I don't know if it happens to everyone, but there was a period of time when I inquired into the composition of God. Perhaps "spirit" is a better term, because in a round-about way this applies to we spiritual beings as well. Even still, a quantum aware whole.
Anyway, for God to exist in its own right, the minimal list of attributes that came to me were "self-reflecting", "self-referencing", "self-organizing", and "self-replicating".
Ahh the mind of a systems nut.
Self-reflecting, because being One, it had to be able to perceive itself.
Self-referencing, because it had to keep track of its focus within the history of its self-reflection.
Self-organizing, because it had to arrange these affairs to effect context and meaning.
Self-replicating, because, well, I exist, and though being a part of God, I wouldn't describe myself as being God. So, somehow, an expression of God produced me.
Continuing from that, I recognized myself as an open-system, dependent on the environment outside myself. Yet that is not true of God, so I found novelty fascinating. I imagined God as a closed-system, being One that is. So how did novelty ever arise? Wouldn't God get rather bored? So, in addition, I posited the attribute I label "self-perturbation". Something had to upset the apple cart. Undoubtedly, not a flattering label, but that is what I came up with. Googling it, I see it has been used elsewhere, so a patent isn't pending on my part. Damn.
Of this exercise, I came to realize the essence of life was experiencing. And so, from that point on, I've always admired my experiences, the good and the bad, because, to me, they were the spice of life.
There is a scientific theory called "Autopoiesis" that I am going to spend a little time with. Science is coming to understand one of these attributes, self-organization. To treat life as a science to some threatens its very essence. What informs the senses of one is lost on others. Such is the nature of life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Picking up on one aspect of this - that is, One aspect... I haven't thought enough about this, but it seems like the sense that this must be a UNI-verse is something very immediate and widespread - whether it's believers in one God overseeing creation or science looking for the universal laws/properties underlying the observable world.
Maybe it's as basic as everything sharing in the property (? - I think that's wrong) of being or isness. Whatever is, it's united on at least that basis...
I think a monumental step forward would occur if science and theology could advance that notion in a sense as one.
But then they would put this blog out of a job, he said with a smile.
I'm rather disappointed in the outcome of your analysis N2, which ought to have been sufficient to reject the concept of God based on observable evidence. But I guess it takes lots of ideas submitted to journals and tested by your peers before something useful comes out?
I am sorry to disappoint. Really. I don't quite know how to respond. I can say I have been drawn away from the concept of God, hence the past tense used throughout the post. I can also say I am not a scientist; if they would be the peers you refer to. I am just an inquisitive individual. I like philosophy and science. I let my imagination play with them to the point of bouncing an idea in the form of a blog post. I would like to think there is more to life than evolutionary billiard balls. I think my literary skills suck, because the above doesn't apparently come through.
That said, do you think I am off my rocker to consider that the seeds of consciousness, which I call awareness, can be found at the quantum level of physics? If so, why?
I am sorry I used the word "disappointed" which seems to imply some disapproval.
As for what can be found at the quantum level of physics, I think that's the business of physicists and not mine. I think it's a big fad to imagine that quantum physics has some deep meaning that can be linked to consciousness.
Quantum physics is a theory, that is to say an intellectual abstraction. God is another theory. Both are based on experience but one uses a laboratory and the other uses the heart (hopefully not some ancient Scriptures).
I understand your love-affair with science a little better after your clarification. Please excuse my scepticism which tends to be equally hostile to religion and science, for I consider both hopelessly corrupted!
I’m glad you stopped back and commented after my reaction. Touching upon your skepticism, I tend to see science as without a heart and religion without a head.
Just a bit more about me, I’m hoping to capture a few more thoughts for the blog then regroup. The kids are more important, especially while they are still at home. Also finding a future role that best fits with being the change one wishes to see in the world.
But I do enjoy engaging sojourners along the way. Thanks for lending an ear.
Post a Comment