Spacetime Contiguous Personality Configuration
Looking back I wonder what was the point of on-line discussions in philosophy as well as physics when someone posts something learned in the universities or from history as if the work was common knowledge or something I may assume was their own thoughts or beliefs- to which I replied from my own thoughts on some issue I imagined we all share and just may come up with something new and original- like n-dimensions or the dimension of color, I did not know this was century old issues but something worked almost independently from our shared body of learning.
One problem then with the analogies to theology (or of philosophy applied to theology) where I apply them to physics can be a strange and disquieting mixture if it turns out these are the old issues debating theology itself. Why, when these things influence us, do we have something like a religious program which preaches a certain doctrine that has not changed that much in the level of wisdom from the middle ages?
When I advocate some idea of teleology it gets instant resistance from the scientists most likely because how the issue was framed as the schoolmen adjusted Plato to early Christianity. The inverse to this would be, against the idea of the Good, as all the problems of evil- especially the almighty God. But this old debate could have been read in a book or learned in a class- and even with the idea of a probability of things (Ockham notwithstanding) the expected conclusion is that God does not exist- at least by the cosmological, teleological, and ontological proofs.
Sometimes I wonder if I am talking to anyone- maybe beyond the few who more or less know me and would have some interest. The again have I ever really talked to anyone; have we talked with each other or just ourselves- perhaps ourselves over some idea of time. If there are no universals we can also say there are no existential things- some of self and life are in between it seems- over a quasic and fractal range we cannot really define our self or person-hood. Worse, the configuration of any free mixtures or encounters with others, or say for a philosophy or state- even religion, such configurations have a fleeting range too of what one may call a stable and concrete identity over some external force of change.
One can then see, perhaps like God himself in some form of reasoning, we cannot really ask the question who we are or what we are- certainly this is an ancient idea when we bring in the forgetfulness of souls in reincarnation (can we not look at this as our first intuitions on philosophy as a foundational problem in physics?) Do we have to see philosophy as these arguments- refute this teleology as Kant would or as Hume and so on? But what of the shared properties of a collection of things? In what sense does it make sense to say the shared properties are transitive over the apparently arbitrary collection of particulars? It is certainly a philosophical problem from ancient minds and a physics problem from our own era. The question is can we work our symbol system and notions- especially concerning integers or primes- to see further as to what is happening in numbers and space, and perhaps a little beyond. Can we in fact convey or tell each other something new- something that survives the absurdity and naivety of our own belief systems?
Is there a being or substance of Evil in itself? If in our own politically correct times- as in their feminility the women point out and work social philosophy with their degrees in the field- that Eve has an effect of evil- what would this evil be but the idea of the breaking of the individuality of the concept of human family? It would follow the schoolmen in that the Good is not the perfection that can see the work of evil. By humans forming families, which the UN declaration of rights of man defines as a right- they Unlike the Angels- are subject to original sin- and are thus creatures in obligation to the creator and thus are capable of Redemption.
Personality can be such a Quasi-continuum regardless of the state of the culture or religious facts or beliefs, regardless of the molecular mechanism of stages of our brains and hearts, or the configuration of chemical connections, hormones and so on... Kant can ameliorate things with a moral law that stands independently also and is a practical matter of compromise with the struggle of configurations of men.
Beliefs can be taught and interpreted as if what stands as true is just a stance that can be claimed by the dark side of some issue. We can insist that all of the mirror space- and the negatives of creative space or even complex space save for pockets or hole of antimatter- is filled (so goes the insight of Dirac). But such an idea as it stands now amounts to no more than partial metaphysics and is the skeleton left to fall to dust of a physics which acts as if it just a matter of faith. Such uncertainty and fragmentation of our psyches, the medium as message and messenger in conflict, the arbitrary nation states, the myths of collective internationals or hegemony of a national fatherland, of the parties and economic interests is also a problem as hard to define and limited to our philosophic and cultural notions and physical inheritance. The ideas of Liberty need better definition in matters that affect us- where the extremes combine sometime to destroy the center, or the center organizes to fill existence.
"Extremism is the defense of Liberty is no vice" (Goldwater). Yet in this world were in our early days of accepting our parents and ancestors as if the Good and gods- we can bow our heads at any claim of will to social prayer by any methodological and in his own agenda not a delusional advocate but sincere in beliefs- appealing to our hearts that make no ultimate logical sense and are not even adequate in the cure for things nor even but the few symptoms seen. These money grubbers who hold the keys to the cathedrals. Would not extremism in defense of false beliefs be a vice? Is the issue in our brains from a viewpoint of what we can see in universal and existential principles not yet seen deeply defined if ever they can be how we get along in the configuration of the day distinguishing what is real or false belief not the central issue of society and science of our day?
But less I cause some to conclude despair- it is not so bad that as things progress and the technology melts in our hands, and everything becomes alien and obsolete, the unique faces of actors fade over the years and we are watching archives of dead souls who most likely had their own issues of life and identity. They were no angels either, and even their immortality on the silver screen must fade one day. So it is that in whatever configuration, whatever one gets from thinking that the God can intervene and protect without a soul rising to the Goodness in us, supplication and bowed heads hoping in superstitious bliss nature is responsible and redeemable as are our actions in this world- hopefully to judge justly and with good weight the opportunities of Liberty- no show trials nor examples that sacrifice the innocent in the name of expediency of war or greater good, that we can live- that if the state intervenes it does not undermine faith and family - that within certain bounds usually constitutional even if there is character unformed- people have the right to determine things on their own- even the right to development, not crazy perhaps but to what is or what some may consider their stupidity. And if we want a hobby that others see a waste of time, why else do we do anything?- or if we watch the endless bells and whistles and drama that sparks lust or emotions or reinforces our own phases of dreams- That the world is refreshingly complex although fantasy and virtual does ease the boredom of our rumors of long and limited immortality.
We who have styled ourselves as if angels, without enduring family, have no hope like them of redemption.
* * *
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101213163841.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment