Best Possible World: Gateway to the Millennium and Eschaton



Download 4.74 Mb.
Page2/90
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size4.74 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   90
From the perspective of an immaterialist, materialism looks ever so much like a balloon filled with a monstrous void and a few atoms. There is a strong and probably childish urge just to pop that particular balloon. And is it not said than one may enter into the kingdom only as a child? Does it not take a child to point to the nakedness of the king?
How much longer can the Hercules of the scientific-materialist complex continue to hold up the void that is its sky? Just one prick, just one audible bump in the night and it is all gone. I don't mind being that prick or that bump. But before we succumb to the delight of 'popping' the Newtonian void, let us just take a peek to see what probably lies behind that particular veil.

<-- Prev. Next -->
index
5/19/02

Behind the Void

With just atoms in the void, existence is not problematic. It is an either/or, absolutist proposition. This is the Newtonian reality that still undergirds the entire apparatus of modernism. By the way, Newton was notoriously un-Newtonian and un-modern, being, amongst other things, an expert in alchemy.
Non-Newtonian existence is bound to be problematic. If there is no longer an absolute spatial manifold to contain things, there has to be a completely different rationale. Here it is. To exist is to relate. There is no such thing as passive isolation.
All existence is relative to some holistic potency. All existence must be bootstrapped in some microcosmic fashion. This is almost exactly the opposite of the world we perceive, especially through our astronomical telescopes.
I recognize that I am turning the world inside out and standing it on its head, or actually on all our heads. Welcome to the world of immaterialism and idealism. If the Buddha under the Bo tree wishes to dream up a starry cosmos, who are we to complain or second guess? But I take that back. It is precisely our job to second guess the Buddha, particularly if we are amenable to the prophetic tradition. And this is why we have been brought together here in cyberspace. So place your hand on the computer as we collectively use our ouija-keyboards to probe the mind of the Buddha and facilitate the next revelation.
Logically this should have been the first page of the website, but then we are dealing with a non-Newtonian, alchemical logic, in keeping with that Master's own spirit.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/20/02

How Many Buddhas?


I recollect one tradition where there are ten Buddhas, or Buddha-like gods. These gods do cooperate in the maintenance of the cosmic cycles. In a relational world, however, there would be no separate Buddhas. They would not just wander in off the street and then decide to make a world together.
From our creaturely perspective, our greatest problem seems to be how to draw people together. The creator, however, is presented with just the reverse problem: how to draw distinctions. The natural, relaxed state of a relational world is rather like that of a compressed glue-ball, or would it be a black/white hole? Actually, this might be kind of like nirvana. It would be both everything and nothing, all the oppositions would naturally tend to cancel out. Why not just leave well enough alone? I am sure there are days when Buddha wonders about this herself.
How many glue-balls? Let's call on another master: Leibniz: One. Next question? Didn't someone say that black-holes (white-wholes?) have no hair? They are indistinguishable, one from the other. And so, according to Leibniz, all indiscernibles are necessarily identical. This could also be Hegel's Absolute, the beginning and end of all disparate existence. Unless you embed these absolutes in a preexisting spatial manifold, there is absolutely nothing to keep them apart. And let me remind you that beyond and before space and time there are no such manifolds. We are left with the one, ultimate, bootstrapping potency. The Buddhas are the white-whole's hair. In the end it is not so important as to how many Buddhas there are, as long as we recognize that they have no choice but to cooperate in any creative endeavors, because their own existence and derivative potency necessarily depends upon it. They are all just part of the same bootstrapping process.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/20/02

How Many Buddhas?


I recollect one tradition where there are ten Buddhas, or Buddha-like gods. These gods do cooperate in the maintenance of the cosmic cycles. In a relational world, however, there would be no separate Buddhas. They would not just wander in off the street and then decide to make a world together.
From our creaturely perspective, our greatest problem seems to be how to draw people together. The creator, however, is presented with just the reverse problem: how to draw distinctions. The natural, relaxed state of a relational world is rather like that of a compressed glue-ball, or would it be a black/white hole? Actually, this might be kind of like nirvana. It would be both everything and nothing, all the oppositions would naturally tend to cancel out. Why not just leave well enough alone? I am sure there are days when Buddha wonders about this herself.
How many glue-balls? Let's call on another master: Leibniz: One. Next question? Didn't someone say that black-holes (white-wholes?) have no hair? They are indistinguishable, one from the other. And so, according to Leibniz, all indiscernibles are necessarily identical. This could also be Hegel's Absolute, the beginning and end of all disparate existence. Unless you embed these absolutes in a preexisting spatial manifold, there is absolutely nothing to keep them apart. And let me remind you that beyond and before space and time there are no such manifolds. We are left with the one, ultimate, bootstrapping potency. The Buddhas are the white-whole's hair. In the end it is not so important as to how many Buddhas there are, as long as we recognize that they have no choice but to cooperate in any creative endeavors, because their own existence and derivative potency necessarily depends upon it. They are all just part of the same bootstrapping process.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/20/02

Recap -- Metanarrative

Although we have come full circle back to the best of possible worlds, the story of this world is just about to begin. This circling around has simply been by way of touching upon a few of the intellectual bases that have brought us to this jumping-off point. The scientific and analytical movements to which I have been alluding have just been side-shows relative to the cosmic drama of what is now alleged to be the best of worlds.
I am fully aware that I have not proven the BPW thesis. What proof there is, is going to have to be in the pudding, that is, in what follows.
I am offering an alternative to the factoids that make up the world of modernity. Instead of a smorgasbord of facts, I offer you a meal that is one coherent truth. From the perspective of postmodernism, we will be flirting with the dreaded reemergence of a Metanarrative, and, naturally, it will speak to the Eschaton, among other things.
The Metanarrative, if it is anything at all, will serve as a revelation. It will be a revelation of Biblical proportions. In the end it will be self-justifying and self-verifying. My own feeble attempt here in these few pages is simply in anticipation and facilitation of this revelation, which ultimately is a matter of our own hearts and spirits.
Once again, I may be jumping ahead of the story.............
[Later on 5/20] In these first fifteen pages I have tried to make plausible the extreme fragility of materialism. It should only take one convincing encounter with a ghost to shatter the very thin exoskeleton of that metaphysic. Instead of a ghost, I offer you the increasingly accepted notion of the irreducibility of a variety of mental entities. These entities may not be quite as hair raising as a ghost, but what they portend for materialism is every bit as dire. Once we afford reality to anything immaterial, our only logical recourse is to reexamine virtually every metaphysical possibility. Out of these I suggest the path of coherence, simply because it is the only one that is, well, coherent.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/20/02

Best World for Whom?

The best for everybody. But how could everyone ever agree on the best world. We can't even agree on ice cream flavors. Yes, and isn't that why Baskin Robbins has 56 flavors? The point is that this is a big world. There is a lot of variety and a lot of diversity. And if you don't like things right now, then maybe you can wait around a few years, or, even better, get to work now on your personal vision. That is more or less what I'm doing.
Are we to understand that there has never been needless suffering or injustice? I will turn that question around. Is it not possible to imagine that all the suffering and injustice in the world could be healed or made right, given certain metaphysical conditions and theological and eschatological assumptions. Simply assume then that those conditions and assumptions are already in place.
Clearly the best possible world is a highly participatory one. Our destiny is in our own hands, with God here mainly to provide cosmic oversight and guidance, and some very basic guarantees.
How do we know that this is not just the second best world? How do we know that we are not subservient to some other, numero uno world? This will only become obvious in the light of the unfolding of the eschaton. It is my job here to do as much of that unfolding as is possible. In the meantime, the fact that this world is the center of spiritual gravity for the cosmos underlies the entire prophetic tradition. Of course, that tradition could be bogus, and many suppose it is. But that is what we are here to find out, isn't it?

<-- Prev. Next -->
index
5/20/02

Our Dramatic Cosmos

What is the most important part of any story, particularly if it contains elements of mystery? Typically it is the ending. The story of our world turns out to be no exception. .
Recall that the creative drama that became the frame for world history has come down to us from far beyond space and time. How then is this piece of dramaturgy implemented? I have already suggested that the implementation is teleological.
Consider these analogies. The genesis of the pearl lies in the invasion of an external irritant. With the cosmos there is no externality. The stimulus-response pattern is all internal. It is our history that predominates the cosmic bootstrap.
On the other hand there is the dream sequence. Most of us have experienced substantial, coherent dreams that, nonetheless, seem to end logically with what turns out to have been an abrupt external trigger. Such occurrences continue to mystify. It has been suggested that most dreams are actually scripted backwards, but in the process of waking they are experienced as if being played forward in the normal manner.
Our eschaton has been present from the very beginning. It is embedded in the fabric of reality. Why then the dread? We are a surprisingly cautious, conservative and skeptical species. We sense that there is an emerging drama that will have both a global and personal impact. Until we get to actually kick the tires of the eschaton we remain naturally wary. I aim to be one of those tires.
[Later on 5/21] Silly me, I almost forgot John Wheeler's 'delayed choice' quantum measurement thought experiment. It is theoretically possible to adjust a measurement apparatus after a given particle has already interacted with another part of the apparatus so as to retroactively impose certain conditions upon that previous interaction. As some physicist once noted, not only is the world stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/21/02

Only One Show?

Yes [, but do see below]. There is but one world. There is but one show, and that show has but one showing.
If I am correct, I have more right to be skeptical of this historical singularity than anyone, which leads to another slight digression.
If I am even half-way right about the world, and I am even half-way successful in putting together a unique and coherent website, then yours truly is deliberately flirting with a rather specific and obvious messianic possibility (Y2C?). Even if not me, it is likely to be another equally obscure soul in a similarly fortuitous place on our wired planet.
Now consider the singularity of history from the perspective of this poor devil. Imagine, if you will, the plaintiveness of her asking, 'Why me Lord?' One would suspect that even just the subliminal anticipation of such a question is more than enough to keep this particular deck rather clear. But this does not answer the original question.
To maintain sanity in such a situation, consider this setting: a heavenly arcade with the always amusing 'messiah' game. After some cajoling, I was just dumb enough to put my nickel in the slot. The rest of you out there are just the wiser onlookers, feeling rather more sympathy or pity than anything else. This is how most of us regard JC1, the original X-event, after all.
Our singular history can be experienced and re-experienced in every possible way for all eternity. It already has been. There need be and can be no bigger or better game out there, remembering that you've hardly remembered any of it yet.
More to the point is to recall that each of us is just a very small facet of the infinitely cohering cosmic omniscience. We are the microcosms of that cosmos. It is that to which we so hesitatingly awaken.
Is there then nothing new under this Sun, or through this Son? Doesn't God get bored? No more than we ever do.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/21/02

Explaining Science (part 1)


A Just So Story

A major challenge for immaterialism is to rationalize both science and nature. The Darwinists, in attempting to explain 'How the Leopard Got Its Spots', provide a model of explanation that we will be extending to the whole experiential world.


The Darwinists have identified a survival mechanism to explain the taxonomy of the organic world. With immaterialism there is much less distinction between the organic and inorganic, and we replace their survival mechanism with a somewhat similar bootstrap mechanism.
The bootstrap is the cosmos' sky hook. Logically prior to time and 'before' there was a world, there was just Possibility. There was Potency. Then there was self-actualization through various forms of self-posturing. All of this is happening on the experiential level. Materialization is partly the result of circular processes being stretched out so as to become habituated cyclically as the dimension of time emerges. The cosmic potency actualizes itself by building its own relational network of cycles and sub-cycles. There is a zone of alignment of the constant background of virtual chaotic experiential elements or felt meanings that are always holistic in a microcosmic fashion. This process is ongoing in the human subconscious and through dreaming. Out of these elements and this process there 'emerges' the Metanarrative that is world history.
The Metanarrative is constructed with the simultaneous formation of an Alpha and Omega, as one might construct an expandable suspension bridge, not only across a void, but, in this case, within a void. It is no mean engineering feat. Experiential space and time are the flesh for this skeleton.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/22/02

Explaining Science (part 2)



We can get at least some feeling for how space, time and history may be fashioned in a continuous manner out of an otherwise merely latent and otherwise chaotic cosmic potency. A virtual intelligence is always present, striving for self-realization. The Metanarrative congeals out of an experiential background foam, mainly in a teleological manner.
The cosmic organizing principle is always redistributing itself throughout an expanding network of microcosmic nodes, namely us creatures. These would also be similar to Leibniz' monads. To facilitate the redistribution of potency, it is natural to equip at least some of the monads with gonads. But more generally we are looking for there to be an arena with some sort of game plan to support the overarching History. The background game is necessarily metabolic in nature.
Why metabolism? It is impossible to imagine a natural ecology being based on anything else. Any other networking or relational schema would have a top-down organizing principle. Granted that reality is ultimately organized in a top-down fashion, there would be no dynamical independence from God without a seemingly independent and parallel system. I am not talking about an ontological dualism, merely a dynamical dualism.
This is the most important single point to grasp in order to justify the transition from materialism to immaterialism. I will continue to harp upon the cosmic necessity of this dynamical dualism. The upshot of which is that there are two logically necessary pillars of reality: God and Atom, truly the dynamic duo. Until you fully grasp this logic you will be justifiably dubious of any other effort on my part to rationalize or deconstruct science. Please note that my emphasis on this duality should in no way suggest an ontic parity between God and atoms. Any such parity would immediately dissolve into an incoherent Cartesian dichotomy.
With the background of the eternal cosmic potency, the primary problem of creation is the drawing of distinctions. In order to keep everything from happening together and at once, there will be a spatial manifold. Given any such manifold, any creative logistic will require the concept of the atom. It was no accident that the concept of the atom emerged in philosophy long before the concept of science.
In order for a dream to exist it must persist. In order to persist it must cohere both meaningfully and logically. Any surviving dream of the world, any metanarrative will by necessity have the atom as one of its logical foci. All of science is then a straightforward elaboration of that basic logic. Of course, we will be revisiting this point frequently.
Our dream Atom is nothing absolute. It cannot be a Newtonian atom. It will, like everything else in our dream, have a purely relational existence. It will, like Leibniz' monads, be microcosmic. It may not have gonads, but it will have 'hair'. That microcosmic 'hair' is what quantum physics is trying to describe. The metaphysical panic engendered amongst the materialists by the quantum is very understandable. They are seeing over the edge of their playpen into our upside-down and inside-out dream world. Yes, I would panic too, if I were them.

<-- Prev. Next -->
5/23/02

Dream Atom

There is a natural tendency to want to laugh at the very idea of a dream Atom. Indulge!
After this bit of indulgence, however, one has to wonder about the true nature of the Atom. Is the scientific Atom really so much different from our proposed dream Atom?
In each case we are dealing primarily with a conceptual or metaphorical atom. In the case of science, the atom, or, actually, the elementary particle is merely the place holder for a, nowadays, mind boggling mathematical superstructure in an at least eleven dimensional abstract space.
Just on the face of it, 'mathematical physics' is an oxymoron. There is nothing even slightly physical about mathematics. What we so quaintly used to think of as the physical has been turned into a mathematical wonderland, full of strange beasts, up to and including the notorious (at least to mathematical physicists) Monster group, q.v.
Where does the Monster group, which has more elements than Jupiter has atoms, reside, other than in the minds of mathematicians? If it is as objective and as physically significant as it seems, it must also reside in a kind of mental or Platonic ether. Both the Quantum and the Math are pushing physics toward seeming more like a mental abstraction. The closer you look at the Atom, the further does its tangibility recede into these mists.
It seems that the immaterialists are being aided and abetted in these latter days of materialism by the likes of the theoretical physicists. Perhaps the world did spring directly from the quantum potency prior to the Big Bang. Or it may as well have sprung right from the head of Zeus or some mathematician God. Now if God is as lazy as I sometimes suspect, she would not have to have worked out all this physics by herself. She could simply have recruited our erstwhile mathematicians to work it out in teleological fashion. We had better keep them on the payroll, because they are helping to design the world. Getting rid of them would be as problematic as going back in a time machine and killing one's own grandmother.
If our atoms had emerged accidentally and not been designed in such a teleological fashion by our mathematical physicists, they would never have given rise to us quantum observers to help reify their existence. This is what relational existence is all about. You scratch my back, and I scratch yours.
Because each atom implements the entire realm of mathematics, they are indeed the microcosmic cornerstones of our reality. All of the prerequisites of our consciousness are thus ensured by their very manner of design. The dream Atom is God's primary bootstrapping tool. Very clever of Her.

<-- Prev. Next -->
index
5/25/02

Concealment

I am remiss in not having discussed concealment up to this point, at least not that I can recall.
Fortuitously, though, concealment is closely associated with the question of science.
Originally science received considerable impetus by being conceived as the pious effort to read God's book of nature, along with the Bible, of course. But as time passed, there was more passing of the ammunition and rather less of praising God, up to the present. The more pious founding fathers of science could hardly have conceived of our present technocratic society. That God was lost in the shuffle, was hardly an oversight. It seemed that God did not have a prayer in competing with the Juggernaught of science and technology.
Now I am by no means the first to suggest that this usurpation was part of a bigger plan. At some point in our spiritual maturation we would have to be weaned away from the parental God. We had always been accustomed to the teat of mother nature as our special entitlement. Science would open a Pandora's box, with no visible Pandora. As we rushed to embrace the materialist cornucopia, we naturally forgot about Mother. Father remained as remote as ever.
Science was to be the handmaiden of our spiritual adolescence. This has been our rebellion, our golden opportunity to test our individual spirits before having to realign ourselves and comprehend that we are the actual protagonists in this cosmic drama.
This planned adolescence is all in the spirit of the best possible world. Adolescence is an awkward and often painful experience. Ours has been no exception. In a better world, could this have been avoided? I am skeptical. It is no small burden to have to come up with a better idea.
This singular creation was not an experiment. There is a least action principle involved. The teleology of optimality is unavoidable in this alpha/omega bootstrap process. Am I thereby denying the free will of the creator? I am only saying that Her free will has been thoroughly redistributed amongst all of us. The now ending epoch of science played no small part in that most significant of developments. Realize also that God is 'simply' the means by which our alpha selves realize our omega selves. God is our Omega Self in the dimension of eternity. If this strikes a few as bordering on heresy, then we heretics have some very illustrious and spiritual company.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   90


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page