehended, appreciated, willed, represented, and communicated. The quality of this unfoldment of consciousness and guiding for the evolution of complex systems is not something that can be completely reduced to quantitative, scientific, Positivist control. Thus, a quality of Consciousness does not abide on a plane that is inferior to a quantitative ground of being. Indeed, Consciousness may just as well be conceptualized as representing and willing the very ground of beingness.
.
TWO-WAY EMPATHETICALLY-INTUITIVE CORRELATION, MAPPING, AND POSITIVIST TRACKING:  So long as the Holism reliably mirrors, maps, or tracks us, IT would seem not to need to sense us in the same way that we sense ouselves in order completely to know us, as well as to know more:  How we synchronize to sum and obey the conservation of the whole.  May that correlation to some extent avail a two-way mirror?  May God present a FACE to us that could at least be inductively rendered RELIABLE to our understanding, to inform us of all we need to know?  Must AMBIGUITIES and PARADOXES remain, to avail a curtain behind which God synchronizes parameters availied to our degrees of freedom?  When it comes to understanding or empathetically appreciating the flux effects and purposes of the META-PROTOPLASM, to what extent can we trust our senses, memories, and correlative-modeling analogics, even though our logic can never be entirely complete, consistent, and coherent?  Is our tracking of God necessarily incomplete, while God's tracking of us may avail to God a complete correlation?  Can God comprehend, apprehend, or feel the joy, anguish, and entire QUALITY of our emotional experiences?  I can hardly KNOW the answer to such a question, but my intuition suggests that to say yes may stretch too far, unless by availing God the information but not necessarily the simultaneous evaluation of its flood, absent some trick of mathematical functioning to avail information in potential, but not necessarily in immediate, simultaneous, OMNI-EMOTIVE entangled-involvement.  But if we can know all that we need to know, it would seem God, notwithstanding Godel, also may know all that God needs to know.
.