From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 20:09:22 MDT
I tried to obtain some critiques of this before, and no one obliged.
Maybe some will now, and then again, maybe not.
TOWARDS A VIRION ETHICS
by Joe E. Dees
THE ANTHROPOMORPHIC GOD AND THE UNIVERSAL
HUMAN
There are three schemas for the human creation of Deity as an
idea in the mind. This is not to assert either that such a deity does
or does not in fact exist; it is simply to show that such a Deity's
existence is not an a priori for the presence of a God-concept in
the human mind. God's existence or nonexistence is independent
of the presence or absence of these beliefs. These three schemas
are (1) psychological projection, (2) confusion of apprehension
with imposition, and (3) social ground for elevated
communication.
Psychological projection - The self-conscious individual projects
this self-consciousness directly into the world as an
anthropomorphization. This is a projection into immanent
perception (animism) which is later transcendentalized. The
necessary and sufficient conditions for this to occur are a world to
be perceived and a self-referential perceiver.
Confusion of apprehension with perception - this is the belief
that order is apprehended within a designed universe rather than
imposed categorically by the ordering mind of the believer. Either
or both may be the case, but neither absolutely (with the exception
of microphysics - see Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). The
assumed Deific imposition of such an order leads the believer to
further assume a self-conscious Deity; this is an unwarranted
anthromorphic limitation of the concept.
Social ground for elevated communication - this schema
requires the presence of an other; it is thus social and a suppot for
T. S. Eliot's discernment of religio-cultural symbiosis. Heidegger
states that objects are related to each other through the subject (as
tools); reverse this and it may be seen that subjects may be related
through objects in their shared perceptual field (as
imposers/apprehenders of meaning). The subject is also object,
however (mind manifests by means of body), and humans seem to
equate their bodies with objects as the "lower" part of their
presence in the world. Thus, communication occurs mediated by a
"lower" ground (and a subjectively inadequate-seeming one). A
pure subjectivity is therefore intersubjectively postulated to satisfy
the desire to communicate on a "higher" ground. The moment
such abilities and attributes are ascribed to Deity, however, it also
becomes an object.
The basic misconception is that of an anthropomorphic God. We
both observe and are participatory parts of the universe - it is not
subsumed in us. The whole is not a reflection of the part; it is
vice- versa.
Infinite regress is possible both spatially and temporally within the
"known" universe. The universe may be seen as spatially infinite
or temporally eternal if we see ourselves as the same and admit
infinite regress. It may also be seen as spatially finite and
temporally bounded if we see ourselves as the same and deny
infinite regress. The choice is at this moment arbitrary, but in
either case, the universe is spatiotemporally finite in relation to
ourselves.
We can also choose to believe in eternal pre- and afterlives if
they are transcendent. Immanent organized eternity is contradicted
by a periodicity of universal collapse. The undifferentiated
aesthetic of F.S.C. Northrup survives this; specific differentiations
do not if they are immanent. We here have the choice of accepting
human finitude or of asserting human infinitude by means of
transcendence.
We must continue to make distinctions between knowledge,
belief and untruth. Knowledge is probable and statistical; it is
demonstrable by example. Belief is possible and astatistical, and
should not be assumed in either the case of possible example (this
makes it knowledge) or of possible counterexample ( this makes it
untruth).
Either God is or God is not. In either case, we cannot say what
God is without limiting the concept. Therefore, we should not try
to tell each other what God is, for we cannot; we may merely
assert our belief in God or lack of same, and describe the form
this belief takes for us. It is up to the other whether or not to
accept such an assertion in whole or in part.
BELIEF IN OURSELVES
We are part of the universe and our apprehension of it is
equivalent to the universe perceiving itself, a la "self-thinking
thought." We give meaning to the universe as our home and the
universe gives us meaning as its beholders. Our meaning is to be
found within this interrelationship of ourselves with each other,
within our common home. We give each other meaning through
our interrelationships - humans are as symbiotic as humanity and
cosmos.
Rather than depend upon transient myth to ground and
perpetuate us, we must recognize the values of human dignity,
community and industry directly.
(1) Human dignity - (Self/universe)-consciousness is a rare
thing in the universe, as far as we know. Regardless of whether or
not there was a conscious giver, such a gift is to be prized in
ourselves and respected in others.
(2) Human community - We are all different people, but we are
also all people. McLuhan's global village and Sagan's giant
terrarium are facts; we are all in this together, and should act
accordingly.
(3) Human industry - We become ourselves and care for others
through our actions. The human experience is our life-project, and
we should act in the service of human dignity and community.
Whether or not we survive physical death, this opportunity is not
to be exactly repeated - we should, to be in good faith with
ourselves and others, say yes to life. Our means must justify any
end we decide to choose.
But - what about the future of society? Where is our young
culture heading and what is civilization evolving into?
THE ABSOLUTE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN
CONSCIOUSNESS
My contention is that consciousness evolves in absolutes. 0 =
unconsciousness (matter), 1 = consciousness (life), and we, the
recursively self-conscious, have the (ideal) possibility of infinity
before us. this contention is mathematically proveable.
Self-consciousness is consciousness of consciousness (2).
However, if we are self-conscios, we are conscious of this fact (3).
This may be expressed as "if 2 then 3". But it is obvious that we
would be conscious of our consciousness of such a fact (if 3 then
4), and in fact, for any state achieved, awareness of (and therefore
transition to) the next state is (ideally) possible. I have therefore
proven "if N then N+1.
These two premises together (if 2 then 3 and if N then N+1) lead
to the logical conclusion that if 2 then oo (infinity). Thus the
evolution of consciousness (ideally) proceeds in absolutes;
0>1>oo. Ego would occlude one level, for one can only view a
level of consciousness from an ego-position outside that level;
Zennists maintain, however, that one might be able to egolessly
experience the multilayered totality. Why would such a thing be
difficult or impossible in reality when ideally it is feasible? For
three reasons: the finitude of the brain, the anchoring of
perception, and the ego-epistemology of partial knowing.
(1) The finitude of the brain - there are a vast number of neurons
and synaptic/dendritic connections in the human brain, but
nevertheless this number is finite. To assert that such a finite
mechanism is capable of grasping an infinite number of states is
to
commit a caegory error. Our self-conscious awareness
isnecessarily
both existent and partial; the recursive snake of self-consciousness
must bite its own tail, but cannot swallow its own jaws.
(2) The anchoring of perception - our conceptions are grounded in
our perceptions, and recurse to inform them. The farther away we
get , in levels of consciousness, from our perceptions, the more
tenuous this connection becomes, and the more sterile and less
referential the resulting cognizance.
(3) The ego-epistemolgy of partial knowing - we are trapped in
the ego-epistemology between egoless apprehension of nothing
(matter) and egoless apprehension of all (omniscience). In other
words, we are always on the way to omniscience, but can never
arrive.
Our path, therefore, is clear; we must discover as much about
the universe as we can (and this includes about ourselves), while
adhering to two rules:
(a) All should be permitted to possess all freedoms they care to
enjoy so long as they do not interfere with any of the same
freedoms possessed by others; when these freedoms inevitably
come into conflict, such conflicts should be resolved by equal and
proportional compromise.
(b) The universe is to be experienced and understood rather
than defaced or destroyed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:59 MDT