It follows from the OOO* that Creation has been crowd sourced. This has been a central tenet of the teleology of the BPWH, all along. This is where our sapience comes in. Sapience is the backbone of Coherence, which is the glue of Creation.
Does this render God otiose? In whose image are we created, if not in God's? If we are a chrysalis, then who will be the butterfly, if not God? In our very narrow, very temporal sense, the butterfly will have a very brief existence. However, needless to say, sub specie aeternitas, the butterfly is eternal..... so are you and I, and so is the shining present of its presence.
Closely related to the notion of crowd-sourcing, in the OOO*/BPWH, is the fact of its fundamental employment of Social Constructionism, or Soc/Con, if you will. This is an intersubjective idealism, wherein the panpsychic Ether is ground, and unified field, of all being. The Sacred Canopy is another worthy concept, herein.
The modern minded would be inclined to see Peter B as being a reductionist wrt religion. However, the cocoon of the chrysalis is our canopy, and that cosmic shell is about to crack. There is a strong sense in which scientific materialism is also our ersatz canopy.
And, thus, are we being setup to experience the Crack in the Cosmic Egg. They don't call me Chicken Little, for nothing.
Above all else, the Force is with us...... and in us. We shall prevail. The outcome has been written in the stars from day one. That this is not totally obvious to everyone yet, is just because God is a drama queen, and, so, is always inclined to brinksmanship. So, please, don't begrudge her of this little endgame!
The above outline of the OOO* is, unfortunately, just for my own reflective equilibrium. There is no audience ready for it, just now, and I don't know what it would take to put together such a group. Neither Grace nor Green are ready. They each have their own comfortable niches, and they not inclined to go out and do battle, other than in the quasi-ritualized manners to which they are each accustomed.
How long would it take to show them another way? It seems that it would take longer than any known one of them would presently be willing to devote to that task. What might change that circumstance? Not anything over which I have control. Patience and insight are all that I can bring to this table. The timing of it all is well above my pay grade, but that will not prevent me from speculating.
Paul C comes closer to being in the right place for the BPWH, than anyone on either side, and that is why he is also an outsider, and much more comfortable with pantheism than with theism. He has my number and is a new member, here. That is about as much as I can do or hope for, for the time being.
It could well be that there is a conceptual breakthrough that is waiting to happen. It would be a breakthrough that would lead to a tangible new result that could be communicated to interested outsiders. I remain open to this, and try to keep vigilant, as well. Am I sufficiently vigilant..... could I not be more so? God knows!
My main insights have come spontaneously. Perseverance is great, but it seldom bears a direct connection to inspiration.
In the meantime, am I any closer to understanding perception? I have to admit that the idea of indirect perception (IP) seems virtually unassailable. It lies at the core of the correspondence theory of truth. That, and its attendant atomism, are the central pillars of that entire worldview. How do we punch our way out of that paper bag? We don't. One has to be clever. Have I been sufficiently so? Obviously, not!
IP is always there, right in our faces! All we have to do is blink, and the world goes away..... or does it? Turn off the light, and stumble around the room, looking for the chair. If that doesn't prove IP, what could disprove it?
IP is cut of the same cloth as space-time and atomism. We'd sure look foolish without either one. But that doesn't mean that reality has to stop with those appearances, those constructs. Saving those appearances is not an end in itself. Saving them has been the means to our mastery of them, up to a very significant point. Now that we have arrived, to what do we turn next?
Now, with the knowledge explosion of the Correspondence theory, we can only imagine an impending knowledge implosion, brought on by the Coherence theory...... a theory that will, very decisively, look the gift-horse of IP in the mouth. Does the OOO* even begin to do this? Hardly..... at best it gives a few broad hints. The glare of the IP is so bright that when we turn it off, we seem only able to stumble around, knocking over the bric-a-brac. Bruised shins are our only reward.
IP makes so much sense, it is so coherent, it explains so many details....... all the way up to our poor little, epiphenomenal minds. Sitting inside that little ivory tower of consciousness, only a few overweened philosophers can seriously question its basic premise of objective facticity. And what have they gotten us, in return? Just something that we can scratch our heads and smile about.
The irony of IP, however, is that it leaves us with a perfect objectivity, but without any 'real' objects. It is to the task or restoring objecthood that the original OOO turns its attention. In doing so, it has to jump through several metaphysical hoop. Restoring objecthood is no mean feat, and there is precious little agreement about where even to begin.
What I'm saying is that IP is not something that can just be patched up. It will require a much more radical surgery. It is a castle built on sand.
But, hey, my castle is built on a cloud, so who am I to kick sand in anyone's face....?!
And, wait....... our modern world is filled with all sorts of wonderful technological objects, just like this fine little iPad. Who is to question the objecthood, the objectivity of this fine little machine? Surely, I jest. Surely, there is a screw loose. Hmmm...... tell me about it!
I ask only, where is the soul of my machine? Tell me that it's something more than a collection of transistors and logic gates. Ask Steve J and his former marketing department. They'll tell you a thing or two about Soul. It's all in the package? Is the OOO(*) just about marketing?
What is a package? Aren't you and I packages? Which is to say, as I pointed out several days ago....... where is the Object, without the Subject? Way out in left field....?!
Intuitively, every marketer knows more about Soul than does your local preacher. But they are smart enough not to make a federal case of it. They're only looking for a few more coins in the collection plate.
So, yes, my iPad is a social construct that happens to be useful, in keeping me off the street and off the campuses. This is a pragmatic theory of objecthood, but where does the cosmology come in? It comes in if we concern ourselves with the best possible world, wherein iPads may or may not have a place, from the PoV of the super-Swarm (of subjects) that some of us refer to as God..... just a slight emendation of Plato's heaven!
How does an iPad differ from a tree, object-wise? Is it not the birds who construct the trees? In many cases, according to Darwin, it was the birds who made possible the fruiting trees, albeit unwittingly. And, quite evidently, the birds did not need our help. The both got along just fine without us, and they would thank us not to cut down their forests.
Trees do not exist outside of ecosystems, nor we, outside of societies. But we seem determined to exist beyond nature, transcendentalists that we tend to be. And would we be missed? Not by the birds and the bees, bless their little hearts! We can just take all our sapient coherence, and put it where the Sun don't shine, beSoTed that we are!
The anthropic principle is great, say the birds and the bees, but, next time, just hold the Anthropos, thank you very much!
If the birds, bees and atoms are inhabiting our blindspot, who inhabits theirs? Surely, it's not us!
Where is the vitalism without the Vitalis? Where is the quantum without 'Wigner's friend'? Vitalis? Perhaps I meant to say Telos....... just a typo! How else may the circle of life be unbroken, if not at the cosmic level, pray tell? Aren't we the missing link? Golly, if we're not, then we'd better kiss our little hineys, goodbye!
You see how I have to struggle with the ontology, on a daily basis. Another day older, and I still owe my soul to the company store. When do I wise up?
The buck has to stop somewhere, and we thought it stopped with God. But, evidently, God had another thing in store for us. And I'm the sucker who volunteered to be the little messenger boy.
No system, Eco or otherwise, can be a system, if it's not self-contained. Well, except for the energy input. And that's why we have this cosmic Carnot circuit, called the Ouroboros..... well, by me anyway. And that's why God is mostly the cheerleader. Task master? Kinder & Gentler? Why couldn't she have left well-enough, alone? Does something always have to be better than nothing? Ask the Buddhists..... stop the world.... I want to get off! Ok, then, just 200 more years..... I promise.... scout's honor....
Yes, it's that simple, and it's been staring us in the face, all along...... the Circle of Life (CoL).
If it ain't Cosmic, it ain't nothing. There you have the OOO*. I just never quite had the fortitude to push it over the edge.... well, yes, over the top! That is the logical beginning and and End of all ontology. It's the Alpha & Omega, and it weren't invented here! Trust me, on that score, at least.
And, here, we thought that evolution was..... what......? A random walk in a dark park? A long walk off a short pier....??
Who'd a thunk it was a Circuit? Well, the Buddhists thought it was a cycle? Pretty close...... but no cigar?!
It's all about the big Bootstrap in the Sky. And, sports fans, we're the buckle...... wouldn't you know it......
What the heck is ontology, if it's not bootstrapped? Is it bits of logic swerving in the dark?
Is it Six billion Characters in search of an Author?
Why......? Why a sacred bootstrap? Does it have to do with the sacred Swarm? Is this the Lord of the Flies? Hmmm.......... Is there a Fungus among us?
And here we thought we were all dressed up, with nowhere to go...... except home!!
Does this explain the birds and the bees? Are they going to be nice to us, after all we've done 'to' them? Will they begrudge us the buckle spot? The blindspot?
Atoms....? What do they owe us? Is it all about Wigner's friend? Or what about Schroedinger's Cat, or....... What is Life?
Somebody's gonna have to nail this Sucker..... said PP, washing his hands.
I really should get back to the resurrection.... a-la SfA homework...... What are we to make of this? A Federal case?
5pm-------- The power went off, so I've switched to 3G.........