Monday, January 23, 2012

About the middle

Month, Day: 168, Sovereignty, Light (Perfection)

I failed to acknowledge the entry into the Ascendant group which came after the close of the Motivational. We still have some of the yearly measure to expend.


It is very much apropos, to be considering this topic (which deals at its core with Light) on this day. This post is a free-flowing consideration of things to be worked in the audacious mode under the guidance of the Law. The use of 'middle' (the concept comes into play several ways, one example) implies several things, but one of these will be the need to balance any extreme view with its inverse (hypothetical or otherwise) so as to allow means and ends analysis.


There will be a continuation of looking at lessons from one life as CH's work showed us many. For one, he saw that "no man" stood in need of his neighbor. Hence, his railing against those in power who like to follow their corrupt inclinations.


That religion is full of people who think that their power gives them privileges is one problem. Of course, those who are touting the other side (Brights) can be as strident and overbearing. That is, look at any of the forums and see how particular insightful presentations are rejected and labeled as the babbling of an idiot (or delusional person). One problem is that we cannot expect any help, in the sense needed by the unseeing, from those who went over no matter how much insight they may have attained on dropping the physical self (see CH link, above).


So, we're at a crux that seems to be related to a gap that is widening faster than Krauss says that we're seeing with the universe. It's nice to see the clear-thinking oasis being developed. From cursory reading of discussions (if one can use that term) at the site, the comments and arguments of many seem to be full of vitriol and ad hominen attacks. But, then, that is not any different than we see elsewhere.

Where is there a calm, rational exchange on these matters that has some hope of effectiveness? 


Our task here is, in part, to establish the method to operationally effect a symmetry-based balance between science and religion. Many have this in mind, too. There are plenty of ways to go about this business; we'll start small by trying to establish a basis from which to construct. The gap exists since we all have a choice.

One view would say that the choice ought not get us far off of a fence. Actually, that is too linear of a metaphor, as the thing would be more fuzzy, allowing some nuances. Why? Because, we are allowed to Question.


I read at one site how the theoretical-empirical split can be problematic. Or, one might even use pure and applied, as in mathematics. Now, those are a form of symmetric relations, too, though I haven't seen anyone use the notion (would love to hear otherwise). For some (many?), being on the left end (as in a pair) denotes being smarter (ah, is that so?, perhaps, in certain ways).

Now, let's look at religion. How would there be a similar mix? We already alluded, indirectly, to the clergy and laity (however, characterized) split. In the past, perhaps even now in some loci, those who had access to the books (Books), since they could read, had the advantage. Then, it (the favored) became related to advancing on the clergy's hierarchy (to where?). By the way, England (and Europe) had major battles about the Bible's translation (many burned on the several sides). But, getting the text into the common language did wonders.

Another way to look at this is that the 'theoretic' basis of religion is set by Revelation. We won't have that, again, for 900 years. Yet, we have had many, many occurrences from the past which have not been exhausted (hence, the admonition now to deal peacefully with ALL religions). So, collectively, there is a whole bunch that needs to be understood in terms of its usefulness to a scientific framework (yes - give me time to show this - if you have a knee-jerk reaction, take it elsewhere). One thing that will need to be looked at is how the U.H.J. might be involved with undecidable points (to be defined, later).


Pascal learned his lesson this side of paradise. We will continue to have him in mind as we proceed. Note, that we'll try to re-phrase his challenge in a way that is compatible with the message here. Hints: dreams can become a tool for our use; our ancestors (source for some memes -- yes) ought not be forgotten.

Blaise was 200 years prior to the Twin Days. Immanuel was a mere 100 years. Both of these are important to our foundational efforts (to be discussed). So, we'll be using them early. The idea is to establish 'reflection' as a means to pull out the power of symmetry (again, coming as some point) for the purposes of a peaceful, and knowledgeable, future.

Finally, we were told not to look back. But, that, to me, implied beyond some reasonable limit (hopefully, cosmology can be updated thusly). So, we can reflect back, and understand, about all of science's knowledge in terms of mankind's growing prowess (or, if you would, see where we may have missed something -- I have examples that I'll use from time to time -- all situational filters are subject to such types of analysis -- Ockham notwithstanding). 


04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity.

04/14/2012 -- Thornton Chase is an example of several things that will be discussed this year.

01/29/2012 -- CD is concurrent with the Twin Days' span of influence.

Modified: 04/03/2015

No comments: