Chicken God:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Neither. First was Will, then Math, then Perspectives of Will, then interconnecting Physics, then Seeds of holographic perspectives, associated with Physics.
Thereafter, each type of tree and seed is evolved in how it is expressed, as is each Perspective of Will, ever on, towards fulfilling an eternal utopia of artistry.
Each of us is Seeded with Will to civilize towards an ever receding ideal of utopia (or heaven).
Although we will never achieve utopia, we may take solace that God finds heaven through our quests.
I would not wish to trade my solace in order to bear God’s cross, even in heaven.
Except in triviality, no mere law — whether mathematical, natural, or artificial — can express or achieve completeness in itself, for Will knows not its own limits.
Because each Perspective of Will is incomplete (not holistic), so also is the holography of each Perspective indulged in incompleteness.
Knowing our utter dependency, each of us who is able to fear fears most the power behind each limited perspective of our own Will.
That is, each of us most essentially fears responsibility for the unlimited Source of our own power.
Such Source is no mere chicken.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
White Knuckled Future
White Knuckled Future:
If super data crunch computing in order to analyze systemic trends within the status quo cannot yield insights in advance of super technological innovation, then how should varying insights among interacting perspectives of Will intuit when best to subordinate themselves to concerns about environmental tipping points?
In other words, when the environment of information is itself changing faster than even super computers can analyze, then by what meta-means should we best intuit when our situation may tip to a point beyond which we could no longer sustain worthwhile, sentient consciousness?
If super data crunch computing in order to analyze systemic trends within the status quo cannot yield insights in advance of super technological innovation, then how should varying insights among interacting perspectives of Will intuit when best to subordinate themselves to concerns about environmental tipping points?
In other words, when the environment of information is itself changing faster than even super computers can analyze, then by what meta-means should we best intuit when our situation may tip to a point beyond which we could no longer sustain worthwhile, sentient consciousness?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
FALSE PIPERS
FALSE PIPERS:
CHRISTIANITY: Modern Christianity tends to be practiced unconvincingly, both by conservatives and liberals. Too many conservatives bring their judgment into question as they rely on nonsensically literalistic and fundamentalist views of sacred stories. Too many liberals bring their judgment into question insofar as they rely on absolutist interpretations of homilies about nonjudgmentalism, which were meant for contextual appreciation, not as excuses for tolerating every conceivable depredation. Simply put, “New Rome” is rapidly losing spiritual glue of enough strength to protect it from falling apart.
FALSE HOPE: Tending to believe mainly in government, rather than in any sort of God or higher source of spirituality, liberals tend to feel malaise and hopelessness except as they rally in “hope” around politicians who promise a sort of salvation through government. Insofar as divorced from belief in actualizing Will, such hope and promise are always vain and empty, and always most intoxicating when played by skilled pipers to the young and unseasoned.
IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE: When a population loses character and will for enforcing the laws it already has, why should it expect to fare better merely by passing more laws? For liberals merely to enact laws and expect results, without exercising disciplined force of will, is to feed sh*t to a goose and fantasize that it will stick. Unbacked by spiritual or inspired character, laws and liberals become merely ludicrous.
SELF CONTRADICTIONS: Oddly enough, in time, money and resources, the same liberals who tend to view conservatives as mean and unfair tend to contribute less to charitable concerns, instead expecting that grace should fall from government. See http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Peter_Schweizer/2008/06/02/100864.html.
CHRISTIANITY: Modern Christianity tends to be practiced unconvincingly, both by conservatives and liberals. Too many conservatives bring their judgment into question as they rely on nonsensically literalistic and fundamentalist views of sacred stories. Too many liberals bring their judgment into question insofar as they rely on absolutist interpretations of homilies about nonjudgmentalism, which were meant for contextual appreciation, not as excuses for tolerating every conceivable depredation. Simply put, “New Rome” is rapidly losing spiritual glue of enough strength to protect it from falling apart.
FALSE HOPE: Tending to believe mainly in government, rather than in any sort of God or higher source of spirituality, liberals tend to feel malaise and hopelessness except as they rally in “hope” around politicians who promise a sort of salvation through government. Insofar as divorced from belief in actualizing Will, such hope and promise are always vain and empty, and always most intoxicating when played by skilled pipers to the young and unseasoned.
IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE: When a population loses character and will for enforcing the laws it already has, why should it expect to fare better merely by passing more laws? For liberals merely to enact laws and expect results, without exercising disciplined force of will, is to feed sh*t to a goose and fantasize that it will stick. Unbacked by spiritual or inspired character, laws and liberals become merely ludicrous.
SELF CONTRADICTIONS: Oddly enough, in time, money and resources, the same liberals who tend to view conservatives as mean and unfair tend to contribute less to charitable concerns, instead expecting that grace should fall from government. See http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Peter_Schweizer/2008/06/02/100864.html.
Monday, June 2, 2008
While Rome Fiddled
Consequences of Cascading Failure of Good Will:
Rome: Building on slavery (cheap labor), and desiring an ever expanding economy to sustain its “good life,” Rome hocked the future of its children by pyramiding too many multi-cultures (broken borders) too quickly, which made it necessary, in order to temporize defense, for Rome to offer citizenship to unassimilated troops (out of country enlistees), unsustainable incentives to mercenaries (bribes to coalition forces), and grinding tribute to barbarians (WMD armed terrorists).
Consequences: Ordinary people came soon to be no longer able to sustain Rome’s out of control spending and debts; mutual good faith and trust among residents broke; Gods no longer inspired; loyalty and nerve receded; infrastructure weakened; logistics failed; and Rome fell.
Failure of Nerve: The fall of Rome is instructive on how not to inspire and fortify Will-To-Civilize. The inter-empathetic will of Romans, instead of surpassing, allowed itself to be overtaken and surpassed by inertia of progeny of its own forms and physics. As Rome’s will for enforcing law collapsed, its law-enacting became only vanity. Having elevated love of law-making over law-enforcing (form over will), Rome fell from failure of nerve. Losing faith, vision, and fortitude of will, a civilization will “just happen” to perish.
Eternal Recurrence: At key times, Roman leaders lost good will and failed to inspire spiritually empathetic trust and faith in respect of a common ideal of a stable, sustainable, surpassable civilization. Such seems to be an ever-repeating story, insofar as we continue to fall short in inspiring sustainable commitment to an enlightening philosophy.
Rome: Building on slavery (cheap labor), and desiring an ever expanding economy to sustain its “good life,” Rome hocked the future of its children by pyramiding too many multi-cultures (broken borders) too quickly, which made it necessary, in order to temporize defense, for Rome to offer citizenship to unassimilated troops (out of country enlistees), unsustainable incentives to mercenaries (bribes to coalition forces), and grinding tribute to barbarians (WMD armed terrorists).
Consequences: Ordinary people came soon to be no longer able to sustain Rome’s out of control spending and debts; mutual good faith and trust among residents broke; Gods no longer inspired; loyalty and nerve receded; infrastructure weakened; logistics failed; and Rome fell.
Failure of Nerve: The fall of Rome is instructive on how not to inspire and fortify Will-To-Civilize. The inter-empathetic will of Romans, instead of surpassing, allowed itself to be overtaken and surpassed by inertia of progeny of its own forms and physics. As Rome’s will for enforcing law collapsed, its law-enacting became only vanity. Having elevated love of law-making over law-enforcing (form over will), Rome fell from failure of nerve. Losing faith, vision, and fortitude of will, a civilization will “just happen” to perish.
Eternal Recurrence: At key times, Roman leaders lost good will and failed to inspire spiritually empathetic trust and faith in respect of a common ideal of a stable, sustainable, surpassable civilization. Such seems to be an ever-repeating story, insofar as we continue to fall short in inspiring sustainable commitment to an enlightening philosophy.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and State:
My notion about Will (as in will-to-math), of which I believe we each constitute a holographic perspective, respects that each of us can and should recognize, intuit, and empathize with one another.
I have no need of any particular name for “God,” nor do I purport any holistically divine revelation direct from God.
Rather, I purport that each of us, holographically, may experience intuitions and insights about a common Source, perhaps supporting an interconnecting sense of enlightened empathy.
I certainly do not claim direct revelation that “God” has ordained that we must or should manifest in any particular aspect.
Rather, I believe we are each responsible to use our own minds to intuit and appreciate that which we should do.
If I am thought “religious,” it could only be by those who believe, contrary to myself, that there is no ultimate Source from which our universe came to be and that there is no relevant cause that is beyond explication or measurement by purely scientific methods.
However, using “religious” in such an adjectival sense is apart from common parlance; such use would not show an affront to any Constitutional prohibition were my philosophical views discussed in a public school forum.
There is nothing necessarily religious or uncommon among many scientific or secular perspectives in considering degrees of freedom (including for free will) within parameter limits.
Nor is there anything necessarily religious or uncommon (even if “spiritual”) in a school address meant to inspire graduates to exercise their wills in good faith and enlightened empathy for the betterment of mankind and civilization.
Rather, my notion of Will-To-Math, being based in intuition and math as opposed to divine revelation, even if implicating meaningful respect for spirituality (as in the “spirit of the law”) for possibly being superior to physicality, is not of such a purely religious aspect as to violate any proscription for separation of Church and State.
My notion about Will (as in will-to-math), of which I believe we each constitute a holographic perspective, respects that each of us can and should recognize, intuit, and empathize with one another.
I have no need of any particular name for “God,” nor do I purport any holistically divine revelation direct from God.
Rather, I purport that each of us, holographically, may experience intuitions and insights about a common Source, perhaps supporting an interconnecting sense of enlightened empathy.
I certainly do not claim direct revelation that “God” has ordained that we must or should manifest in any particular aspect.
Rather, I believe we are each responsible to use our own minds to intuit and appreciate that which we should do.
If I am thought “religious,” it could only be by those who believe, contrary to myself, that there is no ultimate Source from which our universe came to be and that there is no relevant cause that is beyond explication or measurement by purely scientific methods.
However, using “religious” in such an adjectival sense is apart from common parlance; such use would not show an affront to any Constitutional prohibition were my philosophical views discussed in a public school forum.
There is nothing necessarily religious or uncommon among many scientific or secular perspectives in considering degrees of freedom (including for free will) within parameter limits.
Nor is there anything necessarily religious or uncommon (even if “spiritual”) in a school address meant to inspire graduates to exercise their wills in good faith and enlightened empathy for the betterment of mankind and civilization.
Rather, my notion of Will-To-Math, being based in intuition and math as opposed to divine revelation, even if implicating meaningful respect for spirituality (as in the “spirit of the law”) for possibly being superior to physicality, is not of such a purely religious aspect as to violate any proscription for separation of Church and State.
TRANSCENDING MIND SLOTH
TRANSCENDING MIND SLOTH:
Consider secular and religious advocates of surrendering moral mindfulness to simplistic mind sloth. Worst offenders are found in “religions” (such as among Islamofascists) that insist no one should dare to question what their leaders have been conditioned to believe was revealed by God to their founders. Theirs is not mere mind sloth, but mind death.
Closely following are zealots, religious and secular, such as (among Christian homilists) who twist homilies meant for general illustration into simplistically unenlightening moral absolutes, as if “turn the other cheek” should teach us not to defend our families and as if “feed my lambs” should teach us to enable addicts and welfare abusers.
Interspersed are found historicists (such as Marxists) who would substitute, bootstrap, and manipulate their own simplistically “revealed” interpretations and models of history, as soft science leading to their own narrow brand of “irrefutable” truth.
Marxists extol historical empiricism, yet, because they have Notsomething else, cling to absurd rationalizations of Marxist economics and comradeship, notwithstanding historical evidence of their own communistically imposed mass murders, gulags, walled in and unimaginative societies, mass alcoholism, and hostile satellites.
Riding with such mix are others (Zionists of Scientism) whose philosophy considers an ultimate spiritual truth to be revealed through pure physical empiricism --- that is, that there exists no Source of spirituality. Such a scientist may claim to "just happen" to be wound up to practice science. If so, what is his/her argument against nihilist-scientists (or programmers) who just happen to be wound up to practice anti-science (or viral anti-programming)? Theirs tends to be an uninspiring and confused mind sloth that, absurdly, attempts to justify only what is.
However, except as "is" and/or “exist” are meant as active verbs, it relates little meaning to say we are moral only in respect of what is, or what exists, or what “just happens.” Rather, we are moral in respect of how we assert will towards ideals, ever seeking to bring meaningful ideals to emerge towards manifest existence. Except in respect of will (as in will-to-math) towards ideals, it relates little meaning, perhaps even absurdity, to speak of morality. Indeed, but for implication of Will, why “should” I will (or do) anything?
Other Churches of Scientism or Liberation may “kidnap God,” to insult or subordinate the concept of God to narrow, minority, greedy, self serving interests, poverty pimps, and grievance stirrers.
It is easy to surrender mind from responsible thinking, to wrap one’s existence with dogma, to give up on trying to create and appreciate meaningful sense in respect of an existence that is based on a physics that is not in itself complete, but derivative of Something (or Notsomething) beyond. It is all the easier to surrender once one becomes conditioned to believe there exists no higher Something worth serving.
But, what if each of us is intuited to be an interconnecting perspective of a higher Will of Something? What if such Will becomes Notsomething only to the extent we come to will it so? What if, beyond physics, in pure Will-To-Math, we share in Its morally creative power and responsibility?
If so, should not each of us respect ourselves as perspectives of a “Body of God,” with moral responsibility to engage creatively in an ongoing story of learning, mathematical leveraging, experimentation, and empathetic inter-appreciation? In respect of the creative power availed to each of us, looking beyond mere logic, and beyond simplistic slogans, should we not simultaneously, ambiguously, and uneasily reverence, respect, fear, evaluate, judge, love, relish, appreciate, nurture, pursue, leverage, project, and transcend our moral responsibility? Should we not teach to pursue enlightened empathy?
Why do churches, Marxists, scientists, educators, and politicians so often lack vision to lead us towards civilization that can be responsibly stable, sustainable, and surpassable?
Every simplistic minded addict has his or her own easy “answer,” mantra, or slogan for everything. It is easy to be a simple minded liberal, with no responsibility for drawing or enforcing any needed hard lines against depredations that would corrupt the familial heart of civilization. It is just as easy to be a simple minded conservative, bound only to worship unregulated market “forces.”
Church folk, historicists, and scientists all need moral purposes, but their purposes fall to ashes when founded only on weak and simplistic grounds that are simply inadequate to support complex and creative challenges imposed by our mathematically interconnecting existential predicament.
An interconnected, interdependent Civilization necessitates that we inculcate and educate towards skill for exercising enlightened empathy and sometimes hard-nosed vision on behalf of an ideal of transcendence towards a civilization that is stable, sustainable, and surpassable. Yet, such ideal is open to all forms of sentience --- irrespective of race, color, genetics, robotics, family, tribe, culture, nationality, or previous psychological conditioning. Where there is Will, there is Way.
****
A God superior to Nature could not very well be stuck with a body or form that could not be changed at Will.
Among such bodies and forms as compete for our holographic attention, Will need not favor the endurance of any, except as then intuited to be empathetically associated with expressing, reminding, advancing, or pursuing the survival, replication, or flourishing of truth and beauty.
While there is no aspect of any physical essence that cannot be represented in math, yet there is no mathematics-in-itself that can complete any representation of Will.
Whether or not there may exist any superior essence, super-body, or super-physicality in association with Will is irrelevant to the relation of our physics to Will-To-Math.
To our empathetic appreciation, what is relevant is: Will-To-Math; and derivative subordination of our mortal physics in respect of IT’s ever-pursuit of truth and beauty.
Consider secular and religious advocates of surrendering moral mindfulness to simplistic mind sloth. Worst offenders are found in “religions” (such as among Islamofascists) that insist no one should dare to question what their leaders have been conditioned to believe was revealed by God to their founders. Theirs is not mere mind sloth, but mind death.
Closely following are zealots, religious and secular, such as (among Christian homilists) who twist homilies meant for general illustration into simplistically unenlightening moral absolutes, as if “turn the other cheek” should teach us not to defend our families and as if “feed my lambs” should teach us to enable addicts and welfare abusers.
Interspersed are found historicists (such as Marxists) who would substitute, bootstrap, and manipulate their own simplistically “revealed” interpretations and models of history, as soft science leading to their own narrow brand of “irrefutable” truth.
Marxists extol historical empiricism, yet, because they have Notsomething else, cling to absurd rationalizations of Marxist economics and comradeship, notwithstanding historical evidence of their own communistically imposed mass murders, gulags, walled in and unimaginative societies, mass alcoholism, and hostile satellites.
Riding with such mix are others (Zionists of Scientism) whose philosophy considers an ultimate spiritual truth to be revealed through pure physical empiricism --- that is, that there exists no Source of spirituality. Such a scientist may claim to "just happen" to be wound up to practice science. If so, what is his/her argument against nihilist-scientists (or programmers) who just happen to be wound up to practice anti-science (or viral anti-programming)? Theirs tends to be an uninspiring and confused mind sloth that, absurdly, attempts to justify only what is.
However, except as "is" and/or “exist” are meant as active verbs, it relates little meaning to say we are moral only in respect of what is, or what exists, or what “just happens.” Rather, we are moral in respect of how we assert will towards ideals, ever seeking to bring meaningful ideals to emerge towards manifest existence. Except in respect of will (as in will-to-math) towards ideals, it relates little meaning, perhaps even absurdity, to speak of morality. Indeed, but for implication of Will, why “should” I will (or do) anything?
Other Churches of Scientism or Liberation may “kidnap God,” to insult or subordinate the concept of God to narrow, minority, greedy, self serving interests, poverty pimps, and grievance stirrers.
It is easy to surrender mind from responsible thinking, to wrap one’s existence with dogma, to give up on trying to create and appreciate meaningful sense in respect of an existence that is based on a physics that is not in itself complete, but derivative of Something (or Notsomething) beyond. It is all the easier to surrender once one becomes conditioned to believe there exists no higher Something worth serving.
But, what if each of us is intuited to be an interconnecting perspective of a higher Will of Something? What if such Will becomes Notsomething only to the extent we come to will it so? What if, beyond physics, in pure Will-To-Math, we share in Its morally creative power and responsibility?
If so, should not each of us respect ourselves as perspectives of a “Body of God,” with moral responsibility to engage creatively in an ongoing story of learning, mathematical leveraging, experimentation, and empathetic inter-appreciation? In respect of the creative power availed to each of us, looking beyond mere logic, and beyond simplistic slogans, should we not simultaneously, ambiguously, and uneasily reverence, respect, fear, evaluate, judge, love, relish, appreciate, nurture, pursue, leverage, project, and transcend our moral responsibility? Should we not teach to pursue enlightened empathy?
Why do churches, Marxists, scientists, educators, and politicians so often lack vision to lead us towards civilization that can be responsibly stable, sustainable, and surpassable?
Every simplistic minded addict has his or her own easy “answer,” mantra, or slogan for everything. It is easy to be a simple minded liberal, with no responsibility for drawing or enforcing any needed hard lines against depredations that would corrupt the familial heart of civilization. It is just as easy to be a simple minded conservative, bound only to worship unregulated market “forces.”
Church folk, historicists, and scientists all need moral purposes, but their purposes fall to ashes when founded only on weak and simplistic grounds that are simply inadequate to support complex and creative challenges imposed by our mathematically interconnecting existential predicament.
An interconnected, interdependent Civilization necessitates that we inculcate and educate towards skill for exercising enlightened empathy and sometimes hard-nosed vision on behalf of an ideal of transcendence towards a civilization that is stable, sustainable, and surpassable. Yet, such ideal is open to all forms of sentience --- irrespective of race, color, genetics, robotics, family, tribe, culture, nationality, or previous psychological conditioning. Where there is Will, there is Way.
****
A God superior to Nature could not very well be stuck with a body or form that could not be changed at Will.
Among such bodies and forms as compete for our holographic attention, Will need not favor the endurance of any, except as then intuited to be empathetically associated with expressing, reminding, advancing, or pursuing the survival, replication, or flourishing of truth and beauty.
While there is no aspect of any physical essence that cannot be represented in math, yet there is no mathematics-in-itself that can complete any representation of Will.
Whether or not there may exist any superior essence, super-body, or super-physicality in association with Will is irrelevant to the relation of our physics to Will-To-Math.
To our empathetic appreciation, what is relevant is: Will-To-Math; and derivative subordination of our mortal physics in respect of IT’s ever-pursuit of truth and beauty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)