The cycle of the great chain of being

The reason there are atheists is that some theists are deadly wrong. The two sides are in conflict today because the side of theists made a mistake and has perpetuated it for over two thousand years–our era, which started with the birth of Jesus.

Jesus taught the Two Great Commandments:

  1. Love God.
  2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

It is implicit–based on faith–that both are necessary and do not contradict each other.

Now compare the first commandment with that of the Jews: to fear God and keep His ten commandments. The Judeo-Christian religion put together fear and love of God. Yet, one cannot integrate fear and love (see my experiment with Marxists); one could only transcend love with fear. And that’s what we have been doing for so long.

The idealists misinterpreted Jesus and misintegrated Christianity with Judaism. The watering down of the original faith of Christ came with the compromises made by Jesus’s main followers (Peter and Paul) with the Greco-Roman religious and philosophical beliefs. But what do you get as a result of mixing fear with love? When you mix fear and love, you get fear. The moral of the story is not to mix fear with love but to only choose love.

But most idealists only took and, not regarding its context, absolutized the first commandment and then did not truly care about the second commandment of Christ. The isolation caused by perceived superiority and accumulation of wealth and power escalated in the separation of classes. We have seen the differences in how Christians treated people throughout history, whether these people were pagans, heretics, or starving laborers. How could they do that? How can you love another, if you have not learned to love yourself? And this fault materialized in altruism of the materialists, who of course abandoned and even opposed the first commandment, thus provoking the complete implosion of misinterpreted teachings. This was an inevitable and natural consequence as misintegration leads to disintegration. Jesus’s concept of God was beyond what most people could grasp throughout the two millennia since his birth.

Hiding from, resisting, and ignoring the truth about how to fulfill these two commandments is what many people were doing yesterday and are still doing today. As anything, however, surrounding things change, and then do recalcitrant people also change their calcified beliefs. Now, let the healing begin; let this help be accepted. The active, missing component is you.

So what did Jesus really teach? In The Urantia Book, Thought Adjusters are described as fragments of God resident in every conscious being who has performed a moral act. Although this modern belief system conjectures the original faith of Christ, I also have my doubts about it because The Urantia Book’s ethics is still altruist, and we have seen how such (selfless) altruism plagued humanity throughout our history. My interpretation of what Christ meant to teach us is that, in order to love God, you must first love yourself because God is within you, your integrated consciousness, your mind and soul in harmony, and that is called love. In other words, your future realization of God starts within you, how you value and love yourself. So, to understand God, one must first understand or know thyself.

You shouldn’t be selfless. Be selfish and love! That’s how you get passion for so much love in the first place: from your self.

It is important to start with your own consciousness and then progress through relationships with others in order to ascend to God. I do not see any other way of reaching God. And we can know this logically.

The logic of ascension

The history since Christ progressed through several periods: the becoming of the Christian faith and spirit, the idealized stasis (The Dark and Middle Ages), the amplification of idealism (the Renaissance and Enlightenment),[1] the destruction of the ideals (the end of the Enlightenment, revolutions, and wars), the amplification of materialism in the modern era’s pessimism, postmodernism, and nihilism galore, and finally the new era of becoming that is approaching.

The cycle, as a swinging pendulum, is simple when taken in its continuity going forward:

  1. non-A is A (becoming)
  2. A is A (stasis)
  3. A is non-A (unbecoming)
  4. non-A is non-A (stasis)
  5. non-A is A (becoming)

Notice how the chain connects and repeats:

non-A is A → A is A → A is non-A → non-A is non-A → non-A is A

And how it could be reinterpreted in different ways, such as:

Evil is Good (creation) → Good is Good (optimism) → Good is Evil (destruction) → Evil is Evil (pessimism) → Evil is Good (creation)

Some may attempt in vain to regress to earlier historical stages (as during the Enlightenment or today by Objectivists or revolutionary Marxists), by that trying to preserve time that has passed, but this can only lead to imbalance and, consequently, imposed progression. At the end, as in the beginning, it always results in A (the Truth), even though its ways seem oh so diverse.

We can elaborate on this further. Epistemologically, we perceive to conceive to unconceive to sense to perceive; we integrate, sometimes make errors of misintegration, disintegrate what we’ve misintegrated, overcome our loss by removing ourselves from what we’ve disintegrated, and then return to proper integration. We ascend, and, in the process of realizing our ascension, we need the contrast of descending, so we can be sure to return on our path again. We start as realists, and before we realize our truths, we idealize them and become idealists, then skeptically test our ideals by materializing them and turning to materialism, and after we get disenchanted we get back to reality. Each stage has its own logic, each has its rhetoric, and each is inseparable from the other.

The meaningful conclusion from the logical cycle is that of “being,” or just the verb “is” in its lasting moment. Rather than focusing only on a part of that moment of being and thus fragmenting it, one could see the moment in its entirety with all the different parts so beautifully and logically intertwined. This was the pace of our history, when the creation of good ended up in stasis (equilibrium), then had its inevitable destruction, then sank in the stasis in evil, and finally, now, back to good once again.

After Christ descended to help us ascend, he showed us an example of ascension. And we have been trying to ascend–become “immortal”–from the beginning. Becoming “immortal” is merely becoming parts of a greater whole we call Existence; it is the opposite of turning away from such a whole and instead going toward Nonexistence. We learn from mistakes, and we solve our problems, no matter how hard they seem. Firstly, we should not confuse ourselves with Christ and should take his descending role as an idealistic method of reaching for the truth, not a position of knowing the truth (i.e., idealism). Then, we’d be able to abandon materialism as well. We hearken to Christ’s ascension and realize we are ascending creatures of God; we are dust that is becoming God, just like Christ had shown us. We should start with ourselves as such little confused creatures in need of help and who are and have been in the process of ascension since our very humble origins.

We are living in the time of pessimism (stage 4), but there is the way from this state: the way of realists/mystics (stage 5)–evolution, life, and the creation of Emotional Economy. And if we are right and good, we choose to listen and strive to understand all that is provided with this blog. The way is clear; now we must all act. Please, share this information. Give this as much time as you can. Sit on it, think, and do something good first to yourself, by activating your consciousness, and then to others, by showing how it’s done.

[1] The Enlightenment mostly served the idealism of absolute monarchies, Cartesianism, and Rothschild’s “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!

Advertisements

48 thoughts on “The cycle of the great chain of being

  1. By any definition, you cannot ‘integrate’ any thing or concept that is completely false to begin with. Neither can you ‘transcend’ falseness. You should therefore ‘bother’ to construct sentences that carry meaning– rather than nonsense.

    Like

    • You once again prove that you are unable to understand true integration, which is the process transforming falseness into truth. Please learn to accept your limitations and inadequacies, Mr. Harris. I know it must be hard for you to do that, but at least just think that your science and hence your mind are incomplete and shall remain so, until you finally learn that I am metaphysically right. However, that probably won’t happen in this life for you.

      Like

  2. Bill,

    Examples surround us but can only be seen with a keen eye, for it takes integrated consciousness to be an integrator.

    Although I am convinced that you are incapable of understanding what I write here, I will continue because I may derive some other potential insights from your criticisms, considering that sometimes they may be valid and given in good conscience. Now I am about to once again enter your conceptual domain.

    Quantum decoherence is a key (non-metaphysical) concept in the consistent histories approach. Without referring to math, I would describe it as the differentiation of wave into (stable) atom. I need to stress that I do not conflate particles and atoms, such as you or others tend to do. I understand particles are fundamental to all other objects, but that does not make them the only objects or even objects without reference to their contexts. Here is a video that illustrates quantum decoherence relatively well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quantum_superposition_of_states_and_decoherence.ogv

    In a metaphysical contrast, the Copenhagen interpretation is the differentiation of wave into particles. In a new experiment, particles (photons) are parts of an energy and wave pattern (note that energy is not merely quantitative but is realistically qualitative and visual as well): http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html
    Our differences are perhaps where we draw boundaries when identifying particles on the background of QV. What’s measured positively is particles, but what is not observed is QV, so don’t claim that I misunderstand. I think it’s you who misunderstands by accepting the dogma that particles include what’s not observed and only this way are thought of (incorrectly) as waves.

    Re Quine: there are many philosophies and many sciences (with more on their way), and they are deeply intertwined. Quine was probably talking about his philosophy, which doesn’t make it right.

    The quantum vacuum is not semantically or in any way equivalent to dark energy. Dark energy is of cosmic scale, empty to us, whereas the quantum vacuum is only practically significant when we look at areas filled with observable matter, such as where we are located. The top is not literally equivalent to the bottom, even if the bottom reflects or echoes it (think Hegel, Emerson, Thoreau). The quantum vacuum that connects the particles is the fundamental nature, or noumenon, of our sense data, or Kant’s “manifold of sensation” (ein Mannigfaltiges der Sinnlichkeit), neither more nor less.

    And while particles are equally fundamental, extrapolating them onto atoms, molecules, or anything greater than themselves is not legitimate for the same reason that Schrodinger’s cat is not realistic. But using the consistent histories approach is more realistic than the Copenhagen, and hence more acceptable. Your conflation of the two is unacceptable, however, and neither is your lack of perceiving significant metaphysical differences between the two (hint: think of the logic involved; one is proper and the other is metaphysical).

    If you want to continue our conversation with mediators, you are welcome to join the discussion I started about Rand and Kant on philosophy forums: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/raising-rand-and-kant-72898.html

    Regards,
    Ilya

    Like

    • ‘Consistent Histories’ was a term created by Griffiths (1988) in a famous article. Within, he clearly stated that “CH is Copenhagen done right”.

      To wit:

      * There is no measurement problem. Variances in data are set within the Born re-configuration of the Heisenberg. The least variance possible is that of the reduced Planck constant; (X) x (Y)=(Y)x(X)x(h).

      ** Furthermore, all measurement parameters are set by Born’s Probability Density.

      *** Particle -wave duality is a part of science that’s not particular to QM. For example, although Navier-Stokes defines flow in a broad sense, it does not supersede our molecular understanding of water.

      ****This we can say with confidence due to our present capacity to measure individual photons. In other words, The original ‘Copenhagen’ was based upon our incomplete understanding of the photon’s capacities as a particle.

      Decoherence (Ravi) played a role in the story via Gell-Mann’s observation that, since atoms oscillate like everything else, a incoming wave of the same frequency would cause a predictable disturbance–just as with bridges, for example.

      The outcome of Griffith’s CH was the quantization of everything, from galaxies to quarks. What’s ‘Consistent’ is one set of rules.

      But within textbooks (mine, for example), QM is approached as having certain qualities that relate to the smallness of scale. For example, Feynman wrote that while Newtonian/Einsteinian rules pertain to ordinary objects, fermions and bosons each have their own, making three sets of rules. So the debate rages on…

      For my part, i know enough to understand the comparative arguments–but not enough to fairly weigh the evidence presented by either side. What’s amusing, then, is to read your advocacy of a position which, typically, you know absolutely nothing about.

      Hopping onward to Kant, it’s clear that you don’t understand him, either. Having obviously not bothered to read anything more than Randite screed, you profess the ability to ‘integrate’ and to ‘synthesize’….

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, Bill, I “know absolutely nothing” when I talk about science because I am not a scientist, but what I do know allows me to correctly predict the exact content and function of what I don’t. As far as I can see, my Model and my theories are working with no contradictions and quite consistently. What you described as ‘CH’ makes me like and agree with ‘CH’ even more. If Copenhagen is ‘incomplete’ and is superseded by other interpretations, why does 40% of quantum physicists still cling to it?

        And yes, Newtonian/Einsteinian and quantum phenomena are of different scales, even though they could be integrated through such views as by Griffins (as you mentioned particles, galaxies, etc. as quanta), Leonard Susskind (particles, universes, etc. as strings), and Nassim Haramein (protons as black (w)holes).

        The thing about fermions and bosons is the difference between matter and force. In my Model, they follow a dialectic, as in extreme (aka thesis)–opposite (antithesis) | critical point (integration or synthesis): Particle (implied here as matter)–Energy (implied here as the ground state, or zero-point vacuum density) | Quantum (implied here as force or wave). Hence, as per this dialectic, all quanta are neither particles nor energy but both at the same time.

        I have been thinking about Kant a lot, and I will post a reply to all your questions on the philosophical forum.

        Like

      • Photons are particles. we can now do experiments to demonstrate this. each carries a unit of energy called a ‘Quanta’. Fermions form quarks which ca eventually form matter—with the assistance of a boson called ‘Higgs’. Yet bosons all have the same property of moving/spinning far too fast to adhere together–an ostensible prerequisite for matter.

        Fancy math, such as Witten’s 10+1 dimensions–can integrate gravity with the other forces (SU3+SU2+U). Ditto converting the whole Lie shebang in to a Lie8.

        The problems however, are empirical, or what’s sometimes called ‘phenomenal’:

        (1)strong force is asymptotic, which means it doesn’t obey a predictable distance = less radiation scenario–but rather , the opposite, which gives an inverse slope that misses the famous ‘electroweak intersection.

        (2) The scale problem that gravity is 10,000 times less strong than any force within the nucleon.

        CH and its pal QD are ways of explaining both how QM can ‘integrate’ within classical mechanics/Relativity. Historians in this vein like to point to both Bose’s famous paper that demonstrated how the Heisenberg can be relativized and Dirac’s relativization of the electron” E^2=M^2(C^4)–hence, anti-particles.

        So arguably, yes, this is an integration, but with several caveats,

        * In order to defend this, you’d have to know enough physics to counter the arguments of Feynman (d) and his epigoni, who called all QD/CH claims ‘bullshit’.

        ** You’d have to admit that QD/CH is a heuristic, at best. This means that some of its explanations integrate better than others. For example, when building a transistor it’s great to use The Born Principle (probability density); but saying that, by the same token, you can throw a basketball through a wall with enough tries isn’t even good cocktail party chit-chat.

        *** You quickly run up against Quine’s ontological problem, in which either tweaking, or ignoring any principle can make a theory sound like its contrary. So yes, without Born probabilities, negative values per the Schrodinger, Quantum tunneling per the Heisenberg, Feynman’s path-integral, Wilczek’s nucleon, etc, sure, QM sounds just like classical Physics.

        **** lastly, on the technical level, you have Yang-Mills staring you in the face because, on the general theoretical level, Y-M is the mathematical instrument that’s used to quantitize other particles, of mass. This is the way QCD and QED get studied; so to perform the obverse de-quantization–which CH?QD entails, makes absolutely no sense.

        So it seems to be a dumbing-down for reasons of expediency–sort of like using the Newtonian to predict when objects falling to earth will hit the ground.

        Like

      • Photons are only particles to a disintegrator, but to an integrator photons (or quanta) are not only particles but also energy.

        Indeed, bosons are a prerequisite for matter, as they are a prerequisite for fermions.

        I don’t fancy math. Math is a dead language to me, not a language of life. It’s only good for describing things, not explaining their meaning.

        I don’t know enough about Feynman to even categorize his philosophy, not speaking of his physics. [Richard Feynman has been voted in as a mat-7, right after Niels Bohr. Feynman’s disintegrative arguments notwithstanding, Leonard Susskind has already transcended him.]

        Everything you wrote is incomprehensible (to this audience at least) academese with no semblance of a relationship to life whatsoever.

        It’s a “dumbing-down” when having all that noise written by you to relate to reality rather than to more mathematical descriptions of it. The reason is not merely expediency but also veracity as it also relates to human beings, not robots. I am not speaking here of some “heuristics” but of something much more meaningful to a conscious being. You were not born to understand this.

        Was it so hard for you to use your actual identity rather than write all this gibberish under a fake identity? It’s too bad you had to be banned.

        Concerning Kant, Bill has not replied to my post on the philosophical forum. And besides, to really strengthen my argument, I would also have to exhaustively show correlations between Democritus and Kant. That may be for a future project. And an even better project is to show an alternative, and true, integration of rationalism and empiricism in contrast to Kant’s pseudo-integration (or disintegration, as I argue). Kant took the worst philosophers of the Enlightenment (namely, and mostly, Descartes and Hume), took the worst parts of their philosophies, and showed that they share them, hence making everyone think he successfully integrated them. A better thesis, based on my hypothesis that a true integration within the spirit of the Enlightenment is still possible, is that (rationalist) Spinoza’s philosophy and (empiricist) Bacon’s and Locke’s philosophy, in fact, do not conflict (as seen in my Diagram) but share a lot more than even those individuals possibly believed. But for this groundbreaking thesis, I would need to read so much and study so much more that it would be an equivalent to a PhD dissertation. Frankly, I am not prepared for this yet. I already have a preparation for a PhD dissertation on my hands, and it has nothing to do with Enlightenment philosophies.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s