Is that which manifests out of chaos determined by purely quantitative equations for mixes of nature, or by a mathematically-conserved reconciliation among qualitative perspectives of character? To me, the notion of chaos implicates an aspect of predictability, yet also of appreciative anticipation.
.
I suspect “physical things of nature” can be concocted to be perceived “inside” a receding point, but only with participation (resonance) in apprehending a frame of reference in relation to which to “observe” such things.
.
I suspect “physical things of nature” can be concocted to be perceived “inside” a receding point, but only with participation (resonance) in apprehending a frame of reference in relation to which to “observe” such things.
.
Upon each such concoction, the point itself becomes no longer a point, but a spin-orbit-roll around its own centrally organizing point (or principle of mathematical algorithm), and so on.
.
In ultimate respect, to search for the smallest (or most fundamental) physical point is as vain as to search for the end of the rainbow, the bottommost turtle, or the smallest mathematical decimal.
.
Even so, in participatory respect, to boldly go, to seek to flesh out such searches, seems to yield astonishing vistas along the way, including possibilities for music, alternatively valued as good, bad, or indifferent, bounded only by imagination of mind for adopting conserving parameters of algorithm.
.
Thereby, each point-cone-field of shared experience may transition through imperceptible wormholes among varying universes, conserved in respect of their own expressions of shared and transition-phasing algorithms.
.
Ultimately, the organizing principle that is measurably shared throughout our universe seems to be geometrically mathematical. The only “point-particular substance” seems to be qualitatively experiential, yet immeasurable, Mind.
.
Math based geometry of space-time seems to be secondary to a need to allow consciousness to adopt varying perspectives.
.
Math based geometry of space-time seems to be secondary to a need to allow consciousness to adopt varying perspectives.
.
The basis for moral interaction among particularly expressed perspectives of Mind seems to abide with a qualitatively shared, intuitive injunction: Be empathetic (i.e., communicate that which facilitates and feeds back meaningful freedom and dignity between and among your fellows).
.
This meta-freedom is not a concern of a "ghost in the body," but of a ghost inside the ultimate particle --- for, there is no "thing" there.
,
It's true that the avatar with which your point of view is associated did not itself decide to be born. However, some accumulating reconciler of qualitaitve experience and quantitative significations did so decide. The avatar from which your point of view takes its foci is as artificial or arbitrary as any part or point upon which it happens to focus. That Mind that guides and reconciles the measurable significations that constitute your environment also guides and reconciles the expression of will that participates through the avatar of your body. The process of imbuing avatars to express such apprehension is a process for civilizing an empathetic and self-fulfilling society of participating perspectives of free will.
.
4 comments:
Nurturing a way to meaningful companionship necessitates discipline to limit oneself to respect perspectives of others, so that no particular perspective is availed absolute power. Rather, all must obey rules that conserve the system whereby significative communication is made possible. In effect, the Holism trades lonesome despotism for reconciling power over feedback, competing among myriad perspectives of companionable voices.
Libertarians say they want personal liberty (though they tend not to believe in any notion of free will). Their desire seems to be to behave in response to the call of chaos, as it most immediately unfolds around them. Central planners and their sheep seem to prefer that behavior should respond to the call of elite controllers. In effect, one promotes anarchy, the other total command and control. Would it not be better to instill principles of ordered liberty, i.e., respect for a system of shared principles that guide, but do not force, every act in fine detail? Why do Libertarians and Socialists so often seem to think that a moderated course guided by principles, i.e., a habit of choosing neither anarchy nor totalitarianism, but a path between them, is a bad path?
Maybe it's the Indian in me. I think something in the cosmos listens and responds. People who seem to be talking to themselves are act-ually in converse and feedback with something more. The stuff we measure is just the significative trail of that process. The important stuff is in the qualitative feedback. Even though Chief Whistling Eagle in words denies that, he constantly, by his act-ions, puts "thoughts out there." Go figure.
I look upon the beautiful word, chaos, as that out of which we evolve. Perhaps our only objective facts are based in mathematics, derivative of chaos --- or some common aspect of our subjective selves that is not itself amenable of being completely ruled by any particular perspective. Nightmares seem to arise as some try, at all costs, to impose rule. Creative destruction I can relate to, but I don't view anarchy as much of a fulfilling ideal or tactic for resisting despots. Rather, I think one needs to work with others to try to carve out and preserve such meaningful freedom within law as one is able.
Post a Comment