Misc

Are magnetic fields a correlate of fractal geometric matrices? What CAUSES chooses/directs the matrices?

Some deeply furrowed Mind?

That each POC can become G of his own virtual cosmos?

Can identify with characters therein.

Can withdraw from dangerous intersections and disputes with minor G's.

Can virtual computers really save humanity?




BUDDHISM:

Some may think Buddhism implicates God, and some may think not. Regardless, Buddhism avails a religious basis, with its own stories around which to inspire people to assimilate to empathetic purposes.

A Buddhist seeks nirvana by shedding his non-essential self, to become his essential self -- which he seeks by understanding that he is not what his material experiences seem to define him to be.

His essential self would seem to be the same essential self (consciousness) that is the essence of every perspective. Which connects to every perspective, and thus connects us in empathy.

IOW, we are each, essentially, a meta consciousness, and connected in it.

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


CLIMATE CHANGE: It is simply not true that people deny climate change. No one denies climate change. What they deny is that any simple formula exists to determine who should be entrusted with how much money to do what to try to address climate change. It is said that numerous horrors lie beneath the flood waters of Houston. Potentials for catastrophe because of festering and uncooled chemicals and biological plagues under study. Problem is, many of the elites clamoring for more money and power to address such concerns are the same elites who created and centralized such concerns to begin with. So how can anyone call the people stupid for not immediately trusting who they should give more money or power in order to reduce the threats that such elites have already nurtured. How can we be confident they will not use such money and power mainly to make the dangers worse, and to use deliberately increased danger to clamor for even more taxes and power? If danger is increasing to all the "little people," how does it help resolve that danger to give more money and power to the kinds of people who tend to float to increase and centralize that danger? Left unchecked, that way of thinking would lead to considerable sub-humanizing and loss of freedom and dignity in most of the little people supposedly being represented. So, we muddle through, as we try to appreciate one another and our Maker, without reducing one another to farm animals for a godless coterie of knowitall central rulers. It hardly helps resolve this problem for knowitalls to denigrate the good faith of the little people.


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


TRAINING THE GODHEAD: In some ways, the Godhead tends to become, in temporal expression, what it tolerates and reconciles. Of that which it tolerates and reconciles, it upsets its Mind by tolerating and reconciling what it, on further reflection, determines to be damaging to its unfolding values.

Compare: Socrates conceptualized that people, by doing evil, damaged their essential beingness, their souls. A thug may benefit temporally, but, in how he twists his soul and the unfolding trends of the Godhead, he will have damaged himself.

This understanding is at an innate, subconscious level. Even lower animals often tend to devalue cruelty merely for the sake of cruelty. Rather, those patterns that survive and replicate will tend to reinforce (empathize with) one another. The proper purpose of church is to inspire and bring such subconscious understanding into unfolding, purposeful consciousness.

We are responsible for our own destinies, through our essential I-ness, as connected and reconciled in a holistic aspect of consciousness, being part of the Trinitarian Godhead.




Beliefs, Doubts, Knowing, Fulfilling:

I don't claim to know what I don't know., and I don't accept people who claim to know what they don't know.

People who habituate themselves to expecting entitlements make themselves incorrigible slaves to a perpetually debilitating and false philosophy.

Permanent welfare as entitlement has not made things better for minorities. it has made things worse.

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

AXIOMS:



Buddha
rand
Asimov
Deutsch
Confusious
Socrates
not necessary




connection reconciling
god=C
trinity =Godhead
feel, fractal, qualitative, quantitative








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

AXIOMS:  You may unwittingly be of slight service to inspiring musing with the Godhead.  Although we proceed from differing axioms, we probably reach the same place on masurables. 

However, we likely do arrive at different values with regard to central regulation under elitist knowitallism.  I prefer assimilation under a guiding meta-reconciler.  This will not be resolved in logic, math, or science. 

Regardless, my position does not weaken science.  The question is:  Does your system unnecessarily weaken needed forums for assimilating moral purposefulness?

There is an interesting series on Netflix about Genius (ancient).  It discusses the Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius.  I suspect they were chosen because, in their philosophies about morality, they showed more concern about observable nature than about supernatural God.  The same may be said of Ayn Rand, Isaac, Asimov, and David Deutsch.  I do not think it was necessary for their philosophies to take a position with regard to God.  Nor do I think they really undertook to discredit God.  Indeed, I accept many of their positions, but I do not think it necessary to any of them to discredit God. 

They believed in responsible individualism, conscience. That the material self, when based on ruling others, offers only delusion.  I accept many of their main points, but I do not consider my self to be an atheist.  Nor do I consider atheism to be a system of thought of to avail a coherent system.

I do not believe their key points are contradictory to the essential message of Jesus -- with regard to the Trinity, the Great Commandment (good faith) or the Golden Rule (good will). Nor contrary to the freedom and dignity of individual citizens.

God by any other name would still be God.  For myself, God may just as well be conceptualized as a necessary, fundamental, connecting, innately empathetic, reconciling, aspect of Consciousness.  The Godhead would be comprised of a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.

Concerns:  Is there good reason to believe the reconciling Consciousness feels MY fears and joys?  Does it ever forget Me?  How can IT possibly know all the fears and joys of all the perspectives of Consciousness?  Is it necessary to a concept of morality or a helpmate to assimilate it?  Does what I express factor to influence IT?

JESUS WEPT:  Does the Godhead qualitatively feel my pain and joy?  I think Yes, though I do not know that such belief is necessary. 

Does the Godhead forever remember "my" pain and joy? Perhaps not. CSI fluxes. However, the situations in which consciousness, generally, experiences pain and joy are multiplicitous yet repetitive. Surely, the General I-ness will re-feel the pain and joy my temporal self has felt, countless times. At its core, that C-ness is of each of us, connecting to each of us, in innate empathy (unfolding good faith and good will). My material self will flux and dissipate. My spiritual essence will abide, perpetually.

In reason, why would not the Godhead --- with the qualitatives of Consciousness, the quantitatives of Substance, and the memory storage of Information, avail to IT the power to leverage, factor, feel, and reconcile my fears and joys?  Why, as Reconciler/Conserver, should IT not allow what I express or factor to influence or signify to IT, as Conserver-Fractal-Reconciler of the Cosmos?  Why suppose IT's reach in qualitatives should be any less astounding than IT's reach in meta-fluxes and fractals?

UPSHOT:  Humanity, without an ideal of an inviting moral Reconciler, would be the poorer for losing forums for coming to reason together in a recognizable language of spiritual metaphors --- in order to inspire, assimilate, and appreciate moral purposefulness.  Without such an ideal, civilization would suffer and mankind would become subhuman.

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

It's good when people of good faith and good will concern themselves about such issues. What we need are some engineers of good faith to take a hard look at the problems, the pros and cons that relate to ameliorating them, the likely comparative and opportunity costs, and the political will needed to be inspired to resolve them.

Unfortunately, our nation has been made so faithless, divided, and suspicious that most such issues devolve to yelling (or letting no crisis go to waste for the oligarchs). A lot of that is probably contrived. Hedge artists make their bones by agitating, dividing, and ruling people.  Charity sent to third world nations too often ends up in the hands of despots.  People profit by providing "crowds on demand." The consequence is that some of the worst people float to positions of governmental power and influence, and some of the worst students take the easy Alinsky path to helping to farm the masses. (Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  Invent strawmen or spread lies.)  

Example:  It is a lie to say Republicans deny climate change. Hardly anyone denies climate change. What they deny is that any simple formula exists to determine who should be entrusted with how much money to do what to try to address climate change. 

It is said that numerous horrors lie beneath the flood waters of Houston.  There are potentials for catastrophe, because of festering and uncooled chemicals and biological plagues there under study. Problem is:  How many elites clamoring for more money and power to address such concerns and problems are the same elites who created and centralized such concerns and problems to begin with? How can anyone call the people stupid for not immediately trusting who they should give more money or power in order to reduce the threats that such elites have already nurtured? How can we be confident they will not use such money and power mainly to make the dangers worse, and to use the increased danger to clamor for even more taxes and power?  (This is often how arms merchants and oligarchs profit.)

Now, what we have is a divided population that simply does not trust the central government or the central politicians.  Nor is it assimilating under any decent faith, to trust itself.

If danger is increasing to all the "little people," how does it help resolve that danger to give more money and power to the kinds of people who tend to float to power, to increase and centralize that danger? Left unchecked, that way of thinking would lead to considerable sub-humanizing and loss of freedom and dignity in most of the little people supposedly being represented. So, we muddle through, as we try to appreciate one another and our Maker, without reducing one another to farm animals for a godless coterie of knowitall central rulers. It hardly helps resolve this problem for elites to spread lies about the good faith of the little people.

But, instead of good faith engineers, we get fake social justice warriors, serving godless oligarchs, hiring agitated stooges.  We sure don't get many saints, much less saints with skills for providing practical leadership to secure us from dangers lying in the deep (such as under the flood waters of Houston).

I think we are being squeezed to be farmed.  And the godforsaken snake coils tighter with every crisis.

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

I doubt any specific literalistic belief in supernatural concerns is any more important than a talisman or magic incantation. But I do think religious metaphors serve an important function as a common language for beginning discussion. Churches provide a place to assimilate moral empathies: Come let us reason together. The idea of a Godhead facilitates that. More so, I think, than religious like faith in secular government. I prefer that people voluntarily assimilate their moral purposefulness, than that gov elites order them.

AXIOMS: You may unwittingly be of slight service to inspiring musing with the Godhead. Although we proceed from differing axioms, we probably reach the same place on masurables.

However, we likely do arrive at different values with regard to central regulation under elitist knowitallism. I prefer assimilation under a guiding meta-reconciler. This will not be resolved in logic, math, or science.

Regardless, my position does not weaken science. The question is:  Does your system (or what you would impose?) unnecessarily weaken needed forums for assimilating moral purposefulness?

There is an interesting series on Netflix about Genius (ancient). It discusses the Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius. I suspect they were chosen because, in their philosophies about morality, they showed more concern about observable nature than about supernatural God. The same may be said of Ayn Rand, Isaac, Asimov, and David Deutsch. I do not think it was necessary for their philosophies to take a position with regard to God. Nor do I think they really undertook to discredit God. Indeed, I accept many of their positions, but I do not think it necessary to any of them to try to discredit God.

They believed in responsible individualism, conscience. That the material self, when based on ruling others, offers only delusion.  I accept many of their main points, but I do not consider my self to be an atheist.  Nor do I consider atheism to be a system of thought of to avail a coherent system.

I do not believe their key points are contradictory to the essential message of Jesus -- with regard to the Trinity, the Great Commandment (good faith) or the Golden Rule (good will). Nor contrary to the freedom and dignity of individual citizens.

God by any other name would still be God. For myself, God may just as well be conceptualized as a necessary, fundamental, connecting, innately empathetic, reconciling, aspect of Consciousness.  The Godhead would be comprised of a flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.  (Evidence:  All signs measurable obey law of Conserver.  Direct experience of Consciousness.)

Concerns: Is there good reason to believe the reconciling Consciousness feels MY fears and joys? Does it ever forget Me? How can IT possibly know all the fears and joys of all the perspectives of Consciousness? Is it necessary to a concept of morality; is it a helpmate to assimilate moral purposefulness? Does what I express factor to influence IT?

JESUS WEPT: Does the Godhead qualitatively feel my pain and joy? I think, Yes, though I do not know that such belief is necessary.

Does the Godhead forever remember "my" pain and joy? Perhaps not. CSI fluxes. However, the situations in which consciousness, generally, experiences pain and joy are multiplicitous yet repetitive. Surely, the General I-ness will re-feel the pain and joy my temporal self has felt, countless times. At its core, that C-ness is of each of us, connecting to each of us, in innate empathy (unfolding good faith and good will). My material self will flux and dissipate.  In that respect, my spiritual essence will abide, perpetually.

In reason, why would not the Godhead --- with the qualitatives of Consciousness, the quantitatives of Substance, and the memory storage of Information, be availed power to leverage, factor, feel, and reconcile my fears and joys? Why, as Reconciler/Conserver, should IT not allow what I express or factor to influence or signify to IT, as Conserver-Fractal-Reconciler of the Cosmos?  Why suppose IT's reach in qualitatives should be any less astounding than IT's reach in meta-fluxes and fractals?

UPSHOT: Humanity, without an ideal of an inviting moral Reconciler, would be the poorer for losing forums for coming to reason together in a recognizable language of spiritual metaphors --- in order to inspire, assimilate, and appreciate moral purposefulness. Without such an ideal, civilization would suffer and mankind would become subhuman.  IMO.  Cite:  History.