Hello, Cy, hello, OMF II

First topic message reminder :

Testing.......

Yes, it is working.

Congratulations to Cyrellys & Co.!

I will be continuing the BPWH blog from Compass Morainn, which was a continuation from the original OMF site on ProBoards, which is in the process of being re-archived from that site.



(cont.)

Cy,

Thank you for your patience........

Here is the big deal between us....... It's all about the Eternal Return......

And this is the very big difference between theism and pantheism.

In theism there is a polarity between the temporal and the eternal...... and, very importantly, there is a strong reciprocity between them. This is not at all the case with pantheism and its basis of eternal return.

Only, then, with theism can there be any meaning in an historical narrative. Only in theism can the idea of progress make any sense.

How important is this? As we come to the Endtime, we will gain a greater appreciation for the simple fact that life is NOT an absurdity in a meaningless universe.

This is what western civilization has brought to the world. Yes, it is disruptive. It is definitely not sustainable. It never was intended to be. It sent us into a launch trajectory, not into space, but rather into the Metaspace! There is no barrier, now, between us and Eternity. Get used to it......!

With respect to pantheism, there is just a nolo-contendere. They can do nothing more than watch from the sidelines...... wondering what it's all about, Alfie.

Cy, I don't expect you to seriously contest the historical importance of theism. From the git-go, history has been conceded to the Prophetic tradition. This is what it's all about.

We are talking the Omega and the Noosphere. This is what the Internet is about. Either we are a cancer or a Chrysalis. I put my money on the latter. So does the creative cosmic Intelligence (CCI).


There is one very significant fly in the BPWH ointment....... it is immaterialism. It is a tough pill to swallow, especially for our scientific friends. And it is tough sell for Chicken Little, but there is no other way. It is the one issue that I always come back to...... the latest revisit is in the form of OOO*, my version of Graham Harman's object oriented ontology, as set forth in his Quadruple Object.

Every morning I have to count my immaterial chickens....... at night I count the immaterial sheep.

The real problem is that I'm my only cognizant critic..... in no small part because I'm the only immaterialist active on the Internet. So why do I keep insisting on it? It's all about coherence.......

There has not been an explicit, cosmological immaterialist since before Darwin. Only a fool would go up against Darwin, and against the big-bang. Only a proper clown of God, under the tutelage of Sophia, might persevere.

Besides astronomical objects and atoms, the only true objects are organic, like you me and the trees. I'm not too worried about astronomy. I let the holographic principle take care of the sky and the big-bang.

Trees and fossils are the only real problem....... Supernovas? Sure, there are plenty of things to keep us, immaterialists, on our toes. Let's face it, God can be a bit show-off..... drama Queen, if you will!

God loves the Darwinists and the astronomers. If it weren't for them, we would never have been able to untie our theological apron-strings, and get on with the serious business of wiring the planet for a global Disclosure/Revelation. It's all a setup for D-day. Which, in its turn, is a setup for the Rapture, in another couple of centuries, or so.

Creation is a three-ring circus, and we're the center ring. All of us are succumbing to a bit of stage-fright, but we'll get over it, once we are clued-in.



(cont.)

Well for starters I don't subscribe to the "Eternal Return" of Eliade based on what I've read of it via the links you provided. Is time Cyclic? Well I perceive time as more complex than linear..it would be like comparing linear time to a tessaract. I perceive it much more multi-faceted or perhaps multi-dimensional than lineal...Are there cycles in it tho? No I perceive interconnections and relationships not cycles...physical bodies and logic run in cycles tho...perhaps you are confusing those with the functions of time? lives which exist within the confines of the time/consciousness matrix have cycles; bodies of planetary functions have cycles - weather, geology, magnetic fields, etc; solar systems have cycles; galaxies have cycles; and so I do believe do universes....bodies within the matrix express cycles of coherence and minutia of recombinant alterations. But I don't necessarily see time or other consciousness level constructs as being so restricted.

To be cont....

....for a simplistic analogy of what I mean about time:

I can be traveling up a road and "know" (kenning) that there is a gentleman police officer revenuing for his county in his patrol car camped around a corner ostensibly out of my line of sight around the corner with his radar gun on. I can "know" this and slow down to avoid getting "caught" traveling faster than the speed limit. Not only can I know this in the necessary time frame to slow down and be at the appropriate speed by the time the machine is designed to register my approach but I can do so at ANY point even prior to the gentleman's arrival and choice of location to set up for such work. I am not limited by cycles of behavior typical of objects and I (mind) am not restricted to the confines of a lineal time. With time perceived as more complex I can sample any point within the construct or outside of the construct by which cyclic objects operate within certain and various parameters.

To cite another example, those who study ghostly phenomenom are very familiar with both 'forms' of ghostly activity: the conscious entities not bound by physical bodies who respond to queries and the non-concious imprints of static energy and looping time where senarios from the past repeat themselves like broken records.

cont.

you said:

Besides astronomical objects and atoms, the only true objects are organic, like you me and the trees. I'm not too worried about astronomy. I let the holographic principle take care of the sky and the big-bang.

Trees and fossils are the only real problem....... Supernovas? Sure, there are plenty of things to keep us, immaterialists, on our toes. Let's face it, God can be a bit show-off..... drama Queen, if you will!

God loves the Darwinists and the astronomers. If it weren't for them, we would never have been able to untie our theological apron-strings, and get on with the serious business of wiring the planet for a global Disclosure/Revelation. It's all a setup for D-day. Which, in its turn, is a setup for the Rapture, in another couple of centuries, or so.

Creation is a three-ring circus, and we're the center ring. All of us are succumbing to a bit of stage-fright, but we'll get over it, once we are clued-in.

but this is part of the problem...anthropocentrism.

We have been through contact before...

We have been a technological civilization before.

We have traveled the stars before.

And we have experienced the cyclic punctuated catastrophes before.

Assigning an Endtime to any of this for the reasons you are stating is anthropocentric and we are NOT a closed system, in any sense of the term not just in reference to the greater community.

Manufacturing an 'endtime' is not going to change any of it except remove ourselves as a product of the Creative Source and other factors within its matrices as a influence amd factor around which other factors pivot and interact/exchange...myths and rituals are constructs and unnecessary to achieve in this reality or any other. Creating an 'endtime' or one perceived as such IS a ritual based on a myth; a concept/construct utilized to achieve something within or in conjunction to this reality.

Cy,

The main consideration about time, according to the BPWH, is that there is just one primary timeline..... this is our best possible history..... AND historical time is finite!

Only thus can Creation have meaning for us. On any non-finite scheme, we become lost in time and space. There can be no common ground, no larger meaning that is accessible to us.

You say......

Assigning an Endtime to any of this for the reasons you are stating is anthropocentric and we are NOT a closed system, in any sense of the term not just in reference to the greater community.

Manufacturing an 'endtime' is not going to change any of it except remove ourselves as a product of the Creative Source and other factors within its matrices as a influence amd factor around which other factors pivot and interact/exchange...myths and rituals are constructs and unnecessary to achieve in this reality or any other. Creating an 'endtime' or one perceived as such IS a ritual based on a myth; a concept/construct utilized to achieve something within or in conjunction to this reality.

The BPWH is, most definitely, Athropocentric...!!

Only by being Anthropocentric, and thus finite, can humanity make sense of, or find meaning in, history. In any non-finite context, all creatures become lost in space and time.

Only by sharing a common goal in history, can we have a sense of being part of a global community, wherein we are all integral parts of God's family.

What is the point of having a cosmic intelligence (CI), if it is fragmented? If the CI is fragmented, then it is not personal. It is suffering a multiple personality disorder (MPD)..... it is schizophrenic. Who wants a schizophrenic God?

Cy, is there not a chain of being? Are you and I not closer to God than are the rocks? Will we not all become One with God? What else is the point of existence, if we cannot identify with the creative Source. Are we supposed to treat the allegedly more evolved beings as if they were some kind of priesthood, to whom we may mean no more than do ants to us??

There is only one way to avoid to avoid spiritual arrogance..... that is be a Universalist wrt salvation/redemption/atonement.

Orthodox Xians are the only ones who approach Universalism..... and they miss it only by a few seconds...... they, for perfectly good historical reasons, do not countenance a Second Chance.

In the BPWH, there is a Second Chance, and that's all we'll ever need.

You and I need only one encounter with God, or the Eu-angel, in order to be saved. That encounter need only last a few seconds, in order to turn our lives around.

Does that sound too easy? Well, actually, it has taken us 10 billion lifetimes, reincarnations, in order to be saved. That is because we are all timesharing the one cosmic Soul. In saving our own soul, we are saving everyone's Soul.

I am one your reincarnations, and you are one of mine. This way, there is no duplication of salvation effort....... it is one for all, and all for One! It is about teamwork.

Yes, humanity is a very diverse Team..... and the whole point of the BPWH is that the human Team is composed of the best possible diversity. We are the best possible Creation, keeping in mind that the our best years and lives are still ahead of us, in what is known as the Kingdom Come, the new Jerusalem.

All I'm asking you, Cy, and everyone else, is just to think a little bit beyond our individual boxes. From where each of us were, it is only a small step to the best possible Box. Therein lies the answer to every one of our prayers.

And why are so many of us so reluctant to take this one last little step?

TBMK, it is simply because, individually, each us us is not real sure that we are ready to meet our Maker. We find it very difficult to believe in cosmic Teamwork. That is why our Millennial 'kingdom' will last just as long as it takes all of us to become Believers, hon......!

Technically, we are talking about vicarious or substitutionary atonement. Does this mean that Jesus is not our Savior? What is means is the opens the floodgate, primes the pump, of our participatory salvation. Each one of us has an integral, essential role to play in that cosmic drama. We are approaching the logical climax of the that drama. We live in interesting times......!

Is there a better possible world? If there is, please let me know, and I will sign up for it, right here and now! But, if truth be known, and after 68 years of patiently waiting, I'm not exactly holding my breath....... but, hey, I've been wrong before!




(cont.)

I don't perceive the Creative Source (you say CI) as being fragmented at all. What little I am gifted enough to perceive of it (immensity) at this point is more like a multi-faceted diamond of great conscious depth and capacity that extends beyond what I am able to 2 dimensionally describe or even wholly perceive adequately. It encompasses all of being. In our current expression we can't even come close to mimicing the multi-tasking of its influence or cognitive functions. As far as spiritual arrogance goes it seems to me that when we restrict ourselves from open exploration and experience, when we miss acknowledging the shared state of awareness (other creatures of varying cognitive ability in our environment) then that anthropocentrism itself qualifies as spiritual arrogance and cannot be avoided. Assigning a chain of being where there is heirarchy of greator or lessor strips the value of even a less palatable opportunity of experience such inantimate objects as rocks provide. We know through recent research that there are strong indications that inanimate objects can house energy matrices...what is the soul but a coherent energy matrice with a distinct character pattern expressed as an individual when inhabiting an organic form? Habitation is not limited by form organic or non-organic inanimate objects. Would you do me a favor and watch a certain movie? Go watch Dolphin Tale. It's the true story of a dolphin whose tale was removed due to infection. It seems to me you idea is missing the participation of your peers. You need not begin with any of the Others (ET/UTs) when there are plenty of examples of peers in your own environment. Being more aware of ones surroundings or being more adept at anypoint in time in manipulating ones environment or constructing tools, methods, etc does not make a chain of being real. It does not place any one or type of being higher or lower...they are only different paths to understanding and awareness. Go see Winter. And when you are ready expand your horizon by seeking a partner or peer of another specie - not a pet. It can be any creature even those often selected as pets but you will not approach your relationship with it as a pet; as a superior to a lessor...approach it in a mutualistic course and establish a mutualistic relationship to understand what I am pointing out here.

Cy,

Would you trade the life of any human for any animal?

I know of no one who would ever admit to such a swap. Do you?

Is this just speciesism? Or does it point to a deeper truth?

Do you not recognize a fundamental difference between sentience and sapience?

There are many basic questions of this nature, that you seem to be ignoring.

.

Well, that's usually about as far as the discussion goes. The Xians are the only ones who wish to initiate discussions of their views with those of the other persuasions, and the discussions usually don't get very far. Most of this apologetics is just a one way defense. Others don't care to defend their views, beyond mounting the obvious critiques of damnation.

Why so many xians insist on defending damnation is both easy and, at the same time, difficult to understand. Most of its defenders see it as simply being a necessary evil.... it being the logical obverse of the Evangel of salvation. The threat is almost always left as something implicit. But there are always a few sado's who relish the thought of their enemies burning in hell.

Well, there is something more at stake, here.......

Only with xianity do we have the ultimate sense of cosmic urgency.... that absolutely everything is at stake, and that we're only going around once...... so, yes, we go with all the gusto(?) that we can muster. And all that gusto may have gotten us to the brink of the Noosphere, our launching pad into the wild blue yonder, beyond space and time. We live in interesting times. Be here or be square. If God is not a drama queen, she has missed her calling.
-------------


I'm quite convinced that immaterialism is the only way to put together an optimal Creation, and where there is a Will, there is a way.

Arthur Schopenhauer saw only the negative side of Will...... a combination of Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud. Love is the other side of that coin. The xians managed to monopolize its cosmic manifestation. No one was ever going to compete with that, other than by going negative, which they did, with some relish.

Love is what makes the world go 'round. That is a bitter pill for the materialists and pessimists to swallow. Love is the logical core of coherence. Immaterialism/idealism is its logical outcome. If I can just rationalize trees, then everything else should follow in their place. All I have to do is prove the non-objectivity of trees, hopefully by logic, rather than by exhaustion, as is sometimes my wont.

A pure object must exist in splendid isolation, having, at most, external relations. The essence of any tree, must be individually self-contained...... self-manifesting, per impossible! Despite the fact that materialists disavow essences. But how else can we perceive/cognize anything, other than by making a direct contact with its essence?



(cont.)

Bear with me Dan I haven't answered because I'm half asleep from pulling 48 hours without it and I refuse to speak if I can't think straight....will get back to you later or tomorrow.

Cy

Cy,

I thank you for being patient with me, especially since patience has never been a virtue of my own. There's nothing easy about ranch life, or so I'm told.


In the meantime, I'll see if any progress can be made wrt the alleged immateriality of trees.....

The question before us is whether trees might be something other than collections of atoms in space. There is no very obvious answer to this question..... or the seemingly obvious answers devolve into less obvious ones.

We don't doubt that a mighty oak grows from a tiny acorn, atom by atom, photon by photon.... or, at least, that its growth process may be so analyzed and/or abstracted. End of story?

Well, for one thing, it's not clear whether the tree is abstracted from its atoms, or the atoms from the tree. The whole shooting-match may lie therein. This problem is compounded by the nature of the relation between the tree and its observer.



(cont.)

IMHO, we cannot distinguish between a tree and our ideas of it. Can we distinguish between a tree and its lollipop cartoon? And especially not between atoms and our ideas of them.

In what sense do cartoons exist? Can we distinguish between a cartoon and our idea of it?

Is there an ontological difference between a Pollock and a Da Vinci?

But our idea of a tree is not composed of atoms. Or is it? What about our tree memories? What about the tree in the front yard and all my memories of it? What is it that crushes the car, when the wind blows down the tree?

Can we distinguish between the tree and our perceptions of it? Kant thought so. So does Harman, who sees four trees, where Kant could only see two. Can we distinguish between the tree crushing the car and our perception of that process? Can we distinguish between perceptions and ideas? My perceptions of the tree yesterday and today..... is there an ontological distinction? How many Mona Lisa's are there? What if the one at the Louvre turns out to have been a forgery or a copy? What if I turn out to be a twin or a double agent?

Trees get blown down and burnt up. You don't want to be standing next to one, at the time. If you are, you may have an NDE. Or you may be touched by an angel. Either way, you won't be the same person, but you will be...... just a step closer to God, perhaps.

There is always a foreground and a background. They keep interchanging. Flux happens. I cannot imagine a perfect circle, other than as a limiting abstraction. How many numbers are there? How many 3's? Is there just one Platonic '3', or is that a "3"..... or is it [[4-2]+1]]?

Can we tell the forest, for all the trees? Why do we never see just one row of corn? Does grass swarm? Do atoms? Stars..... using gravity? Clever, huh? Do we train dogs to fetch, or do they train us to feed? Cats??

Where are the lines in the ontological sand? Where is the Telos, when we need it? When do we need it?

We have a love and hate relationship with every one of our distinctions. We make rules to be broken. Nature? We have broken every one of her rules..... by hook and by crook. Where there's a will, there's a way. Just ask God.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall....... You show me an existentialist, and I'll show you a transcendentalist. Show me a flower in a crannied wall..... and I'll show you.... you know who....


Ontology comes in many flavors and dimensions, but, despite the best efforts of the analysts, all distinctions remain fluid. Doesn't the BPWH distinguish between the cosmic Soul and everything else? Well...... everything is a manifestation/extension of that Soul, as are you and I. Then there are persons, timesharing that Soul. We have sapience. Hurray for us! We become one with God. Everything does. Except, maybe, for the eternal aspect of Creation which is the body of God. But only you and I participate in the Eucharist...... vicariously or otherwise. Does Rover go to heaven? On your coattails...... eidetically speaking. So does Rin Tin Tin and Puff the magic dragon.

I'm not real sure about metabolism up there. It probably can be recreated, at the drop of a hat, shape shifting, as it were. Ontological distinctions are probably greater here, than anywhere else. Embrace them while we can!


My concern is that we be prepared for the erosion of ontological barriers that will come with the endtimes.

Altered states of consciousness will be playing a bigger role as we move into our metamorphosis. Various entities will be moving in.

Wrt ontology and trees crushing cars..... time heals all wounds..... and wounds all heels....



(cont.)

dan wrote:Cy,

I thank you for being patient with me, especially since patience has never been a virtue of my own. There's nothing easy about ranch life, or so I'm told.


In the meantime, I'll see if any progress can be made wrt the alleged immateriality of trees.....

The question before us is whether trees might be something other than collections of atoms in space. There is no very obvious answer to this question..... or the seemingly obvious answers devolve into less obvious ones.

We don't doubt that a mighty oak grows from a tiny acorn, atom by atom, photon by photon.... or, at least, that its growth process may be so analyzed and/or abstracted. End of story?

Well, for one thing, it's not clear whether the tree is abstracted from its atoms, or the atoms from the tree. The whole shooting-match may lie therein. This problem is compounded by the nature of the relation between the tree and its observer.



(cont.)

I may have an interesting response to the earlier part of our conversation which may apply to your question about the trees....

Cyrellys 46 hours ago from Montana

Hmmm are you by any chances familiar with Mircea Eliade and Cyclic Time? I have a friend with whom I just happen to be discussing some of the same concepts with as the one you present above, right now. He said just yesterday, "In theism there is a polarity between the temporal and the eternal...... and, very importantly, there is a strong reciprocity between them. This is not at all the case with pantheism and its basis of eternal return. " The Eternal Return keyed from the following concept expressed by Eliade: "that myths and rituals do not simply commemorate hierophanies, but, at least to the minds of the religious, actually participate in them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Return_(Eliad


RighterOne 8 hours ago from Chicago, Illinois - USA Hub Author

Sorry - I've been away for a bit. Also, I wanted to take the time and follow up on your links.

Mr. Eliade came to his conclusions after many years of research - looking at many cultures and their myths and legends, religious traditions, historical records, etc...

I've done something similar, but have come to somewhat different conclusions. Perhaps it is the time that we live in - the information super-age, where almost any fact is available at the click of a mouse.

I think that to distinguish between the physical and the spiritual as polar opposites - as well as to distinguish between what he calls 'profane' and 'sacred' time would be a mistake. However, he is not wrong in his assessment of how these concepts figure in many traditions around the world.

In my opinion, he did not look far enough into the past. He began where the myths began - assuming that that was the beginning. But you and I both know, that that was only after the Ancients met their end, after which there was a disasterous comet strike and a flood.

In my view, the spiritual realm emanates the physical from it - and does so for a very specific reason. The space-time construct is not a useless outgrowth of the spirit realm - that would be a tremendous waste of time, effort, and energy.

There is surely a cyclic time-frame - where events both repeat and converge/merge together - thus bringing about various alternative realities, outcomes, and ultimately the possibility to improve upon what once has already occurred.

However, the 'mundane' time, in my view, is equally as important - since without it, the proper adjustments and preparations could not be made for the next occurrence - whether that be the coming of a new lunar cycle, year, or an entire age.

While Eliade dismissed any sort of 'objectivity' - in an ultimately-unsuccessful attempt at literary preemptive self-defense, I presume - I actually vehemently argue for the existence of objectivity and absolute truth. I wrote a hub about it some time ago, which then got heckled by a very persistent hubber.

Bottom line is that I think Mircea Eliade was a great thinker and many of his qualities I both deeply admire and share - such as the ability to think outside the box, for example... And, we are in agreement about most things, as far as I can tell. I have had access to more resources, so my conclusions differ - and where I pointed, our views diverge.

I hope that answers your question... If you like, we can continue this discussion in a more private setting - I don;t want to give too much away at this point.

I placed emphasis on parts of his comment above that I think are important in bold and in red. Cy

And this part here I wholly agree with,

RighterOne said: "I think that to distinguish between the physical and the spiritual as polar opposites - as well as to distinguish between what he calls 'profane' and 'sacred' time would be a mistake. However, he is not wrong in his assessment of how these concepts figure in many traditions around the world.

In my opinion, he did not look far enough into the past. He began where the myths began - assuming that that was the beginning. But you and I both know, that that was only after the Ancients met their end, after which there was a disasterous comet strike and a flood."

End quote.

I mentioned above that

but this is part of the problem...anthropocentrism.

We have been through contact before...

We have been a technological civilization before.

We have traveled the stars before.

And we have experienced the cyclic punctuated catastrophes before.

Cy,

I quote from your friend.......

In my opinion, he did not look far enough into the past. He began where the myths began - assuming that that was the beginning. But you and I both know, that that was only after the Ancients met their end, after which there was a disasterous comet strike and a flood.

In my view, the spiritual realm emanates the physical from it - and does so for a very specific reason. The space-time construct is not a useless outgrowth of the spirit realm - that would be a tremendous waste of time, effort, and energy.

There is surely a cyclic time-frame - where events both repeat and converge/merge together - thus bringing about various alternative realities, outcomes, and ultimately the possibility to improve upon what once has already occurred.

However, the 'mundane' time, in my view, is equally as important - since without it, the proper adjustments and preparations could not be made for the next occurrence - whether that be the coming of a new lunar cycle, year, or an entire age.

While Eliade dismissed any sort of 'objectivity' - in an ultimately-unsuccessful attempt at literary preemptive self-defense, I presume - I actually vehemently argue for the existence of objectivity and absolute truth. I wrote a hub about it some time ago, which then got heckled by a very persistent hubber.

You emphasize the physical and the cyclic. I emphasize the relation between the cyclic and the eternal.

As your friend suggests, there is no point in the temporal, unless there is some notion of progress. BUT there can be no notion of progress unless there is an End to progress..... that end being a progressive convergene of the cycles toward the Omega of Eternity. This Omega is also known as Apokatastasis, Rapture, Redemption, etc.......

Understand, please, Cy, that Creation is the Eternal body of God. We are God's best possible body. The temporality of Creation is only an illusion. Every moment of time is imbued with the eternal shining Presence. Nothing is lost, especially not our squeals of pain and delight!

There is no redundancy..... not down here.... not up there.

Your friend is right that there is no real distinction between the sacred and the profane, or between the temporal and eternal. It is all a matter of perspective, and our perspectives will be increasingly transcendental.

The important point, Cy, is that history is not an experiment. It is our preparation to become one with our Creator. That's all. Can it be anything more? Should it be anything less?

Creation is essentially participatory. We are the co-Creators. Disclosure/Revelation is just our realization of this fact.

We are NOT lost in space and time, but God loves the Existentialists so much, that she made it appear as if we were so lost.

If you were God, Cy, would you have deprived us of our bejeweled heavens? Should we begrudge her for that wonderful holographic appearance of the night sky? Obviously, she also loves the Astronomers, bless their lonely hearts!


5pm-----------

I don't know if you ever followed my exchanges with Jake. They were mainly about the quantity of Creation. My point was that, when it comes to Creation, quality trumps quantity. This is a very strange idea for any person exposed to modernity to wrap their heads around. Being raised, for generations, on the notion of unlimited expansion and progress, we are very loath to countenance any physical limits. Ours are only blue-sky dreams......!

The concept of physical limitation is especially difficult for ufologists.

Why would God impose any physical limits upon us? Is God a Cartesian dualist?

Why limits, indeed.....?

Because God gets lonely......? Well, it's because God is personal. How can God get up close and personal, if Creation is infinite.

That's all it's about, Cy. It's really just that simple.

But modern civilization has become so enamored with Perpetual Progress that we truly wish to keep God at arms length for as long as possible. And God has been quite content to play along with our modern predilections, per her design, but only up to a point. Only up to Disclosure/Revelation.

The only serious question before us, now, is the optimal timing for D-day.

Do you have any prefences, Cy?


And now there is this........

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120703-higgs-boson-god-particle-cern-science/?source=link_fb20120703news-higgsboson&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20120703news-higgsboson&utm_campaign=Content


And trying to keep a straight face...... If you can't pronounce it, rhymes with proton, then avoid public discussion thereof......

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/48063010#48063010



(cont.)

The finitude of Creation is the most difficult aspect of the BPWH for the modern, post-Copernican mind to accept. But only with a finite Creation can theism be given credence vis-a-vis deism.

The next most difficult aspect is the non-dualist/immaterialist ontology. This aspect is much easier to swallow, once we are willing to second-guess Copernicus. Pantheism provides another conceptual path to immaterialism.

Also, it has proven very difficult to define an objective ontology, beyond its common sense platitudes. Scientific and common sense objectivity are poorly matched, and the problem of consciousness quickly comes to the fore. The mind-body problem is the 'plank' in our ontological eye.

The tension between teleology and entropy presents a major challenge for any would-be immatialist....

Developmental biology provides an excellent demonstration of teleology. Explaining the teleology of senescence, however, seems to complicate that picture. It seems anti-teleological or entropic, which naturally favors atomism and materialism. But, frankly, I'm quite content not having to trade problems. .

How may we best frame or explain the 'sunset' law for biological systems, without invoking reductionism? What is the holism of decay? Would it not be oxymoronic? Or, perhaps worse, in an inorganic context, what is the holism of a car crash? Ouch....!

The problem of decay can also be seen a part of the problems of evil, theodicy and apologetics.

Even more generally, we have to question the importance or necessity of Creation...... given Heaven, why bother with Earth?

Heaven is often pictured as rather Earth-like, but without the decay, etc. In heaven, the cars don't crash or rust. Traffic jams?! And forget the gas stations. Hmmm...... Apple trees, anyone?

Can life be complete without death? Does God die? Maybe we should ask the J-man.

Somehow, death must be an integral part of theism. The point of theism is that Heaven and Earth are essentially or internally related. Can't have one without the other.

But even given the logical necessity of senescence, how is it implemented, without resorting to atomism? Who turns off the Telos, and how? Why can't we just slip into our glorified bodies?

And not that I have anything against atoms, per se. Atomic physics can be very entertaining.

How does God create friction and entropy? Are they not an integral part of the telos?

Metabolism is necessarily a two-way street. No?



(cont.)

Another issue is the relation of temporality to eternity. Can there be one without the other?

It is difficult to imagine a Creator without a Creation. Scientists have made much progress imagining the reverse. What happens at the end of progress, some of us would like to know?



(cont.)

Metabolism, cycles and atoms are closely allied. Temporality would be very artificial without these three components. From cosmology to biology, these components are closely synchronized. There can be no creation, otherwise..... only an eternal return. The prophetic tradition captures the transcendental tension, uniquely. Poignancy is a word that comes to mind.

Are atoms poignant? Pointillist? From dust to dust..... The microcosm is part of this.

Death and decay have gotten a bad press, it would seem. They were supposed to be the punishment for our original sin. The main reason for salvation was to avoid them.

The J-man was, implicitly, about the felix-culpa. Salvation? Half the fun is getting there.

Science has no need of these hypotheses..... not as long as progress keeps trickling down. Perpetual progress? That is an abstraction, which quickly loses its charm, upon closer inspection.

This is all about personhood, personalism.... being up close and personal, whether we like it or not. But isn't God eternal? Yes, and so are we.... in a transcendental sense, wherein we achieve the nirvanic at-One-ment. But this is where the action is, and the final act will not disappoint. The shining present/presence has always been the eternal pleroma. Nothing is ever lost to that eternal Eidos/Telos/Omega.


In the storm, last Friday, we lost another large limb off the locust tree in our backyard, narrowly missing Debbie's VW. Part of the same tree fell on the rear window of my Corolla, which is still leaking. That was in Irene. This week we have removed two of the locusts. They were then metabolized/atomized by the wood chipper. What would Plato think about that? Is he rolling over in his grave? Is there a Platonic form for a wood-chipper? Is there a form for fire? Perhaps we should ask Gaston B.

Our appropriation of fire may have been what started it all. Did we steal it from the gods? It was, quite literally, what separated us from the other predators.

Out of fire came the Carnot cycle, which continues to drive civilization..... that and the sequestration of fossil carbon. Will thorium keep us from heaven's gate? Thorium will give us a clear choice. God has no intention of shoving heaven down our throats. We are vouchsafed all the time in the world. Peak-oil is just a wakeup call. Thorium is the built-in snooze button.

Poignancy has to do with fragility. It also has to do with phase transitions and critical phenomena, which demark the biological regime of emergence and self-organized criticality. This is why our warm-blooded homeostasis is so..... critical.

Life is about navigating the thermodynamic knife-edge of instability. Anthropics is just the cosmic aspect of this knife-edge. It is the goldilocks principle. Modern democracy is an extension of that principle.

Shape-shifting is what biology is about, on all levels. Fractality and the Mandelbrot provide a mathematical model of criticality and conformal symmetry or scale invariance. It is the quantum which breaks this symmetry.



(cont.)

Individuality is the hobgoblin of the idealist. Why must that be? Does anyone know?

Should atoms get the credit for our individuality? Has it not rather more to do with memory? Is there anything atomic about memory? IMHO, memory holds the main brief against atoms. OTOH, atoms exist primarily as abstracted in and by our memories.

Atoms are about gases and crystals, not about personalities. It is we, persons, who individuate the flora and fauna, sometimes through our propensity toward horticulture, etc..... setting aside issues of monoculture. Mainly, though, it is our territoriality, in conjunction with our eidetic memories, which demarcate the world, with or without road signs.

This is my brief for OOO*, as against OOO, although it may just be a difference in interpretation or emphasis. How do abstraction and individuation differ and compare? Can we have the one without the other? Can we have the foreground without the background? Can we have mass without Higgs? BTW, I did a quick wiki review of Higgs, the other day, if I didn't already mention it. When we digress into fermions, higgs begins to get messy, and quickly devolves into issues of Supersymmetry (SUSY) and stringy gravity. A very great deal of abstract detritus has been swept under those other rugs, just beyond the popular ken of a well-ordered scientific world.

We have a wonderful propensity to project our innate singularity onto the external world..... whether it likes it or not. Our pets wear this projection with pride. We come from heaven, trailing clouds of glory. Especially do you and I wear, more or less easily, our mutually relected glory, being Indra's monadic pearls, with or without windows.

We are God's spawn/swarm. There is a fungus among us. Yes, we are God's logoi, differentiating like Joyce's ten thunders. No cellular population is more differentiated than our brain cells.

Our atomism is our de-differentiation. In our prime, we are the most social of egoists. After that, we can only head to the mountains, as our body heads to the compost. Such is our at-One-ment. Would we have it any other way?

It is we who breathe fire into the formulas of Creation, Anthropos that we are? Big bang? We gotta love the singular coherence of it. What better way to set the stage..... the starry sky above, and the moral code within? Are there any moral atoms? Is altruism written in our genes?


12:40----------

I don't know how individuality relates to solidity. When a tree falls on a bear in the woods, the bear is going to get crushed. To that extent, the fallen tree is individuated by the unfortunate bear. Also they are known to climb trees. But there is an ontological problem about the tree falling in the woods. To what extent is it a generic tree in a generic woods, for instance?

Objectivity is a curious mixture of individuation and abstraction. What is it's formula?

Solidity is something very relative, and not well understood, or understood only as far as physics can take it, which is not very far, as pointed out, above, wrt the higgs rationale of the masses of the fermions.

We like to suppose that trees were crushing bears, long before sapience made the scene. But how much of this is relying on our rather parochial presuppositions concerning teleology?

Suppose we find a petrified tree astride a fossilized bear...... what would this prove? Would it prove that immaterialism is false?

Is it false to say that materialism belongs to materialists? Or that it exists only so long as there remain substantial doubts about immatialism? What would change, thereby?

Is materialism possible, so long at one objective, individuated atom exists? But objectification is possible only via sapience. How much sapience is needed? And suppose a quasi-sapient materialist exists in an alternate universe or reality.... would this impinge upon the ontology of our world?

It would seem that God went to no small pains to make our world materialist-friendly. Should we begrudge her, this? Should we second-guess her motives?

We come back to the question of the unobservable universe. Or what would constitute a minimally observable universe? Does there not have to be a chain of observation, of evidence..... of being?? How far down, or back, can the chain be severed? Or suppose that you and I are not a part of that chain. Can there be separate realities?

Can there be an isolated intelligence? How isolated? Is pluralism coherent? Is it observable or thinkable? Monism may be inescapable, logically or otherwise. Might there have been nothing? Nothing exists, except in relation to something else? Can two things exist without a third, etc.? Whatever exists must have access to a transcendental eternity, otherwise it descends into oblivion, in the blink of an eye. How can anything emerge from oblivion? Where is the bootstrap or the skyhook?

Relationalism is the logic behind theism. How do intellectuals manage to deny that logic? Only under the aegis of a social reaction. That reaction has about played itself out. We await godot. We have stared into the abyss for as long as rationally possible, and then some......

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Intimations abound......



(cont.)

We have the problem of the ontic v. the epistemic......

Materialists, quite naturally, are loth to give this problem the time of day. For them, it would be a game stopper. But is simple denial acceptable?

Materialists are wont to believe that objects exist, generically. But where does this get them? Does it get objects off the ground? We then have the problem of universals v. particulars. Is there any point in touting objecthood, without specification? Yet, most assuredly, materialists are anti-Platonic.

But how can there be specification without a specifier?

How do materialists get away with this anti-epistemic legerdemain? Have they no shame? All is fair in love and anti-philosophy? Well, you see why even agnostic scientists, and yes, even their fundamentalist brethren, love to hate philosophers. We are the nattering nabobs of negativity..... against their scientific positivism and/or scriptural literalism.

Materialism is grounded in abstraction, but once that epistemic move is taken, they kick aside the stepladder, and get on with the business of reductionism. Materialists have to be frequently reminded that, for them, the only natural objects are atoms...... biophysics is the only acceptable form of biology. Organic chemistry is suspect..... too smelly, amongst other issues of emergence. And look what happened to behaviorism. It sounded great, until someone dared to question its ontology, and so it gave way to cognitivism. Where are the cognoscenti of materialism? Pretty much out to pasture, when I last checked.

Yet, the ghost of materialism still occupies the head of the table at the scientific banquet. What rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem.....?

Atoms and the cosmos are the unassailable objects of materialism. The big-bang and the atom bomb underscore every other reductive excess. All is fair in love and philosophy, including, especially, ignorance!

Where is the silver bullet.... the wooden stake? Roughly, it's gonna be a package deal. We aim to please! It will be the tweet, heard 'round the world.


12pm---------

Atmospheric condensation...... is it objective? Are clouds real? Are there not clouds on the exoplanets? Are there not exoplanets? Is the Moon any more real, for having been visited?

Is it not fair to say that clouds exist as integral parts of an ecosystem that contains sapience? Suppose we leave off one or both of the qualifiers? To be real is to relate. The more related, the more real. Was the Wye oak more real than an oak sapling? Can we speak of potential reality or of sheer potency? What does fragility mean to a materialist v immaterialist?

Fragility can be quantified, to a degree, and would apply meaningfully only to artifacts. It is objective, but only within a decidedly subjective context.




(cont.)

There is no edge of the world..... not in space. In time.....? That's what eschatology is supposed to be about. Eschatology is the height of metaphysical presumptuousness. But there are limits to growth, and humanity may not have been programmed for sustainability, and certainly not for the run-up to it.

This leaves us twisting in the wind, at the end of our rope, if not at the end of our world.


12pm---------

The cosmic mind knows no gaps, has no edges.... aside from the Alpha and Omega. How could it? What would those gaps or edges look like? Our altered states and imaginations are part of the filling and smoothing process. It is only finitude, self-containment/coherence, which demands that there be an A/O 'spark-gap', instead of an eternal return.

Do tree rings, strata and supernovas look smooth? There are cycles of various sorts.... astronomical and geological. There are punctuated equilibria. There are ELE's. Do we begrudge these, or place them beyond the reach of the cosmic mind?

Where would any mind be, without punctuation? The sky is not gray. It is punctuated with stars. History is punctuated with events. So is the background. Can we distinguish between foreground and background? Is there a line in the sand? What would the line look like?

The cosmic mind is omniscient and omnipotent. It knows no limits, other than those of its self-containment. We are its microcosms, destined to our at-One-ment. Can we ask for more? You name it, and it's yours.


3:20------------

It is the collective unconscious that does most of the infilling of the pleroma, with a big teleological boost from the Omega. Some of the punctuation may be implanted or seeded from above.

There are outliers like Jurassic Parc (R) and the home bases of some visitors..... all being functionally integrated.

Fractals abound in nature, especially in the background, such as in the plethora of noise spectra. Are auto 'accidents' in the foreground or background? I suppose they can be both. Something there is that doesn't love a wall. Do we love walls? It all depends.....

Where would life be, without entropy and critical phenomena? Life necessarily inhabits that boundary between order and disorder.

The background is not unlike a computer simulation. We are an online gaming community, complete with hackers. There are add-ons of various descriptions. OOP gives way to OOO.

The built-in teleology renders us more or less crash-proof.



(cont.)

I give lip service to virtual reality only on occasion, as I did yesterday, but it's not something that I'm very comfortable with. I can only use it as a metaphor, since, otherwise, it begs the question as to the nature of the cosmic platform upon which any such computational scheme might be implemented. And any computational scheme also raises the issue of reductionism, in a digital, rather than atomic, guise.

Are the concepts of virtual reality necessarily digitally based? Although I have not seen it mentioned, it is hard to believe that there is not a conceptual link between the Object Orientations, whether applied to programming or to ontology, i.e. OOP v. OOO.


4:45---------

Are we programmed to be moral, or would that be a logical contradiction. Are we programmed, rather, to have a conscience? What we do with that conscience is up to us.

What about sociopaths? Are they programmed to not have a conscience? Is there reason to doubt that altruism is genetic? Is it not genetic in insects?

Empathy, particularly in certain circumstances, appears to be virtually reflexive.

Yet, much of our sapience appears to be socially oriented. Can empathy and sapience be properly distinguished? I'm doubtful, despite the seeming intelligence of sociopaths. Are there sociopathic artists? Are sociopaths, however, not necessarily skilled at social deception? It may be that sociopathology is a dissociative disorder, brought on by abuse.

This is interesting, but it does not speak to digital and mechanical reductionism, or to the problem of implementation. How can downward causation be used to mimic upward causation, for instance?



(cont.)

I remain reasonably confident that the BPWH is the best possible alternative to scientific materialism. There's no competition that I'm aware of.

Where I continue to struggle is with the details of it. Where the materialists struggle with biological development, I struggle with decay. It would seem that my task should be far easier, but there is only one of me, competing with the millions of scientific matialists. It's not a fair match. It won't be, until the tide begins to turn, just preceding the MoAPS. Will I be around to see the turning? I have no reason to be confident about that.

After much effort, I still have nothing clever to say about evaporation, for instance. Am I not looking for a left handed monkey-wrench, in that regard? If that turns out to be the case, then has the battle been lost? That's why I like the problem..... it forces me to put everything on the line. The tree in the Quad is not the problem. The real problem is the dew on the grass!

Why couldn't Berkeley see this? The problem seems tantalizingly simple. There must be something clever to say about it. There must be a simple finesse..... I keep telling myself, as I twist slowly in the mist. Did I get led all this way, just to be defeated by a few stray atoms, swerving in the dawn?

Is there dew in Heaven? Do we breathe in Heaven? Same question. Why can't there be Platonic dew? I have no doubt that atoms are Platonic, so why should I be worried about the dew? I'm not really sure, why, and that may be the problem.

Given space and time, then atoms are essential. Virtual realities are constructed without atoms. There is always an artificial horizon or cut-off, both near and far, although it may be cleverly disguised.

How can I give atoms an inch, without giving them a mile? How can I constrain them, ontologically speaking?

Is there no logical precedence for this problem of the tyrannical nature of atoms? What about the tyranny of numbers? That doesn't seem to bother me. So what is the big difference between numbers and atoms? Well, the numbers are numbered, but the atoms are logically numberless, despite or because of their Platonic identicality.

The tyranny of atoms explains the attractiveness of Cartesian dualism. Descartes drew a line in the sand that has remained since, despite its obvious incoherence. Atomism defeats coherence.


7:10----------

In a previous post, I've suggested that atoms could be treated as emergent phenomena.

Is evaporation emergent? From whence does it emerge?





(cont.)

Am I saying that objects exist only at the behest of subjects? If not, then how do objects exist?

Should it be harder to explain atoms than to explain microbes? Or to explain evaporation than metabolism? I thought I knew why, but maybe not. Metabolism provides a (phenomenal?) containment for atoms that evaporation does not seem to, but it would be difficult to define the difference. Must there be an ontological difference between microbes and atoms? It is not clear why or how there could be. Can I accept a mechanical view of evaporation, without accepting a mechanical view of the mind?

It does seem easier to suppose that neurons emerge from the mind than to suppose that atoms emerge from evaporation. No? What does evaporation emerge from? From metabolism? That is more of an ontological stretch, or so it seems to my naive mind.

Our minds emerge from God's, and, otherwise, Creation is our jointly ordained, best possible, virtual playground. Microbes and evaporation are a logically essential part of the stage setting. The why and the how of Creation pose different problems. Necessity and sufficiency are different challenges. The former may not explain the latter.

Space and time necessitate atoms, and may even explain them to a significant degree. The peculiar ontological status of the former pair, need hardly be emphasized. Does this peculiarity do anything to curtail the autonomy of atoms or microbes?

Why need I be paranoid about the freedom of the A&M's? Need their freedom detract from mine? Is this a zero-sum game? Need their autonomy lead to hegemony? Why can't I settle for the usual dualistic notion of strong emergence? Need it be incoherent? I continue to believe so..... sorry 'bout that!

How does the problem of multiple embodied subjects, you and me, differ ontologically from that of the A&M's?

It's easier to see the projection of our bodies than the projection of atoms, or so it seems. But maybe I'm making a mountain out of an ontological molehill.

Why should evaporation seem harder to explain than cosmic rays? The latter are more artifactual, and so are contained within that context, whereas evaporation is ubiquitous and in our face. We can lump the cosmic rays and the Higgs boson into nearly the same package, I'm happy to suppose, both being phenomenologically esoteric, as it were.

The Sun? Well, that is kinda special. That's why we have a Sun-god. No? Er.... that is to go with our God particle?!

Why should I begrudge evaporating water molecules, if I don't begrudge air molecules? And what about our sweat glands? Are they not perfectly metabolic? Should the Earth not sweat? If it didn't, we'd be in big trouble!

Let's face it, sports fans, the way I do metaphysics is a lot like how children play with big words. We keep repeating them until we tire them out, like with thumb wrestling. The last metaphysician standing is the one who wins. There is a valid method of logical exhaustion, but perhaps I'm taking it a bit too literally!

By pointing out that the Earth sweats, I'm trying to mash together the how and the why. Is that ontologically acceptable? Probably not, but it's the best I can do, and it might provide a clue to a professional ontologist...... I just play one, on the Internet.....

But then you are going to ask me if we sweat in Heaven.......

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

That sounds like a curse. Eden was a no sweat zone, until Adam ate the apple...... poor sucker....

Or, perhaps more importantly, do we get to eat in heaven? If heaven were that great, then God would have had to trick us into coming down here, tricky fellow that he is. But, then, after the Millennium, why would we want to go back, for heaven's sake?

You have to be really lucky, one in a thousand, to hitch a ride on Noah's time machine, to get sent back to our primordial, megalithic beginnings. Or, maybe, only one in a thousand will volunteer. You know what they say in the Army..... never volunteer!

Do note that, in the above ontological exercise, I'm playing fast and loose with the notions of macro and microcosms, putting some new wine in an old bottle.

.

Earth sweat.......? Hey, don't laugh, that may be my biggest break since Noah's time machine. In this business, you take your breaks where you find them. Have we finally tamed the atoms, with just such a cliched artifice? Perhaps. Metaphysics is a psychological battle, especially if you are on the far side of mount material.

I was trying to make the most of hydrological circulation, comparing it with blood, but, no, I think that perspiration is closer to the ontological mark, when is comes to the temperature regulation that comes with the statistical mechanics in which atoms are the essential component. It's all about the homeostasis of the micro and macrocosm, and that applies especially to us mammals.

I think that this latest development does further remove the importance of bodies in the great beyond.......


2:40-----------

Utopia may be transposed from Heaven to the Kingdom Come. The Millennial kingdom will be the last hurrah of our egos. After that, it's no more sweat. After that, it's blue sky dreams. Eternity is not about space and time, it's not about metabolism.

What happened to our glorified bodies? Well, IMHO, our glorified bodies are God. It is said that we are the body of Christ. Who said that? It was Paul in 1Cor 12:12, and in several other passages. Where did he get it from?


4:15------------

Paul extrapolates from the Eucharist. Is it a necessary extrapolation? I believe so.

This, then, is our glorified body, nothing else counts. Heaven has nothing to do with ego, only with Ego..... I am that I am...... YHWH. Be there or be square..... @ Apokatastasis.

And all of this comes from Earth sweat. Atoms no longer rule this roost. They are functionally constrained, from the Alpha to the Omega.

After atoms, we have only to deal with stars and fossils. No sweat. Had they not been part of the stage setting, then we should have hired a new stage manager.


5:30----------

Now, get this, sports fans.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorification#Receiving_of_the_resurrection_bodies

And then get this.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

......also known as theosis.


6:20-----------

Wiki.....

Deification, to which, in spite of its presence in the liturgical prayers of the West, Western theologians have given less attention than Eastern, is nevertheless prominent in the writing of Western mystics.

We might wonder why there was this differentiation.


8:10-------------

I'm inclined to blame this difference on Athens/Plato. This was the price we paid for science, and for Cartesian dualism. Was it worth it? It was an essential part of the the BPW..... we pays our money and takes our choice. The shortest path to truth is not always a straight line. Half the fun is getting there.

Metaphysics is often a study in contrasts. Plato provided the grist for our mill. The Athens/Jerusalem axis was the locus of the global fulcrum. It was not going to be an easy ride. Could we propose a better scenario, even with hindsight?

And, finally, we get to choose deification over glorification. Would we choose otherwise? I doubt it. Could Plato ever have discerned this eventuality?



(cont.)