ONTIC OPENING AND ELECTIVE AFFINITY

ONTIC OPENING AND ELECTIVE AFFINITY:

I would agree that every particular thing that is measurably expressed by the godhead (meta-source) is expressed in math-based terms. But I think that does not necessarily mean what seems to be commonly supposed. I would just as well conceptualize that the Reconciling Essence-Source is the common host for all that unfolds to neasurable sensation. All that is defined by vectored math. Regardless of whatever choices the Reconciler elects to express, they will be expressed in quanticized terms of vectored math. Discrete jumps and continuous changes among phase-shifting appearances of dimensions that are definable in maths.

The fact that whatever is measurable conforms to maths that enable its measure is no sound proof of lack of a Reconciler. The fact that whatever is chosen to be measured out will conform to measuring maths seems more like a truism than an insight.

If the math-based conserving-feedback of a controlling Reconciler were absent, there would be no basis for order to arise out of chaos or for consciousness ever to manifest out of potentiality.
The dance of feedback between holism and part-icipants is mathematically appreciable, not entirely pre-determined, not entirely random, and more than a mere mix of the pre-determined and the random. The dance abides in respect of an unfolding process of determining, but not pre-determined, (conscious) appreciation between and among the godhead and its perspectivistic part-icipants. More like a Jungian collective un-consciousness than a soul-dead collective non-consciousness. All that is materially measurable is merely the fleeting expression of an underlying immeasurable, i.e., the Essence-Source, Qualitative-Quantifier, Uncaused-Causer, Changing-Changer, Conserving-Reconciler.

I doubt there is any ultimate, building block, inanimate, particle-in-itself. I doubt there is any handle by which to completely close off every leap of faith in respect of an ontic opening.  IAE, for a purpose of moral conceptualization (not empirical investigation), it seems to make more sense to model as if a Trinitarian Godhead avails the unfolding expression of Consciousness-Substance-Information.  That is, as if there abides a meta-moral dignity in how we choose to pursue and elect to appreciate our affinities.  There abides mysterious dignity in asking: Why did God choose to like this cosmos? What determines/causes liking? Why should any human choose to like/appreciate anything?  What is the character/nature of a moral agent's exercise of  part-icipatory choice/election to like/appreciate?

************************

This is as good a place as any to begin an amusing musing about some new word usages I came across:  "Ontic opening" (leap of meta faith) and "elective affinity" (participating in how your choices are determined).  The words seem unusual, but the concepts are not.

As to ontic opening:  I don't see how anyone can avoid an orientation to a leap of meta faith of some kind. 

For example, Muslims believe everything is predetermined (and we see the extreme cruelty and craziness to which their kind of faith often leads).  Extreme determinist scientists may adhere to a similar idea.  But the reasonable ones recognize limits to the testing of their cause-effect (pin-ball) meme, as well as limits to the completeness (Godel) of their systems of logic.  Excepting some silliness from Sam Harris, they tend to recognize that general (as opposed to contingent) moral "oughts" are not derivable from empirical "is's."  For a meme or conceptualization from which to discuss moral derivation, the notion of quantum randomness leading to order arising out of chaos seems no better.

Whatever conceptual meme one may choose (whether consciously, inferentially, or unconsciously), one has no choice, if one chooses to try to function in respect of "reason,"  but to adopt some leap of ontologically based faith.

When one functions "scientifically" (concerning empirical measurables), one accepts a cause-effect meme that relies on concepts of randomness or determination, or some mix thereof.  However, when one functions "morally" (concerning choices, whether or not such choices are ultimately caused or elected because of controlling affinities), it becomes necessary to accord moral actors with a quality of dignity beyond that of a pin ball.  Then, it becomes helpful to conceptualize a moral connection among and between an ontological Creator-Connector and other conscious part-icipants within the creation.  That is how one may conceptually derive the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.

Regardless of what one may believe about the "ultimate or final" reality of substantive bodies or part-icles, the story that was exemplified in the life of Jesus made "flesh of the Word" of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  In that sense, at least, it is no disservice to discuss Jesus as the Son of God.


IAE, without some such leap of faith, society would lack a concept, parable, and language with which to communicate moral empathies.  An atheist may think to take issue with bible based literalisms, but an atheist who claims to "be as moral as any Christian" makes no sense unless he first implicates a belief in an ontological basis for some kind of morality.  That is, an "ontic opening."

*****



We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency. But no known or knowable math confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfectly free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.
In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.

*****

If God were omni-perfect without feedback from fluxing patterns and mortal perspectives, than God would not seem to have any need or interest in mortals. From mortal perspective, we are not equipped to imagine how any Being could be conscious at all, without interfunctioning with any flux of patterns to be conscious of. Why should I entertain an opinion about that which is not essential to a system of moral belief and of which I am without capacity to explain?

I think an opinion about a meta-Being or meta-state-of-affairs is needed ... to guide and facilitate communications concerning moral purposefulness. But I see no need to try to resolve in one's imagination whether such Being may be with or without fore-knowledge or power to change His own mind. Indeed, Muslims have bound up the idea of pre-determination to misled them into imagining God to be a fascist monster.

While mortal, no person is free to do whatever he wants merely by willing it. But every human being is conscious of participating in effecting choices. He makes his choices not in a void, but based on contextual affinities. He is not the entire cause of his own affinities. In this sense, no person has entire free will, but every person does have participatory will. Respect for the humanity of each person necessitates that he, as an adult, be accorded respect for his participatory will, i.e., his right and responsibility under God and within bounds of decency to make his own choices based on his own affinities.

We are caused (we have no other choice) to choose among correlates, each of which constitutes a possibility that obeys the scope and range of the maths that define us. Whatever path the godhead guides us to choose, that path will be bound to the math that defines its contingency. But no math known to any mortal confines the godhead, as it guides us, to any generally pre-set path. In how we interfunction with guidance from the Source, we follow such affinities as we elect. That is, we do not have perfect free will, but we do give expression to part-icipatory will.

In that respect, what we become and produce is much affected or fulfilled by what we believe. If we believe, behind the ontic opening, is the Author of the Great Commandment and Golden Rule, then we tend to make of our world a different prospect than if we believe all our acts and events are predetermined or random.

Without some such leap of faith, society would lack a concept, parable, and language with which to communicate moral empathies. An atheist may think to take issue with bible-based literalisms, but an atheist who claims to "be as moral as any Christian" makes no sense unless he first implicates a belief in an ontological basis for some kind of morality. That is, an "ontic opening."

It is a truism that whatever is measurable, to be measurable, will conform to (i.e., be conserved, synchronized, and reconciled to) measuring maths. Experience tends to confirm that similar results correlate with similar patterns. As we become more proficient in predicting how patterns of correlations unfold, we incline to interpret correlates as causes. We may call each pin ball the cause of each following effect, while ignoring the originating set up for each system of pin ball collisions. Or, we may imagine that some meta and immeasurable pin ball underlies everything, as the originator of all subsequent interactions.

Depending on our purposes, we may imagine the originator as dumb and inanimate, mathematically pre-bound, entirely pre-determined, bizarrely random, or electively appreciative of unfolding affinitiies. We may conceptualize that some level of holistic or meta consciousness abides as an innate attribute, or that consciousness is a quality that emerges only in respect of unfolding patterns of underlying and complex interactions of inanimate part-icles that are bound to math-based properties.

Regardless of preferred conceptualization, the implication of an Essence-Source, Uncaused-Causer, Changeless-Changer, Conserving-Reconciler, is, in itself, immeasurable. Since it is immeasurable, whatever the meta-properties one may conceptually attribute to it, such will entail a leap of faith, like a spark of imagination. For empirical investigations, one's imagination tends to be sparked with a cause-effect meme of analysis. For moral recommendations, one's faith tends to correlate with and leap to teleological purposes.

When one functions "scientifically" (concerning empirical measurables), one accepts a cause-effect meme that relies on concepts of randomness or determination, or some mix thereof. However, when one functions "morally" (concerning choices, whether or not such choices are ultimately caused or elected because of controlling affinities), it becomes necessary to accord moral actors with a quality of dignity beyond that of a pin ball. Then, it becomes helpful to conceptualize a moral connection among and between an ontological Creator-Connector-Connection and other conscious part-icipants within the creation. That is how one may conceptually derive, imagine, or communicate concerning the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.