|
|
Post by dan on Mar 22, 2012 6:23:04 GMT -7
Cancer or Chrysalis......? Should I have to declare an emergency, in order for us to consider these options? Why didn't we consider them a century ago? Why can't we wait for another century, before we examine them? What's different now? Hmmm....... Maybe nothing.... Maybe everything..... All I know is that I'm tanned, rested and relaxed, and I'm talking to you, aren't I? So, let me be clear, I'm not declaring a resource crisis, certainly not in this first instance. I'm declaring a metaphysical emergency, principally in anticipation of our Mother of All Paradigm Shifts (MoAPS). Only in the light of the MoAPS, will we be able to gain any purchase on the nature of our present Emergency, our Apocalypse, if you will. If you can demonstrate that this prospective MoAPS is implausible, then, fine, I'll just go toddling off, into the sunset. But, I have good reason to suspect that the charge of implausibility is going to be rather more difficult to lodge, that it surely will seem, at first sight. And if this MoAPS is not implausible, then very quickly it becomes inevitable. It's just that simple, folks. And what is this terribly 'implausible' thing that I bring to you....? 1.) You and I are something more than conjures of atoms swerving in the dark. 2.) Science is correct in its thesis that there is nowhere to draw a line between matter and mind. Each of these postulates seems entirely reasonable. But what is the only reasonable conclusion that may be drawn from them? The only reasonable conclusion is that our bodies and, thereby, the rest of the world must be some species of mental substance. Whoa, Nelly......! It was George Berkeley who first put the radical notion of immaterialism into circulation, 400 years ago. Philosophers have been trying to disprove this thesis, ever since. Since the triumph of Darwinism, however, no one, even pretending to an intellectual status, has taken it seriously. How could any individuals conceive of swimming against that flood tide? But even the strongest of tides do slacken. They do run their course. Even now, the flood tide of materialism is, almost imperceptibly, beginning to recede. What could possibly take its place? The odd thing is, that even at its crest, one could only ever count the number of outspoken materialists on maybe two hands. It was always an existential dualism that ruled the roost of modernism. Freewill remains the bedrock presupposition of modernism and postmodernism. But, wait, any suggested duality of mind and matter runs afoul of postulate #2, above. Check out the logic, my friends, but doesn't the sheer force of logic place us right back into George's tender embrace? Is this rocket science? Is it brain surgery, or is it more like 3 - 2 = 1.... only one logical choice left. The simple historical fact is that most of us have been immaterialists, all along, but we never tried to make a big deal of it. Why make a big deal of it, now? Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it may now be a critical component of our raison d'etre. N'est-ce pas? The above exercise in elementary logic throws us right back on the existential question, par excellence........ Cancer or Chrysalis.....? But even just this grade-school example of logical deduction is liable to leave any modern audience with their eyes rolling. And, no, despite all the entreaties, I will not put this out as a PowerPoint. Where does this leave me on Sunday? And where does this leave our erstwhile 'crisis'? I simply need to compress all of the above into a couple of punch lines. That's just what I've been doing for the past 35 years. Taking what Sophia gave to me, way back then, in that one night stand, and putting back to you, in about the same fashion...... slam, bam, thank you, ma'am! It's all about Grace&Green....... I need those two volunteers, to come with me, over to Grace. They will need to have some clues about the BPWH. They will also need to be open to the mere possibility of theism, i.e. of divine intervention. The pretext of our rendezvous at Grace will be the Endtimes. Are we, Greens, open to the possibility of the Endtimes? Cancer or Chrysalis....?? Grace & Green.....!! Is that sufficiently punchy? But, wait, what about the urgency, or the lack thereof? Why can't we put this off, for a couple of months..... years? Well, I could speak to the global political urgency, such as whether Israel should bomb Iran's nukes. And maybe I should....... The point is that we live in an increasingly interconnected and complexifying world. The clash of civilizations, cultures and concepts abounds. There is nothing inherently wrong with vigorous discussions and dissentions...... unless and until there is such a cacophony that we experience a breakdown of communication. Witness just the state of political 'dialog' in these United States, for example. And now multiply that problem a hundred-fold, as we move out into the world. Somewhere, between Grace & Green, I'm looking for a spark, a new seed of Coherence. Therein lies eschatology....... What is eschatology? Eschatology is about End Things...... Things......?? And End of what, pray tell? Eschatology is taken to apply to you and me and/or to the World. Hmmm......... Isn't that thought just about the last thought that we need, now, in this fragile, vulnerable world? Aren't we all just doing our level best to avoid a global Panic?! Why would anyone want to add fuel to that fire? Well, my point is simply this, how else could God effectively intervene in the present global circumstance, other than in an eschatological fashion? Whoa......?! Come again...... How could we possibly hear a voice in the wilderness, in these circumstances? That is.... without invoking everyone's ultimate concern? That is all that I am proposing to do wrt Grace & Green. Is this going to cause a panic? Would anything less possibly suffice to make a dent in the global cacophony? Could this proposed, Chicken Little, initiative possibly ever amount to anything more than a hill of beans? I only know of one way to find out......! 1:20-------- Grace&Green.......recap..... Are the Greens going to rule out the possibility of Divine intervention wrt human crises? If not, then we only need to ask ourselves how might God wish to intervene. The above scenario suggest a minimalist, but possibly sufficient, form of intervention, which would be to precipitate an MoAPS. The BPWH is one such. Do we know of any others? I merely wish to have some of the Greens check to see if the find any fault with it, and then to help foster a discussion of it at Grace. That's it....! Could anyone ask for more? ------------ The sooner that God intervenes, the less dramatic need that intervention be...... For instance, suppose that God wishes to refute materialism. That refutation could take either a physical or a conceptual form. The conceptual option could unfold as have paradigm shifts in the past.... with all due deliberation amongst those with philosophical, scientific and theological predilections. That is the thrust of the BPWH. But, due to the pofessional protocols and rigidities, within the above fields, there will have to be some clever gambit to bring the issues to the attention of some minimal number of those who are being targeted. In the age of the Internet, I don't think that eventuality should be too difficult to orchestrate. Do you? Particularly not, if God chooses to have anything to say about it. I'm simply supposing that the above G&G initiative is a very reasonable initial step in that direction. Am I wrong? --------------- 4pm--------- And in today's Times, we have these two contrasting reports....... www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/business/energy-environment/inching-toward-energy-independence-in-america.html?hp. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/world/us-intelligence-report-warns-of-global-water-tensions.html?hp The resource/energy crisis appeas to be easing at home, even though it continues, abroad. Should this not reduce the urgency for divine intervention? Let the party go on! Why should God wish to be viewed as a party-pooper? But wait...... This is only Chicken Little speaking. My primary concern is with the truth, as in the spirit of the truth, so-called. Should truth ever be out of season? What does the self-concealing God have to say about that? What about John 16:12ff? What about our need to know? This is where things get tricky. (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 23, 2012 6:13:05 GMT -7
Sam points to an earlier article from the Oil Drum, responding to a similar story, to yesterday's link, about our, US, alleged energy independence........ www.theoildrum.com/node/8677 However, as one of the commenters pointed out.... my eyes do start to glaze over, as in a statistical food-fight. And, KiM, if the Lord didn't love polyannas, he wouldn't have made so many of them. Yet, in the meantime, global fertility keeps plummeting, so maybe, deep down, we're a lot smarter than we give ourselves credit for. Of course, even this dramatic turnaround is too little and too late for us to avoid a judicious bit of divine intervention wrt the impending, inevitable MoAPS. And do either we or God need an excuse for the to be a little bit of truth falling into our laps? And talk about polyannas, Mr. BPW should be their queen! So, yes, our little Resilience Circle, all five of us, met last night at Sam's, and I was shut out by Drew, our facilitator. I have to remind myself and Sam that she has read both of Jared Diamond's books, yet, she still seems clueless. Sam had to hold my hand for a couple of hours, afterwards. The squeaky wheel gets the sympathy. This is shades of what is to come, at BGF, on Sunday. Sam did promise to help me with the recruiting for our Endtimes foray back to GFC. Still, I'll feel deprived, if I don't get to act out, a bit, now and then. I was trying to explain to Sam that, if I were God, imagine that(!), I'd want to use the carrot more than the stick, to move our butts into heaven. The only idea we need to assimilate is that time is an illusion, reinforced by our metabolic/reproductive cycles. Earth and Heaven are both eternal, but each in their own way. Eternity is, in the end, a quality and not a quantity. It is a kind of asymptote. It is about the shining-present/presence. Speaking of which, I need to look at E'S Brightman's finitistic theism, wherein a personal God is necessarily self-limiting. 2:10-------- I'm reviewing Personalism in both Wiki and in the SEP. I cannot overemphasize how central is the notion of personalism to the entire enterprise of the BPWH. Why has this philosophy lost intellectual traction, in the last half-century? Perhaps it became a cliche, of some kind? Is this mainly true just on the analytic side? What amazes me on the continental side is the dominance of a personalist version of atheism, particularly under the influence of Sartre. Under secularism, we just take persons for granted. The crying need for a philosophical context and pretext for persons is simply bracketed. Too much baggage, therein, we may suppose. Theism is necessarily finitistic in all dimensions, excepting in the transcendence of Love. Love conquers all, as in rock, paper and..... love! Need this be rocket science? It is of utmost importance, following Karol Wojtyła, to understand the dangers of both the individualist and collectivist extremes of personalism. Persons are necessarily social beings, and this applies especially to the reciprocity inherent in Creator/Creation. We can lose our selves in the Creator, only to the extent that the Creator can lose herself in us. This reciprocity is emphasized in the notion of the Hieros Gamos, and, of course, in the Eucharist. God cannot eat us, unless we eat God, not to put to fine a point on it! This is simply a statement of ecology, the circle of life, on the cosmic level. Creator and Creation are necessarily Co-eternal, in this fundamental sense, but not in any temporal sense, from our very parochial view of that projected dimension. 3:50--------- Reading in the SEP, I strongly sympathize with the followers of M Buber, who point to our ideal relationship with God and Creation as being in the frame of I/Thou, although, in practice, we often succumb to the convenient untruth of I/It. Anyone for pet-rocks? Animism and pantheism? Or are we simply acknowledging the chain/circle of being? This is a form of Christ consciousness.... nature as Eucharist. Any greater distinction tends toward an absolute dualism which is the enemy of idealism/panentheism. Because we have more respect for dolphins, does that give us less respect for each other? Again, we must avoid the extremes. Personalism is, at its core/corps, anti-ideological. 4:50-------- When we desacralize Creation, we end up by descralizing ourselves, as in Darwinism, whose logical antecedent was Cartesianism. On the other extreme, the pantheists, by decapitating Creation, render it devoid of meaning, of significance. It is simply miraculous how the incarnation has breathed life and meaning into the world. The Spirit moved upon the Deep. We have our feet planted in the world, while we reach out to the stars. How could so little, count for so much? (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 24, 2012 6:16:34 GMT -7
Below is a continuation of the series of emails, begun on the previous page, to the BGF.......
Warning...... What follows will be a plot spoiler.........
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mdonnall2002 on Mar 24, 2012 14:36:48 GMT -7
Small group indeed.......
Distractions seem to have abated.
As soon as you convince participants that they will not be ' judged ' by their congregations for asking questions outside of the mantle of truth - John 16:12 will seem more fitting.
Dan, do not forget that Sheep need Shepard's for a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 26, 2012 7:55:13 GMT -7
Md02,
Thank you, for the encouragement......
----------------
Well, sports fans, another day older, and deeper in debt....... or so it would seem to the uninitiated. Am I deterred? Watch me being deterred........
What follows is the email that I am composing to certain members of the Baltimore Green Forum..........
I just keep coming back to the basic, existential issues.......
Sam did not know what I meant by 'existential' in this context. People, at the first pass, might reasonably suppose I'm referring Existentialism. But, no, I'm not.
Bless his heart, but is was JPS who misappropriated the notion of existence. I'm simply taking it back. What is it that exists, according to JPS? What exists are persons with freewill. Those are ontologically loaded terms. The best minds in the world have been arguing about the meaning of these words for, at least, the past 2,000 years. JPS was Johnny come lately, so to speak. JPS simply wanted to throw out the philosophical/theological bathwater, and keep the Baby....... which, in this case, are free-willed persons, and most of his followers just took this bare-bones notion of personhood as a presupposition, and moved on from there. This presupposition is also what undergirds most of continental philosophy, which is known as phenomenology.
Now, I understand that most people, reading the above paragraph, would already be noticing that their eyes were glazing over.....puhleeeeeease.... this is not philosophy 101, this is not a freshman bull-session. We are activist adults, and we have practical work to do. We need to save the world, we don't need anyone's philosophical BS.
So....... shall we get down to the nitty-gritty of our existential crisis.......
Now, in the interest of getting more focused, Sam has suggested that I refer to survival rather than to existence, which may seem too abstract.
So, now, watch me take Sam to task.......... keeping in mind, as I have already reminded you all, that Sam and I have been best of friends for 43 years........
I want you to keep this in mind, while you, in turn, will be taken to task, by me. IOW, don't take it personally, just take it existentially.....
But, still, we might wonder why Sam seems to think that english is my second language, after knowing me for 43 years!
If the use of 'existential' brings to mind existentialism, then, by the same token, the use of 'survival' brings to mind survivalism. Sam may be ok with the notion of Survivalism, but I'm not. And I won't sit still while others use that word unwittingly.
Sam...... so I'm asking you what you mean by survival. My rhetorical question back to you is simply.... do we survive by bread alone? That gets to the nub of survivalism, does it not?
There is only one rational answer to this question...... OBVIOUSLY NOT!!
(cont........)
p.s. I understand that both Sam and Lore were concerned that I sent out too many (5) emails on Saturday. So today I will endeavor to limit myself to two (2) emails, today.
The next question is who should be the lucky devils, mainly amongst the BGF, to receive these pearls(?) of wisdom(?). I will now attend to that question.....
Never mind, I'll just keep using the same list as on Saturday. Of course, anyone on this list by 'mistake' should ask to be removed. However, if all of you asked to be removed, then there are caveats that will come into play, as will be dealt with explicitly and implicitly in today's #2 email......
-----------------
Email #2.........
(cont........)
We are continuing with the theme of existence vs. survival.......
Do we survive by bread alone? I say.... obviously not.
Well, it all depends on who are 'we'.
This question was most succinctly and famously posed by Paul Gauguin....... Who are we? From whence do we come, and whither do we go?
The most famous answer was.......
I do believe this.
But this does beg the question..... by whom or by what were we taken.... from the dust?
According to Darwin, it was survivalism that took us from the dust, i.e. we are nothing more than survival machines, i.e. atoms swerving in the dark.
I do not believe this. And, I will not sit still in the same room with anyone who does believe this.
IOW, I will no longer sit still in a room with any members of any affinity group who are not clear about who we are.
To be even more specific, as long as there is an affinity group of the BGF that will include me, I will make sure that they know that I take this issue very seriously, and that I am very perplexed as to why we all don't take this issue as our ultimate concern.
If, at the next meeting of the BGF, the people on this list will not meet with me, then I will take this issue to the plenary session... etc.
My old friend, Sam, is concerned that no one in the BGF wishes to concern themselves with any so-called 'ultimate concerns'. IOW, they wish only to be concerned with Survival, rather than with Existence. What is the difference? The difference is the ultimate concerns. IOW, is there anything for which you and I would sacrifice our lives?
(cont......)
p.s. I am now going back on my promise to only send two (2) emails today.
I labor under the impression that you have never received any emails that were more important than these last two that I have sent to. If you believe that you have, then please disabuse [me] of the illusion under which I continue to labor.
--------------
Email #3...........
I try to be patient with my fellow humans, but, if truth be know, there are times that you do try my patience.......
1.) I arranged with Sam and Lore to call for a spiritual affinity group, two month ago.
2.) Said affinity group did meet, but it was almost entirely dominated by Brother Henry. I would have had to rudely interrupt the Brother, were I to have exerted my facilitator privilege. I try very hard not to abuse any privileges.
3.) But..... Having been subsequently subjected to upwards of ten emails a day from said Brother, I do confess that I did lose my patience with said Brother. Inadvertently said Brother had once, 'mistakenly', put his email list in the cc: column rather than in the bcc: column. I took that opportunity to question said Brother's mental stability. Mind you that this was only after I had had lunch with him, down near his residence, and spent a total of four hours attempting to explain my mission to him.
Let it be known, that said Brother has a very caring and concerned support network. Three members of that network did call, from as far away as New Orleans. I took pains to reassure them that my purpose of the email was to be provocative, much more than being diagnostic. I say this with some experience in the matter of mental stability. But that is a much longer story than is appropriate for email #3.
Setting aside any clinical issues, I now come to yesterday's meeting of the population affinity group, as called by Sam.
(cont........)
----------------
Email #4..........
Here is what happened yesterday in Sam's population affinity group......
1.) Our first scheduled meeting was to have been at 3pm. Only four of us showed up. Sam and I had been in consultation from 1:30, onwards. A few others began arriving around 3:30. Nancy was one of these. But, ITTBK, I'm a bit hazy, now, as to what transpired leading up to 4pm, and what happened subsequently at 5:15, when we reconvened.
At the 5:15 reconvening, TBMK, there was a confrontation between Sam and the Brother, as to who was to be the focalizer/facilitator. The Brother did face down Sam. And, under the Brother's stern tutelage, we, following the affinity rules went once aroun the group of six of us, identifying ourselves and our concerns. But then there was a breakdown of the affinity rules, in as much as Nancy was allowed to take charge of setting our agenda.
Nancy came around to virtually commanding us to focus on some sort of regional conference that was to occur in October. And she pressured Sam into inviting Tom Horton to address our affinity group next month.
And then Nancy pressured me to attempt to do something about the BGF website.
(cont.......)
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 27, 2012 7:49:16 GMT -7
Rich,
If only you could hear yourself talk.......
Are you not hereby suggesting that the environmental movement is not about the changing of people's beliefs? Isn't that exactly what you and I are supposed to be trying to do....changing people's beliefs? Do you suppose that you should be the only one exempted from this process?
We environmentalists know the truth, and also know how this truth should be applied to environmental matters, and so we just need to disseminate this information to the people who remain unaware of it.
You may be correct, Rich. And your view does represent the opinion of the vast majority of those who think of themselves as environmentalists.
TBMK, I represent a minority of one. I must be crazy, if I think that my very unconventional views could ever possibly stand up against the received wisdom of the best and brightest minds of modern times!
I have been attempting to disseminate my ideas, for the past thirty-five years, with no measurable success. So I must be a nut-case to be so persistent, against all odds, and that may very well be a correct assessment. It is not infrequently that I do question my own sanity. I don't really need to pay a psychiatrist to do this for me, just in case anyone was wondering.
Furthermore, on the environmental and population fronts, great strides have been made, just in the past few decades. All we should have to do is keep doing what we've been doing, all along, just more of it, in continuing incremental steps.
However, I'm hardly the only one, at this point in time, to question the conventional view that we are no longer being confronted by a looming environmental/population crisis. I'm not the only one inclined to believe that all our efforts have been much too little, and much too late.
Sam and I are the only ones in the BGF to be outspoken on this latter, crucial point. Every one else in the BGF is acting and talking as if we will be able to 'muddle' through whatever environmental crises may be confronting us.
And, once again, all the rest of you may be correct, but that doesn't quite let Sam and me off the hook.
What should Sam and I do about our lonely predicament? Evidently, Sam has made his decision. In general, he keeps his pessimism to himself, as, perhaps, many of you are doing. He does, however, participate in various conferences and email lists, wherein an elite of the cognoscenti are able to be much more candid with each other, about their pessimism concerning the survival of human civilization.
Why don't I follow that same course? Well, Sam and I have actually been on quite different paths, since, at least, 1977. I say this, in no small part, to exonerate him from being seen, in anyway, as responsible for my own views or actions. If Sam is, in anyway, complicit in my actions, it is only by occasionally being sympathetic with my lost-cause plight, but not specifically with the cause itself, or with my manner of dealing with it.
If even just one or two of you have managed to wade this far, through this preamble, I would be pleasantly surprised. So, without further ado, I will get to the point, which is......
Sam and I are not the only ones who suppose that human civilization is doomed, barring some form of miraculous or external intervention. However, I'm the only one, amongst those 'cognoscenti', who actually supposes that such a 'miracle' could or would possibly occur.
Amongst the few of them who are even aware of my predilections, they, very reasonably, suppose that my power of reason has simply been overcome by my not being able to face up to the facts on the ground. And, again, they could be correct. Who are we to judge our deepest motivations?
Does this mean that I should sit on my thumbs, or contemplate my navel, while waiting for Godot? That just isn't in my nature.
I simply suppose that I'm a non-trivial component of some such intervention. Ok, I'm a take charge kinda guy. That in itself could easily explain why no one ever listens. So be it.
There is no indication, whatsoever, that anyone, either at the BGF (Greens) or GFC (Grace Fellowship) has the slightest interest in my little plan of Salvation. The Greens are convinced they don't need to be saved, and the Graces are convinced they already have been saved. But, hey, Dan, thanks for the thought, anyway! And, gosh, why can't I just take 'no' for an answer? (rhetorical).
I further admit that there is one very big conceptual hurdle in my little Best Possible World cosmology. It is that the world is not as objective as it seems. Not by a long shot. IOW, despite its very convincing materialistic appearance, the world is ultimately of the spirit, by the spirit and for the spirit. The world exists as a necessary, and best possible ontological bootstrap, between the Creatures and the Creator. Ultimately, we are one with God.... one for all, all for one.
The whole world is in her hands. You, me and God are all soul-mates, therein.
So, you see, we have nothing to worry about. Our 'salvation' is inevitable, whether you and I believe it or not.
So, once again, why should I be pestering anyone about this inevitability? The only reasonable explanation is that I must feel like pestering folks. Is it entirely gratuitous, on my part? Well, not if my BPW cosmology is correct. In that case, every last one of us is simply manifesting God's will. Our supposed egocentric free-will, is, nonetheless, a significant part of the Cosmic will, which, in turn, is bound to participate in this best possible creation.
Ok, wonderful..... But so what?!
So everything..........
This is the truth that will finally set us free to be our divine selves. We will lose ourselves in God's embrace, which is, we will then realize, pretty much where we have been all along. The very often painful illusion of being separate creatures was simply our part of the creation-bargain. No pain, no gain? There is some truth to that. It is the deepest shadows that most clearly point us toward the light, even or especially if we may not realize it, at the time. At the best possible time, in the best possible way, we will be awakening from our slumber of materialism. All of this, we will then be seeing from God's perspective.
Wonderful! But what the heck does this have to do with the Environment? Everything, actually......
The impending environmental crisis is a illusion that is designed purely to awaken us from our slumber of materialism. Well, it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job, if only one of us has been awoken, so far.
How much worse will this nightmare have to get, in order for the rest of us to be awoken?
With this sort of question, we need only put ourselves in God's place. If you were God, what would you do? WWGD?.... is the bumper-sticker acronym.
God could awaken us tomorrow, by arranging for the proverbial landing of the UFO on the White House lawn. Now, this may just be my opinion, but I don't think that would be the best possible scenario......
It would be much too contrived...... We've been told that the Kingdom is within. Externalizing it in the form of a flying saucer is not the way to awaken our inner, higher selves. It would be a great distraction. The only way that makes a lick of sense, is simply to present us with the unadulterated truth. Well, no, that's still not quite right.....
Ideally, this would be a truth that each of us comes to, in our own way, in our own time. Ok, that would be an ideal. But this is not the way that minds are changed. We are social animals, and truths are nothing if they are not social constructs. What we have, in practice, is the phenomenon of the Paradigm shift. What I'm suggesting, in the case of advent of this Best Possible World Hypothesis (BPWH), is that we will experience the Mother of All Paradigm Shifts (MoAPS).
See, that's why I'm pestering you. I'm just pushing my little paradigm-cart, down the street, seeing if anyone notices. And, in 35 years, no one has. Boo-hoo... But I have no reason to doubt the infinite wisdom of the infinite mind, in which we all participate, to the best of our ability. Can anyone doubt, for a second, that there will be a season for truth? I sure don't. In my short remaining lifetime? That is certainly not necessary. Wouldn't most of us rather fail at something that will eventually succeed, than to succeed at that which will eventually fail, as with materialism, for instance?
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 28, 2012 5:31:33 GMT -7
Yesterday's post....... compassmorainn.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=bpwh&thread=96&page=2#966.......was going to be my response to Rich, a member of Sam's population affinity group. But, at the last minute, Sam called, and I realized that I was supposed to take him to BWI yesterday, rather than today. All the way to the airport, Sam begged me to go easy on you good people. Well, I tried to remind him that this is not my preference. It is a matter of priority. And, for most of my life, I've made considerable effort to get my priorities straight. Now, we are about to see who's got the higher priorities, and, right now, it's just me against the Baltimore Green Forum. In this email I will be teaching all of you, on this list, and all of posterity, possibly, a lesson in activism........ Let us carefully review the response that Rich sent to me, night before last...... Just off the top, Rich, I can tell you that you have put your foot it in, and now you are way in over your head. Am I going to be gentle, in pointing out to you the multiple errors that you have committed, above? Let's get this very straight, ASAP...... Gentleness is not my first priority, nor is politeness. My first priority, in this lifetime, has been, and will be.... truth. In fact, I continue to labor under the impression that I might, possibly, be the Spirit of the Truth, as referenced, for example, in John 16:12ff. In your above email, Rich, you refer to beliefs. That is a very loaded term, and has many negative connotations particularly with regard to science and philosophy. Now, as soon as I mention philosophy, almost everyone's eyes in the BGF will start glazing over, particularly Nancy's eyes. So Nancy, I only know one way to get your attention, is by confronting you, face to face. Think of me as doing that this email, so that I won't have to do it in public, when we next meet. And keep in mind that my phone # is 443-xxx-xxxx. Don't make the mistake that Brother Henry made, in failing to communicate with me. If you don't wish to communicate with me privately, I will not hesitate to communicate with you publicly, by whatever means available. And if you don't wish to communicate with me at all, they don't show up, and otherwise stay out of my way. I adhere to the old adage..... if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. Speaking of which, and seeing as how much you folks like rules, here is a New Rule for the BGF. From now on, there will be a designated 'kitchen', wherein everyone is invited to come to discuss the most difficult problems and our ultimate concerns. So far, by default, it has been the Pastor's study, which has a door that can be shut. This is how 'we' operate at GFC. There is the Search for Answers designated space, where, every Sunday, we can discuss things like right to life and the end of the world. And, when we start 'screaming', we can shut the door. Now, I know that you folks are much too polite to ever scream. Instead you pass the talking stick. Last time, Bro Henry was supposed to be that stick, but he failed in his job, and allowed Nancy to commandeer our little Kitchen room. I don't think Nancy will be making that mistake again, because I'm about to mention to her a thing or two about Spiritual protocol...... But before I do that, and now, hopefully, that I have Nancy's attention, I need to get back to Rich's problem, concerning his so-called 'beliefs'........ ......But now that I have, maybe, two people's attention, allow me, please, to send this email, just so that you know that I haven't gone into a funk or fallen off then End of the world....... I will be sending, to this same list, one or two more emails, today, depending on how the Spirit moves me....... Of course, any and all of you may block my emails, but, do keep in mind, that I know where your Kitchen is, once a month..... (cont......) -------------- The above was sent as an email, with some additional editing, mainly to tone down a couple of the rough spots. I am continuing with BGF - Kitchen Rules, below..... ------------ (cont........) Back to Rich, and his so-called 'beliefs'....... And, to set the proper context, here was Rich's earlier email response to me..... So, we see Rich's ploy, which is that we came to the BGF only to discuss strategies for activism, not to discuss anyone's beliefs, and, therefor, my raising of spiritual concerns or any sort of ultimate concerns is ruled out of 'court'. Wonderful...... 2:20------------ Just now have I noticed Rich's latest response, pasted above....... Yes, Rich, one of my correspondents sent me a link on a news article about FSM, back when it was actually newsworthy. I thought it was amusing, back then. However, when it is repeated in this context, it is less than amusing. If you still have a smile on your face, then, it seems, that you wish to test me to see if I can wipe the smile off your face. Did I forget to mention that, in nutshell, is it not fair to say that CD, and his materialist followers, believe that we, humans, are meat (-ball?) machines? Is that not a fair way to characterize your 'beliefs' about humans? Frankly, Rich, I don't find anything amusing about that. Do you? If, to you, I am only a meat machine, then, if we were stranded somewhere without food or law enforcement, then would you not, very quickly, be plotting to kill me? If not, why not? So I'm wondering if you missed Sam's talk, last month, on the seriousness of our present population/resource crisis. Are we to assume then, Rich, that you would not hesitate to engage in genocide, in order to redress any serious population/resource imbalance? Are you so clueless, Rich, that you did not anticipate this very obvious response to your FSM 'joke'? (cont......) -------------- 3:20------------ The above content was just sent to Rich, Sam, Brother Henry, Carla, Nancy and Lore. --------------- (next email...cont.......) The reason that I kept stressing 'beliefs', in the previous emails is that I've never heard of anyone who was a voluntary materialist. The only materialists, I'm aware of, say they are such, only because they labor under the strong impression that any other kind of ontological premise has been rendered implausible by Science. Only then, do they very reluctantly come to accept materialism, along with the basic premise that, yes, you and I are meat machines, etc..... If you, Rich, are not a reluctant materialist, then, please, tell us why, and provide a link to any publication that supports your warm embrace of materialism. If there is going to be a population affinity/activist group, our opponents would be able to smoke you out, if for no other reason than this discussion, appearing on my blog. You and/or we would then bear the additional burden of having to find a reason why they should not suppose that, in a crisis of survival, you would not strongly tend to support genocide. Is there something here, Rich, that I don't understand, or that I've missed? (cont........) --------------- 4:20--------- All quiet on the BGF front........ It is hard for me to believe that any educated materialist, in the 21st century, could be as clueless as Rich is appearing to be. It's like taking candy from a baby. I truly wonder whether it is possible that he knows something on the subject of materialism that I have not already spent years studying. I guess we'll soon find out. In the meantime, I might as well focus in on Nancy's issue about activism vs. philosophy...... Next email, directed to Nancy........ -------------- Then came this...... . |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 29, 2012 5:48:29 GMT -7
It appears that some progress has been made, but I'm also familiar with the possibility of backsliding. I need to have a chat with Nancy.
So, yes, I have invited Nancy to have further conversations about setting priorities for the BGF affinity group.
And I've belatedly responded to Brother Henry's request to accompany me to the GFC/SfA, checking to see if we were back(!) on speaking terms. And so it goes.......
10:45---------
Even a small step forward, forces me to consider the long journey ahead, and this includes, especially, the unbridgeable chasm that I refer to as the Mother of All Paradigm Shifts (MoAPS).
Without a strong sense of desperation, that quantum leap will seem totally infeasible. One has to have fully internalized the certainty that we are at the end of our rope, and I cannot demonstrate that certainty, not with any certainty. I may well be wrong. We may well fail.
What ever certainty there may be, must lie within. My sense of certainty came largely from a brief encounter with Sophia, nearly forty years ago. I'm not Sophia. How can I translate that charism into mere words? There is no way. All I can do is put my mortal self on the line, day in, and day out.
If I have any success at all, it will very likely be posthumous. That may even have been the plan, from the very beginning. WWGD, pray tell?
Let's face it.... that bridge over the cosmic Chasm...... that probably will be my dead body. Every day, I keep trying to throw myself into that chasm...... sticking my neck out as far as it will go, and then some more....
Am I trying to solicit pity? Heck no. I have never been able to imagine doing anything else. Desperation is my only energy drink. It's just my cup of tea.
The meat-machine is just my meat and potatoes. In the very midst of our materialist slumber, that meat-grinder just bops us over the head. It's the only alarm clock we'll ever need or ever have. We wake up one morning and realize that it is a dead-end, in every possible way. Will the starving folks in India and Africa ever be able to come to this realization.... that we do not and cannot live by bread alone?
The rest of us will have to lead the way out. Soon, we will all have to put our bodies on that line.
But let me reinforce this notion of our desperation necessarily coming from within.......
Thank goodness that God has not chosen to hit us over the head with a physical emergency. Ours is to be a spiritual emergency.
Sure..... normally, we are as thick-skulled as we can possibly be. But not in this one very special case. Yes, in our minds and in our hearts, there is a big hole, exactly in the shape of God's living truth, just waiting, just yearning to be filled. The more stubborn you are, the harder you will fall.
God has precisely designed Creation so as to force us to look for that love in absolutely every wrong place, simply by being fiendishly clever in hiding this truth closer to us even than the noses on our faces. Isn't that how it is? The very best place to hide anything is in blindingly plain sight. It is so painfully obvious, that only out of utter desperation would we ever finally see the tips of our noses.
Did any of us ever think that we could be anything more than God's patsies.... than her favorite clowns? It would get awfully boring up in heaven, if she couldn't derive endless amusement from the inventiveness of our obtuseness. How cleverly do we invent new ways to hide from her love?
Let's just face it, God loves nothing more than to surprise us with her love, especially at the very end.
And, hey, we won't even have to act surprised. It's gonna surprise our pants off, and nobody's more than mine.
Too clever by half??! Heck no..... We are too clever, by a thousand light-years!!
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 30, 2012 6:06:05 GMT -7
There have been no responses on the green front, since the ones I posted from Rich and BH. I'm not particularly surprised, but I will be keeping after them about how it would be propitious to the functioning of the forum to be dealing with me offline rather than online/in-person. I need to send out an email BroHen, reiterating my invitation to be my guest at the SfA meeting on Sunday, but I wish to cc: the other members of our affinity group about their lack of response, and about broadening the scope of Sam's population group. Here is the response from BH that I had neglected to post....... My response, yesterday, was that I would love to have him as my guest at the SfA, on Sunday, and I offered to provide transportation from his residence, in the DC suburbs. The only caveat was pointing out that at last Sunday's BGF meeting, he had been avoiding conversing with me, presumably due to my ill-advised response to one of his e-lists, for which I apologized. I've not heard back from him, either. I am now using this space to compose a followup to the emails I sent yesterday. When I finish that task, I wish to jot down some thoughts I had, last night, about snowflakes..... Well, let me first deal briefly with the snowflake problem, or, more precisely, about the metaphysics of snowflakes........ Why should there be anything 'supernatural' about snowflakes? Well, according to the BPWH, everything is Supernatural, because everything is a manifestation of spirit or mind. Technically, this worldview is known as idealism or immaterialism. Most philosophers have always been open to this possibility, and most modern philosophies derive from it, in one way or another. However, modernism is characterized/defined by Cartesian, mind/matter, dualism. Come to think of it, I don't know of any dualistic philosophers, after Descartes. This is interesting..... I'd better check wiki.... Dualism survives, philosophically, mainly in the form of Quantum Consciousness. This was the idea that I pursued, from 1977-81. But it is a conceptual dead-end. Very few are actively pursuing it, and no new ideas have emerged in the last decade or so. Nonetheless, the philosophy of mind continues to be the single most active field amongst Anglophone philosophers. A substantial minority of these adhere to a strict physicalism. What about the rest? I frankly don't know how to succinctly characterize them...... Well, maybe I do..... Panpsychism would be close. Also see David Chalmers panpsychism list. Yes, that's the crucial concept, now on the cutting edge of postmodern philosophy. But, after the cutting edge, we come to the bleeding edge....... The Panpsychic Catastrophe....... And this is where things start getting a bit strange......... First of all, only 10 entries are displayed on google search. Mine is the first of these, but that link takes us to OMF that has been shut down since Jan 31, due to continued infighting amongst the moderators/owner. The next three entries also refer back to my OMF post, indirectly. Two of those refer mainly to Eve Skinner. Therein hang a significant tale about my family background. That google brought this up, without breaking into a sweat, tells us something about living in a small, very interconnected world. But, in this world, the 1% still has ultimate control, through the power of the global intelligence community (GIC) to regulate, filter and manipulate the infrastructure of the Internet. That is why the cosmic intelligence (CI), which Rich dismisses as the FSM, has it's finger in the GIC pie. How did the CI mange to get it's finger in that pie? Very simple, actually...... It's all about the Core Story...... Notice that that the above link takes you to 31 articles at RU that make reference to the core-story. The long and short of it is that the Smith/Skinner family seems to own the Panpsychic Catastrophe, at least according to google, which is the bleeding edge of the cutting edge of postmodern philosophy. But, hey, that's just my personal opinion, IMHO. 3:45------------ Within the last hour, I've had communications with 3 former members of OM. My main concern is that my very extensive portion of those archive be preserved. And now it appears that CM is also coming under an attack, similar to what shut down OM. I've also spoken with Sam, who is in Oregon for several days. He and Nancy have agreed that the name of our affinity group should be the Difficult Problems group. With this information in hand, I can go ahead with my email to said group, which I will copy to here..... 5:30----------- Back to the Panpsychic Catastrophe...... This phrase I quoted from a lecture given by Ned Block at a JHU seminar that I attended last year. The catastrophic part, we may surmise, is that if it is deemed plausible that physicalism is giving way to panpsychism, then it is equally plausible that panpsychism will give way to pantheism and even theism. The problem facing materialism/physicalism is that of the Slippery Slope. Materialism is a very fragile construct. Any perceived defect in its fortress/siege mentality/strategy will indeed be catastrophic, leading to the MoAPS. (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Mar 31, 2012 6:54:03 GMT -7
Know thyself....? Are we dust.... unto dust? Are we a malignancy..... a cancer... upon the planet? Or are we something else? How can we know? It's for sure that we won't know, if we don't ask. Is there any question that should have a higher priority for us? TBMK, I'm the only one asking this question, in any systematic manner. It would be very helpful, in asking this question, to have a focus group available. For 35 years, here, there and everywhere, I've been asking, begging for a focus group, but not even one person has ever been more than a day-tripper wrt the BPWH. This is why, in my final act of desperation, I throw myself at Grace&Green...... Why I have to hold them as virtual hostages, while demanding my 15 minutes of their attention. If strict materialism/physicalism is false wrt the mere existence of our minds, then, by that single stroke, does it become plausible that we are a chrysalis, as it becomes implausible that we are a cancer. It is just that simple, sports fans! This is exactly the significance of the Panpsychic Catastrophe, which scientists and philosophers whisper about, in the corners of their labs and offices. Other things being equal, all of us default to our daily routines of egocentricity. Therein lies our comfort zone. We love nothing better that to be our own atoms, routinely swerving in the dark, following our economic 'bliss', if you will. But, if it ever becomes clear that the atoms in our brains are not, likewise, just swerving in the dark, following their economic path of least resistance, then all bets are off. This is exactly the threat of the Panpsychic Catastrophe. Thus do we only hear whispers about it, in the dark corners of the materialist juggernaut. This, to me, is the origin of the Snowflake question, alluded to earlier....... A Chrysalis is just an organic snowflake, if you will. It is a butterfly, in the making. According to the BPWH, so are we. Embryonic development is another example of the unfolding of the Panpsychic Catastrophe. It will constitute the breaking of the cosmic water..... the flooding forth of the cosmic spirit upon our land. This is precisely the Mother of All Paradigm Shifts (MoAPS). Whoa, there...... Am I suggesting that snowflakes are psychic? Well, I'm suggesting that the cosmos is psychic...... IOW, the world is more like a great idea, than a great machine. If that is the case, then, it stands to reason that the world is, ultimately, better understood as something projective, rather than merely objective. And all of this is the logical fallout of Panpsychism, as in wiki and in consc.net. Academic folks would say that I'm counting my metaphysical chickens, before they're hatched. I say that a stitch in time, saves nine. Let's face it, the academics would like to keep all of their eggs in their own little ivory incubator, in perpetuity. Meanwhile, the world is in crisis mode. But the world is always in crisis mode........ It is true that global fertility continues its drastic decline. It is true that there are untapped reserves of energy, and that there is no good reason why anyone should have to be starving, today or tomorrow. What is at stake is our sense of a cosmic Cornucopia..... of our nearly unshakeable faith in perpetual progress. Sure, there are prophets of doom and gloom, there may even be a few more of those today, than yesterday. But they remain at the margins of our modernist worldview, as do all of the fringes of postmodernism. So, what's my beef, today? Why am I acting so impatient? Get a grip, Smith! My whole sense of self is summed up in this one little song...... Can I help that? I didn't write it. But there it is, just as is John 16:12ff. I didn't write that either. Panpsychic Catastrophe is whispered in the halls of academe. I didn't invent it. When is the right time for a prophecy and a vision? When will be the right time for the MoAPS? Ultimately, that will be up to you, not me. But am I going to make it easy for you to continue to ignore the voice in the wilderness? That's just not in my makeup. 2:20---------- Snowflakes exhibit a fractal symmetry, which is true of all of nature, both organic and inorganic. Are fractals a manifestation of panpsychism? I have frequently suggested that the Mandelbrot and the Monster are such manifestations. Each in its own way. Each manifests the organicity of our world. That organicity is integral to the holistic nature of existence...... To be is to relate..... that which is most related is most real. Why should we ever have doubted this simple premise? It is the basis of the BPWH. The challenge is then for me to explain snowflakes without having to posit atoms. According to the BPWH, no sentience or sapience may exist in isolation. This is simply a tautology. God is necessarily a Creator. We are necessarily creatures. Creator/Creation defines the cosmic bootstrap of existence. How many ontological bootstraps can there be? Can there exist an isolated bootstrap? If there can exist one, why not two? A bootstrap necessarily exists in potentia. How many potential bootstraps may there be? 3:35--------- I've just been alerted that the OMF archive is back online....... www.lucianarchysoriginalopenminds.web44.net/index.html I don't know who uploaded it, nor do I know how complete it is. It is not possible to login or to post. I have no idea whether the content ownership will now come under dispute. God knows.... Quite a few of the pages from the longer threads in my DS section appear to be missing. We'll see what happens. Back to Potentiality........ Apparently, Cy is expediting the reinstatement. More power...... Why is there anything.... is a favorite question of philosophers. Why is there not everything.... is the next question. The BPWH seems to beg both of those questions. Potentiality may speak to both of these. How this notion ever occurred to Ari, I have no idea. How central was its role in his metaphysics? Again, no idea? It is crucial to mine. (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by brenatom on Apr 1, 2012 12:30:18 GMT -7
My first priority, in this lifetime, has been, and will be.... truth. In fact, I continue to labor under the impression that I might, possibly, be the Spirit of the Truth, as referenced, for example, in John 16:12ff. I've been in more crack houses than churches i've never been Christened, and God saved me from the Bible, so although i have no idea what "John 16:12ff." refers to, i know that what you have just claimed is one of the most untrue and utterly disgraceful things i have known anyone to say in the name of God. As he is my witness, i could Christ you under the table with both arms tied behind my back and a blindfold. That's the Spirit of the Truth. WWCS? "Get thee behind me thou MoAFer." |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Apr 1, 2012 13:28:52 GMT -7
--------- Bren, Was that not you, who posted the slanderous statements about Andy? ------------------ At GFC/SfA, Prof David Yue gave an excellent presentation on whether or not God is a mathematician. His talk was based, in part, on a book by his astrophysics colleague at JHU, Is God a Mathematician? - by Mario Livio, JHU/Hubble (2009). David's point was that God is much more than merely a mathematician. God is also, maybe, against all odds, our Savior. Yes, that is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow. But, if God is all loving, then surely she knows that we have ample reasons for not always holding her in the highest regard. She only wants to make it up to us. BH and I have actually exchanged emails, since GFC/SfA, but I promised not to post his responses, herein. On my second trip, out to the parking lot, this time in the company of David, I expressed the opinion that there were two taboos in academia...... Population and Psyche.... as in the Pan-psychic Catastrophe. David agreed. This is why there might be an earthshaking conjoinment of these two most difficult problems in the world, if even one more person from the Green Forum were to join Bother Henry and me at the SfA. Well, I'm sure that Sam will volunteer, but how about one more of you? 6:15--------- I have excerpted this last section back to the BGF/Population list....... 8pm-------- I'm reading what excerpts are available of this $125 book on Amazon...... www.amazon.com/Alfarabi-Avicenna-Averroes-Intellect-Cosmologies/dp/0195074238/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1 Yes, once again, I've not done my philosophical homework, especially wrt Ari & Co. This should be helpful, if I can get up to speed with the actual/potential. And then remind me to check out the Actual Infnite. Somehow, it had never gotten through my thick skull that matter might primarily be the seat of dispositions, or, more provocatively, of potency. But what about the Creator's disposition to create? Does that make the Creator to be a material-girl? Still just wondering? Hey, I just work here...... The Amazon excerpt of the Davidson book cuts off on page 284, just when I was about to learn about the true nature of the intellect, from Averroes..... Aristotle was only quasi-dualistic. I'm trying to be even less so. Help me, Lord...... (cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Apr 2, 2012 9:58:18 GMT -7
I started this morning by reading the NYT summaries of the Sanford, FL shooting incident. A state gun law entitled 'Stand Your Ground' seems intended as a license for mayhem. ---------- Then I reviewed the wiki entry on the Soul, summarizing the views of a plethora of religions. I continue to favor the view of our being soul-siblings, all of us timesharing a single cosmic soul that is also God's, simultaneously. We're not just chips off of that block. Individually, we are the best possible possessors of all those cosmic powers, in whatever happens to be our given circumstance. That full potency is at our command. Are there, then, far too many missed opportunities? No, only opportunities that were best deferred. ----------- A right to bear arms? Perhaps. There is a profoundly democratic principle. How many lives is that sense of empowerment worth? At least a few. That is an existential baseline. Beyond that, one gets into matters of faith. Do I put my faith in my weapon or in my spirit? That's a test for all of us, in all circumstances. Will there then be a downward spiraling arms-race, as we enter into our economic/spiritual tribulation? That is a party that God may wish to poop/preempt. ------------ A hundred and forty-four million of us may participate in the final Rapture, a couple of centuries hence. What about the ~20 billion of us who will have gone before? Where will our timesharing be then, as our time runs out? Is my sister, Louise, still watching from above? Generally speaking, we go toward the light. In that process, all that was absent becomes present, all within the cosmic Presence. How could it be other, beyond space and time? That is our Omega..... of us, by us and for us. I'm sure that Louise is enjoying the ride, the adventure, leading to the all in All. I wouldn't miss it for the world. It is the world..... the unobstructed universe. Whatever persuaded us to leave, in the first place? Did we trip over a rock, and get lost... way to the east of Eden? Did we get bored? Did God get lonely? It's the cosmic Potency. Why is there something, rather than nothing? If there's gonna be something, it had better be good. It had better be the best and the biggest, in that order. Any complaints? Hey, now's your chance. But you may wish to save a couple of your complaints for the big gal in the sky. I'm just one of her clowns. I'm just the ratty looking suggestion box, over in the corner. By the time you get home, you may have a hard time remembering your issues. We may all have bigger things on our little minds. What's the big deal about the Rapture, then? It just seems to be a good way to wrap things up, in the end. It is a fitting coda. It gives the fat lady a chance to sing. It is the logical setup for Noah to make his little time-trip, providing the optimal A/O closure to our singular Circuit of Creation. I'll betcha that Louise is already lining up for the Ark. She always was a tree-hugger, bless her pantheist heart! ----------- And what about those darned little atoms..... they are so pesky. To what extent do they have their own being, or merely a logical projection? They surely have a collective soul.... the laws of physics that are their rules of behavior, their personalities/identities. They are nothing, if not interchangeable. Who keeps track of them? If even just one were to spontaneously combust, it would almost be visible, by the conservation of mass/energy. I was amazed once to look at an old radium dial, through a small microscope, and see the individual sparkles of alpha decay. Shouldn't I give up my immaterialism? Wave the white flag? The young woman who painted it, likely suffered a premature and agonizing death, or a mutated delivery. Just call me Dr. Johnson. If you explain how we cognize and moralize alpha decay, then I'll explain who or what is responsible. Which is more daunting...... the starry sky above, or the moral code within? Which will be more important for our survival...... for our salvation? Twinkle, sparkle, little atom. I, too, have tracked Millikan's little oil drops, whereby a single electron can steal the show! I shook his hand, while visiting our haunts at Caltech and Throop Hall. Is there a white flag flying on Throop hall? Whose electron is it? I prefer the electron's neutrinos, which explain how the supernovae delivered the anthropic, triple-alpha carbon to set the stage for Adam and Eve...... Delayed neutrino-driven supernova explosions aided by the standing accretion-shock instability. God projects us >>> we project the atoms, IMHO. We breathe the fire into the formulas. We solve the equations. God is our cheerleader. Would we have it any other way? Ask not for whom the bell tolls. Might there have been no sparkles or twinkles? No, but...... do we breathe the fire into that logic? Who calculates the quantum barrier penetration for the alphas? You and I can do that, but only in general. Everything else is a fractal? Who calculated the Mandelbrot? Who drives the logic gates on my PC? Is it Bill Gates? What's the difference? With about a minute of computer time, I can be delving into local depths of the Mandelbrot that have never been plumbed before, nor again. Who is the overseer? Is it the Telos? It is a new angle on the ultimate power of holism that needs better explication. No? Look, ma, no holes! No blind spots for nature. Is this what we mean by omniscience? It is relationalism at work. And what holds the relations together? Dare we use the L-word? Who keeps the roulette wheels spinning true, when you or I have a megabuck on the red? The house? Whose house? Well, it might be rather more odd to awaken to a missing tree. There would be a big hole in the whole. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that. Our minds fill in the blind spot in our visual field, but usually not with such detail? Is nature smarter than we are? Suppose we found a hole in the Mandelbrot? There would be consternation...... It's the transistors, stupid? But that is begging the immaterialist question. Alpha decay and transistor gating present similar ontological issues for the immaterialist. Is the causation upward or downward? Does the whole determine parts or the parts the whole? (cont.) |
|
|
|
Post by dan on Apr 3, 2012 5:35:46 GMT -7
It's time for us to vote, here in Maryland. My son joins me at the polls. Deb voted early, last week, and is now in Scotland, with her sister and nephew, heading soon for Dubrovnik.
Yes, I think I have made some progress with the teleology of the Mandelbrot, hopefully shedding some light on the issue of cancer vs chrysalis.
When it comes to Mandelbrot vs. transistor or Chrysalis vs. atom, it is not at all clear as to which is the cart and which is the horse. In our recent infatuation with heroic materialism, we all thought that the answer was obvious, and most scientists still do, unless you are talking about their own sense of freewill.
I'm not saying that atoms and transistors don't count, or that they shouldn't have their 15 minutes of fame, their place in the sun. But who is to say that the Mandelbrot and Chrysalis are not more real, more objective, than than the logical mechanisms out of which they emerge?
Am I a collection of atoms dreaming that I'm a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that I'm a collection of atoms? The culture of modernism, excluding, for the moment, our presentiment of freewill, has us in it's reuctionistic thrall. Most of us firmly believe that anything smacking of holism or teleology is just so much fairy dust. That bias may turn out to be more like a Necker cube or a Rorschach. No?
But, yes, as far as humanity being a chrysalis, there is a considerable burden of proof that has yet to be discharged.
There are times when we can no longer afford the luxury of agnosticism, when agnosticism leads to paralysis, in the face of an existential crisis. That will get us nowhere.
But most of us are afraid to commit to hope. Too many times have our hopes been dashed. Can we afford to bet the farm on pie in the sky? Isn't it safer to hedge our bets.... to keep our powder dry?
Betting on perpetual progress is also pie in the sky. How do all the religions get away with their various versions of the Pie? Is not each one making it's own Pascal's wager? That may be closer to the truth. Is God going to force our hand, finally? That would not be pretty.
Until such time, the default position of all the secularists is to take the cancer option over the chrysalis. They're only being reasonable. No?
Which is the Kool Aid option, in this case? Is it just a matter of taste?! What would it ever take to shake the secularist/pantheist tree? Shock & Awe?
Is there no way to shift the cognitive balance from reductionism back to holism? Where is the Panpsychic Catastrophe, when we need it?
Even if holism were granted plausibility, where does that leave the BPWH? Way out in left field? In another ballpark? Again, is it just a matter of taste?
It would depend significantly on how the evangelicals would react to an emerging eschatological interest from the secularists. But that concern has been emerging for a long time, without any sign of a paradigm shift on either side.
The evangelicals will be, and should be, very reluctant to play the Eschaton card. It is their ace in the hole.... not to be squandered.... not to cry wolf!
Neither side wishes to speculate. They suppose that speculation carries the stigma of confusion.... lack of conviction. Each side would rather fight than compromise. Too much has been vested.... too much water under that bridge.
Where is the apologetics, when we need it?
2:05------------
According to the BPWH, Creation has an overriding eternal aspect, if for no other reason than it is the best possible such entity. This view may be direcly contrary to the conventional Christian view that the old creation is replaced by a new creation, as in a New Heaven and New Earth. It is strangely neglectful, on my part, not to have previously focused on this very substantial discrepancy between these two systems. Was I simply glossing it over? Or did I consider so obvious as to be unremarkable. Why, quite suddenly, do I now consider it to be so remarkable? Hmmm........
Creation was, presumably, purposed. Having accomplished said purpose, it becomes superfluous, and so is remaindered. There are two problems with this simplistic view....
Firstly, is God's omniscience. Does God do a memory erase? Would that even be possible, or would it be like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object? Given any such memory, how would it not be substantial or substantiable?
Secondly, how does the biblically reference New Creation relate to the old?
We might suppose, for instance, that, since the Old Creation was terminally corrupted by the Fall, God was obliged to replace it. But then it is certainly not clear, from the exegeses, as to who or what would populate the New Earth, as opposed to the New Heaven. The New Earth is left in a rather odd state of theological neglect. Let us also not forget the New Jerusalem, which seems to be neither here nor there.
I submit that the BPWH's singular circuit does rather neatly tie up these loose ends, even if I must say so, myself.
3:40-------
We choose to think of the Mandelbrot as abstract and the transistors that give rise to it as real. In the good ol' days we could hold the vacuum tubes in our hands..... see them glowing, and feel the heat. The logical operations, sometimes emanating therefrom, were entirely abstract, by comparison. Perhaps that was an oversimplification. Perhaps it was an invidious distinction, reflecting our tool handling bias..... artisan vs. artist, perhaps. Which is more real, the potential block of marble, still in the ground, or the finished statue of Adonis? Material cause vs. final cause.
Or course, we should think of each other as ends and not means........ But..... there is a but......
What happens when we put God into that equation..... into that loop? Maybe we don't want to do that. Maybe we much prefer to see ourselves as gratuitous to any of God's purposes. We don't really wish to be anyone's means to an end, even if that someone happens to be our Creator!
(cont.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Apr 4, 2012 11:55:00 GMT -7
Below are the notes that I was making, offline....... Hey, I just keep on trucking......... I see no good reason why our individual egos cannot be fully absorbed into the cosmic Self, without there being any actual or experiential loss, up there or down here. We best experience this process of absorption, in the form of extended altered states. Can we return to this or to any other lives? I don't think there would be any point. We might opt for enhanced memories of certain episodes in this life or others. This would be part of sharing God's omniscience. That perspective, however, would be in marked contrast to the original. Would it not be our preferred perspective? So much for immortality, for now..... Further suggestions are most welcome. ------------- Snowflakes & Atoms........ Upward vs. downward causation....... And how does this relate to our direct perception of evaporation or of frost on windows? It can't be much different in the case of organic/biological processes. How much autonomy/ontology do we have to vest in the microcosm? Does that vesting argue against immaterialism? Cannot our panpsychism fill in the gaps, as it seems to do in our unconscious, according to Ned Block et al.? Do we have to urge the grass to grow, with or without ChemLawn? Plants do that. If they didn't, even God might not be around to reason why. The perpetual logic of the Mandelbrot is no less of a conundrum..... no more of an obstruction to our minds/spirits. The actual substrate, atoms vs. logic gates, is no more essential. The reification of the substrate is, ultimately, in the eye of the beholder. The grazing of the cows need be no less significant in that ecological/ontological scheme. I have nothing against atoms or transistors, but must the holists genuflect to the reductionists? Thanks for all the aspirin, but that is not the end of the story. ------------------- 5:20----------- Another of my favorite immaterialist conundrums is the ontology of photographs vs. what is supposed to be our direct perception, if not projection, of the world. Those pesky photos seem to lend their weight to the conventional wisdom of indirect perception...... we tend to liken our consciousness to a Cartesian Theater, as viewed by our favorite little homunculus. Writing a poem or painting a picture would seem to provide other forms of indirect perception, even, or especially, if both were intended as fantasies. OTOH, we might simply be viewing a scene in a mirror or through a telescope. Does the immaterialist have to rationalize the optics and/or the photons, as with the atoms and transistors? Is the ontology essentially different? What are we perceiving/projecting when we hear a symphony, through whatever medium? How does a CD differ from a photo or amplifier, etc., in that regard? To what degree is the message in the medium? Where is Dr. Samuel Johnson, when we need him? His stone in the path was such a pushover. I could speak of presence vs absence. Isn't the Internet crucial to our impending implosion of knowledge, to the Eternal Presence? Clairvoyance? Remote viewing? Telegraphy? Telepathy? Small world? When may we kick aside the stepladder? Will it simply become transparent, as we move toward the light? Look, ma, no wires! Where does forgery fit into this cozy little picture? PhotoShop? The past being projected from the future, as in a dream awakening sequence? The Omega is our knock on the door. Has the past already been photoshopped? The Fall was in the future? (cont.) |
|
