Trudeau is Zoolander.
Forget Muslims. The idea of a God (Allah?) or Elite Despot to lead humanity to an end to history is an insult to free thinkers. An end-to-history-God-or-Hegelian can easily be abused by corrupt mouthpieces to lead us into master (Allah) and/or slave (Sheeple) thinking. Humanity should be about more than service to master/slave (Mohammad/Stalin) charismatics. Humanity should be about direct feedback relationships with an inviting Reconciler.
Is Skynet/Borgdom unavoidable? Is Putin right, that nations will fall to that despotism that first gains first strike capability over all opponents' drones? Must society fall to the most corrupt despot who gains sudden control over the most deadly technology? If that is considered unavoidable, must society fall, because every despot calculates that, if he is not first to do his despotism, then others will be?
Nietzsche looked to Will to Power, but succumbed to diseased madness after piously sobbing over a horse that lay dying of being whipped. His sister, not he, published his ruminations on a morality to replace Christian charity. Later, the Nazis parodied and bastardized that into a film, Triumph of the Will.
Perhaps Jesus was about something more than Christian charity to help us see a way beyond the possible cyborg-ian replacement of humanity. If such a way exists.
Can inspiration to assimilate civilizing empathy (faith, family, fidelity) forestall the obliteration of human morality? Can it defeat Rino Corrupti and Dino Ignoranti, and forestall the legalese out the wa-zoo that is so much the desire of law droolers?
Like Nietzsche, I would criticize an orthodoxy that blindly rationalized the spirituality of heaven and the hereafter over the spiritual art of the here and now. I think we never live except in the present, i.e., the here and now. I think the S (substance) and I (information) aspects of CSI will be with us --- whatever the perspectives of C (consciousness) --- in perpetuity.
However, I would not agree with an atheistic elitist who thinks we are free to "kill God" or to create or legislate our own values. We are not ourselves the sum of the Determiner. We are system-feedback-participants. I think we are only free, under God's grace, to part-icipate in how our values are to be consciously interpreted, appreciated, assimilated, fluxed, and Reconciled.
My stance is one of humility before God, but disinclination to bow to elitist despots. Neither master-wolf nor slave-sheep, but black sheep with attitude. Equipped with Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. F Zoo-man Zoolander!
**************
A person can believe in God as the reconciling aspect of the flux of the immeasurably qualitative consciousness with the measurable aspect of substance and the cumulative recording aspect of previous history. As such, God signifies and communicates in metaphors and models set to substantive measurables. We do not directly sense any substantive reality. We experience what substantive reality is like. To say what something is like is to apply a metaphor to it.
IOW, we experience what we call reality through models and metaphors. None of which are ever entirely consistent, coherent, and complete. We are able to communicate because of a process of give-and-take feedback and reconciliation, that never quite reaches fulfillment or perfection. If it were not for models and metaphors, we would have no means of communication about sequences, feedback, events, desires, or beliefs.
The only reason you are able to postulate that "No literal belief is indistinguishable from no belief" is because you apply a fuzzy and fluxing model, at some subconscious level, concerning a meaning of "literal" (or "real"). I am saying we never quite get to know what reality really is. Apart from truisms, there is little of reality that we "really know." However, there are working conventions that we happen to share, for our temporally fluxing bubble.
So, we can, because of conscious engagement in give and take, communicate about our changing experiences and values --- which we assume to be real and function "as if" they were real. Much as we can try to hold lightning in our hands in a bubble, while we discuss it. But we are not really holding it. Rather, we are fluxing with it, as it fluxes with us, for a bubble that itself is changing.
It is a mistake to try to confine God within an end-times-bubble, to be caretaker of some heavenly hereafter bubble for some ideal of permanently unchanging souls. We never live in the hereafter, but only in the here and now, i.e., The Eternal Present. It is when we idealize God as the caretaking-prisoner of an end-times-bubble that we often mis-model God as some misanthropic master-slave monster.
****************
I don't think you have "got it." I am not saying everyone is an atheist. I am saying no atheist has much of an idea what he/she is.
The reason to care: Because we all seek, but do not achieve, fulfillment. We are social animals. We seek common purposes and values. We seek forums in which to reason together, to put what common definition we can in such values. Churches can, not necessarily do, provide forums for people to come together in good faith and good will to invest their egos and identities in common purposes. Metaphors and music can provide the language and inspiration to facilitate that. I would rather have that process than a process of phony elite moral scientisimists laying out law drooling legalisms to rule us out the wazoo.
That's why our Founders were guided mainly by the New, not the Old, Testament. The rule of good faith (Great Commandment) and the rule of good will (Golden Rule). When you erase those, you are well on the way to erasing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, to convert us to a master-slave despotism.
It's not my supernatural realm. it's the realm that defines all of us. You think you "know" reality. But ourselves, our world, our cosmos could be obliterated tomorrow, and your reality, for all "you" in your mortal sense would know, would have never been more than a fictional figment of the image-ination of the Trinitarian Godhead of Consciousness-Substance-In-form-ation. Yet, you have no comprehension of what any Source of such obliteration may be.
Non-belief is as impossible as non-choice. To choose not to do something is to effect a choice. You, as a perspective of Consciousness, cannot exist without formulating or expressing goals, hopes, purposes, beliefs. Indeed, you write now to express your belief, certainly not conjured out of pure science, that non-belief "has every advantage that belief has and you also don't have to pretend anything". But that is self contradictory and self defeating. If you have no beliefs, then you have no belief that any pursuit or art is worthwhile. How is that of any advantage? How can that inspire people to come together? If, after congratulating yourself on non-belief, you sit with fellow congratulators and get bigly high on non-productive dopery, how is that an advantage in any sensible math or science? No one gets to live without pretending that some of his purposes are more worthwhile than others.
I do not concern myself with speaking for other believers or with Pascal's Wager. Why would you bring that up? I just said I do not believe in a heavenly hereafter. Rather, I believe in an Eternal Now, for which our bodies simply cycle through various formulations for repetitively expressing many of the same kinds of fears and joys. (This is a little different from Nietzsche's Eternal Return. Nietzsche indicated he would thank the demon that could offer to allow him to re-live the same life over and over again, for eternity. I think Consciousness experiences much the same fears and joys, in perpetuity, but not in precisely the same chassis, body, or sequence.)
*****************
What is conceptualized as morally good is not a matter that is determined or predetermined in logic or science. It is a matter of faithful determinism, which, to assimilate, necessitates inspiration.
The cosmos, as it is structured for signifying and re-presenting itself, has, and always has had, an essential need of C. C is essential to the existentialist of S and I. Of the essential aspect of that is not spiritual, then meaning for the word would be diminished. Indeed, S and I are the means of signification by and to C. They form the Word, to the Word.
**********
How I suspect the conservation/reconciliation/fluxing/and phase-shifting of CSI proceeds:
S obeys the law of measurable conservation. Yet, it shows no first or controlling cause for how it fluxes in its presentation as a system. It does obey math based rules in how it presents, temporally, to C. Yet, those rules also phase shift. To fully say how those rules must phase shift as local parameters are made manifest is beyond mortals. Yet, there abides a dynamic feedback between and among mortals and the CSI system. We participate in determining our evolving unfoldment.
No ultimate aspect, particle, or bit is measurable or perpetual. All local presentations of C,S and I inter-flux and change. All, together, conserve the CSI system. There abides a system like steady state, but it is not measurable as such by mortals. For mortals, all local systems phase shift over sequences and eventually pass away. No local presentation of universe, galaxy, consciousness, particle, or bit is necessarily conserved.
Our universe does not present itself in a real, eternal, geometric form. How it presents to local C is re-presentation. Not presentation-in-itself.
The form in which our universe re-presents is not as itself, but as it is observed. How it is observed is subject to infinite regressions. So rainbows, unless viewed outside a confined system, recede from approaching viewers. Similarly, no mortal can approach or view an edge to the universe. All limits of view will perpetually recede. Thus, our universe is said to be "flat" to mortal observers, in all directions, from all perspectives. We are not equipped to see or measure the limits of our universe, but only such calculable limits as we may have acquired models and technologies for apprehending.
*************
I don't seek an explanation for what created the cosmos. I concern myself with how to appreciate the cosmos as having abided, and apparently to abide, always. Mainly, I seek appreciation for the character/nature of how the cosmos is guided and reconciled as it fractalizes it's myriad of signals, expressions, information, and communications. I seek appreciation for that process by which our innate artistic purposefulness is guided, connected, and reconciled.
For that unfolding, evolution is at least a two way street. It is not predetermined by an alluring, scientific, not program. As a system, the cosmos is dynamically responsive to feedback. Mortals participate. We can become powerful agents for helping to define how evolution unfolds.
The Buddha and Socrates sought the essence of consciousness. That is not in what separates us, but in what unifies and connects us. At root, we are of the same consciousness. It is only our temporal experiences and situations that avail us to have temporarily separate perspectives of Identity. You may believe or behave as if your identity were fixed apart, bit that is delusion.
It is only our form like variability in local perspectives that avail is to act and believe as if we were separate identities
But those local variations are not 5permanent You and what you think you believe will not be the same tomorrow as today. Your temporal experience of Identity, like every other Perspective's, is in continuous flux. Whatever it's source, it is continuously coordinated and reconciled with Consciousness --- which, at its root, is of the same essence for every perspective.
This is not worship of any particular perspective, but of that which reconciles all perspectives.
The program is such that no interpretation by any conscious recipient of Information is allowed unless it avails a perspective of universe as being flat -- beyond limits of perception -- in every direction.
Even if such temporally apparent limits expand upon being leveraged by technology. Except in respect of that, no perspective of consciousness is allowed to communicate sensibly to any other.
Something about the way the universe presents is not due to its locally measurable physics. It is due to the way it is made to present itself to each and every perspective of consciousness.
CONSCIOUSNESS: Every pattern/form that senses how to take sustenance from its surroundings on an as needed basis in order to sustain itself as a pattern is, on some level, inhabited with coordinate perspectives of consciousness. That may eventually evolve to an abstract level of awareness of its coordinate self.
****************
GOD MORALITY PURPOSE PROOF ETERNITY INFINITY FLUX PHASE CONSERVATION
Perspective of the Part/ Perspective of the Whole/ Trinity
SPIRITUALITY/ RELIGION/ METAPHOR/ MODEL/ CAUSE/ COORDINATE
Reconciliation/Participation/Avatar
Central consolidation of power of destruction
*******
No one has posited a consistent, coherent, complete explanation. So words like reality, morality, belief, etc., are not completely understood in common. There will always be the opportunity for people to talk past one another.
I don't think the Universe is evidence of the God of any sacred text. Sacred texts tend to deal with beginnings and end times. I don't think either existentiality or God are like that. I think they are perpetual, beyond end time inventions, maybe infinite and eternal.
A more interesting question is whether there abides good reason to advocate for belief in a generally compassionate and reconciling Godhead.
If you value the freedom, dignity, good faith, and good will of individual citizens over the presumptive diktat of Progressive Moral Scientisimists, then that is one reason. Likewise, if you value the principles under the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. But for the New Testament, I doubt the values expressed in those documents would have assimilated.
There are some other arguments, that relate to how existentiality may not be quite what scientists want to model it as. (Some scientists raise their heads to pose questions, but they tend to be shot down with "Shut up and calculate!")
Looking for ultimate causes among the cosmos is like expecting to beat the Trinitarian Godhead at Three Card Monty.
A photon carries information in respect of the pervious Substance with which it collided or interacted. If it interacts with nothing but space-time in the interim, then its dimness, intensity, frequency, wavelength may convey some general information with regard to the space-time traversed in the interim, subject to guesswork for renormalizing in respect of space-time curvature.
EMR appears to interact with curvatures in space-time such that it is not allowed to carry or convey Information unless the Information is renormalized to show general "flatness" in all directions. That is, regardless of locus in space-time, no observer will be privileged to sense the Universe except as being, in relation to him, of generally equal density in all directions.
If our Universe were the creation of something or someone outside it, then the limits for the space-time-matter-energy of our Universe would be within a form, such as a "bubble" or sphere. It would have an apparent perimeter. It would appear to dissipate, rather than to be equally dense and dissipate in all directions. But it does not do that.
This suggests that the model-idea of a "bubble" is only a metaphor --- good for some purposes, not for others. (Shut up and calculate.) IOW, our Universe is not really a bubble, nor does it really have a center from which it exploded outward in some Big Bang. Even though such conceptualizations can be made highly practical and useful for some purposes.
Our Universe is not a bubble-artifact of any physical Big Bang. The model of a Big Bang may just as well be conceptualized as an artifact of whatever the perspectives of Consciousness that we happen to share.
The model (that our Universe arose from a collapsed Singularity) is just that --- a model --- not "The Truth." For all we know, the "ultimate cause" may better be conceptualized, for scientific AND moral purposes, as expressing itself only in the trinity-flux and phase-shifting of CSI. For that, we factor and participate in the unfolding apprehension and appreciation.
So there does not appear to be any causal agent for the curvature of space-time or its apparent flatness in all directions. Rather, that effect appears to be a correlate of how the trinity fluxes among Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Ultimately, more as correlate than cause. (Surely, some meta/immeasurable flux accounts for the curvature and flattening, not mere random clusters of dense Substance or Matter.)
Consciousness can experience and sense caring, regardless of whether or not it (or anyone or anything else) is the "true causal agent." Subject to its unfolding reconciliatory function, Consciousness as a Whole cares about each of its Perspectives as much as each Perspective cares. Jesus Wept. That idea supports church-forums to come, reason together, and assimilate moral values and purposefulness. The alternative seems to be bad faith, division, and enserfment under morally-diseased people farmers.
Moral scientisimist is my term of derision for a person who tries to convince himself or others that his methods for determining moral values are or can be strictly grounded in science. Read up on Sam Harris, who thinks science of neurology can lead us to how to make moral decisions, perhaps based on what tends to provide the most pleasure for the most people for the least effort. Once the masses can be convinced that moral, social, and political decisions should be based on such science, it becomes but a short leap to argue that no one unfamiliar with such science should be allowed to participate in the decision making process. This leads to a two class society: So-called scientists who pretend to know how to make the best moral decisions, to be willing and trustworthy to make such decisions, and so to rule over everyone else. (For goodness sakes, why else do you think there has been such a push for central carbon banking, one world currency, open borders, openness to international law, expulsion of faith based values from the schools and public square, assault on traditional families, and on and on and on?)
The middle class you want would not be allowed in such a two class society. It would be divided, penned, multi-cultured, and ruled. There would be the oligarchy of people farmers and the divided rabble of farmees. After all, why should trained moral scientisimists defer to the untrained rabble?
This is what you get with open borders, an overflow of laborers desperate to compete for cheap jobs, and centralized consolidation of oligarchic wealth and power.
An independently wealthy middle class is not a commonality. It arises when a society shares many of the same values. That is when they can more confidently trust that their sense of fair play, good faith, and good will is shared by others. That trust is lost as wealth and power are consolidated and the masses are excluded. As faith in higher mindedness is replaced by forced rule under fake moral scientisimists, what may once have been a free thinking middle class becomes a herd of sheeple, to be told what to value and believe ... because "science" ....
The wealthy middle class you speak of has been a recent and short termed phenomena, most often arising in nations with a strong Christian foundation. America's Founders were mainly brought up under a system of Christian values. Not Jewish, Hindi, Law Drooling, Moral Scientism, Marxist, or Muslim based values.
Beyond economics, there is the matter of becoming an autonomous, free-thinking, responsible adult versus a subhuman, corrupt, people-farmer or ignorant farmee. A capable, responsible, adult human being would not value group security, fascist fairness, or Marxist equality over individual freedom of expression, enterprise, and association. But an indoctrinee under moral scientism would.
To my thinking, a moral scientisimist is someone with so little understanding of history and humanity that he would sell his soul for an extra widget. Or a bigger orgasm.
Good faith and good will based on receptivity to a higher Reconciler had everything to do with the design, budding, and growth of a wealthy middle class under the shared vision of the Founders. That vision was based on Christian values and a budding respect for the freedom and dignity of all citizens of the new republic. As the ideals of the Founders with regard to faith, family, and fidelity are unraveled and trampled, that republic cannot survive. The middle class of which you speak will instead turn to ashes.
***************
Too date, few scientists have been so presumptuous that science, in matters of morality, can replace values based on social relationships. To revert to slippery slope caricature is to display utter cluelessness with regard to the push for central carbon banking, one world currency, open borders, openness to international law, expulsion of faith based values from the schools and public square, and the assault on traditional families. To say it plainly, if you can't see the assault on the representative republic, then you are too blind to give credence concerning any moral concern.
You need to learn more how to read and less how to presume. Your argument based on historical and Catholic Church influences is a strain too far. Catholicism was not popular among America's Founders. Whatever the political deficiency of Catholicism, that was not of significant influence among the Founders.
IAE, if you want to apply a science based model and falsifiability to issues of morality, you might first postulate a rigorous model, how to acquire and measure reliable data, how to square the circle with regard to what is best for a person a group and a time, and how to derive a science based formula for measuring degrees of morality, etc. Until then, your pretended justification for Soros' Open Society amount to bunk.
When you base moral values on scientific falsifiability, you display all the understanding of a bot. When you read and perhaps have a real thought, get back to me. Until then, be well, but I would decline invitation to a bot dialogue. If you ever ponder whether schools, media, and other institutions have indoctrinated regurgitators instead of thinkers, you might look in the mirror.
Forget Muslims. The idea of a God (Allah?) or Elite Despot to lead humanity to an end to history is an insult to free thinkers. An end-to-history-God-or-Hegelian can easily be abused by corrupt mouthpieces to lead us into master (Allah) and/or slave (Sheeple) thinking. Humanity should be about more than service to master/slave (Mohammad/Stalin) charismatics. Humanity should be about direct feedback relationships with an inviting Reconciler.
Is Skynet/Borgdom unavoidable? Is Putin right, that nations will fall to that despotism that first gains first strike capability over all opponents' drones? Must society fall to the most corrupt despot who gains sudden control over the most deadly technology? If that is considered unavoidable, must society fall, because every despot calculates that, if he is not first to do his despotism, then others will be?
Nietzsche looked to Will to Power, but succumbed to diseased madness after piously sobbing over a horse that lay dying of being whipped. His sister, not he, published his ruminations on a morality to replace Christian charity. Later, the Nazis parodied and bastardized that into a film, Triumph of the Will.
Perhaps Jesus was about something more than Christian charity to help us see a way beyond the possible cyborg-ian replacement of humanity. If such a way exists.
Can inspiration to assimilate civilizing empathy (faith, family, fidelity) forestall the obliteration of human morality? Can it defeat Rino Corrupti and Dino Ignoranti, and forestall the legalese out the wa-zoo that is so much the desire of law droolers?
Like Nietzsche, I would criticize an orthodoxy that blindly rationalized the spirituality of heaven and the hereafter over the spiritual art of the here and now. I think we never live except in the present, i.e., the here and now. I think the S (substance) and I (information) aspects of CSI will be with us --- whatever the perspectives of C (consciousness) --- in perpetuity.
However, I would not agree with an atheistic elitist who thinks we are free to "kill God" or to create or legislate our own values. We are not ourselves the sum of the Determiner. We are system-feedback-participants. I think we are only free, under God's grace, to part-icipate in how our values are to be consciously interpreted, appreciated, assimilated, fluxed, and Reconciled.
My stance is one of humility before God, but disinclination to bow to elitist despots. Neither master-wolf nor slave-sheep, but black sheep with attitude. Equipped with Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. F Zoo-man Zoolander!
**************
A person can believe in God as the reconciling aspect of the flux of the immeasurably qualitative consciousness with the measurable aspect of substance and the cumulative recording aspect of previous history. As such, God signifies and communicates in metaphors and models set to substantive measurables. We do not directly sense any substantive reality. We experience what substantive reality is like. To say what something is like is to apply a metaphor to it.
IOW, we experience what we call reality through models and metaphors. None of which are ever entirely consistent, coherent, and complete. We are able to communicate because of a process of give-and-take feedback and reconciliation, that never quite reaches fulfillment or perfection. If it were not for models and metaphors, we would have no means of communication about sequences, feedback, events, desires, or beliefs.
The only reason you are able to postulate that "No literal belief is indistinguishable from no belief" is because you apply a fuzzy and fluxing model, at some subconscious level, concerning a meaning of "literal" (or "real"). I am saying we never quite get to know what reality really is. Apart from truisms, there is little of reality that we "really know." However, there are working conventions that we happen to share, for our temporally fluxing bubble.
So, we can, because of conscious engagement in give and take, communicate about our changing experiences and values --- which we assume to be real and function "as if" they were real. Much as we can try to hold lightning in our hands in a bubble, while we discuss it. But we are not really holding it. Rather, we are fluxing with it, as it fluxes with us, for a bubble that itself is changing.
It is a mistake to try to confine God within an end-times-bubble, to be caretaker of some heavenly hereafter bubble for some ideal of permanently unchanging souls. We never live in the hereafter, but only in the here and now, i.e., The Eternal Present. It is when we idealize God as the caretaking-prisoner of an end-times-bubble that we often mis-model God as some misanthropic master-slave monster.
****************
I don't think you have "got it." I am not saying everyone is an atheist. I am saying no atheist has much of an idea what he/she is.
The reason to care: Because we all seek, but do not achieve, fulfillment. We are social animals. We seek common purposes and values. We seek forums in which to reason together, to put what common definition we can in such values. Churches can, not necessarily do, provide forums for people to come together in good faith and good will to invest their egos and identities in common purposes. Metaphors and music can provide the language and inspiration to facilitate that. I would rather have that process than a process of phony elite moral scientisimists laying out law drooling legalisms to rule us out the wazoo.
That's why our Founders were guided mainly by the New, not the Old, Testament. The rule of good faith (Great Commandment) and the rule of good will (Golden Rule). When you erase those, you are well on the way to erasing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, to convert us to a master-slave despotism.
It's not my supernatural realm. it's the realm that defines all of us. You think you "know" reality. But ourselves, our world, our cosmos could be obliterated tomorrow, and your reality, for all "you" in your mortal sense would know, would have never been more than a fictional figment of the image-ination of the Trinitarian Godhead of Consciousness-Substance-In-form-ation. Yet, you have no comprehension of what any Source of such obliteration may be.
Non-belief is as impossible as non-choice. To choose not to do something is to effect a choice. You, as a perspective of Consciousness, cannot exist without formulating or expressing goals, hopes, purposes, beliefs. Indeed, you write now to express your belief, certainly not conjured out of pure science, that non-belief "has every advantage that belief has and you also don't have to pretend anything". But that is self contradictory and self defeating. If you have no beliefs, then you have no belief that any pursuit or art is worthwhile. How is that of any advantage? How can that inspire people to come together? If, after congratulating yourself on non-belief, you sit with fellow congratulators and get bigly high on non-productive dopery, how is that an advantage in any sensible math or science? No one gets to live without pretending that some of his purposes are more worthwhile than others.
I do not concern myself with speaking for other believers or with Pascal's Wager. Why would you bring that up? I just said I do not believe in a heavenly hereafter. Rather, I believe in an Eternal Now, for which our bodies simply cycle through various formulations for repetitively expressing many of the same kinds of fears and joys. (This is a little different from Nietzsche's Eternal Return. Nietzsche indicated he would thank the demon that could offer to allow him to re-live the same life over and over again, for eternity. I think Consciousness experiences much the same fears and joys, in perpetuity, but not in precisely the same chassis, body, or sequence.)
*****************
What is conceptualized as morally good is not a matter that is determined or predetermined in logic or science. It is a matter of faithful determinism, which, to assimilate, necessitates inspiration.
The cosmos, as it is structured for signifying and re-presenting itself, has, and always has had, an essential need of C. C is essential to the existentialist of S and I. Of the essential aspect of that is not spiritual, then meaning for the word would be diminished. Indeed, S and I are the means of signification by and to C. They form the Word, to the Word.
**********
How I suspect the conservation/reconciliation/fluxing/and phase-shifting of CSI proceeds:
S obeys the law of measurable conservation. Yet, it shows no first or controlling cause for how it fluxes in its presentation as a system. It does obey math based rules in how it presents, temporally, to C. Yet, those rules also phase shift. To fully say how those rules must phase shift as local parameters are made manifest is beyond mortals. Yet, there abides a dynamic feedback between and among mortals and the CSI system. We participate in determining our evolving unfoldment.
No ultimate aspect, particle, or bit is measurable or perpetual. All local presentations of C,S and I inter-flux and change. All, together, conserve the CSI system. There abides a system like steady state, but it is not measurable as such by mortals. For mortals, all local systems phase shift over sequences and eventually pass away. No local presentation of universe, galaxy, consciousness, particle, or bit is necessarily conserved.
Our universe does not present itself in a real, eternal, geometric form. How it presents to local C is re-presentation. Not presentation-in-itself.
The form in which our universe re-presents is not as itself, but as it is observed. How it is observed is subject to infinite regressions. So rainbows, unless viewed outside a confined system, recede from approaching viewers. Similarly, no mortal can approach or view an edge to the universe. All limits of view will perpetually recede. Thus, our universe is said to be "flat" to mortal observers, in all directions, from all perspectives. We are not equipped to see or measure the limits of our universe, but only such calculable limits as we may have acquired models and technologies for apprehending.
*************
I don't seek an explanation for what created the cosmos. I concern myself with how to appreciate the cosmos as having abided, and apparently to abide, always. Mainly, I seek appreciation for the character/nature of how the cosmos is guided and reconciled as it fractalizes it's myriad of signals, expressions, information, and communications. I seek appreciation for that process by which our innate artistic purposefulness is guided, connected, and reconciled.
For that unfolding, evolution is at least a two way street. It is not predetermined by an alluring, scientific, not program. As a system, the cosmos is dynamically responsive to feedback. Mortals participate. We can become powerful agents for helping to define how evolution unfolds.
The Buddha and Socrates sought the essence of consciousness. That is not in what separates us, but in what unifies and connects us. At root, we are of the same consciousness. It is only our temporal experiences and situations that avail us to have temporarily separate perspectives of Identity. You may believe or behave as if your identity were fixed apart, bit that is delusion.
It is only our form like variability in local perspectives that avail is to act and believe as if we were separate identities
But those local variations are not 5permanent You and what you think you believe will not be the same tomorrow as today. Your temporal experience of Identity, like every other Perspective's, is in continuous flux. Whatever it's source, it is continuously coordinated and reconciled with Consciousness --- which, at its root, is of the same essence for every perspective.
This is not worship of any particular perspective, but of that which reconciles all perspectives.
The program is such that no interpretation by any conscious recipient of Information is allowed unless it avails a perspective of universe as being flat -- beyond limits of perception -- in every direction.
Even if such temporally apparent limits expand upon being leveraged by technology. Except in respect of that, no perspective of consciousness is allowed to communicate sensibly to any other.
Something about the way the universe presents is not due to its locally measurable physics. It is due to the way it is made to present itself to each and every perspective of consciousness.
CONSCIOUSNESS: Every pattern/form that senses how to take sustenance from its surroundings on an as needed basis in order to sustain itself as a pattern is, on some level, inhabited with coordinate perspectives of consciousness. That may eventually evolve to an abstract level of awareness of its coordinate self.
****************
GOD MORALITY PURPOSE PROOF ETERNITY INFINITY FLUX PHASE CONSERVATION
Perspective of the Part/ Perspective of the Whole/ Trinity
SPIRITUALITY/ RELIGION/ METAPHOR/ MODEL/ CAUSE/ COORDINATE
Reconciliation/Participation/Avatar
Central consolidation of power of destruction
*******
No one has posited a consistent, coherent, complete explanation. So words like reality, morality, belief, etc., are not completely understood in common. There will always be the opportunity for people to talk past one another.
I don't think the Universe is evidence of the God of any sacred text. Sacred texts tend to deal with beginnings and end times. I don't think either existentiality or God are like that. I think they are perpetual, beyond end time inventions, maybe infinite and eternal.
A more interesting question is whether there abides good reason to advocate for belief in a generally compassionate and reconciling Godhead.
If you value the freedom, dignity, good faith, and good will of individual citizens over the presumptive diktat of Progressive Moral Scientisimists, then that is one reason. Likewise, if you value the principles under the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. But for the New Testament, I doubt the values expressed in those documents would have assimilated.
There are some other arguments, that relate to how existentiality may not be quite what scientists want to model it as. (Some scientists raise their heads to pose questions, but they tend to be shot down with "Shut up and calculate!")
Looking for ultimate causes among the cosmos is like expecting to beat the Trinitarian Godhead at Three Card Monty.
A photon carries information in respect of the pervious Substance with which it collided or interacted. If it interacts with nothing but space-time in the interim, then its dimness, intensity, frequency, wavelength may convey some general information with regard to the space-time traversed in the interim, subject to guesswork for renormalizing in respect of space-time curvature.
EMR appears to interact with curvatures in space-time such that it is not allowed to carry or convey Information unless the Information is renormalized to show general "flatness" in all directions. That is, regardless of locus in space-time, no observer will be privileged to sense the Universe except as being, in relation to him, of generally equal density in all directions.
If our Universe were the creation of something or someone outside it, then the limits for the space-time-matter-energy of our Universe would be within a form, such as a "bubble" or sphere. It would have an apparent perimeter. It would appear to dissipate, rather than to be equally dense and dissipate in all directions. But it does not do that.
This suggests that the model-idea of a "bubble" is only a metaphor --- good for some purposes, not for others. (Shut up and calculate.) IOW, our Universe is not really a bubble, nor does it really have a center from which it exploded outward in some Big Bang. Even though such conceptualizations can be made highly practical and useful for some purposes.
Our Universe is not a bubble-artifact of any physical Big Bang. The model of a Big Bang may just as well be conceptualized as an artifact of whatever the perspectives of Consciousness that we happen to share.
The model (that our Universe arose from a collapsed Singularity) is just that --- a model --- not "The Truth." For all we know, the "ultimate cause" may better be conceptualized, for scientific AND moral purposes, as expressing itself only in the trinity-flux and phase-shifting of CSI. For that, we factor and participate in the unfolding apprehension and appreciation.
So there does not appear to be any causal agent for the curvature of space-time or its apparent flatness in all directions. Rather, that effect appears to be a correlate of how the trinity fluxes among Consciousness, Substance, and Information. Ultimately, more as correlate than cause. (Surely, some meta/immeasurable flux accounts for the curvature and flattening, not mere random clusters of dense Substance or Matter.)
Consciousness can experience and sense caring, regardless of whether or not it (or anyone or anything else) is the "true causal agent." Subject to its unfolding reconciliatory function, Consciousness as a Whole cares about each of its Perspectives as much as each Perspective cares. Jesus Wept. That idea supports church-forums to come, reason together, and assimilate moral values and purposefulness. The alternative seems to be bad faith, division, and enserfment under morally-diseased people farmers.
Moral scientisimist is my term of derision for a person who tries to convince himself or others that his methods for determining moral values are or can be strictly grounded in science. Read up on Sam Harris, who thinks science of neurology can lead us to how to make moral decisions, perhaps based on what tends to provide the most pleasure for the most people for the least effort. Once the masses can be convinced that moral, social, and political decisions should be based on such science, it becomes but a short leap to argue that no one unfamiliar with such science should be allowed to participate in the decision making process. This leads to a two class society: So-called scientists who pretend to know how to make the best moral decisions, to be willing and trustworthy to make such decisions, and so to rule over everyone else. (For goodness sakes, why else do you think there has been such a push for central carbon banking, one world currency, open borders, openness to international law, expulsion of faith based values from the schools and public square, assault on traditional families, and on and on and on?)
The middle class you want would not be allowed in such a two class society. It would be divided, penned, multi-cultured, and ruled. There would be the oligarchy of people farmers and the divided rabble of farmees. After all, why should trained moral scientisimists defer to the untrained rabble?
This is what you get with open borders, an overflow of laborers desperate to compete for cheap jobs, and centralized consolidation of oligarchic wealth and power.
An independently wealthy middle class is not a commonality. It arises when a society shares many of the same values. That is when they can more confidently trust that their sense of fair play, good faith, and good will is shared by others. That trust is lost as wealth and power are consolidated and the masses are excluded. As faith in higher mindedness is replaced by forced rule under fake moral scientisimists, what may once have been a free thinking middle class becomes a herd of sheeple, to be told what to value and believe ... because "science" ....
The wealthy middle class you speak of has been a recent and short termed phenomena, most often arising in nations with a strong Christian foundation. America's Founders were mainly brought up under a system of Christian values. Not Jewish, Hindi, Law Drooling, Moral Scientism, Marxist, or Muslim based values.
Beyond economics, there is the matter of becoming an autonomous, free-thinking, responsible adult versus a subhuman, corrupt, people-farmer or ignorant farmee. A capable, responsible, adult human being would not value group security, fascist fairness, or Marxist equality over individual freedom of expression, enterprise, and association. But an indoctrinee under moral scientism would.
To my thinking, a moral scientisimist is someone with so little understanding of history and humanity that he would sell his soul for an extra widget. Or a bigger orgasm.
Good faith and good will based on receptivity to a higher Reconciler had everything to do with the design, budding, and growth of a wealthy middle class under the shared vision of the Founders. That vision was based on Christian values and a budding respect for the freedom and dignity of all citizens of the new republic. As the ideals of the Founders with regard to faith, family, and fidelity are unraveled and trampled, that republic cannot survive. The middle class of which you speak will instead turn to ashes.
***************
Too date, few scientists have been so presumptuous that science, in matters of morality, can replace values based on social relationships. To revert to slippery slope caricature is to display utter cluelessness with regard to the push for central carbon banking, one world currency, open borders, openness to international law, expulsion of faith based values from the schools and public square, and the assault on traditional families. To say it plainly, if you can't see the assault on the representative republic, then you are too blind to give credence concerning any moral concern.
You need to learn more how to read and less how to presume. Your argument based on historical and Catholic Church influences is a strain too far. Catholicism was not popular among America's Founders. Whatever the political deficiency of Catholicism, that was not of significant influence among the Founders.
IAE, if you want to apply a science based model and falsifiability to issues of morality, you might first postulate a rigorous model, how to acquire and measure reliable data, how to square the circle with regard to what is best for a person a group and a time, and how to derive a science based formula for measuring degrees of morality, etc. Until then, your pretended justification for Soros' Open Society amount to bunk.
When you base moral values on scientific falsifiability, you display all the understanding of a bot. When you read and perhaps have a real thought, get back to me. Until then, be well, but I would decline invitation to a bot dialogue. If you ever ponder whether schools, media, and other institutions have indoctrinated regurgitators instead of thinkers, you might look in the mirror.
5 comments:
I don't seek an explanation for what created the cosmos. I concern myself with how to appreciate the cosmos as having abided, and apparently to abode, always. Mainly, I seek appreciation for the character/nature of how the cosmos is guided and reconciled as it fractalizessss it's myriad of signals, expressions, information, and communications. I seek appreciation for that process by which our innate artistic purposefulness is guided, connected, and reconciled.
For that unfolding, evolution is at least a two way street. It is not predetermined by an alluring, scientific, not program. As.a.system, the cosmos is dynamically responsive to feedback. Mortals participate. We can become powerful agents for helping to define how evolution unfolds.
The Buddha and Socrates sought the essence of consciousness. That is not in what separates us, but in what unifies and connects us. At root, we are of the same consciousness. It is only our temporal experiences and situations that avail is to have temporarily separate perspectives of Identity. You may believe or behave as if your identity were fixed apart, bit that is delusion.
It is only our form like variability in local perspectives that avail is to act and believe as if we were separate identities
But those local variations are not 5permanent You and what you think you believe will not be the same tomorrow as today. Your temporal experience of Identity, like every other Perspexrive's, is in continuous flux. Whatever it's source, it is continuously coordinated and reconciled with Consciousness --- which, at its root, is of the same essence for every perspective.
This is not worship of any particular perspective, but of that which reconciles all perspectives.
How I suspect the conservation/reconciliation/gluing/and phase-shifting of CSI proceeds:
S obeys the law of measurable conservation. Yet, it shows no first or controlling cause for how it fluxes in its presentation as a system. It does obey math based rules in how it presents, temporally, to C. Yet, those rules also phase shift. To fully say how those rules must phase shift as local parameters are made manifest is beyond mortals. Yet, there abides a dynamic feedback between and among mortals and the CSI system. We participate in determining our evolving unfoldment.
No ultimate aspect, particle, or bit is measurable or perpetual. All local presentations of C,S and I inter-flux and change. All, together, conserve the CSI system. There abides a system like steady state, but it is not measurable as such by mortals. For mortals, all local systems phase shift over sequences and eventually pass away. No local presentation of universe, galaxy, consciousness, particle, or bit is necessarily conserved.
Our universe does not present itself in a real, eternal, geometric form. How it presents to local C is re-presentation. Not presentation-in-itself.
The form in which our universe re-presents is not as itself, but as it is observed. How it is observed is subject to infinite regressions. So rainbows, unless viewed outside a confined system, recede from approaching viewers. Similarly, no mortal can approach or view an edge to the universe. All limits of view will perpetually recede. Thus, our universe is said to be "flat" to mortal observers, in all directions, from all perspectives. We are not equipped to see or measure the limits of our universe, but only such calculable limits as we may have acquired models and technologies for apprehending.
Fluxing. Not gluing. Correction
What is conceptualized as morally good is not a matter that is determined or predetermined in logic or science. It is a matter of faithful determinism, which, to assimilate, necessitates inspiration.
The cosmos, as it is structured for signifying and re-presenting itself, has, and always has had, an essential need of C. C is essential to the existentialist of S and I. Of the essential aspect of that is not spiritual, then meaning for the word would be diminished. Indeed, S and I are the means of signification by and to C. They form the Word, to the Word.
Essentialismmm
If, not of.
Post a Comment