.
OF MATH, KNOWLEDGE, AND EMPATHETIC INTUITION:
.
What can one “KNOW” from mathematical measures of probability? One may empathetically intuit a great deal, albeit, with varying degrees of confidence, always falling short of absolute certainty regarding anything that can reasonably be said to be “true” other than by trivial application of definitional labels. One can “know” very little, because so many varieties of shell games with truth and reconstructions and reevaluations of truth can arise out of the feedback relationship between the fluxing holism of the cosmos and the transpositions among sums of its parts.
.
One may conduct double blind experiments, make precise empirical measures, adduce hypotheses, and then test for possible falsification. In that way, one may accumulate models and skills for various layers and levels of replicating and tinkering with measurable manifestations of substance. When replications are less than perfectly reliable, one may, given enough tests and controls over factors thought to be of significance, eventually extract a probability factor, and, given enough trials, test it for possible falsification. Eventually, one may extract a probability factor for determining whether an environment is being tainted by some agent of non-random, conscious interference, and then test that. From there, one may test the entire environment, to try to adduce whether some agent of non-random, conscious interference may be guiding such significations as unfold in respect of it.
.
Here, one comes face to face with the paradoxical: Having no way to know how many universes and other environments there may be, one can always suppose that there may be enough of them so that, despite the incredible seeming odds, the occurrence of conscious expressions of life in this universe is, after all, likely not at all unlikely. There is nothing in the math of probabilities that can prove it unreasonable for a person who is determined at all costs to investigate and interpret his cone of experience as if all, even consciousness, is merely derivative of an original dumb or departed singularity, with no guiding consciousness needed. In every case of seeming astonishing coincidence, one can easily “explain it away” so long as one is willing to engage a simple trick: Just assume a range of focus, with microscope or telescope, to whatever level the math may call for in order “to show” that the apparent miracle or answer to a prayer is, in math, “really” only a random unfolding. This is what is done when people put on their scientist hats. When they put on their common sense and human being hats, they do something else.
.
Not very many people assume their families, friends, and fellow human beings are probably just pre-programmed, unconscious, 4-D virtual matrix-bots. Yet, each time one person seems consciously to respond to something another person says or does, there is no way in math to prove the response was not just a random perception, dream, figment, or trick by a malicious and deviant alien or architect. Yet, we tend to use common sense and empathetic intuition. We assume a verbal response to a question was intentionally made by a fellow conscious being, communicating back to us based on a kind of conscious, stimulus-response feedback. We INTUIT that they are fellow conscious beings. So why — when it comes to communication or feedback between the fluxing holism of the cosmos and its transposing, constituent parts — do we assume there is not entailed any guiding or responsive consciousness?
.
So many people want “a sign” before they can will to intuit or believe that there abides a holistic, conscious guide. But what sign could such a holism give, in math, that they would accept!? Even if a voice broadcast from the clouds, a dedicated scientist would assume it was entirely based in substantively replicable technology, of a kind that simply was not yet available to common experience. (And it may well be that particular, human perspectives of consciousness can always tinker out a way to duplicate whatever is particularly expressed by the cosmos.) So there is no possible sign of holistic higher consciousness that could be proven by mere math or statistical evaluation of substantive empiricism! At best, we can argue, recast, and reframe the context of the probabilities. Much can be re-turned simply by adjusting focus in purpose, perspective, and range of context. This is because the holism itself is beyond explication in math. The only sign is in empathetic intuition. One tends either to expand one’s empathies to believe in an interfunctioning, higher, back-feeding moral guide, or one tends to contract one’s soul to believe only in oneself. Before entrusting one’s welfare to another, one takes care to evaluate the difference. Math is a great tool for denying one’s most fundamental intuitions.
.
***********
.
When considering the digital feedback between the fluxing holism and the transposing parts, consider:
How God helps those who help themselves. The power of positive thinking. Self fulfilling prophecies. How natural patterns find grooves of habits. The responsibility of empathetic individuals to act, live, think, and pray in ways conducive to the establishing and preserving of civilizations of decent freedom and dignity. In other words, pray for what you really think would be good ... because you might just get it.
.
To conceptualize our relationship with a Field of higher purpose is to conceptualize a dance, whereby that which should be done from each perspective of the relationship is apprehended and appreciated as a consequence of the unfolding of the relationship. The "ought" is neither determined nor even in existence, except in respect of how it is ascertained derivative of the dance. In other words, we try to do what God wants, and God seeks to provide what we need. Sometimes, what we want changes what God determines that we need. The "ought" is not an independent existent, unless in a way that is even higher than, and thus beside the point, of our relationship. In that way, we don't mind "ought," but we do respect God, even though we also participate in the unfolding and perhaps sometimes changing of God-Mind. What we think, say, and do affects God. God may be torn to different interests in different environments, geographies, and cultures. If we imagine, rationalize, and pray for a despotic, violent, mind-enslaving society, then God may come in such an environment to entertain such a society. We share responsibility for participating with God in guiding the oughts and interests that come to prevail. Good thoughts, good words, good deeds carry self-fulfilling potential for consciousness, from both the perspective of the Field and the perspective of its Parts.
.
.
OF MATH, KNOWLEDGE, AND EMPATHETIC INTUITION:
.
What can one “KNOW” from mathematical measures of probability? One may empathetically intuit a great deal, albeit, with varying degrees of confidence, always falling short of absolute certainty regarding anything that can reasonably be said to be “true” other than by trivial application of definitional labels. One can “know” very little, because so many varieties of shell games with truth and reconstructions and reevaluations of truth can arise out of the feedback relationship between the fluxing holism of the cosmos and the transpositions among sums of its parts.
.
One may conduct double blind experiments, make precise empirical measures, adduce hypotheses, and then test for possible falsification. In that way, one may accumulate models and skills for various layers and levels of replicating and tinkering with measurable manifestations of substance. When replications are less than perfectly reliable, one may, given enough tests and controls over factors thought to be of significance, eventually extract a probability factor, and, given enough trials, test it for possible falsification. Eventually, one may extract a probability factor for determining whether an environment is being tainted by some agent of non-random, conscious interference, and then test that. From there, one may test the entire environment, to try to adduce whether some agent of non-random, conscious interference may be guiding such significations as unfold in respect of it.
.
Here, one comes face to face with the paradoxical: Having no way to know how many universes and other environments there may be, one can always suppose that there may be enough of them so that, despite the incredible seeming odds, the occurrence of conscious expressions of life in this universe is, after all, likely not at all unlikely. There is nothing in the math of probabilities that can prove it unreasonable for a person who is determined at all costs to investigate and interpret his cone of experience as if all, even consciousness, is merely derivative of an original dumb or departed singularity, with no guiding consciousness needed. In every case of seeming astonishing coincidence, one can easily “explain it away” so long as one is willing to engage a simple trick: Just assume a range of focus, with microscope or telescope, to whatever level the math may call for in order “to show” that the apparent miracle or answer to a prayer is, in math, “really” only a random unfolding. This is what is done when people put on their scientist hats. When they put on their common sense and human being hats, they do something else.
.
Not very many people assume their families, friends, and fellow human beings are probably just pre-programmed, unconscious, 4-D virtual matrix-bots. Yet, each time one person seems consciously to respond to something another person says or does, there is no way in math to prove the response was not just a random perception, dream, figment, or trick by a malicious and deviant alien or architect. Yet, we tend to use common sense and empathetic intuition. We assume a verbal response to a question was intentionally made by a fellow conscious being, communicating back to us based on a kind of conscious, stimulus-response feedback. We INTUIT that they are fellow conscious beings. So why — when it comes to communication or feedback between the fluxing holism of the cosmos and its transposing, constituent parts — do we assume there is not entailed any guiding or responsive consciousness?
.
So many people want “a sign” before they can will to intuit or believe that there abides a holistic, conscious guide. But what sign could such a holism give, in math, that they would accept!? Even if a voice broadcast from the clouds, a dedicated scientist would assume it was entirely based in substantively replicable technology, of a kind that simply was not yet available to common experience. (And it may well be that particular, human perspectives of consciousness can always tinker out a way to duplicate whatever is particularly expressed by the cosmos.) So there is no possible sign of holistic higher consciousness that could be proven by mere math or statistical evaluation of substantive empiricism! At best, we can argue, recast, and reframe the context of the probabilities. Much can be re-turned simply by adjusting focus in purpose, perspective, and range of context. This is because the holism itself is beyond explication in math. The only sign is in empathetic intuition. One tends either to expand one’s empathies to believe in an interfunctioning, higher, back-feeding moral guide, or one tends to contract one’s soul to believe only in oneself. Before entrusting one’s welfare to another, one takes care to evaluate the difference. Math is a great tool for denying one’s most fundamental intuitions.
.
***********
.
MASKS OF GOD: Substance cannot abide in itself, without a co-product of Information. Information cannot abide in itself, without a co-product of Substance. Consciousness cannot abide in itself, without a co-product of Substance and Information. Substance and Information cannot abide in themselves, without a co-product of Consciousness. In each case, each co-product is a contemporaneously, instantaneously, synchronized thing or event — not a cause of the others. Substance is not superior to Information or Consciousness, nor are Information and Consciousness merely the derivative byproduct of Substance. Something else is the original, continuing, unfolding, cause. I conceive that Something abides with a back and forth, yin and yang, digital-feedback relationship of apprehension and appreciation between a fluxing Holism and its sum of transposing, unfolding Parts. The aboriginal Holism cannot reasonably be categorized merely as Substance. At least, not any kind of Substance that, as the aboriginal, could itself be amenable of being measured in any precise, local extent. Nor can the Holism be categorized merely as Information, or Consciousness, nor as some syncretic combination of Substance-Information-Consciousness. The Holism is something more or other, yet real and interpermeating. It is the cause-result, not the mere result, of local expressions of Substance, Information, and Consciousness. It has an immeasurable, qualitative capacity to interfunction and present with local aspects or parts, under different and fluxing masks --- depending on purpose, point of view, and context of reference. The mask it presents depends on its apprehension and appreciation of feedback from various particular perspectives of itself, and vice-versa. It does not mask itself as a deceiver, but only because it cannot present or signify to local perspectives except with masks. A local perspective simply cannot perceive the holism as it really is, much as we cannot perceive or weigh our own consciousness. Yet, we can experience it --- in empathetic intuition.
.
************
.
QUESTION: ABSENT A SIGN, HOW CAN ANY ONE BE CONFIDENT OF WHEN OR WHETHER THE HOLISM LISTENS OR CARES --
.
QUESTION: ABSENT A SIGN, HOW CAN ANY ONE BE CONFIDENT OF WHEN OR WHETHER THE HOLISM LISTENS OR CARES --
ANSWER: The “listening” is unavoidable. The Holism has innate capacity and means to completely map, apprehend, and appreciate the qualities of our perspectives of consciousness, but we only sense the consciousness of the Holism via empathetic intuition, through the feedback of substantive representations of its field of consciousness. It’s as if we were on the side of a two way mirror, which reflects us and through which the Holism apprehends our bodies and substantive significations, but through which mirror we cannot, while experiencing only the perspective of a Part, see back. This is because the Holism presents no substantive body for us to see. This is because measurable Substance is not superior to the Holism, but is only derivative of it, or, at most, co-product of feedback between it and its relationship with its parts.
.
Yet, what else should one empathetically intuit, when one wakes with astonishing insights or abilities for which one had no adequate training to expect? Where does genius come from, if not from the Holistic Muse? How can a person blessed with genius by mere Will resolve to Think some astonishing new insight, apart from its having been gifted by his Muse? Everything we do and signify with our interfunctioning with substance is first apprehended by the Holism, then appreciated and evaluated, then subjected to reconciling, synchronizing, instantaneous feedback, which sustains the substantive cosmos and therewith avails the logos for our quantitative significations and communications. We do not directly “see the consciousness” of the Holism, nor of any other persons — nor even of ourselves. One only experiences the consciousness of oneself, and one only empathetically intuits the consciousness of any other person — and one only intuits the field of consciousness of the un-bodied Holism.
.
The way the Holism communicates back to each perspective is holistically synchronizing. So, the “specialness” of any communication is not distinctly apparent or provable. Nor is the answer or response necessarily what one desires. Rather, each sequentially unfolding response is reconciled within the cone of parameters that is availed to the experience of each and all of us. Yet, the two-way, back-and-forth communication is constant, continuous, non-avoidable, non-quantifiable, and not susceptible of being ruled by technological leveraging.
.
When a being dies, or reaches the limits of his cone of experience, it’s not because the Holism no longer cares about its consciousness. Itself being the field of consciousness, how could the holism not care about consciousness? Death and change occur because, in the course of reconciling appreciations of all perspectives, the Holism has adjudged it necessary or appropriate that a pattern or a being’s consciousness be re-absorbed into the common field. Meantime, experience and enjoy the communion.
.
WHAT FOLLOWS:.
Yet, what else should one empathetically intuit, when one wakes with astonishing insights or abilities for which one had no adequate training to expect? Where does genius come from, if not from the Holistic Muse? How can a person blessed with genius by mere Will resolve to Think some astonishing new insight, apart from its having been gifted by his Muse? Everything we do and signify with our interfunctioning with substance is first apprehended by the Holism, then appreciated and evaluated, then subjected to reconciling, synchronizing, instantaneous feedback, which sustains the substantive cosmos and therewith avails the logos for our quantitative significations and communications. We do not directly “see the consciousness” of the Holism, nor of any other persons — nor even of ourselves. One only experiences the consciousness of oneself, and one only empathetically intuits the consciousness of any other person — and one only intuits the field of consciousness of the un-bodied Holism.
.
The way the Holism communicates back to each perspective is holistically synchronizing. So, the “specialness” of any communication is not distinctly apparent or provable. Nor is the answer or response necessarily what one desires. Rather, each sequentially unfolding response is reconciled within the cone of parameters that is availed to the experience of each and all of us. Yet, the two-way, back-and-forth communication is constant, continuous, non-avoidable, non-quantifiable, and not susceptible of being ruled by technological leveraging.
.
When a being dies, or reaches the limits of his cone of experience, it’s not because the Holism no longer cares about its consciousness. Itself being the field of consciousness, how could the holism not care about consciousness? Death and change occur because, in the course of reconciling appreciations of all perspectives, the Holism has adjudged it necessary or appropriate that a pattern or a being’s consciousness be re-absorbed into the common field. Meantime, experience and enjoy the communion.
.
.
When considering the digital feedback between the fluxing holism and the transposing parts, consider:
How God helps those who help themselves. The power of positive thinking. Self fulfilling prophecies. How natural patterns find grooves of habits. The responsibility of empathetic individuals to act, live, think, and pray in ways conducive to the establishing and preserving of civilizations of decent freedom and dignity. In other words, pray for what you really think would be good ... because you might just get it.
.
PARTICIPATORY DEPENDENCE FOR EXISTENCE OF THE OUGHT:
.To conceptualize our relationship with a Field of higher purpose is to conceptualize a dance, whereby that which should be done from each perspective of the relationship is apprehended and appreciated as a consequence of the unfolding of the relationship. The "ought" is neither determined nor even in existence, except in respect of how it is ascertained derivative of the dance. In other words, we try to do what God wants, and God seeks to provide what we need. Sometimes, what we want changes what God determines that we need. The "ought" is not an independent existent, unless in a way that is even higher than, and thus beside the point, of our relationship. In that way, we don't mind "ought," but we do respect God, even though we also participate in the unfolding and perhaps sometimes changing of God-Mind. What we think, say, and do affects God. God may be torn to different interests in different environments, geographies, and cultures. If we imagine, rationalize, and pray for a despotic, violent, mind-enslaving society, then God may come in such an environment to entertain such a society. We share responsibility for participating with God in guiding the oughts and interests that come to prevail. Good thoughts, good words, good deeds carry self-fulfilling potential for consciousness, from both the perspective of the Field and the perspective of its Parts.
.
.
2 comments:
History may repeat itself, but it spends most of its time in a default position: Dupes and serfs being ruled by lying sociopaths, pretending to be serving one "ism" or another. I’m in the middle of the new book, Bowing to Beijing. It’s frightening. It shows the blueprint to despotism that’s being applied by China. With but little insight, one notices much the same blueprint being applied by Obama! — as well as by apologists for both Dinos and Rinos. It’s frightening that so many think it a good thing to have free trade with such a sucking black hole of despotism! How much closer to such black holes does the American middle class believe it can safely draw, in insane service of some "ism?" Regardless of ism-of-preference, a decent individual should act, live, think, and pray in ways conducive to establishing and preserving a civilization of decent freedom and dignity. Absent very good reason, a decent human being ought not excuse, trade with, or enrich despots and sociopaths. Yet, our biggest trading partner is fast becoming China, and Obama seems to be fast becoming the grasshopper-student of the Chinese Princelings. I wonder how long history will keep the Chinese masses in the default position of serfdom and mind chains? Once America is in the embrace of the Chinese, I wonder how long Americans will then be chained to their condition? Rinos and Dinos alike are fire-selling us into serfdom.
East is East and West is West. If "objectivity" in multi-verse math and fairy-logic is one's forte, above common-sense empathetic-intuition, then there's no limit to atrocities that can be rationalized. "Great leaders" have rationalized the entire gamut, from eternal choirs of angels, to let me get mine and devil take the hindmost, to live free or die, to the only moderates are dead armadillos in the middle of the road, to justifications for reducing everyone else to slavery, to submit or lose head, to save Earth by wiping out humans, to hell-jihadis for vengeful Allah. Humanity’s imagination is our glory as well as our curse. Lost is regard for the moral responsibility that's inseparable from each human potential. Above all, yin and yang abide: (1) one’s regard, or lack thereof, for a higher Reconciler versus (2) respect one intuits, or fails to intuit, that such higher Reconciler feeds back to each person’s sense of purposefulness. The power of positive thinking is accompanied by a flip side: moral responsibility for participating with the Holism in the unfolding design of beingness. The evil in that-which-is-only-the-possible is not the-shadow-of-that-which-is-inevitable. Working together, believers and non-believers have (1) potential to produce civilization that accords decent freedom and dignity (City on Hill) versus (2) potential to produce collectively-blessed, scientifically-rationalized, hell for most everyone on Earth (Big Brother). The teeming, Wretched Refuse who are collectivizing and drowning America tend to be sociopaths, regime-paid-scientists, moral-socialists, multiverse-rationalists, fairy-jinn-pagans, non-responsible-entitlementarians, charity-forcing Obama-devotees, free-trading-with-despots-libertarians, and faux-Progressives who are “objectively indifferent” to the moral responsibility in each thinking individual. The individual means nothing to the regimes and marketplaces of the Wretched Refuse. It seems few of the Refuse need think twice before sacrificing to the new, blood-thirsty, pagan-Gods and Isms of the Age. Indeed, the Regime's prettiest song is the Islamic call to prayer, the man most admired is none other than Mao Zedong, champion death dealer of all time, and the biggest trading partnership is with Princelings who run despotic China. This atrocity need not be America’s destiny, but we're well down the path.
Post a Comment