20130905 (J)
Journal: Septemer 5, 2013
     Index     
Return to:   Site   or   Journal   Description

Idea of "Other"                         Language                         Morality                         Epistemology

A thought flashed, “I’m ready to talk, it’s coherent.” As it always has been. Unfinished, incomplete, but coherent. It includes arbitrariness of fuzzy boundaries among any things including words. We seem to spend (waste?) so much time trying to convince ourselves and others there is clarity at the boundaries, or at there SHOULD BE clarity, at least in God’s world, especially his world of right and wrong (sorry ladies, but I am a man).

Many say, “Science and knowledge is good, because it saves human lives and alleviates human suffering.” Many, some of the same, tell me that evolution, science, (God’s unseen hand) defines “good” as reproductive success, i.e. survival. By that measure we humans certainly are “good”. But as I have mentioned often our population history more resembles cancer than individual freedom. But who am I to say. Perhaps this spark is good:
  • Time awareness (Chronos) and its
  • link to necessity, cause and effect (Ananke) and their further
  • link to “good and bad” therefore
  • link to options (choice, freedom) for improvement of now; further
  • linked to institutionalization of training in the manipulative arts of the material world (STEM added 20200717)
(PhD’s, doctors of "philosophy" without taking any philosophy classes). This is all to:
better (an improvement of itself) improve the condition of man? Giving time for reflection on God’s bounty, if you want. If not, just enjoy the benefits of the material world: “go forth and populate the world with your kind in my image and subdue all nature for my sake” (Genesis Chapter 1).

Such an approach finds a comfortable home in contemporary (post 1700) northern European thought, an idea that seems to spreading like fire, consuming whatever it surrounds by eating at the edges, clarifying fuzzy edges. So, “Why not, so far so good”

Perhaps the “imaginary” idea of “what is not” but “could be”, will lead to “life” evolving (transitioning) into iron and silicon as adjunct to oxygen rather than carbon and hydrogen. Then God’s glory would be no longer restricted to organic decay under harsh conditions like space. Maybe “life” could eventually reverse the entropic decay of the universe.

Perhaps we will plunge over some extinction cliff. That “we” will be extinct is not in question (or is it?), whether we leave progeny or not is. Perhaps by treating every “thing” outside “moral protection” as grist for our conscious will to destroy or otherwise “use” for human life and comfort we will extend God’s (our) glory forever.

I doubt it; I suspect that very attitude, that arrogant “God in our image” attitude is a sin, if there is such a thing as sin.

Oh, back to, “I’m ready to talk. Well I’ve been talking all my life, ready then, ready now. All word are but metaphors, as are all thoughts they metaphorically represent. Does the earth go around the sun, or the sun go around the earth as I see every day. Choose you metaphor, for Einstein’s special theory say either or any is fine, there is no mathematical preference for one frame of reference or another. So I choose to be at the center of the universe, not a “nothing” mote floating in Cartesian space. I can “imagine” different references frame, especially with the help of mathematics. But I can only “be” in one. Azimuth and ascension are only two rather than 3 number needed to describe position in space, add declension to account for things outside the rotating earth.

I prefer life to its improvement.Aphorism 6 (again)