Month, Day: 166, Will, Splendour (Beauty)
Will is several things, but an important aspect is our volition as we have several wills, such as will to be and will to do, in brief.
These themes recur. The cycles are relate to iterations: Cycles, Cycles 1, Cycles 2. So, starting from the smaller to larger, we have our own beats, such as the heart. Then, we have the 24 and 7. Then, we have the months and years. And, the larger: we in the 14th of the 9th. And, more.
Somewhat broadly, as the groups to now have been Transcendent, Teleological, and now Operational, if Names are the structure to model and Might denotes the abilities, then Will, which we get to do again, is the control.
So, we need to look at return, implied by cycle and iteration, and acquired knowledge.
SAQ #81: For in this universe of God, which appears in the most complete perfection, beauty and grandeur, the luminous stars of the material universe are innumerable! Then we must reflect how limitless and infinite are the spiritual worlds, which are the essential foundation.
Remarks:
12/05/2010 -- Need to add that, for some views, the cycles ended. This site will be used for the main Islamic information source, for awhile.
Modified: 12/05/2010
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Operational III
Month, Day: 166, Might, Loftiness (Glory)
Earlier mentions touched upon topics of concern (The Operational, Ontology from Honour, Operational I, Operational II, Understanding, to name a few).
A particular juxtaposition is very much apropos, yet problematic. For instance, we know that the Manifestations have influenced Creation, including us, periodically through time. Related to that is a Viewpoint that knows. Yet, at the same time, we're to discover our own knowledge.
To a certain extent, that is. As, from the twin duties framework, it's clear how to obtain the proper basis. But, that approach has no hint about things operationally specific, such as that required for technical knowledge.
So, we have seen an increasingly robust set of knowledge, named science, that has no end point and that, to those who are honest, leaves a lot of holes all around. How one fills those holes is very much of interest here, not so much from a judgmental sense as from comparative analysis.
Say what? Some ways are more effective toward achieving goals than are others. For that matter, some are better at stating what is known and at describing goals, in the sense that many solution attempts are strengthened by adequate statement of the problem that is being solved.
So, do we find ourselves at a point where an accumulative set, that is very large, of knowledge diverges from what it might be with some insight into Creation? How many times do we see some model become the focus rather than the reality behind it?
That latter is an example map-territory problem that seems to be rampant nowadays, exacerbated by the success with computational approaches.
SAQ #35: The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization ... For example, tonight everyone knows that after seven hours the sun will rise, but this general foreknowledge does not cause the rising and appearance of the sun ...
Firstly, knowing in advance is possible, yet somehow limited. No one gets that free ride. Secondly, many things can be modeled, yet the model can never approach the reality. How do we characterize, and utilize, what is suggested there?
Remarks:
11/21/2010 -- What motivates, indeed.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
Modified: 11/21/2010
Earlier mentions touched upon topics of concern (The Operational, Ontology from Honour, Operational I, Operational II, Understanding, to name a few).
A particular juxtaposition is very much apropos, yet problematic. For instance, we know that the Manifestations have influenced Creation, including us, periodically through time. Related to that is a Viewpoint that knows. Yet, at the same time, we're to discover our own knowledge.
To a certain extent, that is. As, from the twin duties framework, it's clear how to obtain the proper basis. But, that approach has no hint about things operationally specific, such as that required for technical knowledge.
So, we have seen an increasingly robust set of knowledge, named science, that has no end point and that, to those who are honest, leaves a lot of holes all around. How one fills those holes is very much of interest here, not so much from a judgmental sense as from comparative analysis.
Say what? Some ways are more effective toward achieving goals than are others. For that matter, some are better at stating what is known and at describing goals, in the sense that many solution attempts are strengthened by adequate statement of the problem that is being solved.
So, do we find ourselves at a point where an accumulative set, that is very large, of knowledge diverges from what it might be with some insight into Creation? How many times do we see some model become the focus rather than the reality behind it?
That latter is an example map-territory problem that seems to be rampant nowadays, exacerbated by the success with computational approaches.
SAQ #35: The foreknowledge of a thing is not the cause of its realization ... For example, tonight everyone knows that after seven hours the sun will rise, but this general foreknowledge does not cause the rising and appearance of the sun ...
Firstly, knowing in advance is possible, yet somehow limited. No one gets that free ride. Secondly, many things can be modeled, yet the model can never approach the reality. How do we characterize, and utilize, what is suggested there?
Remarks:
11/21/2010 -- What motivates, indeed.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
Modified: 11/21/2010
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Books
Month, Day: 166, Might, Names (Justice)
Month, Day: 166, Might, Might (Majesty)
There are several books, but we're interested in the two primary ones at the moment. The Book of God (let's say, the Writings, et al) and the Book of Nature (let's say, Creation - we'll use small letters, henceforth). The latter will be the focus for awhile with links to various areas of the Former.
Now, science is really a reading of the books of nature, however the main problem is that the readers need to read the book of themselves, to boot. And, that raises some issues overall since the book of oneself encompasses everything from one's ancestry, influences of Creation, and one's particular history. That is, we are an in situ entity, yet beyond any particular point. The motivation for saying this relates to the different prayers in the Tablets that differ by location in the US and Canada.
Science, according to the staunch adherents, filters out those regional issues. Perhaps this is true, in part, however when we're dealing with biology, and humanity, locus becomes important again. One goal of audacity is to start a discussion about this which would lead to field work.
Last time, the stimulus/response dual was touched upon briefly. We need to bring in all aspects of the mechanism that allows us to reside in and relate to creation and its book and that affords us such prowess.
Note: That we need to look at the brain is a given. One question, though, is what further insights will come about related to a fuller knowledge of the pathways and mechanisms.
Remarks:
09/30/2009 -- The Operational's gifts.
Modified: 09/30/2009
Month, Day: 166, Might, Might (Majesty)
There are several books, but we're interested in the two primary ones at the moment. The Book of God (let's say, the Writings, et al) and the Book of Nature (let's say, Creation - we'll use small letters, henceforth). The latter will be the focus for awhile with links to various areas of the Former.
Now, science is really a reading of the books of nature, however the main problem is that the readers need to read the book of themselves, to boot. And, that raises some issues overall since the book of oneself encompasses everything from one's ancestry, influences of Creation, and one's particular history. That is, we are an in situ entity, yet beyond any particular point. The motivation for saying this relates to the different prayers in the Tablets that differ by location in the US and Canada.
Science, according to the staunch adherents, filters out those regional issues. Perhaps this is true, in part, however when we're dealing with biology, and humanity, locus becomes important again. One goal of audacity is to start a discussion about this which would lead to field work.
Last time, the stimulus/response dual was touched upon briefly. We need to bring in all aspects of the mechanism that allows us to reside in and relate to creation and its book and that affords us such prowess.
Note: That we need to look at the brain is a given. One question, though, is what further insights will come about related to a fuller knowledge of the pathways and mechanisms.
Remarks:
09/30/2009 -- The Operational's gifts.
Modified: 09/30/2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Twin duties
Month, Day: 166, Might, Perfection (Grace)
A couple of posts mentioned the duties: Transcendent, again and Operational II. We're in the Operational group at this time, hence the theme is apropos: know and obey. The ultimate goal is to know the Manifestation, then observing 'every ordinance' is imperative.
One could argue that evolution works on this theme in a cyclic manner. The Seven Valleys can be used to describe, in part, the dynamics. Look at the month of Knowledge in this post. The triad of Search/Love/Knowledge can be seen as the know part, in the following sense. We have sensor (afferent) nerves, that allow us to judge what is out there beyond ourselves, and action (efferent) nerves, which allow us to act in that real world out there. In Search, there is to be infinite patience as we deal interminably with life. Then, in Love, we differentiate what we are perceiving and how we react. Knowledge drives the incremental learning, assuming that things are working right.
Then, we have Unity as a bridge which is of immense significance. As part of the knowing is being able to see the evidences of the Manifestation. Some describe this ability as some gift (that is, nothing that ought to found hubris) whose properties we do not understand. But, the rudiments of observing are here.
For the obeying to be maximal, we need to continue upward. For now, let's just remember that we're talking Contentment (who ever said that the set on the observance side was constrained - actually, it is not), Wonderment (which needs no further explanation), and finally the last of the Seven Valleys, namely True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness.
Now, the description of the last Valley suggests that these Seven can be traversed in a step, but that there is no ultimate end here (since it is "the first gate of the heart’s citadel"). That is, one can think chord, repeating cycle, and similar.
Why? To continue learning and improving through obeying. What audacity asks is how does this help hone an effective ontology? That is, from applying the know/obey moral of the Twin Duties.
Remarks:
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
12/23/2009 -- About the chordal.
09/16/2009 -- We've only looked at a stimulus/response dual without regard to how perception handles the non-autonomous part. However, the brain, and more, will come into play as we go along. In terms of Love, we need to look at attractors, and their complement, knowing that they are two sides of the same thing.
Modified: 03/10/2010
A couple of posts mentioned the duties: Transcendent, again and Operational II. We're in the Operational group at this time, hence the theme is apropos: know and obey. The ultimate goal is to know the Manifestation, then observing 'every ordinance' is imperative.
One could argue that evolution works on this theme in a cyclic manner. The Seven Valleys can be used to describe, in part, the dynamics. Look at the month of Knowledge in this post. The triad of Search/Love/Knowledge can be seen as the know part, in the following sense. We have sensor (afferent) nerves, that allow us to judge what is out there beyond ourselves, and action (efferent) nerves, which allow us to act in that real world out there. In Search, there is to be infinite patience as we deal interminably with life. Then, in Love, we differentiate what we are perceiving and how we react. Knowledge drives the incremental learning, assuming that things are working right.
Then, we have Unity as a bridge which is of immense significance. As part of the knowing is being able to see the evidences of the Manifestation. Some describe this ability as some gift (that is, nothing that ought to found hubris) whose properties we do not understand. But, the rudiments of observing are here.
For the obeying to be maximal, we need to continue upward. For now, let's just remember that we're talking Contentment (who ever said that the set on the observance side was constrained - actually, it is not), Wonderment (which needs no further explanation), and finally the last of the Seven Valleys, namely True Poverty and Absolute Nothingness.
Now, the description of the last Valley suggests that these Seven can be traversed in a step, but that there is no ultimate end here (since it is "the first gate of the heart’s citadel"). That is, one can think chord, repeating cycle, and similar.
Why? To continue learning and improving through obeying. What audacity asks is how does this help hone an effective ontology? That is, from applying the know/obey moral of the Twin Duties.
Remarks:
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
12/23/2009 -- About the chordal.
09/16/2009 -- We've only looked at a stimulus/response dual without regard to how perception handles the non-autonomous part. However, the brain, and more, will come into play as we go along. In terms of Love, we need to look at attractors, and their complement, knowing that they are two sides of the same thing.
Modified: 03/10/2010
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Economics II
Month, Day: 166, Might, Light (Glory)
Month, Day: 166, Might, Words (Perfection)
We touched, way back, on Economics, briefly. Then, there are many E (E1, E2) and R words that we need to consider.
Lately, ran across a paper on Baha'i and Economics which motivates this post while doing other research related to the influence of gaming on capitalism (essentially, casino has been applied) and to the issues raised by computational modeling which are not understood.
It's nice to be reminded that wages under a just system are earned. That concept, plus the notion of what profit and interest ought to mean, are going to be important, especially now which is one year after a crash that got attention universally.
Another paper, on Enlightened Society, appeals for several reasons. For one, progress to maturity requires individuation. Now, that the autodidact's role is of growing importance will be looked at further. No one conquers all disciplines; the modus operandi will be something like being an expert in several and functionally capable in scores of others.
Remarks:
10/04/2010 -- Friction can beget progress.
Modified: 10/04/2010
Month, Day: 166, Might, Words (Perfection)
We touched, way back, on Economics, briefly. Then, there are many E (E1, E2) and R words that we need to consider.
Lately, ran across a paper on Baha'i and Economics which motivates this post while doing other research related to the influence of gaming on capitalism (essentially, casino has been applied) and to the issues raised by computational modeling which are not understood.
It's nice to be reminded that wages under a just system are earned. That concept, plus the notion of what profit and interest ought to mean, are going to be important, especially now which is one year after a crash that got attention universally.
Another paper, on Enlightened Society, appeals for several reasons. For one, progress to maturity requires individuation. Now, that the autodidact's role is of growing importance will be looked at further. No one conquers all disciplines; the modus operandi will be something like being an expert in several and functionally capable in scores of others.
Remarks:
10/04/2010 -- Friction can beget progress.
Modified: 10/04/2010
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Understanding
Month, Day: 166, Names, Dominion (Beauty)
Some of these posts are place markers for topics that need further study and discussion. Just like evolution is controversial, so too is understanding (which can be related to comprehension).
Now, anyone with aptitude knows about understanding; in fact, we see success all around from this gift's application. Yet, we know, too, that there is more that is undecidable than there is that is not, even for humans.
This applies to our use of technology which can lead to some views that try to demean the human spirit not without counter views, though, whose basis for argument seems to get more limited in the process. Why? The demeaners are fairly effective at adapting.
As asked before, how can the Writings and, Creation-based science, be used to weigh in on the discussion? That question is meant to be rhetorical and audacious.
For instance, can a machine have understanding? Is this like asking whether (SAQ #55) a vegetable can have animal spirit or an animal can have human spirit? Can that question be formalized to the extent of allowing some technical discussion that has operational meaning?
We know that we humans have understanding. We also know that understanding can be obtained by effort or by gift (can we separate intuition?). And, we know that we're to make the effort; that there are the undecidables bring us to the Sisyphus state (yes, it's true).
So, operationally, how far can we go? Consider this. the Fourth Valley: "Obey Me and I will make you like unto Myself. I say Be and it is. You will say Be and it will be."
See any limits implied? "Herein the high heavens are in no conflict with the lowly earth, nor do they seek to excel it, for this is the land of mercy, not the realm of distinction"
Note: Mathematics, with its axiomatic basis, builds mounds or discovers those already there (basic ontological difference). Any effort at understanding a whole theoretic peak is local, though it seems otherwise. That which encompasses peaks (albeit, via surface interaction or, perhaps, a few probes) is intuition. Where mathematics and intuition (albeit, one that is trained - to be defined) differ, we ought to be suspect (topsy-turvy, thanks Chaitin, comes into play). Of course, all this is arguable, though Names is the beginning of the chain of evidence.
Remarks:
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
09/26/2009 -- An issue for the Operational view.
Modified: 02/24/2010
Some of these posts are place markers for topics that need further study and discussion. Just like evolution is controversial, so too is understanding (which can be related to comprehension).
Now, anyone with aptitude knows about understanding; in fact, we see success all around from this gift's application. Yet, we know, too, that there is more that is undecidable than there is that is not, even for humans.
This applies to our use of technology which can lead to some views that try to demean the human spirit not without counter views, though, whose basis for argument seems to get more limited in the process. Why? The demeaners are fairly effective at adapting.
As asked before, how can the Writings and, Creation-based science, be used to weigh in on the discussion? That question is meant to be rhetorical and audacious.
For instance, can a machine have understanding? Is this like asking whether (SAQ #55) a vegetable can have animal spirit or an animal can have human spirit? Can that question be formalized to the extent of allowing some technical discussion that has operational meaning?
We know that we humans have understanding. We also know that understanding can be obtained by effort or by gift (can we separate intuition?). And, we know that we're to make the effort; that there are the undecidables bring us to the Sisyphus state (yes, it's true).
So, operationally, how far can we go? Consider this. the Fourth Valley: "Obey Me and I will make you like unto Myself. I say Be and it is. You will say Be and it will be."
See any limits implied? "Herein the high heavens are in no conflict with the lowly earth, nor do they seek to excel it, for this is the land of mercy, not the realm of distinction"
Note: Mathematics, with its axiomatic basis, builds mounds or discovers those already there (basic ontological difference). Any effort at understanding a whole theoretic peak is local, though it seems otherwise. That which encompasses peaks (albeit, via surface interaction or, perhaps, a few probes) is intuition. Where mathematics and intuition (albeit, one that is trained - to be defined) differ, we ought to be suspect (topsy-turvy, thanks Chaitin, comes into play). Of course, all this is arguable, though Names is the beginning of the chain of evidence.
Remarks:
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.
09/26/2009 -- An issue for the Operational view.
Modified: 02/24/2010
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Technical spirit
Month, Day: 166, Names, Speech (Justice)
Earlier, we were a little secular. Now, let's be a little technical; how else to be operational?
The ACM Communication editor-in-chief (Moshe Y. Vardi) reminds us (The Financial Meltdown and Computing) that the current state of affairs in the economy has been heavily influenced by computation. And, computation is a new phenomenon, that is, that which is the manipulation of Light. The prowess has accelerated tremendously over the years with more promised.
As well, we have 'intelligence' emerging from several places. Reports like AI and hive mentality are commonplace. Day to day, the flow, and fruiting, of ideas runs at a fast, and seemingly never-ending, pace.
So, one has to wonder what all this might mean for audacity and more (He is the most accurate Reckoner (6:62)). That is, as we saw with Babel, how far can we go?
Well, a particular bit of theoretics suggests the answer: Not very far, even with the whole universe as the computer.
The ACM Communication also looked at The Status of the P versus NP Problem (P not equal to NP), recently. Suffice it to say, we can check what we know in many cases (forgetting, for the moment, the issues of underdetermination). In fact, our modus operandi assumes that plus several principles, like ergodicity.
However, pushing back the horizon is always hard. If it becomes easy, then watch out. All of this type of reasoning is of interest to discussions about Faith and Science.
The challenge? Finding, within the Writings, the insights for things like how to help resolve issues, such as the P not equal to NP problem and more. After all, is that not what an operational framework would entail?
Too, science carries over to the Kingdom. It is how we know God.
Remarks:
03/25/2016 -- A change in the calendar will have these Twin Holidays, and other days, adjusting. As well, we have a principal vector upon which to contemplate.
04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity. I remember when I first wrote this; the streets of Teheran were buzzing with a spring-like spirit.
09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
04/04/2011 -- We'll be looking at things like foreknowledge.
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).
Modified: 03/23/2016
Earlier, we were a little secular. Now, let's be a little technical; how else to be operational?
The ACM Communication editor-in-chief (Moshe Y. Vardi) reminds us (The Financial Meltdown and Computing) that the current state of affairs in the economy has been heavily influenced by computation. And, computation is a new phenomenon, that is, that which is the manipulation of Light. The prowess has accelerated tremendously over the years with more promised.
As well, we have 'intelligence' emerging from several places. Reports like AI and hive mentality are commonplace. Day to day, the flow, and fruiting, of ideas runs at a fast, and seemingly never-ending, pace.
So, one has to wonder what all this might mean for audacity and more (He is the most accurate Reckoner (6:62)). That is, as we saw with Babel, how far can we go?
Well, a particular bit of theoretics suggests the answer: Not very far, even with the whole universe as the computer.
The ACM Communication also looked at The Status of the P versus NP Problem (P not equal to NP), recently. Suffice it to say, we can check what we know in many cases (forgetting, for the moment, the issues of underdetermination). In fact, our modus operandi assumes that plus several principles, like ergodicity.
However, pushing back the horizon is always hard. If it becomes easy, then watch out. All of this type of reasoning is of interest to discussions about Faith and Science.
The challenge? Finding, within the Writings, the insights for things like how to help resolve issues, such as the P not equal to NP problem and more. After all, is that not what an operational framework would entail?
Too, science carries over to the Kingdom. It is how we know God.
Remarks:
03/25/2016 -- A change in the calendar will have these Twin Holidays, and other days, adjusting. As well, we have a principal vector upon which to contemplate.
04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity. I remember when I first wrote this; the streets of Teheran were buzzing with a spring-like spirit.
09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
04/04/2011 -- We'll be looking at things like foreknowledge.
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).
Modified: 03/23/2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
