.
ETERNAL PRESENT: From our particular perspectives, the present for quantifiables appears to proceed from an original singularity towards a vast multitude of individual, swallowing black holes. However, from holistic perspective, may the present also appear to proceed, conservationally, back and forth, across and through, a single source black hole, a kind of empty yet full, zero yet infinite, nothingness, which, however, presents to our particular perspectives as if some meta character or property associated with it were actively sponsoring an outbound multitude of small black holes? May the smaller black holes abide simply as derivatives (illusory projections) of the one source black hole?
.
From holistic perspective, may the original singularity be exploding, digitally, back and forth, in continuous consecutivitity? So long as our consciousness is interpreted from our perspectives as accelerating “outbound,” and so long as the source singularity is quantitatively constant and continuously consecutive, how could we say, from our digitally-limited light-cones of experience, whether or not it continues, or whether or not each swallowing by each small black hole is recycled through the source-singular black hole? May each collapse into each small black hole entail or signify a simultaneously polarized explosion from the source-singularity? Are the small black holes and the source singularity really different things, or are they just different projections or iterations of the same sponsoring entity or Identity? Are the small black holes projections of a cave, from within the cave?
.
What lies “beyond” the cave? Is IT some Ephemeral Essence that applies holistic consciousness, in order to signify measurable appearances, in order to experience and communicate particular perspectives of: music versus noise, art versus chaos, and purposefulness versus anomie? May each individual perspective of consciousness be intimately connected with (spiritually empathetic to?) such holism, therewith to all others? May each seemingly particular perspective be an iteration of a single reconciling Identity of Spiritual Consciousness?
.
May the reconciling holism abide, superior to mortal logic, both within and outside mortal appearances of space-time, constituting a holism that is simultaneously the encompassment or sum of its particular parts and perspectives, but also a qualitative character that abides in addition to such sum, or more than such sum?
.
What, in “reason,” should we believe or doubt regarding the quality of such holism’s relationship with us? Can it thoroughly experience each and every particular perspective, without experiencing being entirely confined to each such perspective? How can this make sense to our particularly limited logic, reason, intuition, or moral devotion? I can meta-rationalize, but I don’t know, even though I have little choice but to intuit, believe, and orient to some kind of worldview. As a mortal largely confined to either-or logic, I intuit that one either believes or one does not (which is its own form of belief). When I refer to beliefs, I mean to include subconscious habits of behavior, of which one may not have abstracted to the level of consciously signified belief. Thus, I intuit one may act consistent with subconscious belief in a morally-reconciling holism or principle, even as one denies such prejudice or belief.
.
We each adjudge as best we can what are the moral loyalties and commitments of others. Few trust loyalties of those adjudged to be free of all loyalties beyond their shrunken selves. This is because there dwell Progs, Clown Libertines, Egghead Reductionists, Narcissists, and Sociopaths (i.e., know-it-all, quantify-it-all Rinos, Dinos, NWO).
.
ETERNAL PRESENT: From our particular perspectives, the present for quantifiables appears to proceed from an original singularity towards a vast multitude of individual, swallowing black holes. However, from holistic perspective, may the present also appear to proceed, conservationally, back and forth, across and through, a single source black hole, a kind of empty yet full, zero yet infinite, nothingness, which, however, presents to our particular perspectives as if some meta character or property associated with it were actively sponsoring an outbound multitude of small black holes? May the smaller black holes abide simply as derivatives (illusory projections) of the one source black hole?
.
From holistic perspective, may the original singularity be exploding, digitally, back and forth, in continuous consecutivitity? So long as our consciousness is interpreted from our perspectives as accelerating “outbound,” and so long as the source singularity is quantitatively constant and continuously consecutive, how could we say, from our digitally-limited light-cones of experience, whether or not it continues, or whether or not each swallowing by each small black hole is recycled through the source-singular black hole? May each collapse into each small black hole entail or signify a simultaneously polarized explosion from the source-singularity? Are the small black holes and the source singularity really different things, or are they just different projections or iterations of the same sponsoring entity or Identity? Are the small black holes projections of a cave, from within the cave?
.
What lies “beyond” the cave? Is IT some Ephemeral Essence that applies holistic consciousness, in order to signify measurable appearances, in order to experience and communicate particular perspectives of: music versus noise, art versus chaos, and purposefulness versus anomie? May each individual perspective of consciousness be intimately connected with (spiritually empathetic to?) such holism, therewith to all others? May each seemingly particular perspective be an iteration of a single reconciling Identity of Spiritual Consciousness?
.
May the reconciling holism abide, superior to mortal logic, both within and outside mortal appearances of space-time, constituting a holism that is simultaneously the encompassment or sum of its particular parts and perspectives, but also a qualitative character that abides in addition to such sum, or more than such sum?
.
What, in “reason,” should we believe or doubt regarding the quality of such holism’s relationship with us? Can it thoroughly experience each and every particular perspective, without experiencing being entirely confined to each such perspective? How can this make sense to our particularly limited logic, reason, intuition, or moral devotion? I can meta-rationalize, but I don’t know, even though I have little choice but to intuit, believe, and orient to some kind of worldview. As a mortal largely confined to either-or logic, I intuit that one either believes or one does not (which is its own form of belief). When I refer to beliefs, I mean to include subconscious habits of behavior, of which one may not have abstracted to the level of consciously signified belief. Thus, I intuit one may act consistent with subconscious belief in a morally-reconciling holism or principle, even as one denies such prejudice or belief.
.
We each adjudge as best we can what are the moral loyalties and commitments of others. Few trust loyalties of those adjudged to be free of all loyalties beyond their shrunken selves. This is because there dwell Progs, Clown Libertines, Egghead Reductionists, Narcissists, and Sociopaths (i.e., know-it-all, quantify-it-all Rinos, Dinos, NWO).
.
1 comment:
From A.T. -- Re: "It appears that the more the American public finds out about the Tea Party, the more they dislike it."
I don't take the author to be saying the trend against the Tea Party is unbreakable, but it does seem to be the present trend. Qualify, however, regarding "finds out." If "finds out" means to be exposed and conditioned for decades to lies of Leftists, whose masters control large institutions of social persuasion, then the author is hardly saying anything controversial. However, if "finds out" means obtaining enligtenment that sees through Leftist lies, then, obviously, the more the American public finds out about Leftism, the less the public will like it. The asymmetrical struggle consists in this: Leftist masters relish lying to and deceiving the masses, while Conservators of human liberty want to enlighten the masses with truth. Problem is, the denser the population of the masses and the more their attention is diverted to cheap bribes and pleasures, the less interested they become in seeking enlightenment. Then, they accept the easy lies as truth, and will not have the patience or drive to follow those who seek enlightenment. The author is pointing out that we are not in a situation where we can simply turn on the lights and expect all to become well. Rather, reversing the trend to the antpile will require sustained insight and effort. He is correct about that. Moreover, it is not readily apparent that the requisite insight and effort are forthcoming.
Post a Comment