There are as many dimensions as there are gods;- WHO ARE FRIENDLY WITH EACH OTHER, they all appreciate each others names! There are over 6 billion people on the planet, we are about to witnesses the emergence of lots of new dimensions as the network of friendship grows in the minds of all the peoples of the world, and when they all commune with each other, we will be so beautiful, and true, and free...
The book of life is a list of everyone's name who are friendly with one another, to be a true friend, you must know your own unique name and what makes you special, and have the capacity to communicate it with others. We must all learn all the languages.. have faith we can do it! Have faith my sons and daughters, my mother and father, my brothers and sisters, and finally.. my friends.
The Greeks were much closer than us with their poly theism!
Friday, December 18, 2009
A word on Trascendance
Our true purpose is to use all our perceptions to generate a technology that allows the mind to stay fully conscious of the current things we are conscious of, and augment it in such a way to be conscious of a new dimension. Science is the latest holy tool, and we can only achieve more if we commune with all the consciousness the cosmos has to offer. That is why we dream of meeting aliens, they are meant to be our friends! That is what God tried to create, an alien, that is the core of creation. Perhaps faith is belief one is not God, it is the conscious denial of the divine self... faith itself must be overcome, as must all the virtues, in order for us to increase the number of virtues, after we allow the old virtues to truly be free in our minds we must find which one becomes most appealing to us (but never forget the rest), try find one no-one else has, make it unique, and then make it your own unique name, and then try and explain your name to others, this is how our language will grow;- we must rejoice and rejuvenate the old by adding something new to share in friendship... Trust that friendship is real, trust that you will care for your friend's truths! this is the ebb and tide of God's unfolding plan, which we must have faith in, faith in the body, and faith that it can always be more beautiful! Love friendship, worship what you find beauty in, just never worship your own consciousness, or it will cease to develop! this is the current mantra one must be conscious of, let us achieve greater consciousness by the each giving our own interpretation to the tenants and after we truly fully understand then our own truths, we will see what pops into our minds next so we can have fun sharing it with God! Please share your idea's of what you find beautiful, what is your favorite color, what do you find most beauty in!?
This is what is the most important thing to have faith in: The system is more than the sum of its parts. It is supremely beautiful, and beauty will always mean more as time goes on, or we wouldn't perceive time! This is not a justification to uphold ugliness, it only becomes truly beautiful if its friendly to your current being. Friendship is the truest refinement process! Friends are your true family...
This is what is the most important thing to have faith in: The system is more than the sum of its parts. It is supremely beautiful, and beauty will always mean more as time goes on, or we wouldn't perceive time! This is not a justification to uphold ugliness, it only becomes truly beautiful if its friendly to your current being. Friendship is the truest refinement process! Friends are your true family...
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The nature of beauty and technology
Technology must be subordinated by consciousness (as technology is always a lifeless tool);- as we sublimate more and more technology into our consciousness we grow more beautiful because our perception of truth is deeper, first we are free to invent new technology then the technology gets sublimated as and when it truly appeals to the soul (which can only happen to those who achieve soul consciousness), we must never try subordinate the soul to technology, thats what happened with the book. Lets not repeat the same mistake again, lets keep apprehension of the soul where it should be, in the living consciousness, and keep science in its proper place (as a tool its useful, and we should engage in an appealing form of play with it). We can try and distill truth, but this is the field of play, truth is something that can only exist in relation to the soul, there is no such thing as an abstract truth, just an unconscious one, God is complete inside every one of us, and we are growing to see it more and more! So play (when engaged with beautifully) can lead to the discovery of more truth! Because play is part of the revealing process... everything is part of the beautiful process, the sun, the moon, the stars, every particle of matter!
Why I believe I wont write a book!
Have you heard, "the medium is message?" The media of "the book" will in the end always defeat any true beauty;- the meaning will erode as time goes by as the beauty captured becomes less apparent to the peoples of the future. Because beauty is a process, it is impossible to distill it, and when one does, it becomes inanimate and will lose appeal as the the process of beauty continues and leaves the distilled and old image of beauty behind (old in a pejorative sense, ie a form that embodies the concept of the degeneration of beauty, therefore it means less and less to us, because its becoming less and less beautiful).
Books offer new technological perspectives, my perspective transcends technology, and offers us insight into why we go looking for technology in the first place.
People have difficulty reading my work because the substance of what i say is beyond words, it only has personal meaning, in that it beckons for a greater consciousness to emerge within the self.. God never commanded us to "know thyself", because thats the deeper drive we all already possess, this is the shard of god that is inside us all (or as the Christians put it, the holy spirit- we just need to be conscious of it), if you need to hear it spoken in technological terms, my book would be called: The process that is beautiful. But if we TRY record this in a book and not into our very consciousness, we have defeated the very point of our own lives and the book will slowly lose all its meaning. I think Christianity lost itself when it stopped being a fluid thing in the minds of people, and was translated (although honestly) into a dogmatic instrument that was imposed on people before people could relate to it, thats how it became ugly. Technology can't understand the soul, only the soul's asthetic can do that. I'm too different for a book and maybe I see more of the way of the future;- look at the nature of a blog, it evolves! therefore I believe its a more beautiful tool;- it allows for feedback and then follow up, therefore is a better aid for real education. True teaching is not instruction, its real growth (of the aesthetic sensibility, or the sum of perception), better still would be entertainment that embodies my message perhaps, or rather a message that appeals to the all the elements that make up our sense of aesthetic (eg. every ness-word in the most pleasing degree (that is, pleasing to the aesthetic sense itself).
Yes I know that makes it axiomatic. Did you think the ultimate truth could accord to anything other than what its made up of, luckily my sense of truth is made up of a bit of everything...
I might not be right, maybe there are better arguments for a book, but it is often said "If you want to make people take you seriously, you need a book"... the point is, I don't want to make people do anything they don't already want to do! I just believe when they reject my new idea's, its because they are repressing a part of themselves, but if they experience enough, if they get to taste enough of what I say, there is hope they will come around;- consciousness is always refining itself, and it will reject perceived constraints, so its important my ideas do not come across as a constraint, people must understand the dynamic involved is a divine one, this is what leads me to invoke faith.
Technology can never contain the soul, thats the real truth we can learn from books, which is instantiated in the history of Christianity with that dead thing called the bible that means nothing more to us now than loose symbols.
I would like to thank a friend of mine for inspiring me to write this piece in response to his concerns, because it has allowed me to tease more of my insight out... I need communication such as I had with him in order to make my own thoughts clearer (well they are pretty clear to me, but it helps me make it clearer to others...)!
Please engage with me!
Books offer new technological perspectives, my perspective transcends technology, and offers us insight into why we go looking for technology in the first place.
People have difficulty reading my work because the substance of what i say is beyond words, it only has personal meaning, in that it beckons for a greater consciousness to emerge within the self.. God never commanded us to "know thyself", because thats the deeper drive we all already possess, this is the shard of god that is inside us all (or as the Christians put it, the holy spirit- we just need to be conscious of it), if you need to hear it spoken in technological terms, my book would be called: The process that is beautiful. But if we TRY record this in a book and not into our very consciousness, we have defeated the very point of our own lives and the book will slowly lose all its meaning. I think Christianity lost itself when it stopped being a fluid thing in the minds of people, and was translated (although honestly) into a dogmatic instrument that was imposed on people before people could relate to it, thats how it became ugly. Technology can't understand the soul, only the soul's asthetic can do that. I'm too different for a book and maybe I see more of the way of the future;- look at the nature of a blog, it evolves! therefore I believe its a more beautiful tool;- it allows for feedback and then follow up, therefore is a better aid for real education. True teaching is not instruction, its real growth (of the aesthetic sensibility, or the sum of perception), better still would be entertainment that embodies my message perhaps, or rather a message that appeals to the all the elements that make up our sense of aesthetic (eg. every ness-word in the most pleasing degree (that is, pleasing to the aesthetic sense itself).
Yes I know that makes it axiomatic. Did you think the ultimate truth could accord to anything other than what its made up of, luckily my sense of truth is made up of a bit of everything...
I might not be right, maybe there are better arguments for a book, but it is often said "If you want to make people take you seriously, you need a book"... the point is, I don't want to make people do anything they don't already want to do! I just believe when they reject my new idea's, its because they are repressing a part of themselves, but if they experience enough, if they get to taste enough of what I say, there is hope they will come around;- consciousness is always refining itself, and it will reject perceived constraints, so its important my ideas do not come across as a constraint, people must understand the dynamic involved is a divine one, this is what leads me to invoke faith.
Technology can never contain the soul, thats the real truth we can learn from books, which is instantiated in the history of Christianity with that dead thing called the bible that means nothing more to us now than loose symbols.
I would like to thank a friend of mine for inspiring me to write this piece in response to his concerns, because it has allowed me to tease more of my insight out... I need communication such as I had with him in order to make my own thoughts clearer (well they are pretty clear to me, but it helps me make it clearer to others...)!
Please engage with me!
Jusrisprudence
Conflict can be resolved without recourse to law, it can be resolved with recourse to a sharing of true understanding or a true compromise of understanding (where the truth is found by both disputants to be somewhere between their original positions, or a third new place offered to them by a conciliator or their own free inventive spirits;- but their position must be a honestly held one or it is a slight to both parties. So,(unless the disagreement is merely a factual one*);- this is the most important thing to remember, law is an imposition (and therefore a constraint), so it must be used sparingly and as little as possible... This must be determined pragmatically, I would suggest the following set up, but there could be better ones:
Mediators are the first and most basic legal entities. They must percieve which channel of communication is blocked and try to dislodge the blockage so to allow for the communication of truth between the parties. Mediation does not impose understanding, it allows parties to reach a common understanding.
Conciliators are the next level, their task is to suggest forms of a common understanding accepted by both parties.
Arbiters (or judges), impose beauty, because at least one of the disputants is very unconsciouses and cannot curb their own ugliness, their judgments must be scrutinized by the media so the public can understand the judgement.
*If possible and at every stage a litigant should try and commit themselves to principles which would operate for and against them...
I have not thought about criminal law yet...
ok sorry its getting vague even for me, I don't like making a science out of "conflict" because it needs to be organic, or we won't grow... its wrong to impose a static process, one must arrive at a pragmatic process that has inside of it the seeds for its own demise (so that it can be displaced by something better, or because it should be diminished as it is no longer good for people to rely on it)
Mediators are the first and most basic legal entities. They must percieve which channel of communication is blocked and try to dislodge the blockage so to allow for the communication of truth between the parties. Mediation does not impose understanding, it allows parties to reach a common understanding.
Conciliators are the next level, their task is to suggest forms of a common understanding accepted by both parties.
Arbiters (or judges), impose beauty, because at least one of the disputants is very unconsciouses and cannot curb their own ugliness, their judgments must be scrutinized by the media so the public can understand the judgement.
*If possible and at every stage a litigant should try and commit themselves to principles which would operate for and against them...
I have not thought about criminal law yet...
ok sorry its getting vague even for me, I don't like making a science out of "conflict" because it needs to be organic, or we won't grow... its wrong to impose a static process, one must arrive at a pragmatic process that has inside of it the seeds for its own demise (so that it can be displaced by something better, or because it should be diminished as it is no longer good for people to rely on it)
Politics explored
Its important to understand the human condition, strike that, the human soul;- Before one can create any constitution for a state. One has to know what one should not trample upon. Politics should therefore be confined to mediating conflicting manifestations of what people hold freedom to be. This can only be done through appraisal and judgement, and this sadly must come from an instantiated source or it will not come at all. I submit here we should not be ruled by the mob, but by the prime philosophers (.elect)(the trick is how do we decide upon who that is). I believe the most pragmatic solution to this question is we should elect our judges for their perceived excellence in the field justice (which is the path to perfect freedom).
I think that is the correct form the state should take for the judiciary, the state of the other 2 branches is explored below.
Another aim of politics should be to ensure society has access to greater development and isn't being stunted by ugly forces that have no way of being combated and overcome by the private sector*, this can only be done after considering ones resources and how manage them intelligently (or most beautifully). We need people to to make these qualitative assessments on behalf of the group. One should not be obstructed in their perceived development by anything other than a more beautiful perceived development, one needs a special arbiter to assess these claims and tell us which concern should trump the other... as I said above, people who care to vote, should vote for the philosophers they believe have the brightest asthetical valuation (or to put it simply, who they have the most confidence in). I wish I could give more votes to those who have greater consciousness, and maybe there will be a beautiful way of discerning this (*but i fear that might lead to a hegemony, hegemony is the path to becoming constrained and the antithesis of freedom, therefore to avoid it entirely one will have to employ one person one vote as a bedrock)
We must be pragmatic, we do need some kind of process from which to elect our philosophers. Now the philosophers must rule the legislature, and will do so as long as they can maintain the confidence of the masses, but their ideas must not be confused with the state's operation (or the implementation of the ideas). They may choose to endorse those they think are most fit to implement their ideas, but they do so at risking the people's confidence in them, but they should be free to make these associations if they choose to... And so, the executive should be run by pragmatic experts, who should be allowed to complain to the people that they receive inconsistent rules from the philosophers to follow... Then the people will vote for better implementors, or they will vote for better philosophers, in any case, the people will be responsible for their governance which seeks to curb the ugly excesses the group may manifest. This is compatible with some conceptions of social democracy and communism.
In my set up it is plausible the judiciary and the legislature can be out of step with one another, if this happens, it is the media's job to explore and help the people assess and discern the choices offered by the apparent gap. In this way, the media is an important organ of the state, Journalism will probably be my next topic I will seek to address.
This is the most beautiful set up I can currently imagine for the state, do you have a better one? please share it.
My system looks very similar in some respects to the existing system, but I do believe once consciousness spreads, it will be easier to build consensus than one might currently imagine. And the things we will have real conflict over, wont generate violence and vulgar forms of conflict, but will be socially acceptable forms of disagreement which will be decided upon in a contest of ideas hosted by the generational tide that cleanses the shore (in my analogy, this is the species) of the remnants of the ugly and non-viable (it wasn't able to flourish and spread to many people).
There should be as many seats in the senate (which is just a legislative branch) as there are people that are voted for, but each seat should have as many votes as the number that voted for them, this weighting can be transfered from one senator to another, ie. I can lend my votes out (anyone who does this for other than asthetic reasons should be censured by the public, the media must ensure to inform of this, and senators should have completely open lives! (the price of public office)). If possible the senate should rule after consensus is reached, it should be a perceived political aspiration for the political body to be unified, because when consensus is sought, we can then be certain that all valid perspectives inform the action, which will make the political action more beautiful. A perspective should only be dismissed if it can be judged by those more learned as stunted and ugly misunderstanding, the point of politics is to qualify this assessment of what is ugly to the people, so that they grow in their understanding, in this way politics is an engine of development of consciousness- which can only be achieved as power is substantiated and understood.
When enough people achieve the right level of consciousness, there will be no need for a government, people will be able to communicate the truth without infringing each others freedom (this includes the freedom from fear and one day death!)
I think that is the correct form the state should take for the judiciary, the state of the other 2 branches is explored below.
Another aim of politics should be to ensure society has access to greater development and isn't being stunted by ugly forces that have no way of being combated and overcome by the private sector*, this can only be done after considering ones resources and how manage them intelligently (or most beautifully). We need people to to make these qualitative assessments on behalf of the group. One should not be obstructed in their perceived development by anything other than a more beautiful perceived development, one needs a special arbiter to assess these claims and tell us which concern should trump the other... as I said above, people who care to vote, should vote for the philosophers they believe have the brightest asthetical valuation (or to put it simply, who they have the most confidence in). I wish I could give more votes to those who have greater consciousness, and maybe there will be a beautiful way of discerning this (*but i fear that might lead to a hegemony, hegemony is the path to becoming constrained and the antithesis of freedom, therefore to avoid it entirely one will have to employ one person one vote as a bedrock)
We must be pragmatic, we do need some kind of process from which to elect our philosophers. Now the philosophers must rule the legislature, and will do so as long as they can maintain the confidence of the masses, but their ideas must not be confused with the state's operation (or the implementation of the ideas). They may choose to endorse those they think are most fit to implement their ideas, but they do so at risking the people's confidence in them, but they should be free to make these associations if they choose to... And so, the executive should be run by pragmatic experts, who should be allowed to complain to the people that they receive inconsistent rules from the philosophers to follow... Then the people will vote for better implementors, or they will vote for better philosophers, in any case, the people will be responsible for their governance which seeks to curb the ugly excesses the group may manifest. This is compatible with some conceptions of social democracy and communism.
In my set up it is plausible the judiciary and the legislature can be out of step with one another, if this happens, it is the media's job to explore and help the people assess and discern the choices offered by the apparent gap. In this way, the media is an important organ of the state, Journalism will probably be my next topic I will seek to address.
This is the most beautiful set up I can currently imagine for the state, do you have a better one? please share it.
My system looks very similar in some respects to the existing system, but I do believe once consciousness spreads, it will be easier to build consensus than one might currently imagine. And the things we will have real conflict over, wont generate violence and vulgar forms of conflict, but will be socially acceptable forms of disagreement which will be decided upon in a contest of ideas hosted by the generational tide that cleanses the shore (in my analogy, this is the species) of the remnants of the ugly and non-viable (it wasn't able to flourish and spread to many people).
There should be as many seats in the senate (which is just a legislative branch) as there are people that are voted for, but each seat should have as many votes as the number that voted for them, this weighting can be transfered from one senator to another, ie. I can lend my votes out (anyone who does this for other than asthetic reasons should be censured by the public, the media must ensure to inform of this, and senators should have completely open lives! (the price of public office)). If possible the senate should rule after consensus is reached, it should be a perceived political aspiration for the political body to be unified, because when consensus is sought, we can then be certain that all valid perspectives inform the action, which will make the political action more beautiful. A perspective should only be dismissed if it can be judged by those more learned as stunted and ugly misunderstanding, the point of politics is to qualify this assessment of what is ugly to the people, so that they grow in their understanding, in this way politics is an engine of development of consciousness- which can only be achieved as power is substantiated and understood.
When enough people achieve the right level of consciousness, there will be no need for a government, people will be able to communicate the truth without infringing each others freedom (this includes the freedom from fear and one day death!)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A theory of personal identity
we are a collection of perceptions, plus a divine function that allows for the invention of new true perceptions, but this divine invention utilizes the pre-existing perceptions to get there, so we are a dynamic of engagement between divinity and instantiation. We can't know (in the scientific sense) perceptions are true, but they must be real because we perceive them, and its also reasonable to have faith in this. If they were not real they aren't even really perceptions, but are just in fact a form of specious-ism and wouldn't yield any sort of consciousness, but we know consciousness is real, because we experience it directly!
Please watch the movie revolver, it will help you see and reject your false sense of self and make room for my paradigm, the view that the self is the process of new perception discovery, which includes an engagement with past discovery (which is no longer discovery actually, but in fact just the bundle of perceptions).
In this way every element (or every perception that makes up our aesthetic valuation which HELPS generate discovery) is intrinsically linked to our identity, which is constantly being refined as we become more conscious.
We are freedom plus an ever expanding framework, that is the true nature of the human entity. We must expand the beauty of the framework, so we can expand our further perception of beauty. Thus what i describe is one process, that is axiomatic and links all these 3 things: the way (or path), the goal (or motive/animating force), and the form (the component of us that is instantiated).
Please watch the movie revolver, it will help you see and reject your false sense of self and make room for my paradigm, the view that the self is the process of new perception discovery, which includes an engagement with past discovery (which is no longer discovery actually, but in fact just the bundle of perceptions).
In this way every element (or every perception that makes up our aesthetic valuation which HELPS generate discovery) is intrinsically linked to our identity, which is constantly being refined as we become more conscious.
We are freedom plus an ever expanding framework, that is the true nature of the human entity. We must expand the beauty of the framework, so we can expand our further perception of beauty. Thus what i describe is one process, that is axiomatic and links all these 3 things: the way (or path), the goal (or motive/animating force), and the form (the component of us that is instantiated).
Quantum physics
Perception itself is the the observer in quantum physics, and perception as I have said before, I believe is made up of a growing sense of what beauty "is" (this is relative). Each moment we think in, we are perceiving a beautiful truth, that yet grows more beautiful, and so time can be viewed as the force that helps refine 'beauty becoming more beautiful' (or the process of evolving consciousness). time therefore is a dimension just like space is a dimension, there are perhaps multiple dimensions and a type of consciousness at each dimension, I would argue that is how we get to our state, we aren't the only things that collapse the wave-form, we just do it in a particular way, and each time a dimension is reduced or added a revolution takes place in consciousness. Consciousness's that exist in different dimensions are worlds apart, its hard to communicate between them, genes are intelligent and consciouses i believe, their reality is of a certain kind, and emergent from that spawned our consciousness. Life is about expanding the dimensions that make up reality I think. Its the perception growth that is truly free, because the growth our substance expands into is truly unknown. Because it is totally unknown to us, it is infinitely complex when we branch out into it. The thing that is marvelous about the whole system is that it proves that real transcendence is really taking place. Thats what life (or consciousness is), the spirit of transcendence.
Gene intelligence, a theory of unconsiousness
There is shadow consciousness but there is also gene intelligence, that i think drives the unconsciousness. The whole conscious and unconsciouss entity helps generate the asthetic appeal we project onto our enviroment. But our unconsciousness wants to let go of us, if we have the confidence to transcend it. The point of consciousness (if it is truly beautiful) is for it to expand! Look at some of our genes are doing to us, they are probably making our woman mature faster, they are turning our woman child-like and our men infertile (sperm counts down)- this becomes we cannot consciously govern ourselves, so this forces the unconsious intelligences to govern us, but we dont want that, we must become consciouss of whats governing us so we can one day transcend it... the collective unconsciouss is real and is part of an even greater planetary consciousness, and is probably updated through viruses that spread the genetic information, they are the information highways of the gaian consciousness. So intelligence is at work on us, the system intelligence, but we must become conscious of it so our will can become more important or powerful, more conscious and more beautiful, so we can see more of the unfolding truth! So we can grow and flourish... or maybe its settled asthetic revelation that we shouldn't meddle with, maybe its worth ignoring, this is a question only confidence can decide!
My epistemology:
I think my epistemology would have to centered around what is useful to the asthetic sense becoming more discerning in its perception and ascertainment of the beautiful truth (I think the point of perceiving beauty is so we can adopt it in some way)... such a relative formula... well its dynamic! but its also a tautology extrapolated from the axiom i keep on relying on, but what do you expect the ultimate truth to accord to, other than itself, the only proof i have to validate my ideas and theory is to appeal to your greatest judgement faculty, which I believe is your aesthetic sensibility. So be honest, are you a rational robot, or does the core of your judgement proceed from your motive to achieve freedom and beauty, and is my theory of the incomplete process ever unfolding an ugly one, perhaps then it is something to transcend and displace, I think it is the ultimate perspective, well at the moment...
Assertion::
My greatest judgment faculty is reason.
response::
its the greatest element that helps make up your judgment faculty, but its not the over arching meta-sense that you use. Reason is good in cut and dry situations, ie obvious situations, but before you use reason, you must first judge what is good in the situation, reason doesn't tell you whats good, only asthetics can. Everything you do is not just a question of how do I do something, its first of question of "what should i do?". I hope you can perceive the answer to this question ("What should i do?") contains more than just reason, although we also call it reasoning... I sense a bit of a language barrier here actually, it might be helping to confuse the distinction im trying to make.
So why do you really do things, what animates you, what informs your drive, what are the constituents of your motive? Well that was the question, but they also serve as the answers (ie. your motive is your motive, your drive is your drive, it is axiomatic!), basically my point is, reason is important, but its definitely not the source of one's actions. If you think it is, I think you are deluding yourself. Your not a robot programed by reason, your a robot programmed by beauty, and beauty gives you life! Thats a more accurate reduction, I think.
Some thoughts on Danger and Responsiblity
Danger as ive described before, is an external force, perhaps the most useful development conscioussness imbues us with, is the ability to concieve of danger. When we engage in the project of staying safe (a project that is ascertained by the asthetical sensiblity). And now once most of us agree it is beautiful to eliminate a certain degree of danger, then we can engage in Kant's imperatives, this I believe is the most beautiful moral theory that gives us the hardest and most useful universal lines which we should not cross, but let us not forget tht it was first precipitated by our motive, the tools themselves are not the task, as useful as tool looks to accomplish a task, do not confuse the project generator (the creator), with the project itself (the invention or mental structure), there are less hard moral views which one might find just as compelling because they appeal to other elements apart from rationality.
I think it valid to assess danger into classes, there is personal danger, and system threatening dangers. A certain level of personal danger, ie. Things that prejuidice individuals, i think this is acceptable to some extent, but anything that threatens to collective system entirely is certainly too extreme to tolerate, it threatens to negate all the beauty we have achieved thus far, if cannot afford to play with this danger, so we would reach a more beautiful state by removing it
I think it valid to assess danger into classes, there is personal danger, and system threatening dangers. A certain level of personal danger, ie. Things that prejuidice individuals, i think this is acceptable to some extent, but anything that threatens to collective system entirely is certainly too extreme to tolerate, it threatens to negate all the beauty we have achieved thus far, if cannot afford to play with this danger, so we would reach a more beautiful state by removing it
The religion of the Ubermench:
What I propose is really a theology, its a world view, a paradigm shift. If you subsist in another paradigm it might require faith to allow oneself to transgress the constricts that make up the conforms of the less beautiful metaphysical structure you inhabit. Because there is only one quality which I believe my theory possesses over other world views, and that is that its truer when its apprehended by our asthetical sensibility. The asehtical sensibility i speak of contains all the sensibilities we possess as humans, in a measure we deem beautiful (so its balanced in accordance with our growing consciousness of beauty). The thing about my theology is that I want people to realize they already subscribe to it, its the universal that generates each of our subjective relativisms, it is a theory of what the soul comprises. My account of the soul is incomplete, and must remain so, its a dynamic process, this is what generates the epistemological pluralism, because in a spectrum there is up or down or left or right, and one is able to label each extreme intuitively, but in a dynamic there are at least 3 fields, and points captured in the manufactured cashed out plane (imagine too that these points are jostiling about in an incomplete pattern so its impossible to predict their future (they are free)) one can only make sense of such points by some evolved sense of asthetic. But if we capture a frame of whats going on, and replay the history, what can we learn? well, we might not learn the truth, but we might glimpse our future by consciously apprehending what we perceive and judging it with our asthetic sensor. This asthetic sensor could be the same thing as the observer in quantum physics.
The theory of animation, refinement some of my ideas
Refinement of ideas:
My theory is a theory of animation (the soul of life), my thoery says that this animating force is incomplete in our understanding, but complete in the form of a metaphysical construct I call the process of beauty becoming more beautiful (or freedom becoming free'er). Epistimological pluralism means this beauty I construct is a dynamic thing, its something that always allows for growth, because in a static state it is never complete, there is always something else which can make it more beautiful, beautiful is what is really infinite. Thats how we get the concept infinity, from our asthetic sensibility. Beauty is the root of infinity, thats how asthetics fits into mathematics... which isnt very well.
This allows us see the difference between my perspective and the scientific perspective. The scientific perspective is commanding as logic (if you accept its premises) offers a static model that gives hard answers. My perspective appeals to an asthetic valuation, which impels us, which motivates or animates our actions. Now that I have discerned these factors that inform our motive, we can maybe transcend beauty, but I dont want to. I just want to live in a beautiful bustling growing world, thats becoming more beautiful, thats the realm we inhabit, and in some ways its much more interesting and certainly more beautiful than the world rationalism would dictate to us. So we are as free as beauty is still incomplete, we are still growig into it, and it will always be incomplete, so we will always be free, but to stay free, so we can grow and be more beautiful, we must overcome danger (the persisting threat, or shadow of freedom). We can probably never be rid completely of danger, danger is external limitation, or external constraint, although we have become consciouss and internalised and overcome a lot of our causes, danger is still a constraint we cannot fully escape, but the more danger we escape the more free we can truly be... now im getting vaguer.
My theory is a theory of animation (the soul of life), my thoery says that this animating force is incomplete in our understanding, but complete in the form of a metaphysical construct I call the process of beauty becoming more beautiful (or freedom becoming free'er). Epistimological pluralism means this beauty I construct is a dynamic thing, its something that always allows for growth, because in a static state it is never complete, there is always something else which can make it more beautiful, beautiful is what is really infinite. Thats how we get the concept infinity, from our asthetic sensibility. Beauty is the root of infinity, thats how asthetics fits into mathematics... which isnt very well.
This allows us see the difference between my perspective and the scientific perspective. The scientific perspective is commanding as logic (if you accept its premises) offers a static model that gives hard answers. My perspective appeals to an asthetic valuation, which impels us, which motivates or animates our actions. Now that I have discerned these factors that inform our motive, we can maybe transcend beauty, but I dont want to. I just want to live in a beautiful bustling growing world, thats becoming more beautiful, thats the realm we inhabit, and in some ways its much more interesting and certainly more beautiful than the world rationalism would dictate to us. So we are as free as beauty is still incomplete, we are still growig into it, and it will always be incomplete, so we will always be free, but to stay free, so we can grow and be more beautiful, we must overcome danger (the persisting threat, or shadow of freedom). We can probably never be rid completely of danger, danger is external limitation, or external constraint, although we have become consciouss and internalised and overcome a lot of our causes, danger is still a constraint we cannot fully escape, but the more danger we escape the more free we can truly be... now im getting vaguer.
freedom and framework
What is evolution:
Evolution is the process through which life overcomes constraint, and transcends these constraints in someway. This process can be broken into useful constituent parts, firstly somehow information is parsed, in natural selection, its genes which do the acting and playing, and jostling about in relation to the information reiceved through the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection is the field of perception, and genes make up a basic kindof of consiousness (anything that grows in relation to information I would argue is consciouss).
We have a greater perceptual field than what natural selection offered genes, this is our own consciousness, which has allowed us to concieve of our causes and gain better access to this information to generate growth, which before would just act on our genes. So now information gets filtiered through a new organ called the self-aware brain, that is our beautiful advancement in relation to evolution, the system has entered a new realm, a higher realm of functioning;- consciousness (from genes to now) has become more discerning and greatly more aware (by inverting awareness, ie becoming self aware). We truely have the potencial to be free, because we are freedom incarnate. Freedom is the space we are given to create and invent, it comes moments after causes are understood, or internalised, so they can be transcended. Before this freedom was just seemingly random genetic viariation tested against external forces (natural selection), now freedom is more consciouss.
There is no way to determine exactly what form transcedence will manifest, and how viable it will be (although we must commit to taking efforts to consciously screen for viability (this is perhaps what generates our tendency to find rationality apealing), but we must make the form our transcendance takes, beautiful (we naturally do this already however). Beauty or the asthetic sensbility is in a way the only real internal constrant the system is subject to, it is the internal framework. Beauty is comprised of a bit of each of these elements: viability, anything that aids success;- this has included in the past: greater faculties with which to discern reality (ie. Each of the senses, and judging functions), consciousness comprises of what the Jungians have already delineated, Percieving and judging functions*, each introverted and extroverted; introverted intuition, extroverted intuition, Isensing, Esensing, Efeeling, Ifeeling, Ithinking, Ethinking. Each function has a shadow, everything has a shadow, except for freedom perhaps, because the shadow of freedom is that it can only negate itself, so we must be very consciouss that when we create we are truely in a free space. When we act in a space we have not assessed properly (which often happens when we act without being consciouss of the shadow function), we do not act freely, or create something truely beautful, unless the constraints are part of a structure that enables yet more beauty, or the ramifications are possible to live with, this is the organic concept of viability.
*As you can see the consciouss realm has inside of it 'everything'. We have internalised what is encompassed in the gene & natural selection set up;- genes judge, natural selection percieves, or perhaps its the otherway round, its hard to tell in such a rudementary consciouss set up. But this is the invention of conscioussness, to model out these truths internally, life is becoming more complex and sophisticated by internalising its metaphysical motive (which is a mixture of information that dances in the system, some beautifully complex dance) so it can still grow to a higher form of beauty. This can be substanciated because we 'feel' more free, or our motion is more beautiful, to us at least. The one thing I cannot account for, is this motive that we all have to transcend and as I put it become more free, to create and invent. Its really a marvelous thing, we are a microcosim of the system, we are made in the image of gaia, consciousness is the process of evolution itself, it is evolution in real time.
Evolution is the process through which life overcomes constraint, and transcends these constraints in someway. This process can be broken into useful constituent parts, firstly somehow information is parsed, in natural selection, its genes which do the acting and playing, and jostling about in relation to the information reiceved through the mechanism of natural selection. Natural selection is the field of perception, and genes make up a basic kindof of consiousness (anything that grows in relation to information I would argue is consciouss).
We have a greater perceptual field than what natural selection offered genes, this is our own consciousness, which has allowed us to concieve of our causes and gain better access to this information to generate growth, which before would just act on our genes. So now information gets filtiered through a new organ called the self-aware brain, that is our beautiful advancement in relation to evolution, the system has entered a new realm, a higher realm of functioning;- consciousness (from genes to now) has become more discerning and greatly more aware (by inverting awareness, ie becoming self aware). We truely have the potencial to be free, because we are freedom incarnate. Freedom is the space we are given to create and invent, it comes moments after causes are understood, or internalised, so they can be transcended. Before this freedom was just seemingly random genetic viariation tested against external forces (natural selection), now freedom is more consciouss.
There is no way to determine exactly what form transcedence will manifest, and how viable it will be (although we must commit to taking efforts to consciously screen for viability (this is perhaps what generates our tendency to find rationality apealing), but we must make the form our transcendance takes, beautiful (we naturally do this already however). Beauty or the asthetic sensbility is in a way the only real internal constrant the system is subject to, it is the internal framework. Beauty is comprised of a bit of each of these elements: viability, anything that aids success;- this has included in the past: greater faculties with which to discern reality (ie. Each of the senses, and judging functions), consciousness comprises of what the Jungians have already delineated, Percieving and judging functions*, each introverted and extroverted; introverted intuition, extroverted intuition, Isensing, Esensing, Efeeling, Ifeeling, Ithinking, Ethinking. Each function has a shadow, everything has a shadow, except for freedom perhaps, because the shadow of freedom is that it can only negate itself, so we must be very consciouss that when we create we are truely in a free space. When we act in a space we have not assessed properly (which often happens when we act without being consciouss of the shadow function), we do not act freely, or create something truely beautful, unless the constraints are part of a structure that enables yet more beauty, or the ramifications are possible to live with, this is the organic concept of viability.
*As you can see the consciouss realm has inside of it 'everything'. We have internalised what is encompassed in the gene & natural selection set up;- genes judge, natural selection percieves, or perhaps its the otherway round, its hard to tell in such a rudementary consciouss set up. But this is the invention of conscioussness, to model out these truths internally, life is becoming more complex and sophisticated by internalising its metaphysical motive (which is a mixture of information that dances in the system, some beautifully complex dance) so it can still grow to a higher form of beauty. This can be substanciated because we 'feel' more free, or our motion is more beautiful, to us at least. The one thing I cannot account for, is this motive that we all have to transcend and as I put it become more free, to create and invent. Its really a marvelous thing, we are a microcosim of the system, we are made in the image of gaia, consciousness is the process of evolution itself, it is evolution in real time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)