The Word

.

The Word: In the beginning was the Word (concept of Conceptualizer). And the Word became flesh (took on particular aspects of mortality within an immaterial whole). In a word, physical "things" are only of The Word. In that sense, The Word (the relational map) Is The Territory. However, what we take to be "Physical Territory" is only dependent territory, i.e., dependent upon sharing and feeding back with common and particular perspectives of Consciousness.

.

Physical relations do not, in themselves (apart from relations), physically exist. They relate to no "thing" except other relations. Yet, no other relation with which they relate exists as a physical thing-in-itself. To what "thing," then, do relations relate? Answer: Not to a physical thing, but to an immaterial, non-quantitative, QUALITITIVE THING, i.e., Consciousness (a quantitatively inexplicable, one-of-a-kind, meta "thing," which our experience or intuition from life suggests to have capacity to apprehend and appreciate experiences of relationships among and between "particular relations," more encompassing relations, and the unifying Source of all relations, i.e., the Holism In Itself).

.

Word communicates transmittable relationships. Apart from quantifiable measurability in relationships, there is no physical thing whose existentiality abides as a thing in itself. Every "physical thing" is merely a placeholding signifier of measurable expressions and relationships among forms, spinning within forms, being fluxed and expressed among perspectives of Consciousness.  That is, every physical thing is but a conceptualization (a word) being communicated from and within the Mind of God.

.
**************
.

David Garner: "It is interesting that we are aware of an objective reality, but there is no way to understand it objectively."

.

INDEED! Must there not abide an objective reality which, in itself, is beyond measure, i.e., an Ephemeral Essence? Must it not retain a one-of-a-kind capacity, which a mere particular form or perspective could neither have nor bend to mortal logic? After all, a perspective, while binding its subjective consciousness to a limiting form or particular body, would have no objective basis for comparing the subjective quality of its experience to the subjective quality of any other perspective's experience. (Would this be a hybrid aspect of the measurement problem and the uncertainty principle?) Well then, if a particular perspective cannot adjudge objective comparisons with other particular perspectives, might a holistically encompassing perspective (an Ephemeral Essence?) retain such capacity? I think yes.

. 

CONSIDER CONSCIOUSNESS. In common sense, is not the mark of consciousness the capacity to apprehend what otherwise would abide as mathematical iterations of neutrals, in order then to communicate and charge choices and condemnations, likes and dislikes, appreciations and apprehensions, attractions and repulsions? If the Ephemeral Essence is the ongoing Source of flux that directs and guides the unfolding of our conscious communications, must it not, in an intuitive way of thinking, itself be COMMUNICATIVE (and thus conscious)? In common parlance, may it reasonably be conceptualized that the Ephemeral Essence exhibits a qualitative property of consciousness that is superior to measurable physics?

.

PROMETHEUS UNBOUND OR FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Unbound_(Shelley)): I cannot objectively understand myself so long as my subjectively conscious identity remains bound to my particular body. Once unbound from my body, I would be absorbed into the one Field. Returned to the Field, might "I," from that perspective, objectively understand the parts? However, even from that perspective, I doubt I could objectively understand myself, as the Field-In-Itself. Of the nature or character of the Field, whether from particular or holistic perspective, it seems I may not infer more than: I am that I am.

.

RELATIONAL CONSTANTS: Meanwhile, the relationships we mortals measure in respect of "relative constants" seem to be byproducts of fluxing expressions of a qualitatively immeasurable, yet reconciling, ephemeral essence (cosmological constant?). In communicating such fluxing expressions of itself, such Ephemeral Essence, in respect of common-sense notions of consciousness, would be expressing an innate capacity of consciousness, superior to objective, quantifiable, measurably relational aspects of "physical reality." A common sense way to relate to such a conception is to consider the Ephemeral Essence itself as being (or being inextricably linked to) consciousness --- i.e., consciousness of a quality that is superior to the byproducts it expresses, not merely derivative of physical significations to which it, by its fluxes of apprehensions and appreciations, gives and guides expression.

.

HOLOGRAPHIC ITERATIONS: Consider a potentially simple yet elegant explanation for complexity: May each holistically synchronized flux and choice abide as only one choice, holographically iterated among a potential infinity of translatable expressions of the same choice?

.

OBJECTIVELY, WHAT IS "OUT THERE?" Well, I doubt there is any "physically measurable thing in itself" that is out there. What is out there are measurable relations. So how is it that one is able to relate to a subjective perspective from which to measure and relate to other relations? Whatever is the Source-Iteration is immeasurably, qualitatively ephemeral. But HOW is it able to avail us with relational experiences? If I cannot know the meta-howness of it, can I at least adduce from whence the physical trail of it arose and to whence it may lead? Can I adduce how it is that our capacity for leveraging technological skills seems to be guided yet unbounded? Physicists conceptualize about light cones. I wonder whether such light cones may be byproducts of unfolding feedback among holistic and particular perspectives? May that help conceptualize how it is that our technological capacities seem to be defined yet unbounded? The more we tinker with our capacities to relate to this and that relation, the further our opporunities unfold before us.

.

THE OLD ONE: Einstein wanted to believe "The Old One" was an objectivist, not a trickster. Well, I think the Old One is a trickster --- but not an innately evil one. Just one pursuing meaningfulness via a feedback relationship with particularizing perspectives of itself. Part of the pursuit of meaningfulness seems to abide in finding ways to lose ourselves, to divert our attention to search for what is or may be out there (or guided to appear to be out there). This seems to be descriptive of what the Obama Regime is doing, but in a way that's selfish to particular perspectives. The Regime has acquired near monopolistic control over institutions of media, banking, and governance. Thus, it has amassed overpowering ability to deploy every kind of visual, audio, and glandular stimulus against those it means to rule. It can blot away mass memory of broken promises, simply by treating us like dogs, constantly giving us new frisbees to chase. The Old One may not be engaged in trickstering meant to be evil, but particular perspectives often are.

.