Month, Day: Mercy, Light (Beauty)
Month, Day: Mercy, Mercy (Perfection)
Science has a role just as those who support science fill roles. What might this role be?
Well, science is a gift from God on how we can (are to) know, including knowing God ("Science is the first emanation from God toward man"). It's Mercy, so as to answer our Questions.
Given our limitations, Creation ought to be the focus of our study.
-- Now, a Creation-based science would look like what? No one has tried this audacious step yet, essentially, so we do not know. There seems to be little eruptions (the proverbial green-shoots) here and there. The necessary integrating scheme can only come from the Writings.
-- Oh, does not science now deal with Nature? Yes, in part. But, as we all know, those who do science as it is known now (scientism, in many cases) think that materialism is essential as the mark of the brightest. Ah, is that so? Nature is part of the gift of science (from God, of course).
-- What would possibly be different? One ramification would be a better balance between the abstracted foundations and the operational bases. That is, rather than fight the quasi-empirical necessity, foundations will be built upon matter (this is the invert of how humans have gone so far). The operational scheme will encompass both analog and digital components, as required due to the explicit reality that is both wave and particle (ah, yes, metaphorical, but, only in part - we just have to learn how to express the necessary explanation).
This theme will recur, regularly.
Remarks:
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
10/02/2009 -- World embracing, at its best.
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.
07/19/2009 -- From the beginning.
07/07/2009 -- Ought we be thankful for the Brights?
06/30/2009 -- Issues related to duals abound which is an important part to the puzzles. One main theme would be the necessity of organic components as being integral to truth processing and to filling in the gaps resulting from underdetermination.
Modified: 03/17/2011
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query science. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query science. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Foreknowledge
Month, Day: 168, Splendour, Will (Majesty)
That, in the title, is one attribute that is human and shared with the Manifestation. Too, the Manifestation has a much greater facility, beyond what we can comprehend. Yet, we can contemplate these facilities in an effort to improve ourselves and our work, such as science. How is that?
----
Well, this blog started in 2008, in sort of a recoil. From what? Limitations being put up upon that which was on wiki related to science and faith (see Mission and Methods). Since then, there have been a few posts here that related to the subject page (faith and science, science and religion). But mostly, I've only browsed the page (and the arguments) from time to time.
How did I get back to the page today? Well, on the 5th read of the Koran (Rodwell this time, again), I've been going to the WWW (which has really matured the past five years) to look more thoroughly at topics (beyond the mere listening to experts - autodidactic'ally, okay?). The topic in question was 'djinn' and such. And, while looking at definitions, I ran across a page that mentioned the notions from an esteemed nuclear engineer (see below), who is of the Islamic faith.
---
You can look it up, but here is the gist: we can probably develop power sources using concentrated attention by humans (for those who quibble, interpretation is core to the human experience [why else the emphasis on its control, for certain types?]).
Or, as an aside, we are immersed in an objective universe (SAQ #79), yet for each of us, the experience is subjective (ah, science CANNOT overcome this, folks -- teehee). Some think the guy is nuts; I think that he exhibits several things that we (those who are followers of the Glory) ought to be studying (as in, there is a glimmer of truth here that we ought to understand). Ah, how many barbs of quackery will be thrown on this (but then, George B took his licks, too)?
---
So, back to the subject. The page, mentioned above, has evolved. It now has more than the three topics that were there five years ago (look it up). In fact, a couple may have been challenged (I haven't paid close attention).
But, the list has a bias toward the physical sciences being the prime view for any ontological study. Ah. Is that so? We have allowed materialistic views to, essentially, lead us down the perdition-laden paths to mineralization. Think of it!
---
As mentioned last time, we need to bring in themes from human-based science, to boot. What might these be? Well, it'll be a long list.
For one, the notion of foreknowledge (Valley of Wonderment, for example) goes beyond just that in the sacred texts. Consider, please: some types of this could be characterized as a human reaction (albeit, imaginatively) to pondering some bit of this sacred text (example of Scripture influencing science via inspired behavior).
---
As an aside, the oversight allowed via abstraction, and its support by mathematics, gives a view that can be thought of as foresight (how does that differ from foreknowledge?). Many examples exist, but some of the work of James Clerk Maxwell is used quite often, in this sense.
I think that many, like Lakatos, have not been given enough due (the whole quasi-empirical notion can be bolstered by using the Writings).
---
Actually, the enumeration of human facilities would be endless (as is the Ocean of Words). Yet, there could be themes (categories, if you would) that are of substantial enough basis to be almost invariant.
Granted Wikipedia is NOR. But, what work has been done that could be used as source? Anyone even looking?
Let me put it this way. The assaults (potential or otherwise) of the brights ought not be a deterrent.
A new type of operational basis needs to be defined and exercised.
---
And, the whole notion of the texts being inerrant, or not, in this context can be characterized as misguided, somewhat. The 7V and the 4V, clearly, denote the limitations on words, but not Words.
Remarks:
01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).
06/02/2011 -- Construction II.
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
04/04/2011 -- The autodidact's role is still to be defined.
Modified: 01/25/2012
That, in the title, is one attribute that is human and shared with the Manifestation. Too, the Manifestation has a much greater facility, beyond what we can comprehend. Yet, we can contemplate these facilities in an effort to improve ourselves and our work, such as science. How is that?
----
Well, this blog started in 2008, in sort of a recoil. From what? Limitations being put up upon that which was on wiki related to science and faith (see Mission and Methods). Since then, there have been a few posts here that related to the subject page (faith and science, science and religion). But mostly, I've only browsed the page (and the arguments) from time to time.
How did I get back to the page today? Well, on the 5th read of the Koran (Rodwell this time, again), I've been going to the WWW (which has really matured the past five years) to look more thoroughly at topics (beyond the mere listening to experts - autodidactic'ally, okay?). The topic in question was 'djinn' and such. And, while looking at definitions, I ran across a page that mentioned the notions from an esteemed nuclear engineer (see below), who is of the Islamic faith.
---
You can look it up, but here is the gist: we can probably develop power sources using concentrated attention by humans (for those who quibble, interpretation is core to the human experience [why else the emphasis on its control, for certain types?]).
Or, as an aside, we are immersed in an objective universe (SAQ #79), yet for each of us, the experience is subjective (ah, science CANNOT overcome this, folks -- teehee). Some think the guy is nuts; I think that he exhibits several things that we (those who are followers of the Glory) ought to be studying (as in, there is a glimmer of truth here that we ought to understand). Ah, how many barbs of quackery will be thrown on this (but then, George B took his licks, too)?
---
So, back to the subject. The page, mentioned above, has evolved. It now has more than the three topics that were there five years ago (look it up). In fact, a couple may have been challenged (I haven't paid close attention).
But, the list has a bias toward the physical sciences being the prime view for any ontological study. Ah. Is that so? We have allowed materialistic views to, essentially, lead us down the perdition-laden paths to mineralization. Think of it!
---
As mentioned last time, we need to bring in themes from human-based science, to boot. What might these be? Well, it'll be a long list.
For one, the notion of foreknowledge (Valley of Wonderment, for example) goes beyond just that in the sacred texts. Consider, please: some types of this could be characterized as a human reaction (albeit, imaginatively) to pondering some bit of this sacred text (example of Scripture influencing science via inspired behavior).
---
As an aside, the oversight allowed via abstraction, and its support by mathematics, gives a view that can be thought of as foresight (how does that differ from foreknowledge?). Many examples exist, but some of the work of James Clerk Maxwell is used quite often, in this sense.
I think that many, like Lakatos, have not been given enough due (the whole quasi-empirical notion can be bolstered by using the Writings).
---
Actually, the enumeration of human facilities would be endless (as is the Ocean of Words). Yet, there could be themes (categories, if you would) that are of substantial enough basis to be almost invariant.
Granted Wikipedia is NOR. But, what work has been done that could be used as source? Anyone even looking?
Let me put it this way. The assaults (potential or otherwise) of the brights ought not be a deterrent.
A new type of operational basis needs to be defined and exercised.
---
And, the whole notion of the texts being inerrant, or not, in this context can be characterized as misguided, somewhat. The 7V and the 4V, clearly, denote the limitations on words, but not Words.
Remarks:
01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).
06/02/2011 -- Construction II.
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
04/04/2011 -- The autodidact's role is still to be defined.
Modified: 01/25/2012
Thursday, January 6, 2011
All of the king's men (er, Drs)
Month, Day: 167, Honour, Words (Majesty)
Continuing with the theme of enlightenment, one focus has been on the Manifestation, what the realization of this might bring to an operational stance (read, science), and how much we can attempt to know of the Living Book (see Aqdas Notes #155).
In this regard, the Faith & Science page seems a little hesitant. But, audacity worries not about appearing stupid. Remember, the role of the autodidact does not require recognition of the elite minds (naturally, there will be some of the brights who might have some resonance with the message) in order to be truthful and useful (not arguing a strictly utilitarian stance, either).
As in this, the whole collection of Drs (who approximate the state (SAQ #45, pg 174: Therefore, the skilled doctor does what he wishes, and the patients have no share in this right.) from an acquisition, not gift, framework) across all time and space (Hidden Words #40, Arabic)) do not (cannot) equal Revelation. However, how are we to know given our limits?
Well, one might consider that a good quasi-empirical stance would allow that conjectures, currently labeled as quack, may have some basis. Methinks that the growing prowess of whatever is behind the web will support many types of experiments that were hitherto without any hope of attention.
Now, it was mentioned, in one paper, that the Guardian said that he was not infallible in regard to science. One way to look at that is this: science is not ever to be infallible, even if the viewer/observer may think themselves so. Science may try to know and understand being, and the scientist is a being; BUT, science is not 'being' except as it may reflect on some state of knowing of a sentient being.
Of course, there are, too, the issues dealt with by information theory.
So, yes, too much emphasis on the inerrant nature of the Writings is not correct. Too, any limits on the writing and the reading reflects naught on the Living Book's message, but does say something about the media and ourselves.
We know that we have had the Book (several, in fact), always. For many reasons, the Living Book's influence has not been allowed into the discussions dealing with philosophy of science.
There are many unsupported claims held by scientists, though they will not admit this. That is, any intelligent human has metaphysical rumblings. It is human nature to be thusly opinion'd, despite that underdetermination lurks. Are these, by necessity, of no use to the practice?
That our whole worldview is so computationally framed ought to make this obvious. Yet, we see grand pronouncements about what is and about the various schemes involved that it is no wonder that the general public might be confused.
So, as said before, the UHJ has a role in this. We'll conjecture on that, in the near future.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
Modified: 05/17/2011
Continuing with the theme of enlightenment, one focus has been on the Manifestation, what the realization of this might bring to an operational stance (read, science), and how much we can attempt to know of the Living Book (see Aqdas Notes #155).
In this regard, the Faith & Science page seems a little hesitant. But, audacity worries not about appearing stupid. Remember, the role of the autodidact does not require recognition of the elite minds (naturally, there will be some of the brights who might have some resonance with the message) in order to be truthful and useful (not arguing a strictly utilitarian stance, either).
As in this, the whole collection of Drs (who approximate the state (SAQ #45, pg 174: Therefore, the skilled doctor does what he wishes, and the patients have no share in this right.) from an acquisition, not gift, framework) across all time and space (Hidden Words #40, Arabic)) do not (cannot) equal Revelation. However, how are we to know given our limits?
Well, one might consider that a good quasi-empirical stance would allow that conjectures, currently labeled as quack, may have some basis. Methinks that the growing prowess of whatever is behind the web will support many types of experiments that were hitherto without any hope of attention.
Now, it was mentioned, in one paper, that the Guardian said that he was not infallible in regard to science. One way to look at that is this: science is not ever to be infallible, even if the viewer/observer may think themselves so. Science may try to know and understand being, and the scientist is a being; BUT, science is not 'being' except as it may reflect on some state of knowing of a sentient being.
Of course, there are, too, the issues dealt with by information theory.
So, yes, too much emphasis on the inerrant nature of the Writings is not correct. Too, any limits on the writing and the reading reflects naught on the Living Book's message, but does say something about the media and ourselves.
We know that we have had the Book (several, in fact), always. For many reasons, the Living Book's influence has not been allowed into the discussions dealing with philosophy of science.
There are many unsupported claims held by scientists, though they will not admit this. That is, any intelligent human has metaphysical rumblings. It is human nature to be thusly opinion'd, despite that underdetermination lurks. Are these, by necessity, of no use to the practice?
That our whole worldview is so computationally framed ought to make this obvious. Yet, we see grand pronouncements about what is and about the various schemes involved that it is no wonder that the general public might be confused.
So, as said before, the UHJ has a role in this. We'll conjecture on that, in the near future.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
Modified: 05/17/2011
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Science and the Manifestations
Month, Day: Light, Words (Majesty)
An example of how our use of light has abounded, in so many ways beyond just the prowess with electromagnetics, is Facebook (500+ Baha'i references). There have been discussion forums galore, since the internet's inception, what with Usenet, et al. This latest may be the largest collective, though, which is only just begun (Carpenters).
Baha'i Faith and Science's (Wikipedia) discussion page had a brief interchange about whether the Writings are propositionally complete. Well, the Incompleteness Theorem may suggest not; yet, we have the larger piece of evidence in that the Manifestations recur regularly. Too, we're told that limits are imposed judiciously by the hosts (angelic and otherwise).
Hence, we need to know that there is no axiomatic set that would found the new audacious view; at least, not in total, but there may be (are) operational subsets that will be (are) of much interest. Who is looking at this?
What we have now after the latest Revelation is the Manifestation as the paragon, the Writings as the evidence, and the Administration as the workable covering scheme. It's that first that we need to look at more closely, in term of the audacity that is required.
That is, the influence via the axioms may be insignificant compared to that of the rules, definitions, and milieu that relate to the Manifestation's importance.
From the Facebook page, PUP, pg 128: "... religion must be in conformity to science and reason. If a religion does not agree with the postulates of science nor accord with the regulations of reason it is a bundle of superstitions; a phantasm of the brain. Science and religion are realities, and if that religion to which we adhere be a reality it must needs conform to the fundamental reality of all things."
We will look more closely at 'postulates of science' and 'regulations of reason' in the context of this post, using, of course, discussion of how we know and raise Questions.
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.
07/19/2009 -- From the beginning.
06/22/2009 -- We can know.
Modified: 08/01/2012
An example of how our use of light has abounded, in so many ways beyond just the prowess with electromagnetics, is Facebook (500+ Baha'i references). There have been discussion forums galore, since the internet's inception, what with Usenet, et al. This latest may be the largest collective, though, which is only just begun (Carpenters).
Baha'i Faith and Science's (Wikipedia) discussion page had a brief interchange about whether the Writings are propositionally complete. Well, the Incompleteness Theorem may suggest not; yet, we have the larger piece of evidence in that the Manifestations recur regularly. Too, we're told that limits are imposed judiciously by the hosts (angelic and otherwise).
Hence, we need to know that there is no axiomatic set that would found the new audacious view; at least, not in total, but there may be (are) operational subsets that will be (are) of much interest. Who is looking at this?
What we have now after the latest Revelation is the Manifestation as the paragon, the Writings as the evidence, and the Administration as the workable covering scheme. It's that first that we need to look at more closely, in term of the audacity that is required.
That is, the influence via the axioms may be insignificant compared to that of the rules, definitions, and milieu that relate to the Manifestation's importance.
From the Facebook page, PUP, pg 128: "... religion must be in conformity to science and reason. If a religion does not agree with the postulates of science nor accord with the regulations of reason it is a bundle of superstitions; a phantasm of the brain. Science and religion are realities, and if that religion to which we adhere be a reality it must needs conform to the fundamental reality of all things."
We will look more closely at 'postulates of science' and 'regulations of reason' in the context of this post, using, of course, discussion of how we know and raise Questions.
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.
07/19/2009 -- From the beginning.
06/22/2009 -- We can know.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Science as gift
Month, Day: 166, Questions, Light (Justice)
Month, Day: 166, Questions, Mercy (Majesty)
Aqdas #142: Verily, He revealed certain laws so that, in this Dispensation, the Pen of the Most High might have no need to move in aught but the glorification of His own transcendent Station and His most effulgent Beauty. Since, however, We have wished to evidence Our bounty unto you, We have, through the power of truth, set forth these laws with clarity and mitigated what We desire you to observe.
In other words, we have Transcendence, as we see with the first Group. Then, with Mercy (Teleological), we are allowed clarification, even through Questions, in many forms.
As we saw last time, we have science as a gift. One has (ought) to consider what is missing given the normal modes that are so limiting. Of course, when will those questions, implied by audacity, come to fore as deserving of attention?
FWU/Science: ... Science is the first emanation from God toward man. ... We have already stated that science or the attribute of scientific penetration is supernatural and that all other blessings of God are within the boundary of nature. ... Notwithstanding the gift of this supernatural power, it is most amazing that materialists still consider themselves within the bounds and captivity of nature. ...
We're 3/4ths into the Motivational.
Remarks:
09/17/2010 -- God's gift of science.
Modified: 09/17/2010
Month, Day: 166, Questions, Mercy (Majesty)
Aqdas #142: Verily, He revealed certain laws so that, in this Dispensation, the Pen of the Most High might have no need to move in aught but the glorification of His own transcendent Station and His most effulgent Beauty. Since, however, We have wished to evidence Our bounty unto you, We have, through the power of truth, set forth these laws with clarity and mitigated what We desire you to observe.
In other words, we have Transcendence, as we see with the first Group. Then, with Mercy (Teleological), we are allowed clarification, even through Questions, in many forms.
As we saw last time, we have science as a gift. One has (ought) to consider what is missing given the normal modes that are so limiting. Of course, when will those questions, implied by audacity, come to fore as deserving of attention?
FWU/Science: ... Science is the first emanation from God toward man. ... We have already stated that science or the attribute of scientific penetration is supernatural and that all other blessings of God are within the boundary of nature. ... Notwithstanding the gift of this supernatural power, it is most amazing that materialists still consider themselves within the bounds and captivity of nature. ...
We're 3/4ths into the Motivational.
Remarks:
09/17/2010 -- God's gift of science.
Modified: 09/17/2010
Friday, October 16, 2009
Knowledge, at last
Month, Day: 166, Knowledge, Splendour (Independence)
We've been waiting for this month since 3/21. It has taken its time getting here. We are now 3/4ths the way through the Operational.
Some of the themes to discuss will deal with things like mode and method. Too, the timeless aspects are be touched upon, though they are really beyond understanding.
But, for a brief recap first, let's look, again, at the twin duties: know and obey. SAQ (#84) discusses the need for the second: If, by the help of science and knowledge, we wished to introduce these morals and customs, truly it would take a thousand years, and then they would not be spread throughout the masses.
We ought to be thinking of the Motivational, too.
In a sense, science has a non-short history, however we all can see that there has been a massive acceleration the past century. In fact, the past few years have been mind-boggling in the things that unfolded.
Yet, science, in the proper view, has a long history and has been here since Abraham (Knowledge: “And thus did we show Abraham the Kingdom of the Heavens and of the Earth, that He might be established in knowledge.”). For what end is the knowing of Creation?
Well, in the past, the Manifestations were here, left evidence, but then faded through time, except in the hearts of the believers. Let me say, apparently faded, as Those are Life if we only knew. The cardinality of that Set, meaning having had appearance here, is not small.
Now, like miracles, anything at a distance, whether in space or time, cannot be a strongly held as those local, and now. This is a common characteristic of man. Yet, even that is not entirely true, to wit, just look at problems of underdetermination and the related.
So, except, for those things based upon universals (physics, etc.) and the computational (will more fully explain this), most things have no support beyond those who are there to perceive them (ah, not Berkeley, again) and those who may observe remotely (think TV and other media of this type). One can argue that these two are different. The former rests heavily in the independent viewpoint that trusts perception; the latter is problematic from various angles but has been shown to be an effective means for information distribution.
But, there is another way. Just as we have the Writings, the Administration, and more, we'll be putting together a collective BASIS for certitude which will a growing framework to support both further science and other knowing. This suggests that science will continue to be two-fold, with that supposedly hard aspect continuing in its blind ways. The other side of science will admit the less hard, but strong.
Notice above, that there was mentioned physics and the computational. The computer will be the bridge and play a couple of roles. It will continue to be a fine instrument for mathematical, and related, types of processing. Additionally, it'll support that which is needed to more fully understand man's inherent being, or the potential thereof.
That last role's existence is only barely beginning to emerge. We'll be looking at it more closely as we go along here.
Remarks:
10/18/2009 -- Thomas continued the scientific attitude. There are challenges that audacity must overcome.
Modified: 10/18/2009
We've been waiting for this month since 3/21. It has taken its time getting here. We are now 3/4ths the way through the Operational.
Some of the themes to discuss will deal with things like mode and method. Too, the timeless aspects are be touched upon, though they are really beyond understanding.
But, for a brief recap first, let's look, again, at the twin duties: know and obey. SAQ (#84) discusses the need for the second: If, by the help of science and knowledge, we wished to introduce these morals and customs, truly it would take a thousand years, and then they would not be spread throughout the masses.
We ought to be thinking of the Motivational, too.
In a sense, science has a non-short history, however we all can see that there has been a massive acceleration the past century. In fact, the past few years have been mind-boggling in the things that unfolded.
Yet, science, in the proper view, has a long history and has been here since Abraham (Knowledge: “And thus did we show Abraham the Kingdom of the Heavens and of the Earth, that He might be established in knowledge.”). For what end is the knowing of Creation?
Well, in the past, the Manifestations were here, left evidence, but then faded through time, except in the hearts of the believers. Let me say, apparently faded, as Those are Life if we only knew. The cardinality of that Set, meaning having had appearance here, is not small.
Now, like miracles, anything at a distance, whether in space or time, cannot be a strongly held as those local, and now. This is a common characteristic of man. Yet, even that is not entirely true, to wit, just look at problems of underdetermination and the related.
So, except, for those things based upon universals (physics, etc.) and the computational (will more fully explain this), most things have no support beyond those who are there to perceive them (ah, not Berkeley, again) and those who may observe remotely (think TV and other media of this type). One can argue that these two are different. The former rests heavily in the independent viewpoint that trusts perception; the latter is problematic from various angles but has been shown to be an effective means for information distribution.
But, there is another way. Just as we have the Writings, the Administration, and more, we'll be putting together a collective BASIS for certitude which will a growing framework to support both further science and other knowing. This suggests that science will continue to be two-fold, with that supposedly hard aspect continuing in its blind ways. The other side of science will admit the less hard, but strong.
Notice above, that there was mentioned physics and the computational. The computer will be the bridge and play a couple of roles. It will continue to be a fine instrument for mathematical, and related, types of processing. Additionally, it'll support that which is needed to more fully understand man's inherent being, or the potential thereof.
That last role's existence is only barely beginning to emerge. We'll be looking at it more closely as we go along here.
Remarks:
10/18/2009 -- Thomas continued the scientific attitude. There are challenges that audacity must overcome.
Modified: 10/18/2009
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Creation based science
Month, Day: Glory, Words (Grace)
Of course, science deals with Creation, and we can allow for many other terms for the physical existence that we all share (Nature, Life, ..., ). The quasi-empirical issue, though, addresses how we, as part of what we study, cannot separate ourselves, even through mathematics.
If we leave aside for the moment that science can deal with how we know God, we, basically, need to base our science on what we can study. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in the SAQ #16, notes a couple of things that could help found the basis, namely "in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material" and "in the exterior world there is nothing that is not sensible" .
So, the Creation that we'll study is both material and sensible. That is, we can know it, even if the method of knowing is remote via sensors and computation. Too, though, the intuition of the human will come into play, including that which is Divinely-inspired (UHJ's contribution to the ontology).
Those arguments related to Creationism can be left aside, too, as what we can study is there; for much of the case, as we've already seen, questions of origin are 'immaterial' (pun intended).
Remarks:
09/17/2010 -- God's gift of science.
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
10/02/2009 -- World embracing, at its best.
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.
05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.
Modified: 09/17/2010
Of course, science deals with Creation, and we can allow for many other terms for the physical existence that we all share (Nature, Life, ..., ). The quasi-empirical issue, though, addresses how we, as part of what we study, cannot separate ourselves, even through mathematics.
If we leave aside for the moment that science can deal with how we know God, we, basically, need to base our science on what we can study. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, in the SAQ #16, notes a couple of things that could help found the basis, namely "in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material" and "in the exterior world there is nothing that is not sensible" .
So, the Creation that we'll study is both material and sensible. That is, we can know it, even if the method of knowing is remote via sensors and computation. Too, though, the intuition of the human will come into play, including that which is Divinely-inspired (UHJ's contribution to the ontology).
Those arguments related to Creationism can be left aside, too, as what we can study is there; for much of the case, as we've already seen, questions of origin are 'immaterial' (pun intended).
Remarks:
09/17/2010 -- God's gift of science.
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
10/02/2009 -- World embracing, at its best.
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.
05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.
Modified: 09/17/2010
Friday, December 7, 2012
Memes, as allegory
Month, Day: 169, Speech, Questions (Independence)
Our favorite day of every month. The next month is so, too. What? Questions! The real basis of the gift of science.
---
In the 100-year look back, the Master's trip to the US is now over. He's in England.
That departure could motivate consideration of several things, such as the cognitive issues related to seeing the truth in people and the truth as it's differentiated by locale. The Master spent a lot of time in New England, and more in New York, in particular. He met many people, of all types. He saw plenty of the geographic realities of the northern part of the continent.
But, the Master liked Americans, their spirit, and more. One has to think about His analysis of them after observing, for the first time, what might be considered a new breed (not, in any way, meant to connote race) of person (that multitude behind the dream of America).
Consider the mixture of people here. His visit was about the time of 300th anniversary of the early comings from Europe. In New England, there were many from the northern European heritage. The difference between those who were here and those still there might have been obvious (somewhat). We would have loved to ask (remember, Questions). Yet, there was a lot of commonality, as we know (so, too, God's Creation is everywhere dense, not specifically blessed in any part, except, perhaps, pieces of Israel).
---
There can be much more to say, in this regard. But, audacity says to take this approach: just as DNA analysis looks at the physical heritage of one's past, there is another type of analysis that will measure something that depicts the accumulation from the spirits of your ancestors (perhaps, psychether might be conceptually related).
Say what?
Yes, the healthy mind cannot ignore the Holy Spirit for all time. As well, it cannot but see God's Hand everywhere. But, what is healthy, in this regard? We'll get there.
In any case, no amount of denial makes the Reality go away. Brights can claim to disprove God till they're blue in the face, but that effort, no matter how long and hard, does not effect the Reality. It does not need our attention.
Basically, we're talking an either/or choice. If one denies, fine. It's a person's choice. What ramifications might there be to this choice? We may or may not see, in this lifetime.
If one does not deny, one would hope that there is a benefit from such. The huge problem is that there is a big gap between the realization and operational effectiveness. Tons can be discussed about this, and, probably, will be, in time. For the individual now, we just have to learn to balance Independence and strict obedience.
Why Independence? How else science? Too, who can take control of some else's life and tell them how to live? Oh, I know, plenty try this; it's the cause of a whole lot of problems; yes, even to those who advance in various roles related to their belief (stated generally, purposefully).
----
Now, our problem is that the way of science has been subsumed under severe materialism, as if by necessity. That is, those making the deny choice, see above, are in charge. Yet, as we heard from the Master, science is much more than that. It's how we know God and His Creation. The principle says harmony of science and religion (two wings, of equal power).
So, there are many issues here to resolve.
---
The problem, with dealing with psychether, is that science is public, meaning that reproducibility, and more, is the watchword for evaluations. And, guess what? The psychetheral thing is shared by all humans; actually, it is directly addressable by (accessible to) one's consciousness with effort. We're talking part of Creation.
One might say that altered states are sought, in part, in regard to wanting to know this thing better. But, artificial means are not necessary.
---
As an aside, we'll have to look at certain types of characteristics a little differently. You want me to tell you how? As I said, this is just a glimmer, about which I'll be jawboning. For instance, for the smarties, we'll look at kings and others who wielded power. That is, the Master, on several occasions while here in this newest of situations, said that levels (as in stations) are a necessary item to having any kind of order. That is, we cannot all be chiefs. In one instance when this topic was mentioned, He was with an offspring of a military officer; that is the obvious example to think about.
Aside: this is a system's concept, folks. At the same time, within the system, the Master said that all ought to be fully utilized and happy. Hence, we're not talking the age-old, top-down crap that the underlings have endured for God-only-knows how long.
Aside: We know that no one, with wisdom (see Aqdas) would want to be king - or President, for that matter - even if the crown were thrown in the ring. Too, kings have a role that makes them exemplars of God's good Graces (if only they would wake up to this -- anyone beside St. Margaret of Scotland on the list of good people?) to the folks in their domain, and, perhaps, to others. We really need to look up to them. However, given the character flaws of humans, no one of these types would be perfect, nor would they come to power except by gaming the system (yes, Pharaohs all). So, in the land of the democratic ideals, one might consider that the role is the important thing. George Washington is the perfect (yes, used advisedly) example: many (idiots all) wanted him to be crowned, but George (let's hear it for the Saint) said no and retired to Mount Vernon.
All sorts of musing will be coming forth about this subject.
---
This post is only a cursory hint. Earlier, and for years, I've used psychether as a label for this mysterious thing without understanding what might be the reality of the thing to other than myself. It's not really mysterious, as, again, all conscious humans know about that in which this thing manifests itself.
In fact, psychether was used for the fact of 'ether' being misunderstood (look at the wiki page on Science and Religion related to the Faith -- all the dancing around so that the brights won't call one an idiot -- hah). Not only is psychether fairly complex, our friend Albert would find it fascinatingly familiar in properties to what he had conceived for his space-time model, except that it transcends such. That is, we're not talking spatial or temporal, and not transcendental. Rather, it's more core.
The brights, with their energetic denials of anything dealing with this truth, know the reality, too. Hence, their forcefulness in making denials. And, the use of Richard's concept in the title is intended to bring the 'meta' into memes. Richard's creativity, with regard to the term, is to be recognized, yet he opened a can of worms (which will be explained, in time).
Aside: this post is precipitated by the need to foster discussion. Too, I've been heavy into history and genealogy for about three years now. As I've swept across the expanses of western civilization's cradle, and over the long time frames and learned about those who had the talent (no monarch was without very dirty feet, and perhaps even worse), I've seen that we're playing the same old tunes, over and over (Return comes into play, here, in part). It's not a big leap to see that the energies behind all of the dynamics are the same (one task is to model how this might be); and, that families bridge the generational span, yet do not.
Aside: the Crusades are a focal, for good reason. But, that bickering goes further back. It is not necessary. Mind you, we ought not be patsies, either. The Master said that while here, to boot.
---
Perhaps, we're in the day where no one religion will be above the rest. Get used to it. Perhaps, realizing this might be a key to having peace.
And, part of the psychether relates to the wars that come from the striving for dominance. It's more than just a replay of the Crusades every generation.What we have are little Lords, and all of those types, sparring about while the people suffer. Is that the way it ought to be? The problem is that the little guy's failing hurt only a small collection of people; these types' failures have wide ranging impact on many and many, and for a long time.
---
As we've been told, succeeding generations will converge toward the proper views. Methinks that the lure of the e-world is indicative of the pull of the psychether. In fact, electro-magnetic phenomena (through the fact of the attribute of Light) are involved somehow. Many concepts out of in-the-small physics might have some analog.
Pull? Yes, e-world may be an analog, but it pales in comparison to the real thing which is not to be mimicked by the virtual states (which are essentially empty). Yet, some type of augmentation, in a whole new sense, might come into play. That is, the emergence of the e-whatever is a gift in this regard. It'll help form the proper scientific framework in order to study psychether.
---
As an aside, there is something related to psychether and matter which accounts for differences around the planet that are beyond our normal dealings. Nope, did not say paranormal. We'll, for now, just say that this part of Creation is one motivation behind the 1-hour trip counsel for the internment of bodies after death.
Remarks:
09/07/2015 - Bolded psychether as embolded by Multisense Realism work.
12/13/2015 -- This Atlantic article is fairly concise in its presentation of the issues. One example of those who experienced an NDE was a physician (Dr. Eben Alexander) who is accused by some of being anti-scientific.
Modified: 09/07/2015
Our favorite day of every month. The next month is so, too. What? Questions! The real basis of the gift of science.
---
In the 100-year look back, the Master's trip to the US is now over. He's in England.
That departure could motivate consideration of several things, such as the cognitive issues related to seeing the truth in people and the truth as it's differentiated by locale. The Master spent a lot of time in New England, and more in New York, in particular. He met many people, of all types. He saw plenty of the geographic realities of the northern part of the continent.
But, the Master liked Americans, their spirit, and more. One has to think about His analysis of them after observing, for the first time, what might be considered a new breed (not, in any way, meant to connote race) of person (that multitude behind the dream of America).
Consider the mixture of people here. His visit was about the time of 300th anniversary of the early comings from Europe. In New England, there were many from the northern European heritage. The difference between those who were here and those still there might have been obvious (somewhat). We would have loved to ask (remember, Questions). Yet, there was a lot of commonality, as we know (so, too, God's Creation is everywhere dense, not specifically blessed in any part, except, perhaps, pieces of Israel).
---
There can be much more to say, in this regard. But, audacity says to take this approach: just as DNA analysis looks at the physical heritage of one's past, there is another type of analysis that will measure something that depicts the accumulation from the spirits of your ancestors (perhaps, psychether might be conceptually related).
Say what?
Yes, the healthy mind cannot ignore the Holy Spirit for all time. As well, it cannot but see God's Hand everywhere. But, what is healthy, in this regard? We'll get there.
In any case, no amount of denial makes the Reality go away. Brights can claim to disprove God till they're blue in the face, but that effort, no matter how long and hard, does not effect the Reality. It does not need our attention.
Basically, we're talking an either/or choice. If one denies, fine. It's a person's choice. What ramifications might there be to this choice? We may or may not see, in this lifetime.
If one does not deny, one would hope that there is a benefit from such. The huge problem is that there is a big gap between the realization and operational effectiveness. Tons can be discussed about this, and, probably, will be, in time. For the individual now, we just have to learn to balance Independence and strict obedience.
Why Independence? How else science? Too, who can take control of some else's life and tell them how to live? Oh, I know, plenty try this; it's the cause of a whole lot of problems; yes, even to those who advance in various roles related to their belief (stated generally, purposefully).
----
Now, our problem is that the way of science has been subsumed under severe materialism, as if by necessity. That is, those making the deny choice, see above, are in charge. Yet, as we heard from the Master, science is much more than that. It's how we know God and His Creation. The principle says harmony of science and religion (two wings, of equal power).
So, there are many issues here to resolve.
---
The problem, with dealing with psychether, is that science is public, meaning that reproducibility, and more, is the watchword for evaluations. And, guess what? The psychetheral thing is shared by all humans; actually, it is directly addressable by (accessible to) one's consciousness with effort. We're talking part of Creation.
One might say that altered states are sought, in part, in regard to wanting to know this thing better. But, artificial means are not necessary.
---
As an aside, we'll have to look at certain types of characteristics a little differently. You want me to tell you how? As I said, this is just a glimmer, about which I'll be jawboning. For instance, for the smarties, we'll look at kings and others who wielded power. That is, the Master, on several occasions while here in this newest of situations, said that levels (as in stations) are a necessary item to having any kind of order. That is, we cannot all be chiefs. In one instance when this topic was mentioned, He was with an offspring of a military officer; that is the obvious example to think about.
Aside: this is a system's concept, folks. At the same time, within the system, the Master said that all ought to be fully utilized and happy. Hence, we're not talking the age-old, top-down crap that the underlings have endured for God-only-knows how long.
Aside: We know that no one, with wisdom (see Aqdas) would want to be king - or President, for that matter - even if the crown were thrown in the ring. Too, kings have a role that makes them exemplars of God's good Graces (if only they would wake up to this -- anyone beside St. Margaret of Scotland on the list of good people?) to the folks in their domain, and, perhaps, to others. We really need to look up to them. However, given the character flaws of humans, no one of these types would be perfect, nor would they come to power except by gaming the system (yes, Pharaohs all). So, in the land of the democratic ideals, one might consider that the role is the important thing. George Washington is the perfect (yes, used advisedly) example: many (idiots all) wanted him to be crowned, but George (let's hear it for the Saint) said no and retired to Mount Vernon.
All sorts of musing will be coming forth about this subject.
---
This post is only a cursory hint. Earlier, and for years, I've used psychether as a label for this mysterious thing without understanding what might be the reality of the thing to other than myself. It's not really mysterious, as, again, all conscious humans know about that in which this thing manifests itself.
In fact, psychether was used for the fact of 'ether' being misunderstood (look at the wiki page on Science and Religion related to the Faith -- all the dancing around so that the brights won't call one an idiot -- hah). Not only is psychether fairly complex, our friend Albert would find it fascinatingly familiar in properties to what he had conceived for his space-time model, except that it transcends such. That is, we're not talking spatial or temporal, and not transcendental. Rather, it's more core.
The brights, with their energetic denials of anything dealing with this truth, know the reality, too. Hence, their forcefulness in making denials. And, the use of Richard's concept in the title is intended to bring the 'meta' into memes. Richard's creativity, with regard to the term, is to be recognized, yet he opened a can of worms (which will be explained, in time).
Aside: this post is precipitated by the need to foster discussion. Too, I've been heavy into history and genealogy for about three years now. As I've swept across the expanses of western civilization's cradle, and over the long time frames and learned about those who had the talent (no monarch was without very dirty feet, and perhaps even worse), I've seen that we're playing the same old tunes, over and over (Return comes into play, here, in part). It's not a big leap to see that the energies behind all of the dynamics are the same (one task is to model how this might be); and, that families bridge the generational span, yet do not.
Aside: the Crusades are a focal, for good reason. But, that bickering goes further back. It is not necessary. Mind you, we ought not be patsies, either. The Master said that while here, to boot.
---
Perhaps, we're in the day where no one religion will be above the rest. Get used to it. Perhaps, realizing this might be a key to having peace.
And, part of the psychether relates to the wars that come from the striving for dominance. It's more than just a replay of the Crusades every generation.What we have are little Lords, and all of those types, sparring about while the people suffer. Is that the way it ought to be? The problem is that the little guy's failing hurt only a small collection of people; these types' failures have wide ranging impact on many and many, and for a long time.
---
As we've been told, succeeding generations will converge toward the proper views. Methinks that the lure of the e-world is indicative of the pull of the psychether. In fact, electro-magnetic phenomena (through the fact of the attribute of Light) are involved somehow. Many concepts out of in-the-small physics might have some analog.
Pull? Yes, e-world may be an analog, but it pales in comparison to the real thing which is not to be mimicked by the virtual states (which are essentially empty). Yet, some type of augmentation, in a whole new sense, might come into play. That is, the emergence of the e-whatever is a gift in this regard. It'll help form the proper scientific framework in order to study psychether.
---
As an aside, there is something related to psychether and matter which accounts for differences around the planet that are beyond our normal dealings. Nope, did not say paranormal. We'll, for now, just say that this part of Creation is one motivation behind the 1-hour trip counsel for the internment of bodies after death.
Remarks:
09/07/2015 - Bolded psychether as embolded by Multisense Realism work.
12/13/2015 -- This Atlantic article is fairly concise in its presentation of the issues. One example of those who experienced an NDE was a physician (Dr. Eben Alexander) who is accused by some of being anti-scientific.
Modified: 09/07/2015
Tuesday, November 1, 2022
Image of God
Month, Day: 179, Knowledge, Honour (Perfection)
My theme is science and religion, principally with respect to computation and its important contributions to the theme. Science is abetted by computation; religion is not so much, except for the various types of suites of organizing systems. Both require humans to be at their best, in all ways.
So, technical issues have been the center of attention. But, the other day, I talked to a Christian theologian whose study deals with the 'Image of God' from the Old Testament. I would add that the concept is also prominent in the Jewish religious thinking which fact I became more aware of lately due to my reading on Hasidic teachings. To my surprise, the whole of the worldview is quite powerful, allowing me some insight into the long years of patiently enduring the tests of living a Jewish life.
Now, there had been reviews of the book by the theologian which covered the discussions over the ages, stressing several characters from my past such as Aquinas and Augustine from the past and others who are more recent whom I did not know of due to their being of the Protestant persuasion. Remarkedly, seeing that this work has continued was thrilling, since the pure technical view drains imagination and a lot more.
But, it turns out that one of the Pontifical Universities of Rome published a view of the book which was even more a bunch of encouragement. In fact, that got me to realize that I need to now include theology (starting with a small 't') in my arguments with respect to science and religion where operational decisions are stressed as being of proper focus.
Small 't' needs some explanation. Publicly, in the case of science, we cannot bring in big 'T' now and expect reasonable reactions. Let's talk that. We can, though, argue for approaches that will bridge, such as 'psychether' as a proposal, more axiomatic than hypothetical. Of course, this approach is dealing with the harder views of science. The computer allows the subject to get attention.
That is easily explained. Take AIn't with its mathematical basis. We would be better off lifting the technical material to public view even if it is altered for consumption. There would be nothing hidden as abstract views can always be wedded with their details (somewhat faithfully). Sufficient examples are extant after our two decades plus of the network-spawned modes. Again, lots to discuss here.
But, after some pondering, diving into the Christian hermeneutics and other quarrel-raising methods without a safety net would be quite tedious, perhaps even unhealthy. So, what is there in Islam on the subject? Turns out to be lots and lots to consider.
Example: The Image of God in the Qur'an. There are plenty of other examples, but my take on this is that using 'Image of Adam' would be without any controversy being raised. That is, God created Adam, and we are of Him. Mind you, the small 't' would require that all voices be heard. We have the ability now to do this which is a side-effect of truth engineering which is a natural consequence of taking proper action in this regard.
But, what of Baha'i? Well, we have this, for an example: Prolegomena to a Bahá’í Theology. Okay. This is from 1992. Myself, I have worked independently for five decades and am ready to write some notes about the necessary studies for the purpose of helping people understand how complex systems (general sense, not that related to the 'butterfly effect' and variants to that theme).
Which allows me to back up. What started all of this was going back to Kant whom I had not paid attention to since I found out about Baha'u'llah. And, immediately, a meme came up which extended one that I already had leading to this: AIn't can't Kant. Where the reference to Immanuel is multi-faceted.
I will not apologize for the style that I am using having developed it to allow a spectral notion to be conveyed in the valley of those who like to fight over polarities that might not even be true. It's not poetry, either. Rather, the notion is that when we have computer systems supposedly beating people with word-based tests, something is wrong. Words is one of the attributes of God that are formulated through the means given us by the Bab for managing time-oriented events.
Cutting this short, for now, but we can address all of the ramifications implied above. I am in my ninth decade and will work this as I can. I have decades of research. Something to note, perhaps, would be the recent discussions that reveal another bit of research over the same timeframe as mine. This has to do with psychedelic-based approaches to therapy.
Another approach would use insights from working with the above themes with an explicit feed into the decision process, covering the totality of analytic and synthetic modes.
---
Note: Part of our task is to look at the ways that people have dealt with the 'Image of God" issue. Holy Science is an example of one type of effective method.
Remarks: 11/01/2022
10/31/2022 --
Friday, February 29, 2008
Existence or not
Month, Day: Intercalary, 4 of 5 (Independence)
One source for stumbling on the issues related to an improved framework for science and knowledge deals with the limits associated with one within a system trying to study the system; the fact is that we have no facility for removing ourselves from the system, even with our best tools obtained via advanced mathematics.
That Creation is, and there for us (in many ways), has somehow to be integrated into our working mindset.
So, to begin and to not go very far, let's look at the SAQ of `Abdu'l-Bahá. As a reminder, the main thrust will be that the Writings do provide a basis that can be operational in more than just a spiritual, or an administrative or a behavioral, sense.
We know God through the Manifestations and Attributes (SAQ #37); we ought to consider that the Attributes are one with the Essence (SAQ #59); finally, "The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings" (SAQ #80). God's creation is then what we know through experience and experiment which is, essentially, science.
Now, various means, through time, limited what was necessary for science, with Occam playing one of the key roles. One impetus for these limits has been insufficient grounds for introducing additional factors; the application of reason, and educated guessing, have emerged as a couple of, though not the only, practices (see SAQ #83).
But, what if there were a means to offer insights that are supported by a firmer method?
Of course, that someone could do this, make progress, and then reveal the method might just be the modus operandi. How many times have we heard about dreams offering some notion for solution to problems? We can point to comments about dreams, such as 7V4V, The Valley Of Wonderment, yet damper the enthusiasm with some needed caution (see SAQ #71).
Of course, there are other practices that can be discussed. These, and related ideas, will be explored during the coming months, hopefully, without hubris.
Remarks:
01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
Modified: 01/25/2012
One source for stumbling on the issues related to an improved framework for science and knowledge deals with the limits associated with one within a system trying to study the system; the fact is that we have no facility for removing ourselves from the system, even with our best tools obtained via advanced mathematics.
That Creation is, and there for us (in many ways), has somehow to be integrated into our working mindset.
So, to begin and to not go very far, let's look at the SAQ of `Abdu'l-Bahá. As a reminder, the main thrust will be that the Writings do provide a basis that can be operational in more than just a spiritual, or an administrative or a behavioral, sense.
We know God through the Manifestations and Attributes (SAQ #37); we ought to consider that the Attributes are one with the Essence (SAQ #59); finally, "The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings" (SAQ #80). God's creation is then what we know through experience and experiment which is, essentially, science.
Now, various means, through time, limited what was necessary for science, with Occam playing one of the key roles. One impetus for these limits has been insufficient grounds for introducing additional factors; the application of reason, and educated guessing, have emerged as a couple of, though not the only, practices (see SAQ #83).
But, what if there were a means to offer insights that are supported by a firmer method?
Of course, that someone could do this, make progress, and then reveal the method might just be the modus operandi. How many times have we heard about dreams offering some notion for solution to problems? We can point to comments about dreams, such as 7V4V, The Valley Of Wonderment, yet damper the enthusiasm with some needed caution (see SAQ #71).
Of course, there are other practices that can be discussed. These, and related ideas, will be explored during the coming months, hopefully, without hubris.
Remarks:
01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
Modified: 01/25/2012
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Abandoned
Month, Day: Beauty, Splendour (Grace)
Month, Day: Beauty, Names (Justice)
In the early months, it can seem to be a long time through the Transcendental and Teleological groups before we get to the Operational (3rd Group) which implies action. Too, how can we grasp these early Attributes coming out of Loftiness?
It's almost as if we're abandoned since we cannot get our arms around things to attempt understanding. Any attempt gets repelled. Even Jesus had his doubting moments.
But, looking at the Manifestation, as Reflection (SAQ #27, Trinity) can help. We'll look at that further, at some point.
In the meantime, we can realize that we're not abandoned. In fact, one has no need of one's neighbor; too, one faces the results of one's actions alone. Except, that many suffer at the hands of others is part of reality which we are to study.
For knowledge and science, we need the autodidact (who has to be audacious -- independent investigation of the truth) or a collection thereof.
As an aside, the Master (SAQ) said that intelligible forms are necessary to convey truth, otherwise we are dealing with imagination which does not even have mineral form. Our old friend Albert said that imagination was more important than knowledge. Did he say that from an abandonment moment?
There are ways to show that mathematics and science are backward. Now, they lead to rejection of God, for many. Can the basis change?
Well, we have to start with the introspective which has been thrown out (the autodidact will bring this back in). But, then, how do we get the public and shared? That is, an objectivity goal is foundational in science. Given that cognition is the basis for how we know, can we remove the conundrum?
Yes, audacity and autodidactism will found a view for the future and will balance that of the brights, irreligious (intellectually flavored variety). The related issues are neither easy nor pre-defined, we have to (will) find the way
Remarks:
01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
04/04/2011 -- Spring, the time for the yearly measure. Too, we'll be looking at things like foreknowledge (as in, there really are ways to know).
12/05/2010 -- Is it not true that extreme positions on the axis of the mindful can lead to a god-like state-fulness?
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeping the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.
Modified: 01/25/2012
Month, Day: Beauty, Names (Justice)
In the early months, it can seem to be a long time through the Transcendental and Teleological groups before we get to the Operational (3rd Group) which implies action. Too, how can we grasp these early Attributes coming out of Loftiness?
It's almost as if we're abandoned since we cannot get our arms around things to attempt understanding. Any attempt gets repelled. Even Jesus had his doubting moments.
But, looking at the Manifestation, as Reflection (SAQ #27, Trinity) can help. We'll look at that further, at some point.
In the meantime, we can realize that we're not abandoned. In fact, one has no need of one's neighbor; too, one faces the results of one's actions alone. Except, that many suffer at the hands of others is part of reality which we are to study.
For knowledge and science, we need the autodidact (who has to be audacious -- independent investigation of the truth) or a collection thereof.
As an aside, the Master (SAQ) said that intelligible forms are necessary to convey truth, otherwise we are dealing with imagination which does not even have mineral form. Our old friend Albert said that imagination was more important than knowledge. Did he say that from an abandonment moment?
There are ways to show that mathematics and science are backward. Now, they lead to rejection of God, for many. Can the basis change?
Well, we have to start with the introspective which has been thrown out (the autodidact will bring this back in). But, then, how do we get the public and shared? That is, an objectivity goal is foundational in science. Given that cognition is the basis for how we know, can we remove the conundrum?
Yes, audacity and autodidactism will found a view for the future and will balance that of the brights, irreligious (intellectually flavored variety). The related issues are neither easy nor pre-defined, we have to (will) find the way
Remarks:
01/25/2012 -- Yes, still at it. Ready to be more audacious. What we're looking for has to do with mind; at some point, it will be allowed by science that we can observe effects (actually, predict, to boot - one step forward will be a more insightful mathematics).
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
04/04/2011 -- Spring, the time for the yearly measure. Too, we'll be looking at things like foreknowledge (as in, there really are ways to know).
12/05/2010 -- Is it not true that extreme positions on the axis of the mindful can lead to a god-like state-fulness?
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeping the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.
Modified: 01/25/2012
Thursday, April 3, 2025
Renew
Month, Day: 182, Splendour, Questions (Majesty)
Ah, Questions, again. The basis for science and knowledge rather than knowing, itself.
Let's review a few posts.
- Mission and method (3 Jan 2008) -- This started off of a bounce from Wikipedia and its page on Science and Religion. In the first month (January), we had posts on economics, money/wealth, and some seeds. The first two dealt with the reality of retired life. We were three years in. The last one had several topics. These ought to be used to scrutinize these fifteen-plus years of posts to see if we stayed on track given that the world has changed immensely in those years. January of that year had four posts.
- Any moment (18 May 2008) -- A little poem from the 1990s was presented. Cycles and their moments are a continuing theme especially as we are now in an age of GenAI and its turmoils. The reference of psychether is apropos to this time. Some say GenAI and its use is disrespectful of life. Others chase the potential of the computer for dominance. Fans of science fiction are having a ball. Can science mature so as to open its framework? Yes. The real question deals with whether mathematics can mature.
- ...
With regard to Wikipedia, the "Talk" page has some of my comments with regard to science and religion. But, of late, the whole tone and scope of the page has changed. That, to me, was rewarding. As well, there are pages on Baha'i Cosmology as well as we can see Writings on alchemy (and such) via the web.
Remarks: 08/26/2025
04/03/2025 --
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Greatest gift
Month, Day: Questions, Dominion (Perfection)
Questions is coming to an end, and there is still so much to consider. Fortunately, the cycles will continue, so we'll see this again.
Now, one question involves looking around for an explanation of what the 'science' might be that it can be compatible with religion. Well, this 'science' would have to arise from human efforts to know God's Creation; as well, it turns out that there are plenty examples from which we could build a definition.
So, what is the gift considered the greatest? Well, our intellect that allows science.
Of course, many views will not allow science to begin with a gift from God. So, part of the discussion here would start to lay out where the audacity to do such a thing is going to be required.
Remarks:
06/11/2009 -- Science and Religion.
Modified: 06/11/2009
Questions is coming to an end, and there is still so much to consider. Fortunately, the cycles will continue, so we'll see this again.
Now, one question involves looking around for an explanation of what the 'science' might be that it can be compatible with religion. Well, this 'science' would have to arise from human efforts to know God's Creation; as well, it turns out that there are plenty examples from which we could build a definition.
So, what is the gift considered the greatest? Well, our intellect that allows science.
Of course, many views will not allow science to begin with a gift from God. So, part of the discussion here would start to lay out where the audacity to do such a thing is going to be required.
Remarks:
06/11/2009 -- Science and Religion.
Modified: 06/11/2009
Monday, February 1, 2010
Eons and eons
Month, Day: 166, Sovereignty, Speech (Perfection)
Month, Day: 166, Sovereignty, Sovereignty (Majesty)
One thing that audacity will bring is that teleology has a firm BASIS.
Now, when we consider the modern views of science, with its mathematical framework, time is a major factor with huge dimensional impacts, even with the 'tricks' such as invoking Hilbert's notions. Yet, that hugeness does not stop speculation about interpretations even though such activities are, in a very strong sense, antithetical to what how 'science' defines itself.
Call the propensity fill in just part of human nature, if you will. Underdetermination remains a key issue, though.
Now, the thing that we need to show is that the Writings can provide needed insight. It's not clear how this will work since arguments descend to issues like whether propositional issues are handled and similar.
But, think of the continuing, and recurrent, influence, somehow, of the Manifestation over time on Creation, that is, the super-positioned. All sorts of things come to the imagination (which Albert extolled over knowledge).
Given that art can use modern techniques, brought to us by science and engineering, we see the emergence of better and better presentation, via movies and such (3D, animation, ...). After catching a glimpse of one dealing with dinosaurs, one can easily ponder an experiment gone wild. Hence, some type of 'tweak' was necessary to reduce size and attitude.
Of course, there is always the chance that the portrayal of a mean and aggressive attitude is founded in some part of the human psyche, that is, entirely laced with sentiments of social dwarinism (apologies to Charles).
Yet, the fact remains that the largest land animals, now, are not carnivores. And, the largest on the planet are water creatures.
Of course, this could be better described, however how the 'tweak' may occur is of interest and ought to be to science (that type of science which could allow such -- yes, there may very well be an operationally useful aspect to this).
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Month, Day: 166, Sovereignty, Sovereignty (Majesty)
One thing that audacity will bring is that teleology has a firm BASIS.
Now, when we consider the modern views of science, with its mathematical framework, time is a major factor with huge dimensional impacts, even with the 'tricks' such as invoking Hilbert's notions. Yet, that hugeness does not stop speculation about interpretations even though such activities are, in a very strong sense, antithetical to what how 'science' defines itself.
Call the propensity fill in just part of human nature, if you will. Underdetermination remains a key issue, though.
Now, the thing that we need to show is that the Writings can provide needed insight. It's not clear how this will work since arguments descend to issues like whether propositional issues are handled and similar.
But, think of the continuing, and recurrent, influence, somehow, of the Manifestation over time on Creation, that is, the super-positioned. All sorts of things come to the imagination (which Albert extolled over knowledge).
Given that art can use modern techniques, brought to us by science and engineering, we see the emergence of better and better presentation, via movies and such (3D, animation, ...). After catching a glimpse of one dealing with dinosaurs, one can easily ponder an experiment gone wild. Hence, some type of 'tweak' was necessary to reduce size and attitude.
Of course, there is always the chance that the portrayal of a mean and aggressive attitude is founded in some part of the human psyche, that is, entirely laced with sentiments of social dwarinism (apologies to Charles).
Yet, the fact remains that the largest land animals, now, are not carnivores. And, the largest on the planet are water creatures.
Of course, this could be better described, however how the 'tweak' may occur is of interest and ought to be to science (that type of science which could allow such -- yes, there may very well be an operationally useful aspect to this).
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Friday, June 5, 2009
Let there be Light
Month, Day: Light, Splendour (Independence)
Yes, from Genesis. But light is a primal attribute of science (which studies Creation), to boot. Our little dribblings in the ether, such as we see here with this post (and twitter-ville et al), are evidence of major advances in knowledge the past century and a half.
But, audacity will take light further. Why? It seems to be one property that has some claim to helping us know more about the Transcendent. There will be more on this.
For now, lets briefly look at underdetermination as it applies to our discussions and as it leads to quasi-empiricism by necessity. Some type of dialectic (pointer implies much based upon AE's recognition of imagination's use - implying, thereby, too, intuition's role) needs invention here which would balance the Writings and what we know via science.
Now, of course, the goal would be testable ideas. The key issue? Science has led us down the perdition-ripe paths of materialism, uber mathematics, and big experiments (money, politics, residues [of many sorts]). Consider, please, that what we see with the growing ubiquity of the computational (and its artificial being) is a platform for a type of science (apologies to Wolfram) that is truly non-elite.
Before I get tomatoes thrown in my direction, let me add, the elite part will still be there; it's part of Creation. Okay. But, the non-elite may actually have a larger sub-space (super-space, too).
Yes, indeed. If this were not so, what purpose is there for such a large set (put here link to statement that all can know God [Iqan] - no need of clergy or its equivalent, assuming the Teleological, of course)?
Remarks:
01/25/2011 -- What would be a comprehensive view of this attribute?
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
07/26/2009 -- The Operational times will be fun.
07/19/2009 -- From the beginning.
07/07/2009 -- Ought we be thankful for the Brights?
06/11/2009 -- Science and Religion.
Modified: 01/25/2011
Yes, from Genesis. But light is a primal attribute of science (which studies Creation), to boot. Our little dribblings in the ether, such as we see here with this post (and twitter-ville et al), are evidence of major advances in knowledge the past century and a half.
But, audacity will take light further. Why? It seems to be one property that has some claim to helping us know more about the Transcendent. There will be more on this.
For now, lets briefly look at underdetermination as it applies to our discussions and as it leads to quasi-empiricism by necessity. Some type of dialectic (pointer implies much based upon AE's recognition of imagination's use - implying, thereby, too, intuition's role) needs invention here which would balance the Writings and what we know via science.
Now, of course, the goal would be testable ideas. The key issue? Science has led us down the perdition-ripe paths of materialism, uber mathematics, and big experiments (money, politics, residues [of many sorts]). Consider, please, that what we see with the growing ubiquity of the computational (and its artificial being) is a platform for a type of science (apologies to Wolfram) that is truly non-elite.
Before I get tomatoes thrown in my direction, let me add, the elite part will still be there; it's part of Creation. Okay. But, the non-elite may actually have a larger sub-space (super-space, too).
Yes, indeed. If this were not so, what purpose is there for such a large set (put here link to statement that all can know God [Iqan] - no need of clergy or its equivalent, assuming the Teleological, of course)?
Remarks:
01/25/2011 -- What would be a comprehensive view of this attribute?
09/06/2009 -- Essentially, more is undecidable than we like to admit, basically due to our talent for success (ergodicity, essentially) keeps the hubris refreshed (generation by generation).
07/26/2009 -- The Operational times will be fun.
07/19/2009 -- From the beginning.
07/07/2009 -- Ought we be thankful for the Brights?
06/11/2009 -- Science and Religion.
Modified: 01/25/2011
Sunday, September 12, 2010
God's science
Month, Day: 167, Might, Light (Beauty)
Month, Day: 167, Might, Might (Independence)
A few thoughts related to insights from the Writings that pertain to science which is an operational affair related to roles (emphasis on Deeds over Words in the requirements of the age). These will be collected in a coherent manner at some point.
In a sense, we might argue that any basis, other than a computational one, is suspect. Why? Long series of arguments here, but the Key applies. How? It is our task to show.
---
Humans bring to fore what is needed as an integral part of a worldview. Okay, reality is there, however intelligence (of a type to be discussed further) is manifested by ourselves.
There are means to note, for ourselves, what might be termed progress. For example, this from Gleanings: Much hath been written in the books of old concerning the various stages in the development of the soul, such as concupiscence, irascibility, inspiration, benevolence, contentment, Divine good-pleasure, and the like; the Pen of the Most High, however, is disinclined to dwell upon them. Every soul that walketh humbly with its God, in this Day, and cleaveth unto Him, shall find itself invested with the honor and glory of all goodly names and stations.
---
Humans have differing abilities, within themselves through time and amongst themselves. These need to be studied in their multifarious aspects.
Again, Gleanings: The whole duty of man in this Day is to attain that share of the flood of grace which God poureth forth for him. Let none, therefore, consider the largeness or smallness of the receptacle. The portion of some might lie in the palm of a man’s hand, the portion of others might fill a cup, and of others even a gallon-measure.
Hence, it's not the structure, as we saw earlier, rather it's the ability related to roles. And, these are mixed.
---
Of course, the gallon-measure demands attention. This does not mean oodles of money flowing like a stream (as we see now, with less than 2% collecting, or holding tightly, 99%+ of the resources), necessarily.
Science will allow more equitable concepts to emerge, especially in the dismal science of economics.
Aqdas: We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book.
One of these is that no enlightened person would want to be king or queen, except in some 'role' sense.
Remarks:
08/31/2012 -- Names, Knowledge, Independence.
12/05/2010 -- Is it not true that extreme positions on the axis of the mindful can lead to a god-like state-fulness?
0/04/2010 -- Friction can beget progress.
09/17/2010 -- As mentioned earlier as a comment that the year's focus would be enlightenment, the motivation (which group follows the Operational, in which we are now) is to understand the progression of science (toward scientism and other types) for the past 200 years through studying the Writings. We cannot look back, but we can try to delta around the Revelation times. The explosion in knowledge and technology, or observable patterns thereof, can be placed on a time line that can (must) span the mid-1800s thereby offering conjectural support. Now, the use of conjecture is meant to imply that we have, at best, quasi-empiricism anyway; hence, the proposed activity (applying insight about roles to discern the growing presence of these) is not without some 'sound' basis (foundational review that it needs to be). Without scrutiny such as this (audacious or not), how to we learn from the past? As far as we know, the prescription against looking back is against wider looks that have a smaller chance of finding corroborative data. Our merely looking back a few centuries is a minimal extension in comparison.
Modified: 08/31/2012
Month, Day: 167, Might, Might (Independence)
A few thoughts related to insights from the Writings that pertain to science which is an operational affair related to roles (emphasis on Deeds over Words in the requirements of the age). These will be collected in a coherent manner at some point.
In a sense, we might argue that any basis, other than a computational one, is suspect. Why? Long series of arguments here, but the Key applies. How? It is our task to show.
---
Humans bring to fore what is needed as an integral part of a worldview. Okay, reality is there, however intelligence (of a type to be discussed further) is manifested by ourselves.
There are means to note, for ourselves, what might be termed progress. For example, this from Gleanings: Much hath been written in the books of old concerning the various stages in the development of the soul, such as concupiscence, irascibility, inspiration, benevolence, contentment, Divine good-pleasure, and the like; the Pen of the Most High, however, is disinclined to dwell upon them. Every soul that walketh humbly with its God, in this Day, and cleaveth unto Him, shall find itself invested with the honor and glory of all goodly names and stations.
---
Humans have differing abilities, within themselves through time and amongst themselves. These need to be studied in their multifarious aspects.
Again, Gleanings: The whole duty of man in this Day is to attain that share of the flood of grace which God poureth forth for him. Let none, therefore, consider the largeness or smallness of the receptacle. The portion of some might lie in the palm of a man’s hand, the portion of others might fill a cup, and of others even a gallon-measure.
Hence, it's not the structure, as we saw earlier, rather it's the ability related to roles. And, these are mixed.
---
Of course, the gallon-measure demands attention. This does not mean oodles of money flowing like a stream (as we see now, with less than 2% collecting, or holding tightly, 99%+ of the resources), necessarily.
Science will allow more equitable concepts to emerge, especially in the dismal science of economics.
Aqdas: We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book.
One of these is that no enlightened person would want to be king or queen, except in some 'role' sense.
Remarks:
08/31/2012 -- Names, Knowledge, Independence.
12/05/2010 -- Is it not true that extreme positions on the axis of the mindful can lead to a god-like state-fulness?
0/04/2010 -- Friction can beget progress.
09/17/2010 -- As mentioned earlier as a comment that the year's focus would be enlightenment, the motivation (which group follows the Operational, in which we are now) is to understand the progression of science (toward scientism and other types) for the past 200 years through studying the Writings. We cannot look back, but we can try to delta around the Revelation times. The explosion in knowledge and technology, or observable patterns thereof, can be placed on a time line that can (must) span the mid-1800s thereby offering conjectural support. Now, the use of conjecture is meant to imply that we have, at best, quasi-empiricism anyway; hence, the proposed activity (applying insight about roles to discern the growing presence of these) is not without some 'sound' basis (foundational review that it needs to be). Without scrutiny such as this (audacious or not), how to we learn from the past? As far as we know, the prescription against looking back is against wider looks that have a smaller chance of finding corroborative data. Our merely looking back a few centuries is a minimal extension in comparison.
Modified: 08/31/2012
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Questions, again
Month, Day: Names, Questions (Justice)
Earlier, there were posts related to the ubiquity of Questions (as the BASIS for science), to the fact that we cannot be thankful enough for the gift, and to associated ways and methods. As an aside in the discussions about the Writings and science, we can point out numerous items that relate directly; even if we did not want to consider a direct tie, there is still the issue that the item is relevant to defining some 'value' position that is more than mere relativism.
An example deals with the continual strife for pocket lining, as a few accumulate mountains of assets while the many are without. How can that be?, is asked in the SAQ #78. As well, there is this suggestion: It would be well, with regard to the common rights of manufacturers, workmen and artisans, that laws be established, giving moderate profits to manufacturers, and to workmen the necessary means of existence and security for the future.
The use of 'moderate' is telling; too, there is no mention that capitalists, as they have emerged in the gaming ontology currently in vogue, ought to have their hands in the pot. Related to this is the diminishing of the use of 'usurious' which applies in many situation; Islam's no-interest model ought to be a little more attention than it has to date.
This was a necessary aside since science is very much a human affair.
Remarks:
10/04/2010 -- Friction can beget progress.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
09/13/2009 -- Economics requires additional attention.
03/19/2009 -- Science and knowing are key.
Modified: 10/04/2010
Earlier, there were posts related to the ubiquity of Questions (as the BASIS for science), to the fact that we cannot be thankful enough for the gift, and to associated ways and methods. As an aside in the discussions about the Writings and science, we can point out numerous items that relate directly; even if we did not want to consider a direct tie, there is still the issue that the item is relevant to defining some 'value' position that is more than mere relativism.
An example deals with the continual strife for pocket lining, as a few accumulate mountains of assets while the many are without. How can that be?, is asked in the SAQ #78. As well, there is this suggestion: It would be well, with regard to the common rights of manufacturers, workmen and artisans, that laws be established, giving moderate profits to manufacturers, and to workmen the necessary means of existence and security for the future.
The use of 'moderate' is telling; too, there is no mention that capitalists, as they have emerged in the gaming ontology currently in vogue, ought to have their hands in the pot. Related to this is the diminishing of the use of 'usurious' which applies in many situation; Islam's no-interest model ought to be a little more attention than it has to date.
This was a necessary aside since science is very much a human affair.
Remarks:
10/04/2010 -- Friction can beget progress.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
09/13/2009 -- Economics requires additional attention.
03/19/2009 -- Science and knowing are key.
Modified: 10/04/2010
Friday, March 14, 2025
Groups, again, from the beginning
Month, Day: 181, Loftiness, Power (Majesty)
Let's look a little at motivation for the following by the way of a few of the earlier posts. At the basis, we have moment to moment as a reality which the Fast brings to focus.
1. Some seeds (Jan 2008) - The modern mind runs from chaos and random things through patterns into the certainty of technology. We can trace the development of those views. But, we also know of the stability of orbits as evidenced the calendar which was defined anew by the Bab. Thoughts during the Fast settled on the long trek from the rush of the 1st day and month (Splendour of Loftiness) all the way to the last day of the same month (Loftiness of Loftiness) after which we have Naw Ruz (now set by the moon over Tehran). Thinking about the flow, some Attributes (of God) made more sense from the human view. For instance, Light (5th month) is followed by Mercy and Words. Ah, biblical tunes come to play, such as Genesis. Later, we get to Knowledge (12th month) followed by Power and Speech. Those suggested some type of group arrangement.
This image shows the 19 months, starting with Splendour and ending with Loftiness with every month following the same pattern, separated into groups of three. What pops out is the transition through the month of Might (10th month) as the mid-point which is followed by Will. In terms of that last, independence of thought and perception are primal in the Writings. That order? We will get to Kant who was pre Bab.
 |
| Might and focus |
2. Another motive comes from last of the 7 Valleys where "chord" is mentioned in terms of possible interpretations meaning personal, purposful usage of the notions. There are many ways to group such as noting that there are 9 evens and 10 odds when considering an index of the ordered list of months. In the above, Might is the (10th month) followed by Will which brings in issues of free will and choice among other things.
We mentioned Kant, above, and will be trying to show how his philosophy is central to the transition period of the Manifestations. Kant died in 1804 and represented the culmination of work to that time of bringing to fruit the "2 letters" of which reason was an important factor. Those of science who have looked realize that Kant's thoughts apply in lots of ways. Many of these have been ignored.
 |
| Seven Valleys and human ways |
3. This image has three circles with the interior one representing the days of the week. The new calendar has the week starting on Saturday with the name of Glory. It ends on Friday with Independence, such as today. That resonates with the modern way and its systems many of which are based upon the clock.
The next two circles are based upon the Attributes of the months and their days. So, we have the start of Splendour and the end of Loftiness. Notice in the middle circle, Might has its place as a fulcrum. We have much to discuss about that.
 |
| 4/09/2022, Saturday (Glory) Glory, Splendour (09/03) |
There are three lines in the image. Their meaning can be seen in the caption of the image. In 2022, the 9th of April was the first day of the week (Glory) and the month (Splenour) of the second month (Glory). This is a "square" day. There are also triple days where we see the same name for each. In 2011, the month of August had a triple day.
---
Groups were mentioned above without proper comment. These are in terms of four months: Transcendent; Teleological; Operational; Motivational; Ascendant. But, we have looked at groups of three and even eight.
---
Our focus all along has been science and religion as compatible themes with respect to knowledge. Everyone has the right to work that out for themselves, with the proviso, though, that science and its methods be publically verifiable. While, religion deals with the person's own realm of being in so many ways.
Back to Kant, he showed that we can neither prove nor disprove God from the view of science, at least in terms that are prevalent in today's world. Remember, Kants of of the "2 letter" time. Too, the top-of-the-line logical machines tell us this: whether or not one believes in God comes down to choice.
So, free will? Now with respect to the growing complexity that we see with technology, personal choices have to be balanced with public views in so many ways. The Universal House of Justice will be weighing in on that. For instance, there is a lot in the Baha'i Writings that can be shown to subjectively relate to science. Same goes for the Koran which is full of wisdom that has not yet been brought to public view.
Remarks: 03/14/2025
03/14/2025 --
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
The Master
Month, Day: 167, Honour, Loftiness (Grace)
Month, Day: 167, Sovereignty, Splendour (Justice)
There has been some discussion about what the Writings might mean for science and whether science has shown anything in the writings to be false. To wit: evolution and ether.
The issue, as stated in a paper: The problem of disharmony between scripture and science is rooted in an unwarranted misattribution of scriptural inerrancy.
There is much to discuss here, but the Aqdas sequence from #174 (about Abdu'l-Bahá's role infallibility) through #188 are apropos. Take, for instance, #182: Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths.
Does it not make a suggestion to us? As said before, science is never about infallibility. Too, what bit of textual material, constructed by humans (oh yes, that includes mathematics), subsumes creation?
Granted, some worldviews seem to think that they are complete. That is, the manner of expression seems to convey authoritative (pontificate) assurance. Yet do we not know that we cannot have completeness and consistency concurrently? There are many ways to describe this.
So, for now, putting evolution aside, we saw this remark by the Master in the SAQ (#48): If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. The power of attraction is not sensible, though it certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their signs. Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this vibration we infer the existence of ether.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the Master knew what he was talking about. Light is more than a physical phenomenon. It is one of the Attributes which are celebrated through the year.
The Master was the son of the Manifestation, thereby inheriting insights for which we have no understanding. Too, the Master knew that his audience was going to persist through time.
...
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
01/25/2011 -- Continued in the next post.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Month, Day: 167, Sovereignty, Splendour (Justice)
There has been some discussion about what the Writings might mean for science and whether science has shown anything in the writings to be false. To wit: evolution and ether.
The issue, as stated in a paper: The problem of disharmony between scripture and science is rooted in an unwarranted misattribution of scriptural inerrancy.
There is much to discuss here, but the Aqdas sequence from #174 (about Abdu'l-Bahá's role infallibility) through #188 are apropos. Take, for instance, #182: Immerse yourselves in the ocean of My words, that ye may unravel its secrets, and discover all the pearls of wisdom that lie hid in its depths.
Does it not make a suggestion to us? As said before, science is never about infallibility. Too, what bit of textual material, constructed by humans (oh yes, that includes mathematics), subsumes creation?
Granted, some worldviews seem to think that they are complete. That is, the manner of expression seems to convey authoritative (pontificate) assurance. Yet do we not know that we cannot have completeness and consistency concurrently? There are many ways to describe this.
So, for now, putting evolution aside, we saw this remark by the Master in the SAQ (#48): If we wish to deny everything that is not sensible, then we must deny the realities which unquestionably exist. For example, ethereal matter is not sensible, though it has an undoubted existence. The power of attraction is not sensible, though it certainly exists. From what do we affirm these existences? From their signs. Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this vibration we infer the existence of ether.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the Master knew what he was talking about. Light is more than a physical phenomenon. It is one of the Attributes which are celebrated through the year.
The Master was the son of the Manifestation, thereby inheriting insights for which we have no understanding. Too, the Master knew that his audience was going to persist through time.
...
Remarks:
08/01/2012 --Ether, in a manner that is unavoidably true. Our task? Show how to handle the matter from a scientific (the wise interpretation, okay?) framework. And, audacity is not necessary.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
01/25/2011 -- Continued in the next post.
Modified: 08/01/2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Hitch, again
Month, Day: 169, Grandeur, Grace (Justice)
Hitch got things boiling a lot. A recent tribute is worth listening to, for several reasons (which we'll get to, eventually). As said before, Hitch was of interest, many ways.
Krauss' tribute says a lot of things that we ought to know. Hitch loved 'knowledge' and seemed to obtain it from outside (reading, discussing, etc.). One wonders if he spent much time in a contemplative mode; he seems to argue that the joys of the bohemian life had a greater influence (arguing from the imbibe, if you would).
From listening to Krauss (who obviously is hero-worshipping - yes, don't we all want to be able to be so erudite, at will?), it seems to me that Hitch had a large gift of comprehension.
Aside: Look at what the Master said of the mental faculties (thought, comprehension, imagination, memory, and the common one -- SAQ #56). I know that this simple model doesn't seem to gel with the modern views (complicated mess that does not explain consciousness). But, it does (we'll get back to that).
Aside: Comprehension (somewhat like intuition) is suspect from many modern views. Paraphrasing von Neumann: you don't understand mathematics, you get used to it.
---
As a reminder, there are several motivations for this series being inspired by Hitch. Part of that involves the dreams that I had. In the first encounter, he knew of the after life (after all, he was there), yet he was trying his best to ignore (almost catatonic -- by the way, listen to certain lifestyle-influenced arguments, they want to go toward that state -- yes, brights, too). In this encounter, he looked at some notes that I was carrying around (me, of course, a bit abashed to have the lofty Hitch looking at my stuff). In the next encounter, he visited my work area (to be explained fully, in time) with my college roommate (of similar lifestyle and purpose). Now, there, Hitch did an assessment of me (sizing up, if you would). And, there were lessons learned on both sides (these will be described, in time, to boot). And, the saga continues.
---
Anyone barfing at me punting to the future? Oh yes! We have hundreds of years until the next Manifestation. Too, each can stand on their own feet (in this regard). So, don't look for guidance here (unless some glimpse at truth might come from reading anything here -- it's not planned). What we're up to here is trying to lay down a framework that would allow a more full science to emerge (which seems to be diametrically opposed to where science seems to be going, why?). See Science as highest attainment (how we know God) and Spiritual susceptibilities (which will influence, and broaden, science).
---
First order observations are suspect everywhere (we are very much imperfect in that manner). Too, models are shaky at their core. Krauss likes to talk grand scale; perhaps, he would deem to let me discuss some issues with him as he claims Hitch did for him (Krauss saying that he was chagrined at the thought that the mighty Hitch would befriend him -- look, Krauss, Hitch knew his limitations and appreciated truth from whatever source, as you said -- yet, he missed several important conclusions -- as have a whole bunch of others). So, on what do we have to rely? Well, the goodness of those who we have to trust (you see, no one knows all, has to cast over the wall to other disciplines -- Richard does this quite well), our abilities to overcome our limits (somewhat), ..., and, that the 'design' did include the ability to question and to search (among other things).
---
I might add that those who believe need to remember the Tablet of the True Seeker (Iqana #213). Any sinner can be a saint, at death. What is worse? The saintly (ah, how can such forget the glass house?) can become lower than low at the time of their meeting.
---
What meeting? Ah, as Hitch knows, where he met the Mockee (to which end we all move)!
Remarks:
06/13/2012 -- On second thought, I hope that my little dabbling was instrumental to the guy's grasp. As said, he was of comprehension (more ways than one).
Modified: 06/13/2012
Hitch got things boiling a lot. A recent tribute is worth listening to, for several reasons (which we'll get to, eventually). As said before, Hitch was of interest, many ways.
Krauss' tribute says a lot of things that we ought to know. Hitch loved 'knowledge' and seemed to obtain it from outside (reading, discussing, etc.). One wonders if he spent much time in a contemplative mode; he seems to argue that the joys of the bohemian life had a greater influence (arguing from the imbibe, if you would).
From listening to Krauss (who obviously is hero-worshipping - yes, don't we all want to be able to be so erudite, at will?), it seems to me that Hitch had a large gift of comprehension.
Aside: Look at what the Master said of the mental faculties (thought, comprehension, imagination, memory, and the common one -- SAQ #56). I know that this simple model doesn't seem to gel with the modern views (complicated mess that does not explain consciousness). But, it does (we'll get back to that).
Aside: Comprehension (somewhat like intuition) is suspect from many modern views. Paraphrasing von Neumann: you don't understand mathematics, you get used to it.
---
As a reminder, there are several motivations for this series being inspired by Hitch. Part of that involves the dreams that I had. In the first encounter, he knew of the after life (after all, he was there), yet he was trying his best to ignore (almost catatonic -- by the way, listen to certain lifestyle-influenced arguments, they want to go toward that state -- yes, brights, too). In this encounter, he looked at some notes that I was carrying around (me, of course, a bit abashed to have the lofty Hitch looking at my stuff). In the next encounter, he visited my work area (to be explained fully, in time) with my college roommate (of similar lifestyle and purpose). Now, there, Hitch did an assessment of me (sizing up, if you would). And, there were lessons learned on both sides (these will be described, in time, to boot). And, the saga continues.
---
Anyone barfing at me punting to the future? Oh yes! We have hundreds of years until the next Manifestation. Too, each can stand on their own feet (in this regard). So, don't look for guidance here (unless some glimpse at truth might come from reading anything here -- it's not planned). What we're up to here is trying to lay down a framework that would allow a more full science to emerge (which seems to be diametrically opposed to where science seems to be going, why?). See Science as highest attainment (how we know God) and Spiritual susceptibilities (which will influence, and broaden, science).
---
First order observations are suspect everywhere (we are very much imperfect in that manner). Too, models are shaky at their core. Krauss likes to talk grand scale; perhaps, he would deem to let me discuss some issues with him as he claims Hitch did for him (Krauss saying that he was chagrined at the thought that the mighty Hitch would befriend him -- look, Krauss, Hitch knew his limitations and appreciated truth from whatever source, as you said -- yet, he missed several important conclusions -- as have a whole bunch of others). So, on what do we have to rely? Well, the goodness of those who we have to trust (you see, no one knows all, has to cast over the wall to other disciplines -- Richard does this quite well), our abilities to overcome our limits (somewhat), ..., and, that the 'design' did include the ability to question and to search (among other things).
---
I might add that those who believe need to remember the Tablet of the True Seeker (Iqana #213). Any sinner can be a saint, at death. What is worse? The saintly (ah, how can such forget the glass house?) can become lower than low at the time of their meeting.
---
What meeting? Ah, as Hitch knows, where he met the Mockee (to which end we all move)!
Remarks:
06/13/2012 -- On second thought, I hope that my little dabbling was instrumental to the guy's grasp. As said, he was of comprehension (more ways than one).
Modified: 06/13/2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
