Logic Of The Psyche:
Re: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/psychology_the_hard_truth_abou.html
This interesting article does well to explain the mess that results from substituting psychology to the complete elimination of religion. However, it yields little insight about a necessarily subjective aspect regarding many values. If there is one objective moral command that should be inculcated to apply to the conscience of all, it may consist in this: “Be empathetic!” However, such a value only states a general command, while offering no objective specifics. To reach for specifics, we rely on faith that empathy may more often lead us in good faith to consensus. But, when consensus is not availing — ay, there’s a rub that cannot be cured — not by religion, not by psychology, and not by pure logic or hard science!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tree Falling In Forest
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Tree Falling In Forest:
Broadly, what one takes to be objectively “inanimate” may be considered as consisting in that aspect of ultimate ineffability which is mathematically organized for representing to us physically.
Broadly, what one takes to be subjectively “conscious” may be considered as consisting in that aspect of ultimate ineffability which is mathematically organized for receiving and channeling spiritual will to act, however faintly, subject to choice within parameters availed, in respect of that which is representing physically.
In respect of such definitions, whether a “thing” is considered to represent the interacting presence or causal association of an inanimate or a conscious thing will depend upon its holography — that is, it will depend upon each relative perspective, context, history, and purpose of that which may be considering it.
Every particular thing that we take to be existential, both inanimate and conscious, requires a relating holography. The only thing that may not require a relating holography may be a Holism, being that ultimate ineffability of which all that emerges into particular manifestation or implication is derivative and inferior.
When a device for recording signals is related to a source of signals, it will, upon recording, affect and change the pattern or signal being sensed. As a whole, it would be uncommon to consider such a device itself as being conscious. Yet, under the above definition, an aspect of consciousness would have associated with such device, as it was recording the signal.
In other words, the reason a tree falling in a forest not inhabited by any animal nevertheless makes a “sound” (signal) is because some aspect of consciousness is always present to receive it.
And, other aspects of consciousness, potentially, if talented enough, may later translate, decode, reconstruct, or replay the information recorded in respect of such signal.
Each particular inanimate and each particular consciousness interpenetrate, depending for appreciation and interpretation upon each relating holography.
No particular exists without an inextricable relation to a holography. The holography that I experience as being existential may be somewhat different from the holography that you experience as being existential. While we will have different interpretations about what exists, there will be much of what we each consider to exist that overlaps to touch and concern both of us, in common.
What associates with me as being expressive of an inanimate may overlap in "the ultimate ineffability" in order to associate with some other as being expressive of a consciousness.
For any particular to be "indifferently random" or "empathetically conscious" depends upon locus of relation and context of perspective.
In itself, no particular (that is not a holism-in-itself) is either indifferent or empathetic. Rather, relational locus and context are determinative.
In other words, not even "inanimate things" exist in any particularity in themselves. Rather, they exist only in respect of holography.
To improve our understanding of physical, material things and forces, we will need to bring to bear a better understanding of holography.
Coming better to appreciate holography, we may come better to appreciate a pervasively empathetic aspect of consciousness --- or Will.
Tree Falling In Forest:
Broadly, what one takes to be objectively “inanimate” may be considered as consisting in that aspect of ultimate ineffability which is mathematically organized for representing to us physically.
Broadly, what one takes to be subjectively “conscious” may be considered as consisting in that aspect of ultimate ineffability which is mathematically organized for receiving and channeling spiritual will to act, however faintly, subject to choice within parameters availed, in respect of that which is representing physically.
In respect of such definitions, whether a “thing” is considered to represent the interacting presence or causal association of an inanimate or a conscious thing will depend upon its holography — that is, it will depend upon each relative perspective, context, history, and purpose of that which may be considering it.
Every particular thing that we take to be existential, both inanimate and conscious, requires a relating holography. The only thing that may not require a relating holography may be a Holism, being that ultimate ineffability of which all that emerges into particular manifestation or implication is derivative and inferior.
When a device for recording signals is related to a source of signals, it will, upon recording, affect and change the pattern or signal being sensed. As a whole, it would be uncommon to consider such a device itself as being conscious. Yet, under the above definition, an aspect of consciousness would have associated with such device, as it was recording the signal.
In other words, the reason a tree falling in a forest not inhabited by any animal nevertheless makes a “sound” (signal) is because some aspect of consciousness is always present to receive it.
And, other aspects of consciousness, potentially, if talented enough, may later translate, decode, reconstruct, or replay the information recorded in respect of such signal.
Each particular inanimate and each particular consciousness interpenetrate, depending for appreciation and interpretation upon each relating holography.
No particular exists without an inextricable relation to a holography. The holography that I experience as being existential may be somewhat different from the holography that you experience as being existential. While we will have different interpretations about what exists, there will be much of what we each consider to exist that overlaps to touch and concern both of us, in common.
What associates with me as being expressive of an inanimate may overlap in "the ultimate ineffability" in order to associate with some other as being expressive of a consciousness.
For any particular to be "indifferently random" or "empathetically conscious" depends upon locus of relation and context of perspective.
In itself, no particular (that is not a holism-in-itself) is either indifferent or empathetic. Rather, relational locus and context are determinative.
In other words, not even "inanimate things" exist in any particularity in themselves. Rather, they exist only in respect of holography.
To improve our understanding of physical, material things and forces, we will need to bring to bear a better understanding of holography.
Coming better to appreciate holography, we may come better to appreciate a pervasively empathetic aspect of consciousness --- or Will.
Blinded By Empiricism
Dave,
You, rightly so, are skeptical of notions of "anthropic coincidentalism."
As a skeptic, might you also wish to consider notions of "anthropic scientism"?
Consider: A person who finds his motivation exclusively in the scientific method will always expect that there is a scientific, physical, "objective" explanation that can be found in an indifferent randomness of everything — regardless of whatever may happen or how amazingly coincidental it may seem — simply by going to whatever level of analysis as may be necessary in order to find his own kind of “anthropic confirmation” that everything is explained in randomness.
In other words, every empiricist can self-fulfill his expectation of pure randomness simply by selecting to whatever level of analysis he may need to go in order to demonstrate that all events, after all, unfold in subordination to a highest principle of randomness.
As each such person encounters each new situation (and each event that sequentially unfolds within our universe is new, at least when considered holographically), how, then, shall he derive what he should try to do with it, based exclusively and only on empiricism?
Insofar as each unfolding situation is new, even upon consulting Isaac Asimov'ian psychohistory (or historoscicence), from whence, then, comes each new decision?
At such consideration, I punt, not to offer an "objective explanation," but to offer a term of interior reference. For that, my term of preference seems often to relate to "intuition of empathetic will."
Others may simply "Borg-down" and subordinate their own wills to a local Shaman, Guru, Priest, Religious Fundamentalist, Scientific Foundationalist, or Party Hack.
I fear the complexity of modernity weighs many to seek psychological refuge and a false sense of certainty in such "Borg'ing Down."
A main challenge of the 20th century pertained to nationalism. For our century, "Future Shock" may be driving us towards "Borg'ing Down." From time to time, as you peruse modern media, academia, politics, business, entertainment, and pharmaceuticals, consider whether most folks appear to be surrendering minds and wills to Borg-land.
As Mr. Chugarr said to the motorist he stopped in No Country For Old men, "Hold still!"
You, rightly so, are skeptical of notions of "anthropic coincidentalism."
As a skeptic, might you also wish to consider notions of "anthropic scientism"?
Consider: A person who finds his motivation exclusively in the scientific method will always expect that there is a scientific, physical, "objective" explanation that can be found in an indifferent randomness of everything — regardless of whatever may happen or how amazingly coincidental it may seem — simply by going to whatever level of analysis as may be necessary in order to find his own kind of “anthropic confirmation” that everything is explained in randomness.
In other words, every empiricist can self-fulfill his expectation of pure randomness simply by selecting to whatever level of analysis he may need to go in order to demonstrate that all events, after all, unfold in subordination to a highest principle of randomness.
As each such person encounters each new situation (and each event that sequentially unfolds within our universe is new, at least when considered holographically), how, then, shall he derive what he should try to do with it, based exclusively and only on empiricism?
Insofar as each unfolding situation is new, even upon consulting Isaac Asimov'ian psychohistory (or historoscicence), from whence, then, comes each new decision?
At such consideration, I punt, not to offer an "objective explanation," but to offer a term of interior reference. For that, my term of preference seems often to relate to "intuition of empathetic will."
Others may simply "Borg-down" and subordinate their own wills to a local Shaman, Guru, Priest, Religious Fundamentalist, Scientific Foundationalist, or Party Hack.
I fear the complexity of modernity weighs many to seek psychological refuge and a false sense of certainty in such "Borg'ing Down."
A main challenge of the 20th century pertained to nationalism. For our century, "Future Shock" may be driving us towards "Borg'ing Down." From time to time, as you peruse modern media, academia, politics, business, entertainment, and pharmaceuticals, consider whether most folks appear to be surrendering minds and wills to Borg-land.
As Mr. Chugarr said to the motorist he stopped in No Country For Old men, "Hold still!"
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Who’s The Bigot?
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Who’s The Bigot?
In my philosophy, I intuit and believe there is a superior, unifying, and interconnecting Source of Conscious Empathy (aka “God”), who/which appreciates and expresses ITself by engaging perspectives, from which IT interacts among many manifestations of holography. (Compare Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled.” Even were God to manifest as jumping up and down and yelling, "I'm here!" what empiricist worth his or her scientific salt would fail to hypothesize in order to attribute any such demonstration merely to some unexplained material technology? Space aliens, anyone?)
In any event, in respect of a common Source of empathy, I seek to appreciate a moral compass for my opinions and positions concerning laws and/or mores that can or should guide the experience of civilization. I believe some such notion, regardless of how faint, may guide most of us. Without some such guide, each of us easily deconstructs to selfish bigotry.
When mere bigotry of others comes to be attributed as the most prominent, necessary, or likely explanation for their behavior, devoid of any basis in good faith, must not each of us so attributing, in ourselves, be respecting no better philosophy than that of a bigot?
There are good faith reasons to believe traditional family values, such as relating to marriage, are being radically undermined, however unknowingly, unintentionally, or unskillfully.
In an opinion article published in newspapers on April 24, 2008, titled “What marriage is – and isn’t,” Rich Lowry, of the National Review, wrote:
The dynamic of polygamy is that older, higher-status men take as many women as they can. They work to crowd out young men and to make young women as pliable as possible, so as to eliminate competition from the former and inhibit any tendency on the part of the latter to fall for men of their own age. It inherently features brutish sexual competition among men (the winners get many wives, the losers none) and the subjugation of women who are made serve a man not, in turn, fully devoted to her.
That’s how FLDS works. It looks for any excuse to kick out teenage boys. Those “lost boys” are left to fend for themselves on the streets. Meanwhile, teenage girls are taught obedience, which can mean, as 13 year olds, marrying men old enough to be their grandfathers.
With its emphasis on hierarchy and the degradation of individual choice, polygamy is traditionally associated with authoritarian cultures.
…
Now, polygamists are trying to ride on the liberal wave of nonjudgmentalism and of hostility to traditional marriage.
Who are we to say what marriage is? As liberal democrats, we’ve said it before, and have to again.
Who’s The Bigot?
In my philosophy, I intuit and believe there is a superior, unifying, and interconnecting Source of Conscious Empathy (aka “God”), who/which appreciates and expresses ITself by engaging perspectives, from which IT interacts among many manifestations of holography. (Compare Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled.” Even were God to manifest as jumping up and down and yelling, "I'm here!" what empiricist worth his or her scientific salt would fail to hypothesize in order to attribute any such demonstration merely to some unexplained material technology? Space aliens, anyone?)
In any event, in respect of a common Source of empathy, I seek to appreciate a moral compass for my opinions and positions concerning laws and/or mores that can or should guide the experience of civilization. I believe some such notion, regardless of how faint, may guide most of us. Without some such guide, each of us easily deconstructs to selfish bigotry.
When mere bigotry of others comes to be attributed as the most prominent, necessary, or likely explanation for their behavior, devoid of any basis in good faith, must not each of us so attributing, in ourselves, be respecting no better philosophy than that of a bigot?
There are good faith reasons to believe traditional family values, such as relating to marriage, are being radically undermined, however unknowingly, unintentionally, or unskillfully.
In an opinion article published in newspapers on April 24, 2008, titled “What marriage is – and isn’t,” Rich Lowry, of the National Review, wrote:
The dynamic of polygamy is that older, higher-status men take as many women as they can. They work to crowd out young men and to make young women as pliable as possible, so as to eliminate competition from the former and inhibit any tendency on the part of the latter to fall for men of their own age. It inherently features brutish sexual competition among men (the winners get many wives, the losers none) and the subjugation of women who are made serve a man not, in turn, fully devoted to her.
That’s how FLDS works. It looks for any excuse to kick out teenage boys. Those “lost boys” are left to fend for themselves on the streets. Meanwhile, teenage girls are taught obedience, which can mean, as 13 year olds, marrying men old enough to be their grandfathers.
With its emphasis on hierarchy and the degradation of individual choice, polygamy is traditionally associated with authoritarian cultures.
…
Now, polygamists are trying to ride on the liberal wave of nonjudgmentalism and of hostility to traditional marriage.
Who are we to say what marriage is? As liberal democrats, we’ve said it before, and have to again.
Friday, April 25, 2008
ANTHROPIC PSEUDOSCIENCE
ANTHROPIC PSEUDOSCIENCE (OR SCIENTIFIC DELUSION?):
Suppose one were to accept a mainstream understanding of scientists regarding limited time availed to our universe, before it is expected to “flicker out,” in order for its laws and forces to express variously evolving sequences and organizations of interacting combinations of representations of patterns of material and/or information.
Then, given an “anthropic perspective” of an observer who happens to accept mainstream cosmology, may such an observer ever reasonably calculate mathematical probabilities for or against the past or future emergence of various kinds or qualities of representations of stored information (such as bodies of life)?
To the satisfaction of science, may some such method for calculating mathematical probabilities be reliably testable, falsifiable, or replicable? If so, what sort of evidence based on analysis of probabilities should or would (ever?) suffice, in order to suggest to a rational empiricist that Something beyond Nature is likely involved in guiding Nature?
In other words, must every “rational empiricist” always take it as being deemed-true-by-assumption-of-science that no kind of mathematical analysis of probabilities could EVER support that Nature is other than closed to the influence of any Superior (supernatural) or Compatible Source — REGARDLESS of however improbable or coincidental it may be demonstrated by mathematical analysis that any known or measurable natural law or force could support a full accounting?
In other words, should or must “science” entitle empiricists to turn a blind eye to all evidence or demonstrations of mathematical improbabilities that all parameters within our universe are “closed” to the continuing influence or Will of any supernatural Source — simply by calling all such demonstrations “anthropic pseudoscience”?
IN OTHER WORDS, MUST EVERY GOOD SCIENTIST TAKE IT THAT, EVEN IF A CONSCIOUS OR SUPERIOR WILL OR GOD MAY EXIST, NO SUCH A GOD COULD EVER LEAVE A SIGNATURE THAT COULD SATISFY ANY GOOD SCIENTIST?
Even were God to manifest as jumping up and down and yelling, "I'm here!" what empiricist worth his scientific salt would fail simply to hypothesize in order to attribute it to some unexplained material technology? (Space aliens, anyone?)
As God bootstraps us out of mere imagination and math, so may we choose also to bootstrap as if God were mere delusion, subservient to a natural explanation of purely random physics.
Compare http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/marchweb-only/113-42.0.html.
Suppose one were to accept a mainstream understanding of scientists regarding limited time availed to our universe, before it is expected to “flicker out,” in order for its laws and forces to express variously evolving sequences and organizations of interacting combinations of representations of patterns of material and/or information.
Then, given an “anthropic perspective” of an observer who happens to accept mainstream cosmology, may such an observer ever reasonably calculate mathematical probabilities for or against the past or future emergence of various kinds or qualities of representations of stored information (such as bodies of life)?
To the satisfaction of science, may some such method for calculating mathematical probabilities be reliably testable, falsifiable, or replicable? If so, what sort of evidence based on analysis of probabilities should or would (ever?) suffice, in order to suggest to a rational empiricist that Something beyond Nature is likely involved in guiding Nature?
In other words, must every “rational empiricist” always take it as being deemed-true-by-assumption-of-science that no kind of mathematical analysis of probabilities could EVER support that Nature is other than closed to the influence of any Superior (supernatural) or Compatible Source — REGARDLESS of however improbable or coincidental it may be demonstrated by mathematical analysis that any known or measurable natural law or force could support a full accounting?
In other words, should or must “science” entitle empiricists to turn a blind eye to all evidence or demonstrations of mathematical improbabilities that all parameters within our universe are “closed” to the continuing influence or Will of any supernatural Source — simply by calling all such demonstrations “anthropic pseudoscience”?
IN OTHER WORDS, MUST EVERY GOOD SCIENTIST TAKE IT THAT, EVEN IF A CONSCIOUS OR SUPERIOR WILL OR GOD MAY EXIST, NO SUCH A GOD COULD EVER LEAVE A SIGNATURE THAT COULD SATISFY ANY GOOD SCIENTIST?
Even were God to manifest as jumping up and down and yelling, "I'm here!" what empiricist worth his scientific salt would fail simply to hypothesize in order to attribute it to some unexplained material technology? (Space aliens, anyone?)
As God bootstraps us out of mere imagination and math, so may we choose also to bootstrap as if God were mere delusion, subservient to a natural explanation of purely random physics.
Compare http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/marchweb-only/113-42.0.html.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Signature of “Spaghetti-San”
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
Signature of “Spaghetti-San”:
Every perspective of Will expresses itself within functional parameters availed in respect of degrees of significance and orders of magnitude. Such functional aspects as may be beyond any given perspective’s apparent influence, in respect of degrees of significance and orders of magnitude, may just as well be considered, relative to each such perspective, as being part of “Nature.”
But, such “natural functions” may also just as well be considered as being subject to influence of other or higher perspectives of Will, for whom such functions may well be within their potential power or choice to change or influence.
Thus, even appreciating “Nature,” no one need interpret empirical experience (or evolution) as being inconsistent with a worldview based on interactions among holographic levels and perspectives of Will.
Consider even those fundamental parameters which we experience as hardly changing: Assuming other levels of conscious Will may just as well wish to participate in our sustenance, why should we not expect that such fundamental parameters of “design” may be sustained in (anthropic?) respect of sustaining life on Earth?
Suppose “Nature” were sustained in respect of fundamental functions requisite to sustain life on Earth: Then, should we have noticed or measured fluxes in some patterns or forces that we otherwise would tend to consider as being “absolute” or fundamental to our capacity to experience “Nature?”
Well, have there not been measurements or evidence of some such changes in fundamentals? Have not physicists taken empirical measurements suggesting fundamental forces in early phases of our “Big Bang” were at one time organized and operating quite differently than what seems presently observable? To rationalize such changes, have we not found it necessary or expedient to resort to various notions (dark energy?), in order to label or explain (rationalize?) various fundamental changes (such as in rates of spatial expansion and material radiation, force changes, phase shifts, and/or parameter changes)?
Suppose higher perspectives of conscious Will were to wish TO SIGNIFY THEIR PRESENCE: How could they do so, empirically, without remaining faithful to parameters necessary to sustain our forms of life? In respect of such parameters as are necessary to define and sustain us, is it not merely trite that, of course, we can always rationalize our experiences as being strictly “empirical” (or consistent with “random Nature”)?
It hardly surprises that anyone of a strictly empirical bent may always disdain the observing of even the most remarkable of coincidences as mere anthropic posturing and pseudoscience. But, is it not “pseudoscientific” to assume that reality must be closed to any Will that is in any way superior to empiricism?
Now, if one wishes to define science as encompassing only such approaches as assume a complete closing of reality to the influence of any non-empirical influence, then, of course, in would be pseudoscientific to engage in any approach to reality that is based in complementary intuition, analysis of fundamental coincidences, or non-empirical considerations. In that case, strict empiricists should be taken as only assuming superiority in their approach for all purposes. In that case, choosing a “pseudoscientific approach” to complement concerns one believes to be beyond empiricism need hardly be inappropriate. (For example, to what "science" should a strict empiricist refer, in order to guide us about how we should engage never before experienced situations?)
What is “less bright” than for an atheist to assume he or she has PROVEN that all parameters availed in Nature are closed to any non-empirical Source merely by assuming such to be proven? (An atheist may say: “I think God does not exist; therefore, God does not exist; ommmm.” How “bright” is that?)
From the very experience that “Nature” so remarkably and coincidentally avails us to sustain consciousness, cannot such experience just as easily support conscious intuition and reason to believe that Something of conscious Will cares about us? Should not such caring, insofar as mutual, enhance each perspective’s experience of empathetic meaningfulness?
Choosing to interpret the remarkable coincidences essential to our being as consistent with our anthropic sustenance, it becomes not irrational to interpret such coincidences as being consistent with a “SIGNATURE OF GOD.” Choosing to interpret a “signature of God” may say more about one’s innate spiritual intuition, psychological conditioning, or moral health than about one’s capacity for appreciating limits of empiricism (or for being “Bright” enough to appreciate that reality may not be “completely closed” to science).
BTW --- “Adonai-San” may be a more appropriate term of endearment than “Spaghetti-San.” Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonis (“… a variation on the word "adon" meaning "lord" that was also used, as "Adonai", to refer to Yahweh in the Old Testament) and http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2271.html : (“san: (for example Sato-san): This is the most neutral and famous title, and can be used in most situations. Only in formal situations, san may not be polite enough.”)
I have made reference above to “Spaghetti-San” only in order to reflect upon those who are most fond to invoke a “Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster,” thereby childishly mocking all who believe a proper appreciation of reality should entail respect for a source of “should” (i.e., a source of moral Will, in respect of Whom no resort to mere Nature can ever produce a closed or complete explanation).
After all, is it not reasonable to suppose that “should happens?”
Signature of “Spaghetti-San”:
Every perspective of Will expresses itself within functional parameters availed in respect of degrees of significance and orders of magnitude. Such functional aspects as may be beyond any given perspective’s apparent influence, in respect of degrees of significance and orders of magnitude, may just as well be considered, relative to each such perspective, as being part of “Nature.”
But, such “natural functions” may also just as well be considered as being subject to influence of other or higher perspectives of Will, for whom such functions may well be within their potential power or choice to change or influence.
Thus, even appreciating “Nature,” no one need interpret empirical experience (or evolution) as being inconsistent with a worldview based on interactions among holographic levels and perspectives of Will.
Consider even those fundamental parameters which we experience as hardly changing: Assuming other levels of conscious Will may just as well wish to participate in our sustenance, why should we not expect that such fundamental parameters of “design” may be sustained in (anthropic?) respect of sustaining life on Earth?
Suppose “Nature” were sustained in respect of fundamental functions requisite to sustain life on Earth: Then, should we have noticed or measured fluxes in some patterns or forces that we otherwise would tend to consider as being “absolute” or fundamental to our capacity to experience “Nature?”
Well, have there not been measurements or evidence of some such changes in fundamentals? Have not physicists taken empirical measurements suggesting fundamental forces in early phases of our “Big Bang” were at one time organized and operating quite differently than what seems presently observable? To rationalize such changes, have we not found it necessary or expedient to resort to various notions (dark energy?), in order to label or explain (rationalize?) various fundamental changes (such as in rates of spatial expansion and material radiation, force changes, phase shifts, and/or parameter changes)?
Suppose higher perspectives of conscious Will were to wish TO SIGNIFY THEIR PRESENCE: How could they do so, empirically, without remaining faithful to parameters necessary to sustain our forms of life? In respect of such parameters as are necessary to define and sustain us, is it not merely trite that, of course, we can always rationalize our experiences as being strictly “empirical” (or consistent with “random Nature”)?
It hardly surprises that anyone of a strictly empirical bent may always disdain the observing of even the most remarkable of coincidences as mere anthropic posturing and pseudoscience. But, is it not “pseudoscientific” to assume that reality must be closed to any Will that is in any way superior to empiricism?
Now, if one wishes to define science as encompassing only such approaches as assume a complete closing of reality to the influence of any non-empirical influence, then, of course, in would be pseudoscientific to engage in any approach to reality that is based in complementary intuition, analysis of fundamental coincidences, or non-empirical considerations. In that case, strict empiricists should be taken as only assuming superiority in their approach for all purposes. In that case, choosing a “pseudoscientific approach” to complement concerns one believes to be beyond empiricism need hardly be inappropriate. (For example, to what "science" should a strict empiricist refer, in order to guide us about how we should engage never before experienced situations?)
What is “less bright” than for an atheist to assume he or she has PROVEN that all parameters availed in Nature are closed to any non-empirical Source merely by assuming such to be proven? (An atheist may say: “I think God does not exist; therefore, God does not exist; ommmm.” How “bright” is that?)
From the very experience that “Nature” so remarkably and coincidentally avails us to sustain consciousness, cannot such experience just as easily support conscious intuition and reason to believe that Something of conscious Will cares about us? Should not such caring, insofar as mutual, enhance each perspective’s experience of empathetic meaningfulness?
Choosing to interpret the remarkable coincidences essential to our being as consistent with our anthropic sustenance, it becomes not irrational to interpret such coincidences as being consistent with a “SIGNATURE OF GOD.” Choosing to interpret a “signature of God” may say more about one’s innate spiritual intuition, psychological conditioning, or moral health than about one’s capacity for appreciating limits of empiricism (or for being “Bright” enough to appreciate that reality may not be “completely closed” to science).
BTW --- “Adonai-San” may be a more appropriate term of endearment than “Spaghetti-San.” Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonis (“… a variation on the word "adon" meaning "lord" that was also used, as "Adonai", to refer to Yahweh in the Old Testament) and http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2271.html : (“san: (for example Sato-san): This is the most neutral and famous title, and can be used in most situations. Only in formal situations, san may not be polite enough.”)
I have made reference above to “Spaghetti-San” only in order to reflect upon those who are most fond to invoke a “Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster,” thereby childishly mocking all who believe a proper appreciation of reality should entail respect for a source of “should” (i.e., a source of moral Will, in respect of Whom no resort to mere Nature can ever produce a closed or complete explanation).
After all, is it not reasonable to suppose that “should happens?”
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
RESPONSIBLE EUGENICS
(by Dlanorrenrag*)
RESPONSIBLE EUGENICS:
Whether or not we consciously think we choose to play a role in favoring or designing genetic traits or mutations, our wider environment forces us to choose --- even if only in subconscious neglect.
Regardless, whether or not we feign indifference, the way we conduct our affairs necessitates that our activities will play a role in the genetic design of traits for each next generation.
As our activities come more obviously to be globally interdependent, soon to be subject to computer analysis, our credibility in feigning indifference will continually recede.
Presently, strategies within civilized parts of our world necessarily and grossly affect demographic influencing of policies for favoring various kinds and degrees of immigration, trade, taxation, social and family organization, child rearing, birth planning, and health providing.
Necessarily, such policies significantly impact the course of our genetic development. Necessarily, information about such course is gathered for computer analysis.
This begs an important question: For how long can we feign not to be participating, artificially, in the course of evolution, insofar as it affects traits chosen or suitable for sustaining and fulfilling various preferences among our perspectives of consciousness?
Of old, elders could admonish us to leave such concerns to God. Of recent, we begin to appreciate that part of the “body of God” may consist in us.
In any event, I pray we come to respect a more enlightened and humane philosophy or consensus regarding evolution and eugenics than did Hitler.
However, I do not expect an enlightening philosophy to be derived solely in respect of either Values De-Constructivism or Darwinism. Certainly, I do not think an enlightening philosophy will be derived from childishly hedonistic notions of “equal fairness” (even though I do admire Something about the Golden Rule).
Unfortunately, in America, each of our prevailing political parties espouses a philosophy that serves an impoverishing and presently dangerous globalism. I find little to admire in Republicans’ present advocacy-by-default of open-border free-trade, and I find even less to admire in Democrats’ extension of radical Marxist fairness for protecting political correctness to all who seek special minority status.
Rather, I believe reasoned consideration of spirituality, philosophy, science, and history can and should lead us to a more civilizing and better moral compass. I only pray that we soon receive better insight, as we continue to go about, unavoidably, practicing “responsible eugenics.”
RESPONSIBLE EUGENICS:
Whether or not we consciously think we choose to play a role in favoring or designing genetic traits or mutations, our wider environment forces us to choose --- even if only in subconscious neglect.
Regardless, whether or not we feign indifference, the way we conduct our affairs necessitates that our activities will play a role in the genetic design of traits for each next generation.
As our activities come more obviously to be globally interdependent, soon to be subject to computer analysis, our credibility in feigning indifference will continually recede.
Presently, strategies within civilized parts of our world necessarily and grossly affect demographic influencing of policies for favoring various kinds and degrees of immigration, trade, taxation, social and family organization, child rearing, birth planning, and health providing.
Necessarily, such policies significantly impact the course of our genetic development. Necessarily, information about such course is gathered for computer analysis.
This begs an important question: For how long can we feign not to be participating, artificially, in the course of evolution, insofar as it affects traits chosen or suitable for sustaining and fulfilling various preferences among our perspectives of consciousness?
Of old, elders could admonish us to leave such concerns to God. Of recent, we begin to appreciate that part of the “body of God” may consist in us.
In any event, I pray we come to respect a more enlightened and humane philosophy or consensus regarding evolution and eugenics than did Hitler.
However, I do not expect an enlightening philosophy to be derived solely in respect of either Values De-Constructivism or Darwinism. Certainly, I do not think an enlightening philosophy will be derived from childishly hedonistic notions of “equal fairness” (even though I do admire Something about the Golden Rule).
Unfortunately, in America, each of our prevailing political parties espouses a philosophy that serves an impoverishing and presently dangerous globalism. I find little to admire in Republicans’ present advocacy-by-default of open-border free-trade, and I find even less to admire in Democrats’ extension of radical Marxist fairness for protecting political correctness to all who seek special minority status.
Rather, I believe reasoned consideration of spirituality, philosophy, science, and history can and should lead us to a more civilizing and better moral compass. I only pray that we soon receive better insight, as we continue to go about, unavoidably, practicing “responsible eugenics.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)