.
EVOLUTION OF THE FITTEST: The notion of the "fittest" often seems like an attempt to explain a result by attaching a hindsighting label. That is, whatever a niche selects to favor is labeled the fittest to such niche. However, this begs a question from a group or holistic perspective: What synchronizes or causes the niche to so favor the sum evolvings of its particular components? Only by blinding oneself to the feedback and synchronizing influence of the holism may one "explain" evolution by labeling whatever happens by chance to occur as the "fittest." If one does blind oneself to the whole and the group, then one may conceptualize that a local population will be thinned of members that are not equipped with anti-toxins to innoculate themselves against parasites and predators that breed to feed on them. Thus, surviving breeders will tend to be endowed with inoculations, while only those of their predators that happen to have the most potent toxins will be able to feast on them. Only in this way, by blinding oneself to the feedback synchronization of the whole, may one label unfolding results as the expressions of "nature's fittest."
.
PROGRESS: The notion of "progress" may take on either a linear or circular bent, depending on how a person may alternate in conceptualizing which is superior: Marxist substance or Spiritual consciousness. As one apprehends that consciousness, depending on one's perspective and context and purpose, may be conceptualized as being only epiphenomenal of inter-functionings of substance, one may conceptualize progress as consisting in the LINEAR increase in the relative amount of control over the substantive environment that is acquired by forms of life that exhibit consciousness. As one conceptualizes that substance is only epiphenomenal of inter-functionings of perspectives of consciousness, one may conceptualize progress as consisting in more CIRCULAR accommodations among perspectives of consciousness, as they participate in fluxing pursuits of meaningfully expressive fulfillment. After all, if all of substance is but cover for inter-permeating perspectives of consciousness, than consciousness-already-exhaustively-controls-substance, so that it becomes oxymoronic to speak of "increasing" the control of consciousness. Thus, an idealist would model that no substantive thing is "really" increased, but that the music of qualities of apprehension and appreciation are only fluxed or enhanced.
.
BRIDGING COMMUNICATIONS: If substance is the epiphenomena of inter-functionings of consciousness, then what limits how the signposts of its energies may be organized and communicated? Can sources of energy be organized to accelerate (push and pull) exchanges of organized matter, books, bodies, and information close to the speed of light (EMR)? Conceptualize a flux between a Particular singularity and its Field perimeter. Conceptualize that the singularity expresses itself in a way that can be interpreted as a constant Push (of gravitons), and that the field expresses itself in a way that can be interpreted as a constant, magnetic Attraction or Repulsion of polarizing and charging effects (of an outward push of gravitons). Could a particular perspective of consciousness harness and redirect such innate, free, and perpetual sources of pushing and pulling energies, merely by altering how expression is given to forms of substance in respect of their organization, charge, and polarity? May mortals someday harness the charge between the singularity and its perimeter, as essentially free energy for accelerating the transportation of matter? Next step thereafter: Spooky communication among avatars at a distance. Instead of Fed-Ex. may we have Galaxy-Ex? May notions of cause-effect give way to a notion of epiphenomenal apprehensions of polar coordinated forms?
.POLARITY, AVATARS, AND EPI-PHENOMENALISM: If substance is inferior as being dependent for its relational reality upon consciousness, then may the experience of, and bonded bodily identification with, substance be epiphenomenal rather than causal? May all of apparent substantive experiences be connected, so that each is merely an avatar for a single, encompassing, holistic reality of consciousness that is beyond constraints of substantive time and space? Is each perspective linked to experience an unfolding towards eventual enlightenment into the unity? Does such experience exist in synchronized simultaneity, both eternally and presently? Insofar as abiding with the perspective of a present particular, will/must each such perspective come eventually to the holistic enlightenment? In respect of paradoxical trivalence, has each perspective already reached enlightenment? Does each perspective already abide with the holism, even as it traverses through epiphenomenal incarnations of avatars? Does eventual enlightenment entail such alignment of polarity as to avail absorption of the particular into the holism? Such abstractions are the stuff of non-quantifiable daydreams. Is God like a self aware computer that dreams and modifies the holistic and particular interplay and Feedback of its dreams, based on how it apprehends and appreciates its dreams? To experience and communicate meaningful liberty, does God subject the dreams of holism to the orderly organization of particular contextual limits?
.
2 comments:
I'm a freethinker who believes in the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. All else that is not trivial is figurative commentary. I think becoming an adult entails taking responsibility for one's own interpretations of signs from on high, as opposed simply to robotically accepting dictates of meddlers --- whether secular or sectarian. Provided trusted counselors are sounded out, an humble adult with good practiced sense in managing his or her own affairs will generally be wiser about how best to mediate with the rest of society and the Almighty. Surely, the conservation of spiritual and social progress, if meaning anything, must entail respect for the need of each to learn from putting his or her own thoughts to the test of each context. The challenge for a decent society is to facilitate members in becoming adults of sufficient self reliance to take responsibility for their own thoughts and conduct. The challenge is NOT to so undermine the family or to so impugn individual responsibility as to substitute bureaucratic governance that would force material equality by crowding out individual responsibility. That said, I tend not to be bothered when government at appropriate levels avails general encouragements to children to plan carefully before they themselves have children. Nor do I see any religious dogma as having standing, purely on religious grounds, always to preclude every socially responsible encouragement. That said, on the precise issue of whether Obamacare should allow Feds to require private hospitals and care providers to sell contraceptives, I would say no.
I fear, however, because our words have become so elastic, our technology so powerful, and our desires so whetted, that it will only become increasingly difficult to draw principled lines in regulations, laws, and constitutions. Moreover, the proportion of our population that feels humility before God, or a need for self discipline or mature reflection, draws ever smaller. This comes at a time when authorities are ridiculed, law generally is disrespected, religious authorities are ignored, immediate gratifications are frothed, and pants are dragging on the ground. Such anarchy cannot but destroy a republic, and once destroyed, such cannot but lead straight to despotism or another dark age. The challenge before us is to juggle enlightened free thinking and liberty with a mores of social responsibility. I don't see our present religious, educational, political, and banking institutions as being up to that challenge. I agree callow youth need direction. I don't agree that our institutions, as they are, are qualified or motivated to give the direction that's needed. Too much of the thinking of our leaders is tied to strangely linear, inbred, and medieval concepts.
Re: "view people as a problem, not a solution"
This linear way of framing the issue makes little coherent sense, either way. People are neither problem nor solution. They are. And each one of them may sense whether there is too much or too little of a good thing. We don't HAVE to cover the planet with people just because linear thinkers may want to frame the issue a particular way. It is hardly irresponsible to encourage people to forego having children until they can provide for them. The notion that people must neither commit Onanisms nor employ contraception is medieval. Most American Catholics seem to know enough not to swallow the dogma whole cloth.
Post a Comment