Mercy of Might

Month, Day: Might, Mercy (Glory)

From the Tablet of the Seven Questions (Lawḥ-i-Haft Pursish) p3.8: If thou desirest to be freed from affliction, recite thou this prayer which hath been revealed by the Pen of the All-Merciful: “O God, my God! I testify to Thy unity and to Thy oneness. I beseech Thee, O Thou Possessor of names and Fashioner of the heavens, by the pervasive influence of Thine exalted Word and the potency of Thy supreme Pen, to aid me with the ensigns of Thy power and might, and to protect me from the mischief of Thine enemies who have violated Thy Covenant and Thy Testament. Thou art, verily, the Almighty, the Most Powerful.” This invocation is an impregnable stronghold and an indomitable army. It conferreth protection and ensureth deliverance.

Some may see the use of Might and Mercy together as a contradiction, however there are several ways of looking at these two. For instance, why would not the epitome of Might show Mercy? Would not a solely destructive Might be anathema to any type of progression or construction (sorry for bordering on the tautological)?

One place where Mercy is not shown is in science (or, scientism, if you would), and this probably goes along with the strong leaning toward evolution and what it entails in conceptual terms, such as the notions like 'the survival of the fittest and others. Even in mathematics, many get the idea that a single false case can completely trash a theorem; generally, the more constructive attitudes allow that errors can be corrected and weaknesses shored up.

But, in the winner-take-all framework of the modern age, any would have to be fairly audacious when venturing outside the mainstream of thought, indomitable indeed. Of course, questions about operational foundations and methods would continue, hopefully augmented by UHJ participation in establishing the proper philosophical view. And, do we not know that there will be more Manifestations?

Remarks:

08/14/2009 -- We're starting the Operational, soon.

Modified: 08/14/2009

True wealth

Month, Day: Might, Glory (Grace)

The last post mentioned that a major focus of the world is 'pocket lining' which applies even to an egocentric attitude in science.

SAQ #15 discusses this topic of true wealth including defining this for the plant and the animal.

For humans, wealth does not involve acquisition of lofty assets or of statuesque accumulations, rather true wealth concerns: the divine appearances, the heavenly bounties, the sublime emotions, the love and knowledge of God; universal wisdom, intellectual perception, scientific discoveries, justice, equity, truthfulness, benevolence, natural courage and innate fortitude; the respect for rights and the keeping of agreements and covenants; rectitude in all circumstances; serving the truth under all conditions; the sacrifice of one’s life for the good of all people; kindness and esteem for all nations; obedience to the teachings of God; service in the Divine Kingdom; the guidance of the people, and the education of the nations and races.

Questions, again

Month, Day: Names, Questions (Justice)

Earlier, there were posts related to the ubiquity of Questions (as the BASIS for science), to the fact that we cannot be thankful enough for the gift, and to associated ways and methods. As an aside in the discussions about the Writings and science, we can point out numerous items that relate directly; even if we did not want to consider a direct tie, there is still the issue that the item is relevant to defining some 'value' position that is more than mere relativism.

An example deals with the continual strife for pocket lining, as a few accumulate mountains of assets while the many are without. How can that be?, is asked in the SAQ #78. As well, there is this suggestion: It would be well, with regard to the common rights of manufacturers, workmen and artisans, that laws be established, giving moderate profits to manufacturers, and to workmen the necessary means of existence and security for the future.

The use of 'moderate' is telling; too, there is no mention that capitalists, as they have emerged in the gaming ontology currently in vogue, ought to have their hands in the pot. Related to this is the diminishing of the use of 'usurious' which applies in many situation; Islam's no-interest model ought to be a little more attention than it has to date.

This was a necessary aside since science is very much a human affair.

Remarks:

10/04/2010 -- Friction can beget progress.

10/11/2009 -- Will, an operational imperative for science.

09/13/2009 -- Economics requires additional attention.

03/19/2009 -- Science and knowing are key.

Modified: 10/04/2010

Sufficiency thrice

Month, Day: Names, Speech (Grace)

In Kitáb-i-Aqdas #172, we find this: We, of a certainty, have had no purpose in this earthly realm save to make God manifest and to reveal His sovereignty; sufficient unto Me is God for a witness. We, of a certainty, have had no intent in the celestial Kingdom but to exalt His Cause and glorify His praise; sufficient unto Me is God for a protector. We, of a certainty, have had no desire in the Dominion on high except to extol God and what hath been sent down by Him; sufficient unto Me is God for a helper.

There is no reason to think that any sufficiency set ought to be of cardinality one which some viewpoints, looking for a grand scheme, might seem to propose. On the other hand, we may want to argue for a minimal set as this is necessary for operational, and even ontological, effectiveness. Yet, that minimality would be conditional.

So, discussing such issues is the task at hand.

Remarks:

08/05/2009 -- We'll look at SAQ #37 more in the context of how the Teleological influences.

05/29/2009 -- The Transcendent baffles.

Modified: 08/05/2009

Names are

Month, Day: Names, Power (Perfection)

We'll keep the sufficiency discussion going by taking a meandering path for awhile. The road to truth may be straight, yet some side-trips are allowed (that we're given science as a means to know necessitates such [ah, Independence, for us, free will]).

In the progression of months, there has to be some meaning embedded in the sequence. Why? Nothing is random, essentially, though there are quasi-random processes that keep us within our limits. Now, whether or not we can discern what the meaning might be is one issue.

Another support for this notion is the Valley of Contentment (they eat of the endless bounties of inner significances) using the knowledge that we are part of and do not encompass Creation.

So, we can use the myriad potential permutations as inspiration to contemplate the Oceans that have been opened to our exploration with the advent of the Baha'i Revelation.

So, that Words and Names are symmetric around Perfection is very interesting. Of course, the former leads to ponder LOGOS and much more. The latter, from one viewpoint, is very much related to that world view that arises out of mathematical and computational efforts. How to show this is very much on the plate, and the topic does relate to the notions about sufficiency.

In our trek toward abstraction, which we can see this type of thinking as growing from way back in the past and accelerating from the works of 17th century minds onward to now, we loft ourselves, essentially, into a growing maze of groundless speculation. Okay, perhaps that is too strong; yet, that the epitome of thinking pushes us toward the loose mindset (relativity, unstructured) has to be explained somehow.

And, criticism without some notion of alternatives is as worthless as the groundless speculation. That is where Names comes in; but, Names, as we see in it being part of a collective, is not alone, nor sufficient. Names brings structure in several ways; such is imperative to our foundations.

Even though Creation-oriented thinking leads to a change is foundations, use of this respects the notions raised by the arguments of the quasi-empiricists and is operationally sound. The aforementioned audacity would be necessary due to the current climate that mocks any but the most extreme materialistic viewpoints.

The main question to ask is, how is it necessary that abstractionistic thinking leads to materialistic outcomes? Would not the spaces and structures that are the most powerful rest better on something that was revealed?

Ad hominen attacks against those struggling to turn the divinely inspired into the understandable demonstrate more the weakness of those lofting the attacks than it undermines the source motivating the studies to found a better ontology.

By the way, the motivation of all this is not to found some spiritual-based science; rather, it is to put a firmer foundation under our tenuous structures which are shaky from several sides (that things are not as firm as they could be is arguable, however it cannot be refuted); and, it might be said that some of the shakiness is in the design (Perfection has been misconstrued which will be part of the sufficiency discussions).
Remarks:

08/14/2009 -- We're starting the Operational, soon.
Modified: 08/14/2009