Month, Day: 168, Loftiness, Might (Glory)
We're into the Operational of the Groups. It is nice, since the whole thing implies doing something (action). Except, it starts out with Names which relates to structure (does it not?). Also, we're heading to the new release of our measure.
---
Gosh, we've been about three years away from the technical, so it's time. For instance, Reckoner was used in the context of some ACM work. Now, thanks to it being the 100th (ACM's coverage) of Alan M. Turing, we can get back to this and be a little more serious (and audacious).
One of the articles is by Leeds' professor S. Barry Cooper and is titled (1912 focus): Turing's Titanic Machine? (fortunately, the article is open to public use) In this article, Prof Cooper runs through the issues related to incomputable which we'll look at in detail. Too, he points to areas that will be of importance.
---
As a reminder, the whole audacious theme is a railing against several viewpoints, such as reductionism as it applies to computing. What we see has developed is a framework that is shaky at its core; yet, it shines so much like a chimera as to draw the highly intelligent into its grasp. To paraphrase what I've written elsewhere: with the advance of computation, we have let the genie out of the bottle in an irreversible manner.
One approach here seemed to be a relook at some issues that relate to topology (loosely used).
---
Now, this discussion is within the context of Faith & Science. One proposal would be that there be another bullet dealing with computation and nature (however phrased). Surely, there has been some type of study in this area; if not, the fact that we could provide support for the quasi-empirical view from the Writings for fostering a middle-out approach (to wit, blind/delusional polarity) might be a motivation.
---
Turing is quoted as saying (see Prof Cooper's article): ...if a machine is expected to be infallible, it cannot also be intelligent. There are several theorems which say almost exactly that.
The discussion page of the Faith & Science article (Wiki) had a go-around about inerrancy (related to infallibility, in part). Consider that the information transfer (you see, all sorts of scientific progress related to computation is useful) implied by instruments, such as the Writings, can be put into a 'machine' concept.Yet, not. That gap is amenable to some type of rectification, albeit limited, which will allow for a better foundational view (why else the emphasis on Science in the Faith?).
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
10/17/2012 -- There is a lot to reflect on, about the trip, especially the western loop.
04/14/2012 -- Thornton Chase is an example of several things that will be discussed this year.
03/30/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.
03/11/2012 -- Must mention that psychether will be a central theme. The intuition has been emboldened by the passing of an older brother. I haven't characterized the experience yet, but looking at the CH dreams serves as a proxy until such is attempted.
Modified: 08/08/2013
Showing posts with label Brights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brights. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Blind or delusional
Month, Day: 168, Sovereignty, Power (Grace)
Grace is the 4th day of the week. As such, Unity is a nice thing to ponder.
---
We have to re-look at the choice brought up before: 'Tis or 'Tisn't. Gosh, has it been six months? One thing that is different is that the blogger has been making the effort [to] read secular material and to listen to videos from that side [of the worldviews]. This was precipitated by Christopher's (CH) display of endurance.
We'll make a couple of comments and then bring in quotes for reflection. Many who argued with CH (using him as a proxy for the secular view) said: why can't you see? Ah, blindness, one might think. We used that here in talking about the Brights. So, the claim is that the secular side does not allow into discourse certain things that are accepted by the 'Tis side, hence a whole bit of stuff cannot be talked about.
If these are brought up, then the response is: you're delusional. Gosh, how many times is that used?
---
Now, 'blind' is not bad. Justice is said to be blind. Note that it's a day of the week. Too, 'blind' implies not sensing something; how many things are outside of our senses? In fact, modern scientific views all make heavy use of lens, filters, and more (caution: quasi-empiricism needs to be addressed).
---
'delusion' is a powerful thing to throw at someone (straight-jackets, and what not, are associated with this). Its use seems particularly oppressive; however, perhaps it is just this stalemate that brings up the counsel to not proselytize.
Yet, there are audacity issues that might require some attention. Hopefully, these are addressed with some wisdom.
---
4th Valley: Hence, when searchers inquired of this, He made reply, “This is a bottomless sea which none shall ever fathom.” And they asked again, and He answered, “It is the blackest of nights through which none can find his way.”
SAQ (#37): Therefore, the Reality of the Divinity is hidden from all comprehension, and concealed from the minds of all men. It is absolutely impossible to ascend to that plane. ... From this it is certain and evident that if we imagine a Divine Reality outside of the Holy Manifestations, it is pure imagination, for there is no way to approach the Reality of Divinity which is not cut off to us, and all that we imagine is mere supposition.
SAQ (#22): Consequently, whenever it is recorded in the Holy Books that such a one was blind and recovered his sight, the meaning is that he was inwardly blind, and that he obtained spiritual vision, or that he was ignorant and became wise, or that he was negligent and became heedful, or that he was worldly and became heavenly. ... As this inner sight, hearing, life and healing are eternal, they are of importance.
Remarks:
03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.
02/01/2012 --Reflecting on CH interchanges, one has to wonder is dreams can ever be used in science. Now, mind you, I'm talking an advanced view of science that deals with knowing God, in part. Actually, just having science shift to where it realizes the usefulness of addressing human intelligence will be a step forward. One can surmise a whole lot from such a thing. I'm too old to see this, though, even in an inkling. But, I'll be able to watch the secular thing wound down as complexities of Being bound it up. That is, the 'religion' of both science and secularism will come to fore and be noticeable. Basic query: how can there be any epistemological framework (including its tools) that is not amenable to being grasped by all humans seen as that which is our future? Of course, we know that the system requires difference in ability. Yet, underlying truth ought to be apparent in any context.
Modified: 03/29/2012
Grace is the 4th day of the week. As such, Unity is a nice thing to ponder.
---
We have to re-look at the choice brought up before: 'Tis or 'Tisn't. Gosh, has it been six months? One thing that is different is that the blogger has been making the effort [to] read secular material and to listen to videos from that side [of the worldviews]. This was precipitated by Christopher's (CH) display of endurance.
We'll make a couple of comments and then bring in quotes for reflection. Many who argued with CH (using him as a proxy for the secular view) said: why can't you see? Ah, blindness, one might think. We used that here in talking about the Brights. So, the claim is that the secular side does not allow into discourse certain things that are accepted by the 'Tis side, hence a whole bit of stuff cannot be talked about.
If these are brought up, then the response is: you're delusional. Gosh, how many times is that used?
---
Now, 'blind' is not bad. Justice is said to be blind. Note that it's a day of the week. Too, 'blind' implies not sensing something; how many things are outside of our senses? In fact, modern scientific views all make heavy use of lens, filters, and more (caution: quasi-empiricism needs to be addressed).
---
'delusion' is a powerful thing to throw at someone (straight-jackets, and what not, are associated with this). Its use seems particularly oppressive; however, perhaps it is just this stalemate that brings up the counsel to not proselytize.
Yet, there are audacity issues that might require some attention. Hopefully, these are addressed with some wisdom.
---
4th Valley: Hence, when searchers inquired of this, He made reply, “This is a bottomless sea which none shall ever fathom.” And they asked again, and He answered, “It is the blackest of nights through which none can find his way.”
SAQ (#37): Therefore, the Reality of the Divinity is hidden from all comprehension, and concealed from the minds of all men. It is absolutely impossible to ascend to that plane. ... From this it is certain and evident that if we imagine a Divine Reality outside of the Holy Manifestations, it is pure imagination, for there is no way to approach the Reality of Divinity which is not cut off to us, and all that we imagine is mere supposition.
SAQ (#22): Consequently, whenever it is recorded in the Holy Books that such a one was blind and recovered his sight, the meaning is that he was inwardly blind, and that he obtained spiritual vision, or that he was ignorant and became wise, or that he was negligent and became heedful, or that he was worldly and became heavenly. ... As this inner sight, hearing, life and healing are eternal, they are of importance.
Remarks:
03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.
02/01/2012 --Reflecting on CH interchanges, one has to wonder is dreams can ever be used in science. Now, mind you, I'm talking an advanced view of science that deals with knowing God, in part. Actually, just having science shift to where it realizes the usefulness of addressing human intelligence will be a step forward. One can surmise a whole lot from such a thing. I'm too old to see this, though, even in an inkling. But, I'll be able to watch the secular thing wound down as complexities of Being bound it up. That is, the 'religion' of both science and secularism will come to fore and be noticeable. Basic query: how can there be any epistemological framework (including its tools) that is not amenable to being grasped by all humans seen as that which is our future? Of course, we know that the system requires difference in ability. Yet, underlying truth ought to be apparent in any context.
Modified: 03/29/2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
About the middle
Month, Day: 168, Sovereignty, Light (Perfection)
I failed to acknowledge the entry into the Ascendant group which came after the close of the Motivational. We still have some of the yearly measure to expend.
---
It is very much apropos, to be considering this topic (which deals at its core with Light) on this day. This post is a free-flowing consideration of things to be worked in the audacious mode under the guidance of the Law. The use of 'middle' (the concept comes into play several ways, one example) implies several things, but one of these will be the need to balance any extreme view with its inverse (hypothetical or otherwise) so as to allow means and ends analysis.
---
There will be a continuation of looking at lessons from one life as CH's work showed us many. For one, he saw that "no man" stood in need of his neighbor. Hence, his railing against those in power who like to follow their corrupt inclinations.
---
That religion is full of people who think that their power gives them privileges is one problem. Of course, those who are touting the other side (Brights) can be as strident and overbearing. That is, look at any of the forums and see how particular insightful presentations are rejected and labeled as the babbling of an idiot (or delusional person). One problem is that we cannot expect any help, in the sense needed by the unseeing, from those who went over no matter how much insight they may have attained on dropping the physical self (see CH link, above).
---
So, we're at a crux that seems to be related to a gap that is widening faster than Krauss says that we're seeing with the universe. It's nice to see the clear-thinking oasis being developed. From cursory reading of discussions (if one can use that term) at the site, the comments and arguments of many seem to be full of vitriol and ad hominen attacks. But, then, that is not any different than we see elsewhere.
Where is there a calm, rational exchange on these matters that has some hope of effectiveness?
---
Our task here is, in part, to establish the method to operationally effect a symmetry-based balance between science and religion. Many have this in mind, too. There are plenty of ways to go about this business; we'll start small by trying to establish a basis from which to construct. The gap exists since we all have a choice.
One view would say that the choice ought not get us far off of a fence. Actually, that is too linear of a metaphor, as the thing would be more fuzzy, allowing some nuances. Why? Because, we are allowed to Question.
---
I read at one site how the theoretical-empirical split can be problematic. Or, one might even use pure and applied, as in mathematics. Now, those are a form of symmetric relations, too, though I haven't seen anyone use the notion (would love to hear otherwise). For some (many?), being on the left end (as in a pair) denotes being smarter (ah, is that so?, perhaps, in certain ways).
Now, let's look at religion. How would there be a similar mix? We already alluded, indirectly, to the clergy and laity (however, characterized) split. In the past, perhaps even now in some loci, those who had access to the books (Books), since they could read, had the advantage. Then, it (the favored) became related to advancing on the clergy's hierarchy (to where?). By the way, England (and Europe) had major battles about the Bible's translation (many burned on the several sides). But, getting the text into the common language did wonders.
Another way to look at this is that the 'theoretic' basis of religion is set by Revelation. We won't have that, again, for 900 years. Yet, we have had many, many occurrences from the past which have not been exhausted (hence, the admonition now to deal peacefully with ALL religions). So, collectively, there is a whole bunch that needs to be understood in terms of its usefulness to a scientific framework (yes - give me time to show this - if you have a knee-jerk reaction, take it elsewhere). One thing that will need to be looked at is how the U.H.J. might be involved with undecidable points (to be defined, later).
---
Pascal learned his lesson this side of paradise. We will continue to have him in mind as we proceed. Note, that we'll try to re-phrase his challenge in a way that is compatible with the message here. Hints: dreams can become a tool for our use; our ancestors (source for some memes -- yes) ought not be forgotten.
Blaise was 200 years prior to the Twin Days. Immanuel was a mere 100 years. Both of these are important to our foundational efforts (to be discussed). So, we'll be using them early. The idea is to establish 'reflection' as a means to pull out the power of symmetry (again, coming as some point) for the purposes of a peaceful, and knowledgeable, future.
Finally, we were told not to look back. But, that, to me, implied beyond some reasonable limit (hopefully, cosmology can be updated thusly). So, we can reflect back, and understand, about all of science's knowledge in terms of mankind's growing prowess (or, if you would, see where we may have missed something -- I have examples that I'll use from time to time -- all situational filters are subject to such types of analysis -- Ockham notwithstanding).
Remarks:
04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity.
04/14/2012 -- Thornton Chase is an example of several things that will be discussed this year.
01/29/2012 -- CD is concurrent with the Twin Days' span of influence.
Modified: 04/03/2015
I failed to acknowledge the entry into the Ascendant group which came after the close of the Motivational. We still have some of the yearly measure to expend.
---
It is very much apropos, to be considering this topic (which deals at its core with Light) on this day. This post is a free-flowing consideration of things to be worked in the audacious mode under the guidance of the Law. The use of 'middle' (the concept comes into play several ways, one example) implies several things, but one of these will be the need to balance any extreme view with its inverse (hypothetical or otherwise) so as to allow means and ends analysis.
---
There will be a continuation of looking at lessons from one life as CH's work showed us many. For one, he saw that "no man" stood in need of his neighbor. Hence, his railing against those in power who like to follow their corrupt inclinations.
---
That religion is full of people who think that their power gives them privileges is one problem. Of course, those who are touting the other side (Brights) can be as strident and overbearing. That is, look at any of the forums and see how particular insightful presentations are rejected and labeled as the babbling of an idiot (or delusional person). One problem is that we cannot expect any help, in the sense needed by the unseeing, from those who went over no matter how much insight they may have attained on dropping the physical self (see CH link, above).
---
So, we're at a crux that seems to be related to a gap that is widening faster than Krauss says that we're seeing with the universe. It's nice to see the clear-thinking oasis being developed. From cursory reading of discussions (if one can use that term) at the site, the comments and arguments of many seem to be full of vitriol and ad hominen attacks. But, then, that is not any different than we see elsewhere.
Where is there a calm, rational exchange on these matters that has some hope of effectiveness?
---
Our task here is, in part, to establish the method to operationally effect a symmetry-based balance between science and religion. Many have this in mind, too. There are plenty of ways to go about this business; we'll start small by trying to establish a basis from which to construct. The gap exists since we all have a choice.
One view would say that the choice ought not get us far off of a fence. Actually, that is too linear of a metaphor, as the thing would be more fuzzy, allowing some nuances. Why? Because, we are allowed to Question.
---
I read at one site how the theoretical-empirical split can be problematic. Or, one might even use pure and applied, as in mathematics. Now, those are a form of symmetric relations, too, though I haven't seen anyone use the notion (would love to hear otherwise). For some (many?), being on the left end (as in a pair) denotes being smarter (ah, is that so?, perhaps, in certain ways).
Now, let's look at religion. How would there be a similar mix? We already alluded, indirectly, to the clergy and laity (however, characterized) split. In the past, perhaps even now in some loci, those who had access to the books (Books), since they could read, had the advantage. Then, it (the favored) became related to advancing on the clergy's hierarchy (to where?). By the way, England (and Europe) had major battles about the Bible's translation (many burned on the several sides). But, getting the text into the common language did wonders.
Another way to look at this is that the 'theoretic' basis of religion is set by Revelation. We won't have that, again, for 900 years. Yet, we have had many, many occurrences from the past which have not been exhausted (hence, the admonition now to deal peacefully with ALL religions). So, collectively, there is a whole bunch that needs to be understood in terms of its usefulness to a scientific framework (yes - give me time to show this - if you have a knee-jerk reaction, take it elsewhere). One thing that will need to be looked at is how the U.H.J. might be involved with undecidable points (to be defined, later).
---
Pascal learned his lesson this side of paradise. We will continue to have him in mind as we proceed. Note, that we'll try to re-phrase his challenge in a way that is compatible with the message here. Hints: dreams can become a tool for our use; our ancestors (source for some memes -- yes) ought not be forgotten.
Blaise was 200 years prior to the Twin Days. Immanuel was a mere 100 years. Both of these are important to our foundational efforts (to be discussed). So, we'll be using them early. The idea is to establish 'reflection' as a means to pull out the power of symmetry (again, coming as some point) for the purposes of a peaceful, and knowledgeable, future.
Finally, we were told not to look back. But, that, to me, implied beyond some reasonable limit (hopefully, cosmology can be updated thusly). So, we can reflect back, and understand, about all of science's knowledge in terms of mankind's growing prowess (or, if you would, see where we may have missed something -- I have examples that I'll use from time to time -- all situational filters are subject to such types of analysis -- Ockham notwithstanding).
Remarks:
04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity.
04/14/2012 -- Thornton Chase is an example of several things that will be discussed this year.
01/29/2012 -- CD is concurrent with the Twin Days' span of influence.
Modified: 04/03/2015
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Christopher Hitchens
Month, Day: 168, Sovereignty, Beauty (Glory)
[note: 11/2/2019 - haven't looked at this, for a while; however, reading today, I see that some links are stale, or downright missing, will be editing -- when done this will disappear]
Prior to passing of Christopher Hitchens (CH), I mainly was distant from those types of discussions that he loved and at which he was so good. It was at that time [12/16 onward] that I started to read some of his material and to watch some of the videos in which he was the focal point (no matter the forum, CH seemed to come to the fore).
My first reaction was that he was funny. As well, he was right on a lot of matters (who would not agree with his railing against clerics - the bane of the common man, in a sense -- oops, that was a CH-ism, state a challenge such that it cannot be answered without due thought). Hence, I was motivated, from time to time, to comment (richarddawkins.net "saying Merry Christmas worse than killing someone" by M-eme-tic, but see below) and intend to do more (Ian Kluge had an interesting response to the book (and modern philosophy) -- I've just become familiar with the Common Ground site -- I put a comment here -- symmetry tames polarity, in short).
CH was known for developing quotable remarks, in the contexts of his challenges. Such as, "what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" (see Daily Hitchens). Well, "are not axioms stated thusly?" would be one of my retorts if I could think of it in time.
---
In this blog, I have referenced the group who likes to include CH in their mix as "brights" and indirectly mentioned Richard (who I have read - I've been watching the evolution (if you would) of his argument). But, I was repelled by CH's manner (see the Four Horsemen) and stayed away. Shame on me, as CH would say (see below).
CH said that he didn't know, in lots of situations. Good for him. Of course, he would then follow up with something that seemed to be mockingly clever [actually, inspired, in some cases]. But, now I just attribute that to his being Brit (will explain in time) [heritage, and more -- for the past two year, I've been doing an in-depth reading of what got the U.S. started -- including those things across the pond that were motivational enough to cause the mass migrations].
---
So, as said above, I did not know Christopher. I did not pay much attention to his career and to the fact of the growing interest in his performances. Now, he succumbed to health issues related to life style, one might say. We all have this battle to carry on, as we attempt to do it right (given our one chance). In looking at all of the remarks about him, I noticed one familiar name. It was a journalist [whom I do not know except by reading] who interviewed CH and who had worked with my roommate from college (my roommate died in 2011, to boot, from conditions similar to CH's - same origins (in more ways than one)). So, in the phenomenal world, there was a thread that connected, albeit somewhat tenuously.
I'm only mentioning that connection to set the stage for writing about two dreams that I have had about Christopher. Now, again as a foreword, think of the Valley of Wonderment's remark about dreams. Of late, I've run across more material that I'll use. In short, though, I'm an old guy and have been dreaming since I was in my twenties. And, I've learned lots from these departed. Being autodidact, I don't know how all this will unfold, but dreams can be an operational assist. How? Is it okay? All sorts of questions.
---
In the first dream, CH was scrunched down, while life flowed around him (of course, people & things are in the scene -- I'm being brief here to get to the gist). He looked at some notes that I was carrying (aside: one of my regular dreams involves a high school classmate who died [in the] early [60s] - Naval plane crash -- I characterize the whole matter as some type of coordinated affair in which they (those there) help us here (in this case, a lot had to do with technology) -- in fact, the parallels were uncanny). I wondered why CH was so withdrawn.
In the second dream, CH comes into my work area with my [college] roommate [who passed away in July, 2011 and] who introduces us. Of course, the workplace I mention has been the scene of encounters with several souls [think foundational work, including AE - how many want to come back with what they learn at the moments following the dropping of the bodily limitations?]. In this case, though, there was the notion (and a work crew to effect the thing) that things were being updated. It seemed as if the building of a school was the emphasis [all sorts of possible topics come to mind]. Now, CH was in his prime (as in, healthy, full of energy, ..., not so ornery) [as in, full maturity -- some claim that a 30-year old's (or thereabouts) visage is taken up].
---
[Note, in the following, reference to time is ours; the spiritual world is beyond space-time] The second dream was remarkable to me because I had a recurrent interaction with a departed Catholic who first went into some form of swaddling clothes, then to young person, and lately upward to a mature adult (over a period of several years). CH, on the other hand, seems to have originally cringed at the reality about which he scoffed. Yet, he did not retire. Then, in a matter of a couple of weeks, he is full of purpose. And, he does not seem the least nonplussed about the whole thing (as I've noticed, he, on many occasions, said that he did not know - before the devilish grin came and he started to ding the questioner).
---
Have I taken meaning from these two dreams? Of course. I've written much more about these in my notes. The whole thought of a school is intriguing in that the focus of the school could be many things. One thing that CH did do was cut to the chase; given his genetic background, the way things unfolded in [h]is life was almost a given (people talk memes, our ancestral selves are much large factor than has been allowed, anyone want to be audacious here? -- of course, I have already). [yes, do they help us via memes? - we ought to thank Richard for this concept that may be seen as pseudo-metaphysical, yet more or less]
---
Of course, I may have my interpretations of meaning (after all, folks, I have for decades been an autodidact in the study of the mind, its evolution, and such -- with the necessary ventures into computational mathematics and cybernetics, bioengineering, and related --- what is an autodidact? Well, look at what might be behind Independent Investigation of the Truth, essentially without mentor [this I agree with Christopher on, there is no embodied person on this planet that ought to tell me how to think, act, or otherwise (except the spouse) - we, now, have the bounty of being post-Guardian (as in, no inspired characters to whom to listen to without scrutiny, except those things that are under the scope of the UHJ)] is how I see it) of the dreams that I have. That they have included all of the Principals of the Faith after I declared was, of course, confirmation enough. Are there other interpretations? I would hope so, as despite notions of what we can know, please remember that all Valleys above that of Contentment and the 3rd mention limitations on knowledge (4th blackest night, fathomless sea).
Without these constraints, how can there be limits? Besides, the issues raised by Godel, et al, are very much on the table, Certitude notwithstanding.
The crux of the matter is whether someone gets operational effectiveness from their dreams. That, I think, is something inherently measurable.
---
Final note, as this is only the beginning. My sole focus is on proving that Science and Religion need each other in the same sense that symmetry has proven to be so useful. Of course, it was only after listening to CH and his buddies that I had more insight into what I've been trying to put together all of these years (by the way, one lesson that I learned from my Naval friend was that our work carries on -- why all the angst at proving to be the best here -- oh, I know, the Master counseled such -- but, to the extreme that I see leading to ego boosting extremes?) from quiet study.
---
A new way to think of CH: angel in disguise?
Remarks:
04/03/2015 -- He was off to something that excited him. Corrections for a stale pointer.
09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.
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).
05/30/2012 -- Hitch will be a regular topic.
03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.
03/11/2012 -- Passing of a brother emboldens the imagination.
01/26/2012 -- See Remarks, this day, reference to AE. Thanks, Christopher.
01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).
01/23/2012 -- We need to work about (around) the middle.
01/21/2012 -- Another comment.
Modified: 11/02/2019
[note: 11/2/2019 - haven't looked at this, for a while; however, reading today, I see that some links are stale, or downright missing, will be editing -- when done this will disappear]
Prior to passing of Christopher Hitchens (CH), I mainly was distant from those types of discussions that he loved and at which he was so good. It was at that time [12/16 onward] that I started to read some of his material and to watch some of the videos in which he was the focal point (no matter the forum, CH seemed to come to the fore).
My first reaction was that he was funny. As well, he was right on a lot of matters (who would not agree with his railing against clerics - the bane of the common man, in a sense -- oops, that was a CH-ism, state a challenge such that it cannot be answered without due thought). Hence, I was motivated, from time to time, to comment (richarddawkins.net "saying Merry Christmas worse than killing someone" by M-eme-tic, but see below) and intend to do more (Ian Kluge had an interesting response to the book (and modern philosophy) -- I've just become familiar with the Common Ground site -- I put a comment here -- symmetry tames polarity, in short).
CH was known for developing quotable remarks, in the contexts of his challenges. Such as, "what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" (see Daily Hitchens). Well, "are not axioms stated thusly?" would be one of my retorts if I could think of it in time.
---
In this blog, I have referenced the group who likes to include CH in their mix as "brights" and indirectly mentioned Richard (who I have read - I've been watching the evolution (if you would) of his argument). But, I was repelled by CH's manner (see the Four Horsemen) and stayed away. Shame on me, as CH would say (see below).
CH said that he didn't know, in lots of situations. Good for him. Of course, he would then follow up with something that seemed to be mockingly clever [actually, inspired, in some cases]. But, now I just attribute that to his being Brit (will explain in time) [heritage, and more -- for the past two year, I've been doing an in-depth reading of what got the U.S. started -- including those things across the pond that were motivational enough to cause the mass migrations].
---
So, as said above, I did not know Christopher. I did not pay much attention to his career and to the fact of the growing interest in his performances. Now, he succumbed to health issues related to life style, one might say. We all have this battle to carry on, as we attempt to do it right (given our one chance). In looking at all of the remarks about him, I noticed one familiar name. It was a journalist [whom I do not know except by reading] who interviewed CH and who had worked with my roommate from college (my roommate died in 2011, to boot, from conditions similar to CH's - same origins (in more ways than one)). So, in the phenomenal world, there was a thread that connected, albeit somewhat tenuously.
I'm only mentioning that connection to set the stage for writing about two dreams that I have had about Christopher. Now, again as a foreword, think of the Valley of Wonderment's remark about dreams. Of late, I've run across more material that I'll use. In short, though, I'm an old guy and have been dreaming since I was in my twenties. And, I've learned lots from these departed. Being autodidact, I don't know how all this will unfold, but dreams can be an operational assist. How? Is it okay? All sorts of questions.
---
In the first dream, CH was scrunched down, while life flowed around him (of course, people & things are in the scene -- I'm being brief here to get to the gist). He looked at some notes that I was carrying (aside: one of my regular dreams involves a high school classmate who died [in the] early [60s] - Naval plane crash -- I characterize the whole matter as some type of coordinated affair in which they (those there) help us here (in this case, a lot had to do with technology) -- in fact, the parallels were uncanny). I wondered why CH was so withdrawn.
In the second dream, CH comes into my work area with my [college] roommate [who passed away in July, 2011 and] who introduces us. Of course, the workplace I mention has been the scene of encounters with several souls [think foundational work, including AE - how many want to come back with what they learn at the moments following the dropping of the bodily limitations?]. In this case, though, there was the notion (and a work crew to effect the thing) that things were being updated. It seemed as if the building of a school was the emphasis [all sorts of possible topics come to mind]. Now, CH was in his prime (as in, healthy, full of energy, ..., not so ornery) [as in, full maturity -- some claim that a 30-year old's (or thereabouts) visage is taken up].
---
[Note, in the following, reference to time is ours; the spiritual world is beyond space-time] The second dream was remarkable to me because I had a recurrent interaction with a departed Catholic who first went into some form of swaddling clothes, then to young person, and lately upward to a mature adult (over a period of several years). CH, on the other hand, seems to have originally cringed at the reality about which he scoffed. Yet, he did not retire. Then, in a matter of a couple of weeks, he is full of purpose. And, he does not seem the least nonplussed about the whole thing (as I've noticed, he, on many occasions, said that he did not know - before the devilish grin came and he started to ding the questioner).
---
Have I taken meaning from these two dreams? Of course. I've written much more about these in my notes. The whole thought of a school is intriguing in that the focus of the school could be many things. One thing that CH did do was cut to the chase; given his genetic background, the way things unfolded in [h]is life was almost a given (people talk memes, our ancestral selves are much large factor than has been allowed, anyone want to be audacious here? -- of course, I have already). [yes, do they help us via memes? - we ought to thank Richard for this concept that may be seen as pseudo-metaphysical, yet more or less]
---
Of course, I may have my interpretations of meaning (after all, folks, I have for decades been an autodidact in the study of the mind, its evolution, and such -- with the necessary ventures into computational mathematics and cybernetics, bioengineering, and related --- what is an autodidact? Well, look at what might be behind Independent Investigation of the Truth, essentially without mentor [this I agree with Christopher on, there is no embodied person on this planet that ought to tell me how to think, act, or otherwise (except the spouse) - we, now, have the bounty of being post-Guardian (as in, no inspired characters to whom to listen to without scrutiny, except those things that are under the scope of the UHJ)] is how I see it) of the dreams that I have. That they have included all of the Principals of the Faith after I declared was, of course, confirmation enough. Are there other interpretations? I would hope so, as despite notions of what we can know, please remember that all Valleys above that of Contentment and the 3rd mention limitations on knowledge (4th blackest night, fathomless sea).
Without these constraints, how can there be limits? Besides, the issues raised by Godel, et al, are very much on the table, Certitude notwithstanding.
The crux of the matter is whether someone gets operational effectiveness from their dreams. That, I think, is something inherently measurable.
---
Final note, as this is only the beginning. My sole focus is on proving that Science and Religion need each other in the same sense that symmetry has proven to be so useful. Of course, it was only after listening to CH and his buddies that I had more insight into what I've been trying to put together all of these years (by the way, one lesson that I learned from my Naval friend was that our work carries on -- why all the angst at proving to be the best here -- oh, I know, the Master counseled such -- but, to the extreme that I see leading to ego boosting extremes?) from quiet study.
---
A new way to think of CH: angel in disguise?
Remarks:
04/03/2015 -- He was off to something that excited him. Corrections for a stale pointer.
09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.
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).
05/30/2012 -- Hitch will be a regular topic.
03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.
03/11/2012 -- Passing of a brother emboldens the imagination.
01/26/2012 -- See Remarks, this day, reference to AE. Thanks, Christopher.
01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).
01/23/2012 -- We need to work about (around) the middle.
01/21/2012 -- Another comment.
Modified: 11/02/2019
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Questions of Questions
Month, Day: 168, Questions, Questions (Perfection)
Aqdas (#161): Blessed is the man that hath acknowledged his belief in God and in His signs, and recognized that “He shall not be asked of His doings”. Such a recognition hath been made by God the ornament of every belief and its very foundation. Upon it must depend the acceptance of every goodly deed. Fasten your eyes upon it, that haply the whisperings of the rebellious may not cause you to slip.---
We have gone into Questions a lot, every month and for a month of each year. We have an update coming to the discussion of the brights.
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).
Modified: 01/25/2012
Aqdas (#161): Blessed is the man that hath acknowledged his belief in God and in His signs, and recognized that “He shall not be asked of His doings”. Such a recognition hath been made by God the ornament of every belief and its very foundation. Upon it must depend the acceptance of every goodly deed. Fasten your eyes upon it, that haply the whisperings of the rebellious may not cause you to slip.---
We have gone into Questions a lot, every month and for a month of each year. We have an update coming to the discussion of the brights.
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).
Modified: 01/25/2012
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Kingship
Month, Day: 168, Speech, Will (Glory)
Aqdas (#82): Arise, and serve Him Who is the Desire of all nations, Who hath created you through a word from Him, and ordained you to be, for all time, the emblems of His sovereignty.
Necessity of kingship? As a role, or as personalized by someone?
Aqdas (#83): By the righteousness of God! It is not Our wish to lay hands on your kingdoms. Our mission is to seize and possess the hearts of men.
The reality of the role. The domain of it, to boot. Yet, there is the larger space of the 'hearts' which belong to God.
To what do the social media contribute to the unfolding of this?
Remarks:
11/19/2012 -- In a sense, the Master was the kingly presence of his time.
12/22/2011 -- We will need to get back to the brights (Christopher, et al).
Modified: 11/19/2012
Aqdas (#82): Arise, and serve Him Who is the Desire of all nations, Who hath created you through a word from Him, and ordained you to be, for all time, the emblems of His sovereignty.
Necessity of kingship? As a role, or as personalized by someone?
Aqdas (#83): By the righteousness of God! It is not Our wish to lay hands on your kingdoms. Our mission is to seize and possess the hearts of men.
The reality of the role. The domain of it, to boot. Yet, there is the larger space of the 'hearts' which belong to God.
To what do the social media contribute to the unfolding of this?
Remarks:
11/19/2012 -- In a sense, the Master was the kingly presence of his time.
12/22/2011 -- We will need to get back to the brights (Christopher, et al).
Modified: 11/19/2012
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
First Mind
Month, Day: 168, Light, Grandeur (Justice)
As we construct, motivation comes to mind. There are several, including the "ever-advancing civilization." We do the work; things just don't come about (though, there are plenty who enjoy the efforts of others - too many, without paying properly for their use - that, folks, is the most basic of factors causing the economic problems).
SAQ #53: Therefore, all creatures emanate from God—that is to say, it is by God that all things are realized, and by Him that all beings have attained to existence. The first thing which emanated from God is that universal reality, which the ancient philosophers termed the “First Mind,” and which the people of Bahá call the “First Will.” This emanation, in that which concerns its action in the world of God, is not limited by time or place; it is without beginning or end—beginning and end in relation to God are one. The preexistence of God is the preexistence of essence, and also preexistence of time, and the phenomenality of contingency is essential and not temporal, as we have already explained one day at table. (emphasis mine)
Earlier, we danced around an issue (Foreknowledge) as we let the audacity dampen. Well, we need to be more bold, since the angels are there to help.
The next two steps will be to address item #2 (Brights) and item #3, juxtaposing them using "First Mind" as the BASIS, or, if you would, principle vector. Call that effort, Anselm redux.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
06/10/2011 -- Interpretations, again and again.
Modified: 08/08/2013
As we construct, motivation comes to mind. There are several, including the "ever-advancing civilization." We do the work; things just don't come about (though, there are plenty who enjoy the efforts of others - too many, without paying properly for their use - that, folks, is the most basic of factors causing the economic problems).
SAQ #53: Therefore, all creatures emanate from God—that is to say, it is by God that all things are realized, and by Him that all beings have attained to existence. The first thing which emanated from God is that universal reality, which the ancient philosophers termed the “First Mind,” and which the people of Bahá call the “First Will.” This emanation, in that which concerns its action in the world of God, is not limited by time or place; it is without beginning or end—beginning and end in relation to God are one. The preexistence of God is the preexistence of essence, and also preexistence of time, and the phenomenality of contingency is essential and not temporal, as we have already explained one day at table. (emphasis mine)
Earlier, we danced around an issue (Foreknowledge) as we let the audacity dampen. Well, we need to be more bold, since the angels are there to help.
The next two steps will be to address item #2 (Brights) and item #3, juxtaposing them using "First Mind" as the BASIS, or, if you would, principle vector. Call that effort, Anselm redux.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
06/10/2011 -- Interpretations, again and again.
Modified: 08/08/2013
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Angels, super man
Month, Day: 168, Grandeur, Might (Majesty)
Continuing on the theme of the Brights, we need to list a few things that are important to the world view needed for a constructive build. Actually, there are many things, but we can start with a few. Some of these will be almost antithetical to the opinion of some, yet they need to be allowed (without causing the need for belief on the person who is reading and trying to process the notions - such as, Moments and more).
One of these will be the issues related to angels. The section at wiki is not complete, but it does provide a starting point to which we can add.
---
Why 'super man' in the title? Well, one of the Brights thinks that those who accept the supernatural (many ways to define this, but the BASIS for this author would be the Writings - ah, that brings up the problems related to how we process these) ought to call themselves super.
So, I am a super man. Okay? Now, as to delusional leanings, don't count on it. Why? I may not have the wherewithal, at this point, to demonstrate the 'super' in an undeniable sense, yet the Brights do not have any proof that is sufficient to show that it is not. Too, the ontological issue is not resolved by any cardinality of set. That is, all the Brights throughout Creation, and all of time, cannot pull together the necessary proof, either, to remove the underpinnings (even if there were such) of the 'super' position.
It's a stalemate to any reasonable stance, easily handled by updating Blaise's take on the matter.
---
Now, back to angels, such as this, KAF (16):
---
A definite recurring theme, that we'll get back to.
Remarks:
02/08/2014 -- Angels, again.
03/11/2012 -- CH as angel?
Modified: 02/08/2012
Continuing on the theme of the Brights, we need to list a few things that are important to the world view needed for a constructive build. Actually, there are many things, but we can start with a few. Some of these will be almost antithetical to the opinion of some, yet they need to be allowed (without causing the need for belief on the person who is reading and trying to process the notions - such as, Moments and more).
One of these will be the issues related to angels. The section at wiki is not complete, but it does provide a starting point to which we can add.
---
Why 'super man' in the title? Well, one of the Brights thinks that those who accept the supernatural (many ways to define this, but the BASIS for this author would be the Writings - ah, that brings up the problems related to how we process these) ought to call themselves super.
So, I am a super man. Okay? Now, as to delusional leanings, don't count on it. Why? I may not have the wherewithal, at this point, to demonstrate the 'super' in an undeniable sense, yet the Brights do not have any proof that is sufficient to show that it is not. Too, the ontological issue is not resolved by any cardinality of set. That is, all the Brights throughout Creation, and all of time, cannot pull together the necessary proof, either, to remove the underpinnings (even if there were such) of the 'super' position.
It's a stalemate to any reasonable stance, easily handled by updating Blaise's take on the matter.
---
Now, back to angels, such as this, KAF (16):
- We created man: and we know what his soul whispereth to him, and we are closer to him than his neck-vein.
- When the two angels charged with taking account shall take it, one sitting on the right hand, the other on the left:
- Not a word doth he utter, but there is a watcher with him ready to note it down:
---
A definite recurring theme, that we'll get back to.
Remarks:
02/08/2014 -- Angels, again.
03/11/2012 -- CH as angel?
Modified: 02/08/2012
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Brights, again
Month, Day: 168, Grandeur, Names (Justice)
How apropos! However, not calling names. Just recognizing that there is now a place to which to point. Brights, et al.
Hence, we'll keep a Brights group to collect places where the movement is mentioned.
Remarks:
06/08/2011 -- Brights ought to be interested in motivation and construction.
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
Modified: 06/08/2011
How apropos! However, not calling names. Just recognizing that there is now a place to which to point. Brights, et al.
Hence, we'll keep a Brights group to collect places where the movement is mentioned.
Remarks:
06/08/2011 -- Brights ought to be interested in motivation and construction.
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
Modified: 06/08/2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Construction I
Month, Day: 168, Beauty, Honour (Independence)
We said that it would be constructive and slow. Looks like a good place to start might be Anselm of Canterbury and his ontological argument.
Paul Oppenheimer and Edward Zalta recently updated their 1991 thesis (A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument - pdf), using insights obtained through applying computational metaphysics.
There are several reviews available at the philpapers site.
---
To believe or not, that's the issue. But even dis-belief is a type of belief. Hence, we get back to a choice that was described well by Pascal.
---
Our artifacts are going to help us settle many things, yet we ought not dumb ourselves down (inverse of audacity) in order to prove them to be smarter than us.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.
06/08/2011 -- Motivation.
06/02/2011 -- Construction II.
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/16/2011 -- Makes it easy to see the either-or aspect. Believe or not, essentially. Though, if one takes the belief side, 'how to know what to believe?' is the question. Which, by the way, was not left to be an open issue. If one takes the non-belief side, 'how to live?' is the question. That is, is it imperative to push the non-belief agenda (as we see happening)? Ah, Questions either way. Now, of course, taking the belief side could culminate (as it does with the brights) with believing in reason and science (yet, 'from whence that?' is a question). One thing that is apparent from using the computational framework is this: language, system, semantics, and more (very much more, there have to be supporting resources - which are not easy to obtain, nor are they trivially developed, and definitely they do not run without power and maintenance). Now, to boot, there will be factors related to the capability of the one doing the believing or the disbelieving. 'Can a fully-capable person believe?' is a question. Or, we see 'is believing the attribute of the ignorant?' as another type of question (of course, the whole notion of delusion, or hallucinatory states, rests upon such implications -- thanks for bringing that to the fore, Richard D. [yet, you have not really cast out (can you?) the phenomena behind the experience]). This could go on, but here is a final point: is not it true that throughout the history of these issues, that those who are better able exploit, manipulate, and otherwise, just plain out-and-out, misuse those of lessor capability (and is not this the motivation behind a lot of the misbehavior on the part of believers which leads to people claiming that religion causes more problems than it solves?)? Smart religionists (universally offered - in any context in which it may apply) - you ought to understand that you are to not be the cause of this type of mischief.
Modified: 08/08/2013
We said that it would be constructive and slow. Looks like a good place to start might be Anselm of Canterbury and his ontological argument.
Paul Oppenheimer and Edward Zalta recently updated their 1991 thesis (A Computationally-Discovered Simplification of the Ontological Argument - pdf), using insights obtained through applying computational metaphysics.
There are several reviews available at the philpapers site.
---
To believe or not, that's the issue. But even dis-belief is a type of belief. Hence, we get back to a choice that was described well by Pascal.
---
Our artifacts are going to help us settle many things, yet we ought not dumb ourselves down (inverse of audacity) in order to prove them to be smarter than us.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence.
06/08/2011 -- Motivation.
06/02/2011 -- Construction II.
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/16/2011 -- Makes it easy to see the either-or aspect. Believe or not, essentially. Though, if one takes the belief side, 'how to know what to believe?' is the question. Which, by the way, was not left to be an open issue. If one takes the non-belief side, 'how to live?' is the question. That is, is it imperative to push the non-belief agenda (as we see happening)? Ah, Questions either way. Now, of course, taking the belief side could culminate (as it does with the brights) with believing in reason and science (yet, 'from whence that?' is a question). One thing that is apparent from using the computational framework is this: language, system, semantics, and more (very much more, there have to be supporting resources - which are not easy to obtain, nor are they trivially developed, and definitely they do not run without power and maintenance). Now, to boot, there will be factors related to the capability of the one doing the believing or the disbelieving. 'Can a fully-capable person believe?' is a question. Or, we see 'is believing the attribute of the ignorant?' as another type of question (of course, the whole notion of delusion, or hallucinatory states, rests upon such implications -- thanks for bringing that to the fore, Richard D. [yet, you have not really cast out (can you?) the phenomena behind the experience]). This could go on, but here is a final point: is not it true that throughout the history of these issues, that those who are better able exploit, manipulate, and otherwise, just plain out-and-out, misuse those of lessor capability (and is not this the motivation behind a lot of the misbehavior on the part of believers which leads to people claiming that religion causes more problems than it solves?)? Smart religionists (universally offered - in any context in which it may apply) - you ought to understand that you are to not be the cause of this type of mischief.
Modified: 08/08/2013
Monday, May 9, 2011
Wise words
Month, Day: 168, Beauty, Knowledge (Perfection)
In the Tablets revealed after the Aqdas, there are the Words of Wisdom.
One is as follows: The essence of true safety is to observe silence, to look at the end of things and to renounce the world.
At some point, we'll get back to the constructive arguments and provide an update of Pascal's thought about the matter which has been ridiculed by the brights.
Remarks:
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
05/14/2011 -- A slow start.
Modified: 05/26/2011
In the Tablets revealed after the Aqdas, there are the Words of Wisdom.
One is as follows: The essence of true safety is to observe silence, to look at the end of things and to renounce the world.
At some point, we'll get back to the constructive arguments and provide an update of Pascal's thought about the matter which has been ridiculed by the brights.
Remarks:
05/26/2011 -- A 'super' position can have merit.
05/14/2011 -- A slow start.
Modified: 05/26/2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Constructive efforts
Month, Day: 168, Beauty, Splendour (Majesty)
Being inspired by the brights (one in particular) can be good, if it motivates constructive (ala the proof type) methods that can be tested. Yet, is that not how science already works (or is supposed to work)?
Yes, but as the particular one (to be identified, in time) likes to point out, any who are under the delusion of God are hallucinating. Of course, that response is a broad brush-off of what is a real set of experiences. This is to be discussed further.
As well, the particular one is a figment of my imagination, just as what he perceives are to him similar figments. Notice, this is not the same as saying that he does not exist outside of my perception of him.
Rather, the whole framework needs some (not, necessarily as major as one might think) adjustment in order to allow into scrutiny a whole slew of phenomena that are now waved off (somewhat defensively by the brights, definitely accompanied by much more protestation than is reasonably (ah! one topic, from whence this?) necessary).
So, this little ground post indicates a small start. However, the theme will have priority henceforth and until otherwise noted.
Remarks:
07/25/2011 -- The choice: 'Tis or 'Tisn't.
06/02/2011 -- Construction II.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/14/2011 -- A slow start.
05/09/2011 -- We need a re-look at Pascal's thoughts.
05/02/2011 -- One of the brights.
Modified: 07/25/2011
Being inspired by the brights (one in particular) can be good, if it motivates constructive (ala the proof type) methods that can be tested. Yet, is that not how science already works (or is supposed to work)?
Yes, but as the particular one (to be identified, in time) likes to point out, any who are under the delusion of God are hallucinating. Of course, that response is a broad brush-off of what is a real set of experiences. This is to be discussed further.
As well, the particular one is a figment of my imagination, just as what he perceives are to him similar figments. Notice, this is not the same as saying that he does not exist outside of my perception of him.
Rather, the whole framework needs some (not, necessarily as major as one might think) adjustment in order to allow into scrutiny a whole slew of phenomena that are now waved off (somewhat defensively by the brights, definitely accompanied by much more protestation than is reasonably (ah! one topic, from whence this?) necessary).
So, this little ground post indicates a small start. However, the theme will have priority henceforth and until otherwise noted.
Remarks:
07/25/2011 -- The choice: 'Tis or 'Tisn't.
06/02/2011 -- Construction II.
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/14/2011 -- A slow start.
05/09/2011 -- We need a re-look at Pascal's thoughts.
05/02/2011 -- One of the brights.
Modified: 07/25/2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Easter during Ridvan
Month, Day: 168, Glory, Sovereignty (Perfection)
The overlap with this Christian event happens from time to time and raises interesting questions. For now, let's leave it be with a couple of quotes, in the context of the brights.
Bible (Luke 23:42, 43): And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Iqan (pg 214): He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
Modified: 05/17/2011
The overlap with this Christian event happens from time to time and raises interesting questions. For now, let's leave it be with a couple of quotes, in the context of the brights.
Bible (Luke 23:42, 43): And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Iqan (pg 214): He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
Modified: 05/17/2011
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
Monday, August 30, 2010
Will and knowing II
Month, Day: 167, Names, Will (Perfection)
Month, Day: 167, Names, Knowledge (Grace)
As we look at the ontological issues, this series brings a lot of insights that are of interest to operational schemes. For one, we have the groups: Transcendent, Teleological, Operational, Motivational, Ascendant. Then, we have the flow within each of the members of the Groups allowing us another look at each, every month.
Taking some concepts from f-logic, as an example of how structure comes to fore, Names would map to entities. Attributes are of several types, but they are subsumed by Might. That is, functional attributes are in the mix, to boot. Then, Will deals with the domain (Dominion), in this context, via roles. Finally, we have the first of the Twin Duties, namely to know (Knowledge).
After the last of the Operational group, we transition to the Motivational which helps us with the second of the Twin Duties.
Earlier, there was a motivation to note that we can immerse ourselves to find the basis for science. That is, immerse in the great sea of Words, yet, even there, the admonition is that the Twin Duties are paramount.
Aqdas #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.
We are only a few years beyond the Revelation, nowhere near any grand scheme that would allow 'spirit' into our materially engrossed lives and ontology. Of course, the brights may argue that such collective insight is impossible, or very unlikely.
As to likelihood, we have not seen yet how to establish the basis for such analysis. That is one of our tasks, perhaps the chief one.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
10/04/2010 -- We have cycles within which to work.
09/12/2010 -- Actions, as in Deeds over Words, is the core issue related to science.
Modified: 05/17/2011
Month, Day: 167, Names, Knowledge (Grace)
As we look at the ontological issues, this series brings a lot of insights that are of interest to operational schemes. For one, we have the groups: Transcendent, Teleological, Operational, Motivational, Ascendant. Then, we have the flow within each of the members of the Groups allowing us another look at each, every month.
Taking some concepts from f-logic, as an example of how structure comes to fore, Names would map to entities. Attributes are of several types, but they are subsumed by Might. That is, functional attributes are in the mix, to boot. Then, Will deals with the domain (Dominion), in this context, via roles. Finally, we have the first of the Twin Duties, namely to know (Knowledge).
After the last of the Operational group, we transition to the Motivational which helps us with the second of the Twin Duties.
Earlier, there was a motivation to note that we can immerse ourselves to find the basis for science. That is, immerse in the great sea of Words, yet, even there, the admonition is that the Twin Duties are paramount.
Aqdas #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.
We are only a few years beyond the Revelation, nowhere near any grand scheme that would allow 'spirit' into our materially engrossed lives and ontology. Of course, the brights may argue that such collective insight is impossible, or very unlikely.
As to likelihood, we have not seen yet how to establish the basis for such analysis. That is one of our tasks, perhaps the chief one.
Remarks:
05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.
05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.
10/04/2010 -- We have cycles within which to work.
09/12/2010 -- Actions, as in Deeds over Words, is the core issue related to science.
Modified: 05/17/2011
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Congruences
Month, Day: 167, Light, Speech (Independence)
So many things to ponder, such as congruences. There are many of these. Of note, to the Teleological theme, is the minor and major overlap of calendars: fifth month of Light starting on the fifth day of June and the eight month of Perfection starting with the eight month of August.
But, the brights (ought there be a category?) have their focus leaving a whole realm to audacity.
SAQ (#42): The enlightenment of the world of thought comes from these centers of light and sources of mysteries. Without the bounty of the splendor and the instructions of these Holy Beings the world of souls and thoughts would be opaque darkness.
Of course, there will be limits to how much science can study the Manifestation.
SAQ (#45): In short, the meaning of “He doeth whatsoever He willeth” is that if the Manifestation says something, or gives a command, or performs an action, and believers do not understand its wisdom, they still ought not to oppose it by a single thought, seeking to know why He spoke so, or why He did such a thing.
Yet, we have the Operational and Questions.
So many things to ponder, such as congruences. There are many of these. Of note, to the Teleological theme, is the minor and major overlap of calendars: fifth month of Light starting on the fifth day of June and the eight month of Perfection starting with the eight month of August.
But, the brights (ought there be a category?) have their focus leaving a whole realm to audacity.
SAQ (#42): The enlightenment of the world of thought comes from these centers of light and sources of mysteries. Without the bounty of the splendor and the instructions of these Holy Beings the world of souls and thoughts would be opaque darkness.
Of course, there will be limits to how much science can study the Manifestation.
SAQ (#45): In short, the meaning of “He doeth whatsoever He willeth” is that if the Manifestation says something, or gives a command, or performs an action, and believers do not understand its wisdom, they still ought not to oppose it by a single thought, seeking to know why He spoke so, or why He did such a thing.
Yet, we have the Operational and Questions.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Transcendent topology
Month, Day: 167, Glory, Knowledge (Grace)
Month, Day: 167, Glory, Power (Justice)
Consider Aqdas (#144): All things proceed from God and unto Him they return. He is the source of all things and in Him all things are ended.
Simple enough. We are to show the operational aspects of this and to define the benefits thereof.
And, the work is for the believers who are those aware of the twin duties (and their kin) as well as being for the non-believers who are not subsumed under the brights, necessarily, as many may just not be amenable to being mentored (in general, the autodidact).
So, now being short, consider the arguments concerning underdetermination. Some concepts are 'too blunt' to support determination, and progress has come from sharpening the blade (Occam's is an example) and from adding to our observable set (limits here are too easily identified).
How the larger picture is filled in, without the Key, can be problematic. Which leads to the above quote that deals with 'from whence' among other things.
As well, a re-iteration is in order: Transcendent --> Teleological --> Operational --> Motivational --> Ascendant.
Notice, please, that Operational is the balancing feature.
Modified: 04/24/2010
Month, Day: 167, Glory, Power (Justice)
Consider Aqdas (#144): All things proceed from God and unto Him they return. He is the source of all things and in Him all things are ended.
Simple enough. We are to show the operational aspects of this and to define the benefits thereof.
And, the work is for the believers who are those aware of the twin duties (and their kin) as well as being for the non-believers who are not subsumed under the brights, necessarily, as many may just not be amenable to being mentored (in general, the autodidact).
So, now being short, consider the arguments concerning underdetermination. Some concepts are 'too blunt' to support determination, and progress has come from sharpening the blade (Occam's is an example) and from adding to our observable set (limits here are too easily identified).
How the larger picture is filled in, without the Key, can be problematic. Which leads to the above quote that deals with 'from whence' among other things.
As well, a re-iteration is in order: Transcendent --> Teleological --> Operational --> Motivational --> Ascendant.
Notice, please, that Operational is the balancing feature.
Modified: 04/24/2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Mentors
Month, Day: 166, Dominion, Splendour (Beauty)
There was an earlier suggestion that we need to think about, though we cannot comprehend, the various states of the Manifestations, who are Key, since we have been allowed Questions (science).
Notice SAQ #25: In the Gospel of John, in speaking of the Promised One Who was to come after Christ, it is said in chapter 16, verses 12, 13: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak.” Then, there is an explanation.
How does this happen? Is there any similarity with normal human existence? That is, are we allowed any semblance of knowing.
What about action? We all have some notion about puppetry. Is this not the motivation behind indoctrination?
These questions are such as an autodidact would bring forward; independent investigation of the truth necessitates the autodidact which essentially consists a mentor-less state.
Yet, how can one actually be mentor-less? Our parents are our first mentors (SAQ #57). In fact, they set the stage for our lives, in many ways that are permanent. If they have done a good job, it leaves one in a condition of standing on the shoulders of giants (thanks, Isaac).
In this regard, too, the counsel of God loving those who works in groups (paraphrase) applies from several perspectives. One that needs further explanation is foundational (the future - psychether).
By the way, have you thanked your parents lately (SAQ #62)?
Consider that the Glory's parents died early so that he was raised by his uncle which resulted in a different mentoring situation. Teleologically important? Reducing a type of influence? Perhaps, it was a grace to them, disallowed any erroneous motions (free will, this side).
In any case, the usual 'mentor' dynamic, of the normal human experience, did not happen. However the operational aspects unfolded, we can only know pieces. One important thing? No matter how real any similar circumstance may appear to be, it cannot be the case, according to the thousand year rule.
Now, this discussion mainly points to the time when science (ah, Brights?) will have accepted some categorical difference between humans and other creatures and when they try to attempt to use this knowledge. Somehow, limits must be fully described and supported scientifically. As mentioned earlier, for those things not in the Writings (and we do not know this yet),
the Universal House of Justice will be central.
Remarks:
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
Modified: 03/11/2010
There was an earlier suggestion that we need to think about, though we cannot comprehend, the various states of the Manifestations, who are Key, since we have been allowed Questions (science).
Notice SAQ #25: In the Gospel of John, in speaking of the Promised One Who was to come after Christ, it is said in chapter 16, verses 12, 13: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak.” Then, there is an explanation.
How does this happen? Is there any similarity with normal human existence? That is, are we allowed any semblance of knowing.
What about action? We all have some notion about puppetry. Is this not the motivation behind indoctrination?
These questions are such as an autodidact would bring forward; independent investigation of the truth necessitates the autodidact which essentially consists a mentor-less state.
Yet, how can one actually be mentor-less? Our parents are our first mentors (SAQ #57). In fact, they set the stage for our lives, in many ways that are permanent. If they have done a good job, it leaves one in a condition of standing on the shoulders of giants (thanks, Isaac).
In this regard, too, the counsel of God loving those who works in groups (paraphrase) applies from several perspectives. One that needs further explanation is foundational (the future - psychether).
By the way, have you thanked your parents lately (SAQ #62)?
Consider that the Glory's parents died early so that he was raised by his uncle which resulted in a different mentoring situation. Teleologically important? Reducing a type of influence? Perhaps, it was a grace to them, disallowed any erroneous motions (free will, this side).
In any case, the usual 'mentor' dynamic, of the normal human experience, did not happen. However the operational aspects unfolded, we can only know pieces. One important thing? No matter how real any similar circumstance may appear to be, it cannot be the case, according to the thousand year rule.
Now, this discussion mainly points to the time when science (ah, Brights?) will have accepted some categorical difference between humans and other creatures and when they try to attempt to use this knowledge. Somehow, limits must be fully described and supported scientifically. As mentioned earlier, for those things not in the Writings (and we do not know this yet),
the Universal House of Justice will be central.
Remarks:
02/24/2010 -- Ascendant to Transcendent.
Modified: 03/11/2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Underdetermination
Month, Day: 166, Honour, Names (Independence)
Of course, the question here is: can we move away from having the underdetermined abound around us?
SAQ #83: Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.
Hubris is one reason for not accepting an extension of the Incompleteness Theorem. Pure operational confidence is another. Yet, many flounder. That is, even of the brights, we would probably find a substantial number who would accept that the best stance is what Pascal described so aptly, not the more in-your-face stance that has been so vehemently offered, of late.
The Key will continued to be explored both in attribute and utility.
Aside: Of late, there has been interest in planets nearly like the earth. There was a point in time when such comments would have been verboten. But, science and the related views do change as facts firm up.
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.
04/21/2010 -- We need to upgrade to a Transcendent Topology.
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
Modified: 01/25/2012
Of course, the question here is: can we move away from having the underdetermined abound around us?
SAQ #83: Therefore, there is no standard in the hands of people upon which we can rely.
Hubris is one reason for not accepting an extension of the Incompleteness Theorem. Pure operational confidence is another. Yet, many flounder. That is, even of the brights, we would probably find a substantial number who would accept that the best stance is what Pascal described so aptly, not the more in-your-face stance that has been so vehemently offered, of late.
The Key will continued to be explored both in attribute and utility.
Aside: Of late, there has been interest in planets nearly like the earth. There was a point in time when such comments would have been verboten. But, science and the related views do change as facts firm up.
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.
04/21/2010 -- We need to upgrade to a Transcendent Topology.
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
Modified: 01/25/2012
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The Key
Month, Day: 166, Honour, Words (Justice)
As said before, there will be a focused effort on bringing an understanding to the philosophy of science regarding the spiritual. That is, we need more than a mere operational stance, as this notion is a primal issue.
Firstly, we know that there is the knowledge. The boom in scientific coverage over Creation the past two hundred years is full of examples, and there is more to come.
Aqdas #14: Thus doth the Lord make plain the ways of truth and guidance, ways that lead to one way, which is this Straight Path. Render thanks unto God for this most gracious favour; offer praise unto Him for this bounty that hath encompassed the heavens and the earth; extol Him for this mercy that hath pervaded all creation.
Secondly, there is the 'key' which has more than an intellectual, or contemplative, role. Of course, one can point to the individual's ideals and improvements as being important. Yet, the sum of humanity's attributes, of any sort, are not the whole of much. This we need to demonstrate as clearly as were Euclid's notions (why go back that far? a counterbalance to the girth of abstract nonsense).
Aqdas #15: Say: God hath made My hidden love the key to the Treasure; would that ye might perceive it! But for the key, the Treasure would to all eternity have remained concealed; would that ye might believe it!
Finally, explicit plunking of this as a factor is not what we're talking either. Rather, in the Writings are embedded what is necessary for the proper basis. Our task? Again, to demonstrate this, partly by character and also by insight.
Aqdas, Notes #23: Wishing to reveal Thyself, Thou didst call into being the Greater and the Lesser Worlds, and didst choose Man above all Thy creatures, and didst make Him a sign of both of these worlds, O Thou Who art our Lord, the Most Compassionate! Thou didst raise Him up to occupy Thy throne before all the people of Thy creation. Thou didst enable Him to unravel Thy mysteries, and to shine with the lights of Thine inspiration and Thy Revelation, and to manifest Thy names and Thine attributes. Through Him Thou didst adorn the preamble of the book of Thy creation, O Thou Who art the Ruler of the universe Thou hast fashioned!
As one looks at the arguments of the brights, and others, the notion of the looming giant abounds, even if it is just done as an allusion (and even unconsciously). Now, that thinking of the avatar of everything has the corollary of trashing the small and the weak. Too, it's part of the mistake of thinking that the return of the Prophet will be with glory and power and military might which is really antithetical to Christ's Reality.
Also, we were told, more than once, that all can witness God's influence in their lives (Iqan #233: The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit.). In fact, some of the more lowly are of a greater stature, in to-be-described spaces, than those whose facilities with processing data (sense, language, and such) are superior. Actually, those who excel at the sensual (of a connotation far beyond the mere erotic, folks) do have analogs in the animal kingdom.
To be bold, it is the best and brightest to which that refers who essentially screw up the world with their machinations. The financial downturn is a recent example. There are too many to describe here. Plus, the adage of the sin-covering eye probably kicks in. Counter to that, though, is protecting the innocent, weak, and innumeracy'd.
That, folks, is the role of the autodidact (Independent Investigation of the Truth). And, have a Creation-based framework is one item to discuss.
Aside: The financial mess came from two things: human frailities and computation. Now, the first is age-old (why else the need for the Manifestation to return?). The second is new and not very well understood. Its basis is largely undecidable, yet many of the best and brightest do not accept that. Hubris? Too, computation is easily manipulated, analogous to the adage about the capability of statistics of being used to support any argument. Hence, market frameworks, that would not exist without the computational advances, can be gamed (and they are, folks). Regulators and administrators (read the political realm) are powerless to handle the complications. So, the affairs will remain messy. Question? Where are the Baha'i economists, and bankers, talking the proper view? Staying mum due to not having mastered the realm (dismal that it is) is no excuse, as understanding is not possible (von Neumann said that about mathematics); the 4th Valley's allusions (Were all the denizens of earth and heaven to unravel this shining allusion, this darksome riddle, until the Day when the Trumpet soundeth, yet would they fail to comprehend even a letter thereof, for this is the station of God’s immutable decree, His foreordained mystery. Hence, when searchers inquired of this, He made reply, “This is a bottomless sea which none shall ever fathom.” And they asked again, and He answered, “It is the blackest of nights through which none can find his way.” ) are supportive of that notion. We'll be going into these types of concrete issues more often in 2010. Why cannot the Faith be used to found a more stable structure? Economic, that is, not militarily supported power. And, economic is a more
Remarks:
08/31/2012 -- Names, Knowledge, Independence.
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, as an example of our attributes that approximate.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
01/08/2010 -- Underdetermination is the main state, that is, of the human without the spiritual assists that are readily at hand.
Modified: 08/31/2012
As said before, there will be a focused effort on bringing an understanding to the philosophy of science regarding the spiritual. That is, we need more than a mere operational stance, as this notion is a primal issue.
Firstly, we know that there is the knowledge. The boom in scientific coverage over Creation the past two hundred years is full of examples, and there is more to come.
Aqdas #14: Thus doth the Lord make plain the ways of truth and guidance, ways that lead to one way, which is this Straight Path. Render thanks unto God for this most gracious favour; offer praise unto Him for this bounty that hath encompassed the heavens and the earth; extol Him for this mercy that hath pervaded all creation.
Secondly, there is the 'key' which has more than an intellectual, or contemplative, role. Of course, one can point to the individual's ideals and improvements as being important. Yet, the sum of humanity's attributes, of any sort, are not the whole of much. This we need to demonstrate as clearly as were Euclid's notions (why go back that far? a counterbalance to the girth of abstract nonsense).
Aqdas #15: Say: God hath made My hidden love the key to the Treasure; would that ye might perceive it! But for the key, the Treasure would to all eternity have remained concealed; would that ye might believe it!
Finally, explicit plunking of this as a factor is not what we're talking either. Rather, in the Writings are embedded what is necessary for the proper basis. Our task? Again, to demonstrate this, partly by character and also by insight.
Aqdas, Notes #23: Wishing to reveal Thyself, Thou didst call into being the Greater and the Lesser Worlds, and didst choose Man above all Thy creatures, and didst make Him a sign of both of these worlds, O Thou Who art our Lord, the Most Compassionate! Thou didst raise Him up to occupy Thy throne before all the people of Thy creation. Thou didst enable Him to unravel Thy mysteries, and to shine with the lights of Thine inspiration and Thy Revelation, and to manifest Thy names and Thine attributes. Through Him Thou didst adorn the preamble of the book of Thy creation, O Thou Who art the Ruler of the universe Thou hast fashioned!
As one looks at the arguments of the brights, and others, the notion of the looming giant abounds, even if it is just done as an allusion (and even unconsciously). Now, that thinking of the avatar of everything has the corollary of trashing the small and the weak. Too, it's part of the mistake of thinking that the return of the Prophet will be with glory and power and military might which is really antithetical to Christ's Reality.
Also, we were told, more than once, that all can witness God's influence in their lives (Iqan #233: The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit.). In fact, some of the more lowly are of a greater stature, in to-be-described spaces, than those whose facilities with processing data (sense, language, and such) are superior. Actually, those who excel at the sensual (of a connotation far beyond the mere erotic, folks) do have analogs in the animal kingdom.
To be bold, it is the best and brightest to which that refers who essentially screw up the world with their machinations. The financial downturn is a recent example. There are too many to describe here. Plus, the adage of the sin-covering eye probably kicks in. Counter to that, though, is protecting the innocent, weak, and innumeracy'd.
That, folks, is the role of the autodidact (Independent Investigation of the Truth). And, have a Creation-based framework is one item to discuss.
Aside: The financial mess came from two things: human frailities and computation. Now, the first is age-old (why else the need for the Manifestation to return?). The second is new and not very well understood. Its basis is largely undecidable, yet many of the best and brightest do not accept that. Hubris? Too, computation is easily manipulated, analogous to the adage about the capability of statistics of being used to support any argument. Hence, market frameworks, that would not exist without the computational advances, can be gamed (and they are, folks). Regulators and administrators (read the political realm) are powerless to handle the complications. So, the affairs will remain messy. Question? Where are the Baha'i economists, and bankers, talking the proper view? Staying mum due to not having mastered the realm (dismal that it is) is no excuse, as understanding is not possible (von Neumann said that about mathematics); the 4th Valley's allusions (Were all the denizens of earth and heaven to unravel this shining allusion, this darksome riddle, until the Day when the Trumpet soundeth, yet would they fail to comprehend even a letter thereof, for this is the station of God’s immutable decree, His foreordained mystery. Hence, when searchers inquired of this, He made reply, “This is a bottomless sea which none shall ever fathom.” And they asked again, and He answered, “It is the blackest of nights through which none can find his way.” ) are supportive of that notion. We'll be going into these types of concrete issues more often in 2010. Why cannot the Faith be used to found a more stable structure? Economic, that is, not militarily supported power. And, economic is a more
Remarks:
08/31/2012 -- Names, Knowledge, Independence.
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, as an example of our attributes that approximate.
03/17/2011 -- Just as St. Patrick carried the message, so too ought we act to bring forth a proper viewpoint.
03/10/2010 -- A duty, know the Transcendent.
01/08/2010 -- Underdetermination is the main state, that is, of the human without the spiritual assists that are readily at hand.
Modified: 08/31/2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
