Social Mind Yoga

When one says, "The universe does not care," one is excluding consciousness from the universe! Why would any sane person do that?

The obvious truth is, conscious observers are an innate part of the universe as we experience it. So it is baffling why anyone would want to exclude immeasurable aspects of consciousness from the universe just to pretend that the universe is factored with no immeasurable or consciousness that cares.

I agree that the measurable aspect of the universe does not care. That is hardly a grand insight. Where I disagree is with your failure to apprehend that the immeasurable aspect of consciousness is part of the universe.

You yourself premise that "truth and reality" are "based on the human mind's ability to observe it in accordance with what is known." I put aside the problem with defining what can be "known." But even apart from that, your scheme begins by subordinating truth and reality with an ability to OBSERVE it. Think about that.

I do not quarrel that facts exist. Nor that A is A. Nor that a truism is a truism. Nor that the Godhead is the Godhead. Nor that a thing in itself is a thing in itself. What I say is that you cannot go simply from there, without taking some kind of leap of faith. You cannot derive a syllogism from a tautology without importing something more than a tautology.

You cannot relate to a thing in itself without making of it something more than a thing in itself. At some level, you have to recognize, whether consciously, subconsciously, or inferentially, that a "relational-essence" abides. A "changeless-changer." A Source-Definer: That defines us, but that we do not define.

So, how do we relate to it? Not directly, for if we could approach it directly it would not be a thing in itself. So, indirectly, in aspects. How? Well, in measurables, we relate by tinkering and discovering practical applications that seem reliably to work within parameters -- before they fuzz, static, or phase out. In moral purposes, we relate by innate and nurtured empathies and intuitions.

While no mortal is availed of direct experience of the Source as Source, one may be availed of direct experience of one's own perspective of consciousness. So, a conscious mortal may notice that: (1) he is conscious of hiimself; (2) his experience of Consciousness seems to be bonded with a measurable body/brain/context (Substance); and (3) he experiences movement across space-time (cumulation of experience and Information).

He notices that everything he can communicate about takes on aspects of Consciousness, Substance, and/or Information. He notices that CSI is CSI. That is THE FACT about which (and with which) he can tinker, communicate, build technologies, and pursue moral purposes. Much more so than a mainly useless dead end that "A is A." Conscious beingness is much more than simply an emergent from a dead tautology.

What could emerge if the only fact were A is A? Maybe a dead zombie universe, that would be no more meaningful or relevant than no-thing at all. If such could even be imagined. Which, lol, it cannot! The very imagining of it would be to import consciousness concerning it, making of it little more than a dream within a dream.

Perhaps you just want to be the "scientist" who slays the idea of a Godhead, in order to reign in elitist rule under our betters? "For our own good?" Others should know that your cute belittlement is filled with shallow hubris. Your "rebuttal" is non. It offers little more than the hubris of a "greedy materialist."

Were our shared material universe to flicker out, what would meaningfully remain of your "material facts?" Would not such material facts necessarily be elsewhere-elsewise phased and factored? What "laws" of physics are eternal "facts," independent of participation with Observers?

EDIT:

THOUGHT CONTROLS: Before long, cars and planes will be paired and calibrated to run consistent with directions as thought by their drivers. I know what you would say: Electrodes will be connected, with wires or wirelessly, between the brain and the device to allow the brain, by concentrating thought synapses, to run and direct the device.

However, this begs regressive questions: What runs the brain? Well, a reconciliation of the context in which the brain functions. But that also begs questions: How is it that the brain seems to make decisions and choices a split instant before the person becomes consciously aware the choice has been made? Evidently, some reconciling aspect of the context of the brain, its environment, and its connections effects a decision before feedback is given to the organism to allow it internally to process self awareness of the decision. Intuitively, this process of connectedness and reconciliation is necessarily something more than otherwise independent billiard balls randomly careening off one another.

PSIONICS: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psionics

Scientific empiricism, by definition, deals with replicable controls. To use the scientific method to test for the existentiality of psionics is, by definition, to require rationalizations that psionic phenomena do not exist.

Similarly, if every measurable thing the Godhead expresses is subject to a web of math, then no measurable can become manifest unless it is, at least to some extent, however incomplete, explicable or rationalizable in math. Thus, to try to use the scientific method "to prove" or test for the existentiality of a Godhead that reconciles all measurables within math limits is an exercise in futility and simple minded stupidity.

In the end, one takes leaps of faith. For material tinkering, one leaps in faith of finding reliable controls. For moral inspiration, one leaps in faith of finding moral purposefulness.

How may Psi exist? May any human beings have some superior statistical capacity to sit in a room with a random number generator and predict, before the generator is started, characteristics of the random numbers the machine will generate?

Two thoughts: First, tests may suggest something uncanny going on. Second, regardless, our need for predictive and explanatory models will lead most of us to rationalize such phenomena as somehow being within statistical norms for some context or universe. Numerous "explanations" are possible: That the random number generation is not really random. That the tests are not perfectly "clean." Etc.

As to the "ultimate reality" of Psi (or effectualness of prayers), who can say? Does randomness exist, or is everything pre-determined, right down to the tiniest possible nit and bit? I suspect the "answer" depends on one's point of view, context, and purpose.

Does even God always know what He will do next? For myself, the Conscious aspect of the Trinitarian Godhead may not always know, because of unexpected input from interfunctionings of Substance and Information. IAE, I doubt we can "know" whether "ultimate reality" is controlled by (1) reconciliations among somewhat random expressions of consciousness or by (2) some higher and predetermining math that is beyond our mortal level of complete comprehension.

Regardless, if I know anything, it is that forums for inspiring moral purposefulness are important to assimilations of civilizing societies -- knowitall wannabe elitist rulers to the contrary notwithstanding.

Bottom line: You do not "prove" that Consciousness emerges only as a ride-along epiphenomenal byproduct with no causal influence merely by assuming it. Nor do you prove such merely by assuming its causal influence would be measurable if it existed. This is because the causal feedback-influence of consciousness is thought to abide in how choices are effected from allowable possibilities. And the cosmic math is such that, no matter the choice, it will reconcile to the math. The consequence is that consciousness is easily conceptualized as causal, but its causal effect is intuitive or empathetic -- not measurable or provable. Precisely what one may expect from the character of consciousness for being fundamentally intuitive and empathetic. Who but a "greedy materialist" would suppose that consciousness should be measurable, like a massy particle?

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

FUZZ DOORS AND FRAME DRAGGING: If facts and truths can be "drug" by reconciliations among perspectives of consciousness, perhaps similar with how frames can be drug by gravity, then old interpretations could be subjected to new interpretations under new contexts and lights. Old Information would be subject to new interpretation, which would tend to fuzz and phase shift the old cumulations of Information and thus alter how they would interfunction with newly unfolding Substance.

If a CSI context could thus be frame shifted, it would seem that Information, while it may not be lost, may be "forgotten" within a common frame by being reformed under new interpretations and phase shifts. Can the Godhead "forget" in various temporal contexts? Perhaps, Yes. May parts of a universe phase shift to become unlke and separate from former parts? May separate parts (branes?) separate and later re-collide -- provided each part phase shifts to make such possible? Maybe, Yes.

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

Measurable facts are out there for us to share only because we happen to share a universe with which our bodies happen in common to be defined. Facts are NOT out there as independent things in themselves. Even so, we don't get to make up facts apart from others because we all share in how external facts come to be reconciled to measurable manifestation.

Nor do I think we are mere byproduct ride-alongs derivatively emerging from any such facts. Rather, we, in our conscious aspects, are participants with the unfolding, developing, and "dragging" of facts. In some respects, we participate in becoming what we choose to apprehend and appreciate. We don't determine facts, but we do participate in their unfolding creation.


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

There is the Manifest Reality of the measurable here and now, and there is the Potential Reality of the immeasurable infinite. Who can say what are the "facts" about the nature and character of reality, both manifest and potential?

No mortal can test out an answer to such a question. For a concept by which to communicate concerning such a question, one needs to abstract up, to conduct experiments in the mind. Thereby, one endeavors to subsume sub-concepts under a model that is as consistent, coherent, and complete as one can construct, by a process of feedback in induction and deduction. To the extent the model is empirically testable, one tries to falsify it. To the extent the model is beyond empirics, one tries to make it morally useful without being internally inconsistent.

I don't think a mere empirical model can suffice for needed moral guidance. So how does one arrive at "facts" for how to guide a moral model? I think that's the creative calling of feedback-consciousness. Moreover, I suspect the creative aspect of consciousness is inextricably entwined with the unfolding of Reality. I think the Godhead drags Reality along. And our participatory conscious Wills are involved. What I don't grok is whether our participation in the dragging of Reality is chosen by us or chosen through us. Regardless, I think a feedback effect is involved. An observer effect (apprehension-appreciation loop) is inextricably bound up with the problem of how to measure out Reality.

See http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2012/09/the-measurement-problem-observer-effect.html:

"The peculiar discovery known as “The Quantum Measurement Problem” ultimately shows the inseparability of the observer from the observed. All quantum experiments have confirmed that there is no measurable, solid reality “out there” independent of the measurer."

“It’s important to remember that the equations of quantum physics don’t describe the actual existence of particles. In other words, the laws can’t tell us where the particles are and how they act once they get there. They describe only the potential for the particles’ existence – that is, where they may be, how they might behave, and what their properties could be like. And all of these characteristics evolve and change over time. These things are significant because we’re made of the same particles that the rules are describing. If we can gain insight into the way they function, then maybe we can become aware of greater possibilities for how we work. Herein lies the key to understanding what quantum physics is really saying to us about our power in the universe. Our world, our lives, and our bodies exist as they do because they were chosen (imagined) from the world of quantum possibilities … Which of the many possibilities becomes real appears to be determined by consciousness and the act of observation. In other words, the object of our attention becomes the reality of our world.” -Gregg Braden, “The Divine Matrix” (70-71)"

"... it would seem that consciousness is much more fundamental and primary than classical physics espouses. If consciousness is what changes waves of possibility into particles of experience, then how could consciousness be some [mere] emergent property of the material universe? The “material universe” doesn’t even exist yet without immaterial consciousness existing to have that experience!"

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

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To see that this tree
Still continues to be
When there's no-one about in the quad".

Dear Sir, Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad;
And that's why the tree
Still continues to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.

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

What our empirical tinkering discovers is effects that are manageable within statistically reliable parameters, at the edges of which is flux and fuzz and beyond which are often phase shifts. Within a shared zone that happens to be comfortable to our observations, we discover "laws" that happen to define our communications and avail our pursuits.

Apart from direct experience of conscious self, we don't discover ultimate, final, or eternal empirical truths. Each truth among those laws that we discover is like a two-way defining truism:  Each such truth happens to be true for defining us because we happen to abide for observing it, whether directly or indirectly.

To what extent are such and we "true" only because of a defining feedback-Source?. To what extent may our technological truths evolve as we move in space-time to pursue and participate in unfolding the "empirical truths" of our shared comfort zone? To what extent may we, by dragging our shared comfort zone, participate in truth-drag? I doubt what we call "laws" exist by themselves, beyond feedback-definition in respect of shared and unfolding happenstances of forms of observing perspectives of Consciousness.

There abides a trinitarian flux of (1) immeasurable feedback-Consciousness, (2) incompletely measurable Substance, and (3) refreshing and cumulating Information. CSI.

I doubt any one aspect among such trinity would or could abide free of a flux of interfunctioning with the other two. I suspect all our empirical tinkering and laws are inferior to, or derivative with, that flux. I doubt Substance and Information can, in combination, abide in any "natural-law-abiding" relationship as the superior reality upon which Consciousness rides as only a byproduct.

I suspect a participatory-creative Observer-Effect (at levels and layers everywhere no matter how faint or subconscious) is inextricably interwoven as an essential aspect of the trinity that permeates all possible existentiality. But for such participatory effect, I doubt much worthwhile sense could be made or expressed that would delineate the present Manifest from the existential Potentiality.

The "point" of empirical based scientism cannot be entirely free from an innate need to entertain the unfolding participation of Consciousness. I much doubt that we can discover or prove a "theory of everything" that can suffice to put Consciousness aside as a non-participatory byproduct.





Science can help guide us as we tinker with unfolding measurables. It cannot, by itself, in "pure reason," tell us what sciences and technologies we should pursue. The technological breakthroughs that await us will in considerable extent depend on the preceding pursuits to which we chose to devote ourselves. It is only with the unfolding participation of perspectives of Consciousness that potentialities fuzz in or out of our ranges of manifest possibilities. Those potentialities do not exist by themselves as immutable scientific laws.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind." -- Einstein

I think: Without respect for spiritual feedback, science is lame. Without empirical science, spirituality is blind.

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

See http://news.softpedia.com/news/Science-Without-Religion-is-Lame-Religion-Without-Science-is-Blind-85550.shtml:

"Like other great scientists he [Einstein] does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.

Einstein was often associated with atheism because of his views on conventional religion, but he never liked being called an atheist.

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

The reason tenets of spirituality preexist organized religion is because God preexists every new religion. Fundamental tenets of spirituality have always existed, waiting only to be "found" via mediums of parables, metaphors, and figures of speech. Organized religion, properly done, can help with that process and with the participatory process of helping to guide the development of subordinate values.

That does not diminish religion. Neither is it reason for banishing fundamental tenets from the public square merely because followers consider them to be based not just in higher mindedness, but in respect of a feedback dance with the spiritual Reconciler. Should 2+2=4 be banished from the public square merely because some mathematicians consider the Godhead to be the founding mathematician? Should that diminish math?

However, there can be pluses and minuses with organized religion, just as there can be wih government. Ideally, organized religion provides forums for people to meet, voluntarily assimilate, and inspire values that will promote their flourishing meaningfulness.

Among those arriving to adulthood, the key is voluntary. Jesus invited followers; He did not rope them. The more a people can assimilate through voluntary forums that avail the development and expression of their higher felt values, the less need they will feel for the intrusive force of diktat from central gov knowitall fascists. In that way, religion can promote higher sensations of worthiness with less enserfment to crony fascists.

However, cronies and priests can be cunning. They can be as agile in twisting religion to enserf people as they are in twisting gov. They can promote themselves as special mouthpieces for God and connive to turn parables and figures of speech into literalisms for warping inferior congregants to the spread of servitude. They can blend religion so it becomes established as gov (cultism), and they can blend gov so it becomes established as religion (communism). Either way, the result tends to abomination against the unfolding of human freedom and dignity.

Members of a spiritually healthy society would tend to:  recognize religious parables as being figures of speech for promoting higher values; inculcate respect for the individual freedom and dignity of each person; hamstring temptations among oligarchs and cultists to advance intrusive central diktat; promote traditional families over gov regulators; expunge incorrigible persons and cults that seek to convert free thinkers into mind slaves; ridicule "social and moral scientists and economists" that theorize for the entire displacement of qualitative values with quantitative calculations of pure reason; otherwise decline to expel advocacy for spiritual good faith and good will from the public square.

If you want to see high water marks for fascist inhumanity, just let a central gov banish all opposing religions, or let an established religion banish all opposing gov. Otoh, if you want to avail respect for human freedom and dignity, then do not let cronies, oligarchs, despots, and fascists deploy their shills, "consensus scientists," "studies profs" and toady pols in order to destroy the faith-based character of American society. And do not let faithless Obamanites keep open the gates at our borders to flood us with their depraved handmaidens.

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

Progs believe in the value of using their time to convince us that all numbers are equal and that all boys are girls and all girls are boys.

Similarly, atheists believe in the value of using their time to convince others to believe there is no God. Atheists prefer to believe there is "No God." They believe in this situational basis for worthwhile expression and argumentation that is "Not God."

But why should this "immeasurable thing" they want to call "Not God" that abides as the situational basis for their moral philosophizing care whether it is called "God" or "Not God"? So long as a mortal engages in higher minded pursuit of values consciously thought or deemed worthwhile, why should this "immeasurable thing" care about the label by which they wish to argue in reference to it?

Now, if they want to pretend it is a measurable, like a giant spaghetti monster," then they're just little girls playing dress up in the girls' restroom.

It's an immeasurable existent that abides in relation to one's direct intuition and empathy. It abides to our qualitative appeciation. It does not dance purely to our quantitative controls. We do not confine consciousness to the perimeter of a test tube, skin sack, or brain skull. Rather, consciousness finds expression only with a wider context of Substance and Information. Atheists need to stop being little girls about it!

The concern is, does it have an identity for itself? Well, apart from "I am that I am," maybe not. Does it care about us? Well, can it not care about us? How could any mortal exist if it had not availed its evolution and binding within space-time to a contextual identity and perspective? How could Substance or Information exist anywhere, without the participatory influence of "observer effects" experienced by perspectives of Consciousness?

What is the power or potential of Consciousness? Well, by what we see in our own participation with creativity, it appears to be well nigh infinite in capacity and potential for birthing astonishing layers and levels of "artificial" intelligence. IAE, Consciousness Is. It is that it is.

From our limited and mortal perspectives, we experience it as a feedback dance of reconciliation over intervals of present apprehensions and appreciations. It does not cease to exist merely because a particular mortal perspective phases out. All that ceases is a particular perspective and context for a particular wrinkle in space-time -- the Information about which remains subject to potential future use or recall. Does the past cease to exist in every potentiality of manifestation merely because of the direction of time? Did the past not exist merely because an atheist prefers so to believe?

Bottom line: Nearly everything progs, atheists, pagans, and libertines argue is for toddler reasons: Because toddler do not want interference with their wannas. Instead, they want to diktat to everyone else. That is their own "special leap of faith." They are like Obama and Hillary in that way. And a long line of narcissists, sociopaths, and pervs throughout history.

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

Atheists believe in the value of using their time to convince others to believe there is no God.  They prefer to believe there is "No God."  They believe in this "situational basis for worthwhile expression and argumentation that is Not God."  But why should this "immeasurable thing" they want to call "Not God" that abides as the situational basis for their moral philosophizing care whether it is called "God" or "Not God"?  So long as a mortal engages in higher minded pursuit of values consciously thought or deemed worthwhile, why should this "immeasurable thing" care about the label by which they wish to argue in reference to it?

Now, if they want to pretend it is a measurable, like a giant spaghetti monster," then they're just little girls playing dress up.  It's an immeasurable existent that abides in relation to one's direct intuition and empathy.  It abides to our qualitative appeciation.  It does not dance purely to our quantitative controls.  We do not confine consciousness to the perimeter of a test tube, skin sack, or brain skull.  Rather, consciousness finds expression only with a wider context of Substance and Information.  Stop being a little girl about it!

The concern is, does it have an identity for itself?  Well, apart from "I am that I am," maybe not.  Does it care about us?  Well, can it not care about us?  How could any mortal exist if it had not availed its evolution and binding within space-time to a contextual identity and perspective?  How could Substance or Information exist anywhere, without the participatory influence of "observer effects" experienced by perspectives of Consciousness?

What is the power or potential of Consciousness?  Well, by what we see in our own participation with creativity, it appears to be well nigh infinite in capacity and potential for birthing astonishing layers and levels of "artificial" intelligence.  IAE, Consciousness Is.  It is that it is.  From our limited and mortal perspectives, we experience it as a feedback dance of reconciliation over intervals of present apprehensions and appreciations.  It does not cease to exist merely because a particular mortal perspective phases out.  All that ceases is a particular perspective and context for a particular wrinkle in space-time -- the Information about which remains subject to potential future use or recall.  Does the past cease to exist in every potentiality of manifestation merely because of the direction of time?

**********

Both in manifestation via present and direct expression and in potentiality via reasoned inference, Consciousness exists and persists, of a common and shared character that is empathetic, intuitive, purposeful, competitive, and cooperative. It is what avails the ingredients for what we often term to be morals, mores, values, and meaningfulness. Without Consciousness, those terms would be without meaning.

Consciousness is what avails links for connecting empathies among the various of its separate and reconciling perspectives. Depending on context and point of view, some level or layer of Consciousness abides as an interpenetrating potentiality with all of Substance and Information. Consciousness is what avails character to the trinitarian godhead of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. No aspect of such trinity would be expressed but for the interfunctioning flux of the other two.

The existence of Consciousness is not empirically measurable, yet the qualitative experience of it is not reasonably deniable. For a philosophy of morality based on concepts of Consciousness, one cannot confirm or inspire it by looking solely to quantitative based empiricism. One must look also to qualitative based reason that is grounded less in empiricism than in internal appreciation of concepts that are in logic based on consistency, coherence, and completeness. We DO reason about morality, but we don't ultimately or empirically prove or measure it. Yet, most of us intuitively and empathetically experience it.

Indeed, even the confused "atheist" who expends his time and resources to try to inspire a "better" basis or forum for moral communication than one that is backed by an idea of God is, in the necessary and symbolic effect of such guided effort, thereby avowing the existentiality of a ground (Source) of morality. Certainly, the atheist cannot empirically prove an origin for our cosmos, nor prove by mere quantitatives what members of any society "ought" to be doing. With mere empiricism, he can no more prove that they should seek to survive or improve their lives than he can prove that they ought not to seek their own immediate suicide or even the forced deaths of others. In short, he is impotent to inspire any society to forego immediate gratifications or to suffer to produce any future goods for himself or his progeny. He cannot well inspire, birth, or support any decent civilization.

Rather, the militant atheist's animosity to all faith-based expressions and metaphors for spirituality often leads him to seek to destroy all organized avenues for the inculcation, appreciation, and spread of Christian based mores. Because he is without means for inspiring people to forego immediate gratifications when needed to preserve longer term values, he tends not to be a reliable defender of his society or nation. In short, his twisted philosophy tends to render him unable to establish or sustain decent faith, family, or fidelity. Rather, his way weakens his society and softens it for the exploitation of organized gangs of predators, parasites, barbarians, savages, pleasure mongers, entitlement mongers, and pagans. His "philosophy" does not support Eden, and certainly cannot support or sustain America. Indeed, his kind are in great part the cause of the decline and fall of the American Republic.

Obama is a prime example of the "mores" of a wannabe knowitall atheist. Obama takes it on himself to pervert the Constitution and central authority to impose destruction and replacement of all the modesty-based values that have been inspired, inculcated, and handed down by years of Christian based influence. Obama would replace that overnight by force of Gov. He would use central Gov and its aresenals of money, media, monitoring, and military to erase all borders and boundaries that define our nation, identities, persons, sexuality, individuality, freedom, and dignity. He would reduce us to being the regimented toys of elitist knowitalls, bent on regulating every aspect of our lives. Obama would expel God to create and rule his "New Eden." In his New Eden, we would all be androgenous drones, harnessed together to obey NWO diktat. Such are among the proclivities of Obamanites that "atheists" tend to support -- whether knowingly or not.

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

Social mind yoga: Reflective feedback concerning spiritual, higher mindedness is how the mind teaches itself to self organize primitive brain impulses, so desires for immediate gratifications can be modulated under a controlling, central processing unit. That's how higher spiritual and cultural values are nurtured and imprinted on synapses, nerves, and muscles.

Good spirituality is what tends to imprint and assimilate values among members of a society, so they can express appropriate and mutual respect for one another's freedom and dignity as individuals. This calls for the question: What values are needed to sustain a decent representative republic? Faith, family, fidelity.

Spirituality is what prompts us to ask such questions. It is an innate, still, quiet voice. And it exists. But its denial is prelude to promotion of the basest gratifications of evil. PC is what gives cover to the denial of higher spirituality. It is what lets slip the dogs of primitivism. Wiccanism and Wahhabism are nothing if not throwbacks to the primitive. Tattoos, tongue rings, pagan nose jewelry, mutilations, veils, sheets, blankets. Perversion, ritual sacrifice, child abuse, and goat sex -- run amuck.

Multiculturalism has been used to divide and water down all assimilative values. This has misled many to deny spirituality altogether. to replace it with consensus pleasure science. This has floated base, immediate, and unmodulated gratifications to the top. Everywhere, in every institution, extra power points have been affirmatively awarded to the basest values and persons. This becomes unmistakably clear as one looks at recent personages we have elected to the presidency, and who we have presently promoted as main contenders for the presidency. We elect what we are, just as we become what we consume and what we free from the guidance of the Reconciler.

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

I am referring to the Changeless-Changer.  I don't think our relationship with it can be avoided, but neither can it be measured. It is simply there, either to be enhanced or polluted.

That said, if someone wants instead to to refer to "higher order thinking," I tend to be ok with that.   (Where stops the infinite regress? Maybe even the Changeless-Changer does not consciously know. )

Regardless, to mock the idea of a Source for guiding higher order thinking is, I believe, detrimental to decent civilization. To those who ascribe to foundational civilizing values or mores, I would ask: Are those mores "real"?

Well, I think they are "real" in this sense: They are derivative of an interpenetrating, feedback relationship with a reconciling and trinitarian Source. Or Godhead.

I began calling it The Source after reading the book by that name by James Michener, years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Source_%28novel%29 In his book, the Source was a "fictional tell in northern Israel called "Makor" (Hebrew: "source"‎).  Prosaically, the name comes from a freshwater well just north of Makor, but symbolically it stands for much more, historically and spiritually."

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

EDIT:  There are values beyond measure and logic, beyond Occam's Razor.  One may "justify" them in happenstance, randomness, habit, primitive urge, whatever.  But there is no political value system that can be proven best as a matter of pure reason. 

On can begin with an axiom, but one has no foundation, apart from faith, for the axiom.  My chosen faith or axiom tends to relate to this:  What is needed to sustain a decent civilization?  I believe the answer entails more than bal s out tolerance for every wanna.  The answer entails fundaments needed to sustain a decent, representative republic.  But that answer depends on faith in an unprovable axiom:  That human freedom and dignity should be valued.  And the "reason" they should be valued?  Because "I am."

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

You yourself premise that "truth and reality" are "based on the human mind's ability to observe it in accordance with what is known." I put aside the problem with defining what can be "known." But even apart from that, your scheme begins by subordinating truth and reality with an ability to OBSERVE it. Think about that.

I do not quarrel that facts exist. Nor that A is A. Nor that a truism is a truism. Nor that the Godhead is the Godhead. Nor that a thing in itself is a thing in itself. What I say is that you cannot go simply from there, without taking some kind of leap of faith. You cannot derive a syllogism from a tautology without importing something more than a tautology.

You cannot relate to a thing in itself without making of it something more than a thing in itself. At some level, you have to recognize, whether consciously, subconsciously, or inferentially, that a "relational-essence" abides. A "changeless-changer." A Source-Definer: That defines us, but that we do not define.

So, how do we relate to it? Not directly, for if we could approach it directly it would not be a thing in itself. So, indirectly, in aspects. How? Well, in measurables, we relate by tinkering and discovering practical applications that seem reliably to work within parameters -- before they fuzz, static, or phase out. In moral purposes, we relate by innate and nurtured empathies and intuitions.

Whille no mortal is availed of direct experience of the Source as Source, one may be availed of direct experience of one's own perspective of consciousness. So, a conscious mortal may notice that: (1) he is conscious of hiimself; (2) his experience of Consciousness seems to be bonded with a measurable body/brain/context (Substance); and (3) he experiences movement across space-time (cumulation of experience and Information).

He notices that everything he can communicate about takes on aspects of Consciousness, Substance, and/or Information. He notices that CSI is CSI. That is THE FACT about which (and with which) he can tinker, communicate, build technologies, and pursue moral purposes. Much more so than a mainly useless dead end that "A is A." Conscious beingness is much more than simply an emergent from a dead tautology.

What could emerge if the only fact were A is A? Maybe a dead zombie universe, that would be no more meaningless or relevant than no-thing at all. If such could even be imagined. Which, lol, it cannot! The very imagining of it would be to import consciousness concerning it, making of it little more than a dream within a dream.

Perhaps you just want to be the "scientist" who slays the idea of a Godhead, in order to reign in elitist rule under our betters? "For our own good?" Others should know that your cute belittlement is filled with shallow hubris. Your "rebuttal" is non.


Were our shared material universe to flicker out, what would meaningfully remain of your "material facts?" Would not such material facts necessarily be elsewhere-elsewise phased and factored?  What "laws" of physics are eternal "facts," independent of participation with Observers?