Existential Hunger Games

.

For what entertainment is each short incarnation of self awareness volunteered to hunger to compete to express itself? An answer: The inescapable appreciation of synchronizing feedback that fluxes and relates to a myriad potential in degrees of freedom availed in particular ephemeral foldings of directionally limiting cones and fields of space-time.

.

From A.T. --- Re: "Big Brother cannot control: the faith that God is even bigger and is watching over everything"
.

MECHANICS: Well, mechanically minded people tend to assume everything is reducible to the quantitative. To them, Intuition of an existent is something that must necessarily be provable, empirically. Or, if it cannot be tested empirically, then they pronounce it meaningless (as if music and poetry were necessarily meaningless, unless what makes them music or poetry could be mathematically delimited). In essence, these people assume there's no such an existent as a non-quantitative qualitative, and then claim to have proved it because (lol!) it cannot be quantified!

.

INTUITION: For mechanically minded people, Intuition of a kind that cannot be empirically tested is generally considered to be meaningless. However, if there does abide such an existent as a non-quantifiable qualitative, then would not the only way reasonably to hypothesize about and test it be with a kind of inutition that cannot be empirically tested, i.e., an intuition for the purely qualitative? Would not the only possible, reasonable "test" for intuiton of a pure qualitative consist in the test availed in life? Would not such intuition consider whether accepting it makes generally useful sense for the purpose of explicating, establishing, and preserving civilization that broadly facilitates human expressiveness? For human civilization, what other test could there be, concerning issues of moral qualitatives? Direct, internal, subjective experience of a here-and-now connection with a qualitative existent, by definition, could not be tested quantitatively, but only in qualitative experience, i.e., life. To assume a non-quantitative qualitative cannot meaningfully be tested except quantitatively is to confuse assumption with evidence and proof, as if one could prove an assumption merely by assuming it.

.

TEST: Suppose a mechanically minded atheist were to convince everyone to be "bright" enough to accept a purely mechanical, quantitative, non-qualitative view of life and beingness. In the name of what science or hubris should such a one presume therewith to inspire the establishment or sustenance of any desirable civilization?
.

HUMAN DIGNITY: In good will, what does the core of one's consciousness suggest, with regard to a qualitatively connecting Source of consciously empathetic appreciation? To each mind of good faith, how often will such intuition redound in much the same way? Why might that be? Alternatively, if one doesn't believe such, how should one expect with mere empiricism to inspire people to progress or evolve to produce or preserve decent civilization?

.

PYRAMIDS OF ABSTRACTIONS: Suppose one abstracted further, and told people they have only been selected by the unfolding of Nature to believe in something that "does not really exist," merely because such a Trick-Of-Belief-Based-On-Self-Deceit can enhance advantages for survival and reproduction? Well then, does that itself not beg a question: Isn't that trick of belief itself a qualitative, and isn't faith in its value for natural selection based more on a preferred qualitative mode of assuming, than on empirical, quantitative proof? Why suppose Nature, if nothing more than dumb quantitative chance, would seem to favor building ever more abstract levels of self deceit on top of levels of self deceit? How many species find evolutionary value in tricks of self deceit, if that's all they are? Why presume a purely quantitative Nature does (or should?) favor tricks of self deceit for purposes of natural selection --- unless there's some innate, qualitative, fundamentally conscious Aspect of feedback that so avails Nature? Yes, Nature avails a panopoly of competitive trickery, even to the point of favoring pyramids upon pyramids of self deceit. But how could Nature do so, if it is purely unconscious, dumb, and quantitative, and devoid of any non-quantifiable qualitative? Indeed, how could the originating Singularity have occurred, if devoid of a non-quantifiable, qualitative connector?

.

BOTTOM LINE: Intuition may lead one to alternate in faith that Nature is guided by a connecting, holistic consciousness, versus faith that Nature is guided by nothing more than an inexplicably directional, originating energy, which itself is connecting, yet dumb. Either path is based fundamentally in faith. However, given reasonable modifications, one seems more suitable to present context for availing a longer sustainable and more decent civilization.

.
REALITY V. MODEL OF REALITY:  If purely quantitative “reasoning” (apart from conscious, living intuition of the qualitative) should be our only and trumping guide, ask: What “reason” should explicate why there is or should be evolution for facilitating any conscious self, merely to deceive same self? For what purely quantitative reason should consciousness “just happen” initially to be set up to compete in giving expression to various forms in order to advantage self deceit within any species? To say such “just happens” is merely to assume the only or dominant explanation is competition among forms of purely unguided happenstance. Does a hindsight-rationalization that stuff “just happens” really prove anything? Can such an assumption account for all that can or should be accounted for among mortal perspectives of consciousness, for all proper purposes and all perspectives and contexts? Does trumping-reason necessitate that we should accept that inanimate and meaningless substance is the superior and only reality, and that our propensities to imagine otherwise with regard to qualitative existents (such as conscious will) are mere inferior delusions of self? Depending upon purpose, contextual frame, and point of view, cannot an equally viable philosophy or model of reality be just as well conceptualized (and with no practical impediment to science) by modeling conscious will as the superior trump and substance as the inferior delusion? Is that not at least equally suggested by intuition, math, life, and philosophy? Should not one orient one’s belief model, depending upon effectiveness to legitimate purpose at hand?  After all, no mere model or concept will ever exactly constitute the territory of reality it is intended to map.
.