The influence of gaslight or electric light on the growth of paraheliotropic trees

bonebrushing the edges of the res interna (upper transcend)

Month: May, 2011

The Naturalistic Fallacy and the Problem of God and Morality

It is clear that my intrinsic atheism needs to be revised if a broader definition of God is permitted, one that encompasses the First Cause, or Persistent Cause. Nevertheless, if God is existence, or it’s cause, then It either answers the naturalistic fallacy or is subject to it. If it answers it, it is because the dictates of morality – whatever they are – are in some ways features of the universe – in other words, existence would have an opinion on what is good and what is evil – i.e., a preference, perhaps for continued existence, or for sentience –

Still, this seems strange, since the world we are confronted with, the actual world, seems so totally and completely indifferent to us, even though we, as parasites or symbiots on the universe, seem to at least sometimes be protected by it. This protection is a cognitive error, like thinking the sun revolves around the Earth, a variant of the Anthropic Fallacy. We adapted to the world, and we seem blessed only through survivor’s bias.

Thus, the stronger view – that the First Cause is ontological, and subject to the Fallacy, and therefore amoral. What cares the universe if we live or die – life is one form, death another, so many configurations, one, then another.

Where then morality? Where then religion?

We may certainly revere the Absolute. Powerless before it, small, it is natural to fear it. Love though – love is a choice. The world is our Mother, and it is proper to love and cherish our mother. Love, however, can and never will be demanded.

Our morality, then, within or without religion, is simple, though it is not a thing that comes from God. Our morality is simply love, love of God, and in loving God, loving all of his creation, and hating evil only in that it detracts from the love. We cannot love the Mother and hate the children – our task, our choice, then, is to love. We do so because we are capable of it, and it is good for us to love, and to love without limits or end.

What though is love? The love of self seeks the good and takes delight in the being and continuation of the self. The love of others seeks their good and delights in their being. The universe has no good, no aim, but nevertheless we can delight in its being and continuation.

What the world lacks then is love. ZR lacks it. Pimple faced boys lack it, and fat girls lack it, and I lack it sometimes, and it’s why I talk to you, to feel it, to remain in it –

And evil then seems a lack of love, perhaps a lack of loving ones’ self, and in that lack, some false act of faith that will make you worthy of love – some redeeming act of a fallen and damned self reflecting being – a seeking of love, instead of loving. Anyone who wants to be loved first wants to be loved by themselves.

And those who feel love? Who feel the love of the universe? It is not the universe but the Self they feel, loving – (though we are part of the universe, and when the Self loves, so does the universe, a bit).

The Greater Part of the Universe, the Cause, is unloving. The Father, they call it, Creative Force. But the Lesser Part, the Universe-in-us, the Son of Man, that can love, and when it reaches it’s true self, cannot help but love. And morality comes not from existence, but from our Mind reflecting on existence, and loving itself (how could it not, in order to be here), loving the universe and the other.

QED

Advertisements

Investigations, 5.16.11

Discussion with ZR last night on infinity and eternal recurrence: namely, whether infinity implies eternal recurrence; I argued no, that the world will never exhaust new configurations such that circumstances would likely or need to repeat;

Other discussions were on the cosmological argument for God, i.e., the First Mover, to which I revised, temporality may be loading the dice, perhaps let us argue, Persistent Cause —

Other potential investigations would be my two circles of (world) and (time) with !me in the middle, periodically & successively given reality through my connection to the two constants —

And then look at Einsteinian Temporal Relativity, and the implications that has for the worldtimebeing schematic & when multiplied to contemplate all beings.

Overheard

Walking past a family reminiscing, their anecdote, not mine, the love, the lives of others —

[half-remembered on the following day, the anecdote was the daughter telling a story about the father telling a joke about money in a wallet, that emphemera is gone]

[other game I played earlier was centering myself, I allowed my eye to course and judge others, quick takes, judging and loving simultaneously]

At the end of the world

With the guitar in my hand, acoustic, but harmonic, I am elsewhere – the chords exist in time but outside it, since the chords are eternal, like a priori forms, they are structures, relationships, algorithms, programs, to be summoned at will by Us, the Great Minds, when we will.

In their timelessness, my soul moves, and I am elsewhere, at the top of the world, at the end of the world, wearing this body still, dancing with you, singing with you, even as I don’t know who you are –

Sad songs. Happy one. Lonely. Lonely today. Simply alone tomorrow. Sometime else, maybe I won’t be.

Lovers of the Gap

We are called upon, each to each, to be lovers of the gap —
The gap between myself and yourself —
Unknowable, unbridgeable —
Signals on two mountains — flashing. Flashing.
Huddled. Cold.
Nevertheless.
We are called upon to be lovers of the gap —
Calling across long valleys, with strong voices,
and hearing, not echoes, but response —

Though sometimes confusing responses for echoes,
we think ourselves the masters of all we see —
Lord and King of our dominions —

Lonely mountains, then.

But no. There are other mountains. Temporary whirlwinds.
The face of one, the face of many,
Not the same but different, though alike —
And across each likeness, the gap —

Which we are called upon to lovers be
Lovers of the gap

Meontology

Heidegger (Nazi) was the leading light of ontology — the philosophy of being, or existence. What it’s like to be a humanbeing — or the fact that everything is experienced by a First-Person-Ego, and not only a First-Person-Ego but Your First-Person Ego.
Which is compelling, and true.
But nevertheless, misses something —

la·cu·na/ləˈk(y)o͞onə/Noun

1. An unfilled space or interval; a gap.
2. A missing portion in a book or manuscript.
It was Levinas, who said this of Heidegger:
According to his obituary in New York Times,[1] Levinas came to regret his enthusiasm for Heidegger, because of the latter’s affinity for the Nazis. During a lecture on forgiveness, Levinas stated “One can forgive many Germans, but there are some Germans it is difficult to forgive. It is difficult to forgive Heidegger.”
(wikipedia)
In place of ontology, Levinas proposed meontology, which was the philosophical study of non-being.

The word comes from the Ancient Greek μή – me “non” and ὄν – on “being” (confer ontology). It refers not exactly to the study of what does not exist, but an attempt to cover what may remain outside of ontology. It can also be associated more recently, with the emphasis placed upon absence or deferral by both Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida.

For Emmanuel Levinas, what was meontological was what had meaning beyond being, beyond ontology; for him this was the ethical, the primary demand of the other in the face-to-face encounter. In this sense he sought to clarify or take further some of the issues raised by Heidegger and explicitly give ontology a secondary role to ethics rather than continue to parallel them in saying that the Being means care (GermanSorge).

[[ JOSH: In other words, the meontology is that Other, the Other that exists before the Self, wholly alien but to whom we somehow respond. For Levinas, the encounter with the Other creates an initial demand that is prior to self, being, and existence, which is its own demand, across the solipsist divide of “]]

The other as they appear, the face, gives itself priority to the self, its first demand even before I react to it, love it or kill it, is: “thou shalt not kill me“. Such a demand for Lévinas is prior to any reaction or any assertion of freedom by a subject. The face of the other in this sense looms above the other person and traces “where God passes.”

[[ In other words, the entire world is amenable to our expereience, our subjectivity, except one other place, that place being the subjective experience of the other — a solipsist, because he cannot experience the subjectiveness of the other, might deny it — saying that the others are philosophical zombies or, more sympathetically, saying “I am they,” that we all share a single subjectivity —
Meontology rejects this approach. It says the other is different, alien, unknowable, but nevertheless real, deep, meaningful, profound —
For Levinas, it was in that absence full of light — that unknowable Good — that God or God’s shadow could be found — and I tend to agree —
It is the Radical Other and their prior demands on our selves that gives worth and meaning to what would otherwise be a lonely carnival ride on rails — Keep me in a nutshell, and I would count myself the King of Infinite Space — that makes it poignant —
So yes. Itka got it just right. It is what is unknowable that is essential. It is what is unknowable that comes first.