.
I sense an imbalance in the field. Science has shown us how powerful we can be. Somewhere along the line, we have lost sight of how responsible we should be. The imbalance is derivative of propensities for entertaining circular assumptions. One may hope, by entertaining a fundamental assumption and then testing it for reliable accord with reality, thereby to avail a "true" map of reality. However, I suspect good Yin and bad Yang may suffice equally well for availing reliable maps. The rub is, one has no choice but to adopt some belief regarding the yin and the yang of it. Models change as they unfold, yet one cannot evolve new models without entertaining beginning models. A connecting thread or story line runs through.
*************
.
Reality abides in both the immeasurable, qualitative-subjective and the measurable, quantitative-objective. However, the quantitative objective will not measure in precisely the same way for every subjective perspective from every point of view in every context of reference. Rather, each quantitative-objective experience, interpretation, or measure of an aspect of reality is buffered, to allow varying fluxes of objective experience. Variation in the flux will depend on emotive purpose (apprehensive intentionality), rationalizing point of view (appreciative interpretation), and context of reference (overlaps with significations that accompany all other levels and layers of conscious experience within one's unfolding cone of limited possibilities). Some aspects or objective reality will present as objective constants (c, g, etc.) to all perspectives that share the common cone of potentiality with which they are presented. As aspects of commonality undergo shifts in phase, the quality of the perspectives that can relate to (survive with) such aspects will also shift. There is no eternal aspect of the context of the quantitative-objective cosmos that is immune to phase shifting.
I sense an imbalance in the field. Science has shown us how powerful we can be. Somewhere along the line, we have lost sight of how responsible we should be. The imbalance is derivative of propensities for entertaining circular assumptions. One may hope, by entertaining a fundamental assumption and then testing it for reliable accord with reality, thereby to avail a "true" map of reality. However, I suspect good Yin and bad Yang may suffice equally well for availing reliable maps. The rub is, one has no choice but to adopt some belief regarding the yin and the yang of it. Models change as they unfold, yet one cannot evolve new models without entertaining beginning models. A connecting thread or story line runs through.
.
The fundamental model or map I prefer is to conceptualize Universe-Cosmos as an Unfolding Story. A participant cannot change the fundamental structure of the plot line and still communicate a coherent story. The part that's already written and read cannot be changed without upsetting and angering vested participants. Still, the potential for developing sub-plots is unlimited in respect of possible spatial-temporal sequences. Though possible sequences are as infinite as they are eternal, the personality types that experience them can be artificially and restrictively categorized. For example, one can imagine that there are only 16 fundamentally different personality types. For plot lines, there abide about seven: romance, adventure, conquest, mystery, spiritual quest, scientific quest, and practical (home economics). Same old same old, on and on.
.
Yet, each participant is a votary with freedom to apprehend (foretell) and appreciate (judge). Finite yet unbounded, structured yet unlimited, conserved yet free. As the story nears its end and begins to fade and participants lose interest, the plot lines will phase shift and the old absolutes will flux, transposing to a new story. Nothing precludes the field (for it is not an empty void) from opening a new book.
.
Does the field "learn" from our feedback? Does it remember our investments and votes? I cannot know of that. Yet, by words and acts, I cannot avoid expressing purposes and beliefs. Indeed, choosing to model the cosmos as an unfolding story implicates a circular "proof by assumption." In assuming the cosmos is a story, I implicate a story teller, with participants sharing an interest in how the story unfolds. One may entertain an alternative circular proof by assumption. One may assume the cosmos is naught but dumb chaos unfolding in respect of unguided natural selection. Either assumption will reinforce incentives for different qualities of civilization. I think the kind of civilization one hopes to participate in producing says most of what one needs to apprehend about one's belief system. In any event, either alternative can equally avail a map of the "truth." Nothing about an intuition, belief, or notion concerning a field of consciousness, or a lack of such field, need be inconsistent with the zoo of names imagined for the particle field. Regardless, one cannot live day to day without entertaining Beliefs, whether stated or unstated, about what one wants to do. It's simply incoherent to life to say beliefs should be repressed. I don't think academic repression of belief that there is more to the alternating faces of existence than dumb substance is especially conducive to better civilization. After all, by what measure could such an academic appreciate (judge) whether one civilization is "better" than any other?
.*************
.
Reality abides in both the immeasurable, qualitative-subjective and the measurable, quantitative-objective. However, the quantitative objective will not measure in precisely the same way for every subjective perspective from every point of view in every context of reference. Rather, each quantitative-objective experience, interpretation, or measure of an aspect of reality is buffered, to allow varying fluxes of objective experience. Variation in the flux will depend on emotive purpose (apprehensive intentionality), rationalizing point of view (appreciative interpretation), and context of reference (overlaps with significations that accompany all other levels and layers of conscious experience within one's unfolding cone of limited possibilities). Some aspects or objective reality will present as objective constants (c, g, etc.) to all perspectives that share the common cone of potentiality with which they are presented. As aspects of commonality undergo shifts in phase, the quality of the perspectives that can relate to (survive with) such aspects will also shift. There is no eternal aspect of the context of the quantitative-objective cosmos that is immune to phase shifting.
.
Such phase shifting would seem to abide in conjunction with changing purposes and unfolding interests of some holistic perspective of the entire field of consciousness. There is no objective context that abides as an eternal truth, except in the remembrance of the holism of consciousness. Rather, all so-called objective absolutes are merely relative absolutes, relative to our shared cone of temporal-spatiality --- save One. Even so, the empathetic-intuitive signification of all our experiences, interpretations, and communications depend for their logos, signification, and meaning upon interfunctionings among local purposes of perspectives of consciousness and the buffering and overlapping of their points of view within their shared context of reference. No objective purposes or moral principles can be eternally derived as "truth" from the conical limits of our temporal-spatiality, except perhaps variations on One: A cosmic need to communicate meaningfully about unfolding empathies. In respect of that, for the here and now, my intuitive empathy purposes me to call for apprehensions and appreciations compatible with preserving civilization that avails decent freedom and dignity for its variously intuitive empaths.
.
2 comments:
If government didn't choke with b.s. regulations, open borders to cheap labor, and connive to sell out and kick back resources to hedgers and foreign trade cannibals, there would be less need for government to act as safety net. If the market were more effective in allowing people and encouraging charities to push out from under thumbs of oppression, there would be less need for government to act as safety net. However, that kind of market for market idealists has long gone.
Both the socialist and the capitalist market are through-andthrough replaced by a new kind of socialism and capitalism --- cronyism. Cronies who market the buying and selling of corruption, politicians, even regimes. It hardly matters whether you call these cronies socialists or capitalists. Either way, they're out to make a NWO that will put all but a very few under thumbs ... forever. Who are the useful idiots enabling this? They come in at least two flavors of true believers: (1) OWS alinskyites, anarchists, and Marxists and (2) Free Traders who think despotic regimes will become more friendly to human rights if their economies are allowed to enrich themselves (while we choke and cannibilize ourselves and force our labor force to compete with third world slave labor).
This trend will be non-stoppable so long as neither the OWS people nor the Free Trade people get a clue about what is needed if America is to preserve a land for human freedom and dignity. Hell, many think freedom, dignity, morality, and higher values are meaningless drivel. It would be well if they could live a year in some hell hole by themselves. Maybe they would figure out that liberty is more than just a word. Meantime, our leaders remain essentially mute or impotent concerning this plague of cronyism. Actually, there never was and never will be a socialist utopia or a free market. At best, there was faith-based American practicality. But the old faith is dead, replaced by the New Enlightened Faith: All's fair in love and cannibalism. How's that working out?
Is the Left primarily subjective-emotive, while the right is objective-rational. I partly agree, but I think it generally depends on whose ox is being gored. The rub arises in that indifferent empiricists, aka objective-rationalists, can become quite "caring about their indifference," while subjective-emotives can posture as principled logicians. I think this is because Reality does not consist only in one realm or the other. Rather, Reality consists in the experience of both the immeasurable subjective and the measurable objective. Indeed, the measure of objective reality seems often to depend on purpose, point of view, and context of reference.
In any given situation, people tend to be most concerned about what they subjectively ought to do next, as opposed merely to objectively documenting what the situation is. An American-Conservative ought to have an ideal: to establish and defend civilization that avails decent freedom and dignity. That is an Ideal, not an objective reality. Without that emotive ideal, America would never have been founded. So, to my lights, the choice is not between a parallel universe of subjective-emotive Platoism versus objective-rational Aristotleism. Rather, the choice for Americans is whether to preserve the ideal we were founded on versus the default ideal of history: rule under elite oligarchs who play the masses off against themselves by objectively toying with their emotions. We carry with us the germ of power to "define the ought" of THIS world-universe. If we allow America to be swamped by those who have come to prefer the default ideal of history, America will sink back into that pit. To avoid that, we need inspiration. That is, Idealism. So I reject that Conservative Americans are not Idealists.
Post a Comment