Even fortune, serendipitous linking of thought processes that a more ‘educated’ mind might dismiss as erroneous can lead to great insight; if only by the process of ‘opening up’ the box one may find oneself trapped in. Of course, this does not deny the necessity of more grounded reasoning, scientific methodology, which then ‘throws out’ the original errors and replaces (open-minded) alternative structures.
So, of all the forest of possible interactions, what were the ‘core’ critical ones, and how did they combine?
Recently in the news, there was some research that was done to examine the minimal number of genes that constituted ‘life’ in a cell [ arstechnica]; as mentioned in the article, sometimes you have to do hard empirical research. When you’ve identified certain parameters, going through the ‘options’ of testing which is ‘required’ is the only (or easiest) way of reducing to a core set of functions. Of course, then one has to define a set of appropriate experiments to satisfy the needful criteria.
But, there is a catch: first one needs the basis of a theory in order to define the nature of the experiment; but what basis does one take (if any) ‘version’ of historical interpretations (Biblical, Vedas etc.) was most accurate – or least distorted?
Even a starting position was profoundly difficult: did we start as ‘clones’ of a putative God (whether or not ‘S/He’ exists/ed’, or the correct interpretation of the texts); again, there could well be a ‘biological’ grounding (brain states) for the described.
Another problem for the Biblical ‘God’ (as well as others of similar type), is the extra-ordinary contradictions that arise when examined – the same questions that arose earlier must also explicable. ‘Mysteries of God’ come across as feeble excuses that allow phenomenal abuses of the system within which they are used.
To use the analogy of the microprocessor as an ‘God’, omnipotent, all-powerful, unchanging, all-knowing ‘Creator’: as the processor is fixed all interactions are standardised, so any ‘local’ differences (individual, cultural, religion etc.) should receive ‘standard’ feedback (‘instructions’) – our real world feedback is… disturbingly troubled in contrast. Saying that a ‘processor isn’t perfect – unlike God’ is reinforcing the point just made.
Freewill: we were made in the ‘image’ of God – apparently; so, let use that as a starting point and see if we can advance from there (all are ‘good’ or ‘neutral’ – the same). Each ‘being’ is identical ergo, should act in ‘unison’ with every other ‘being’; if in a group then the social pressure would surely crush any individuality or advantage in going ‘bad’ – what would define ‘bad’ anyway?
Strip away the concept of ‘God’, it is an ingeniously simple construct that creates more distortions and distractions, with no proof of there actually being one. God construct is complicated under the guise of simplicity, it creates more ‘problems’ than it ‘solves’ – in short, genius!
Accountability is distracted by having an all-powerful excuse – of course, it is easy to claim that ‘God works in mysterious ways’, a crutch of profound ‘strength’ that only ‘evil’ denies! Get rid of the ‘God’ construct and it automatically destroys the ‘Devil’ construct – individual accountability is brought back into the frame.
Also, the all-powerful ‘God’ takes on a dynamic evolutionary path, hierarchical systems of ‘Gods’ competing; unfortunately, that really doesn’t help much in resolving problems.
Deception, misdirection, an ancient war describing and misinforming; that there were deeper levels seemed clear, though the reasoning was cloudy, resonances like a tuning fork kept reoccurring.
If the ‘God’ principle doesn’t work, the only option is to remove it; can always replace later if needed.
Dynamic, Accountability, Freewill, All Same Start, Sovereign Individuals.
The words above don’t look like much, do they? Nothing to explain ‘origin’, ‘how’ or ‘why’…
Immortality, Reincarnation, Afterlife Another group of words that sum up pervading religious thought around the world – Valhalla. ‘We come into this world…’
Our temporal stay in this world is regularly described as temporary (fair enough, it is); the spiritual realm is remarkably similar to that of the physical, in fact ‘immortality’ is pretty much the only difference.
Let us add ‘Immortality’ to that list, and see what happens: Dynamic, Accountability, Freewill, All Same Start, Sovereign Individuals , Immortality.
A clean sheet, no ‘history’, doesn’t describe how or why, what was the original conflict? What are most conflicts about – stripping away politics, religion, what do we need? Resources…
With ‘infinite’ resources available, then there would be very little conflict, for each Cell (Sovereign individual) would simply take as much as required; but, there are no such thing as ‘infinite’ resources so what happens in a limited scenario?
Another ‘problem’ is how the ‘cell’ interacts with its environment, and evolves in accordance with the feedback. Each ‘Cell’ is a dynamic, changing unit Sovereign to itself; as each is ‘Sovereign’ on its own, there can be no primal state of ‘sin’ or ‘corruption’, or ‘good’ either. Where does ‘sin/corruption’ come from?
We’d have a problem if we stuck with ‘God’ clones: earlier, it was noted that: Each ‘being’ is identical ergo, should act in ‘unison’ with every other ‘being’; if in a group then the social pressure would surely crush any individuality or advantage in going ‘bad’…
To use the analogy of the microprocessor as a ‘God’, omnipotent, all-powerful, unchanging, all-knowing ‘Creator’: as the processor is fixed all interactions are standardised, so any ‘local’ differences (individual, cultural, religion, etc.) should receive ‘standard’ feedback (‘instructions’) – our real world feedback is… disturbingly troubled in contrast. Saying that a ‘processor isn’t perfect – unlike God’ is reinforcing the point just made.
Bucket 4: Heresy, jump in – it feels lovely…