Cosmolosophy: What carries on after a self no longer associa

[Jeff Vale]

The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued:
What carries on after a self no longer associates?

I have been much perplexed on this question these last few weeks. There has been a number of considerations swirling around in my head that involve it. At least one has seemed quite contradictory.

Consider, for instance, the situation of a self no longer functioning because the meat underneath can no longer replicate. If we accept the notion that this self started a vector of association that created another reality for a new universe which, one would assume, eventually creates the loving structure for a growing population of new singular associators, wouldn't its cessation suddenly stop the reality that the new associators were creating their new realities in? And if that were the case, wouldn't you suddenly have a geometrically expanding, cascade of cessation? One would think, if that were the case, that the recursive question-answer engine the entirety is would collapse to a complete halt fairly quickly. It hasn't of course, so that leaves the question of how to reconcile the logical inconsistency.

In thinking about this I kept going back to the idea of momentum. What is momentum in the bigger picture? Sure, we think in terms of applying a force to an object so that it's velocity changes relative to us, thus giving it momentum. Apply another quantity of force in a vector directly opposite of the first and the momentum can be reduced to zero again. In the bigger picture, though, momentum is more complicated. How could it not be when it and energy and mass are so interrelated.

Sometimes, when you come upon a seeming contradiction, you just have to put the various elements up on the old white board and see what your mind can link together. So let's review: Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy, mass and momentum are different expressions of the same thing. Structure is energy and energy is structure. Even space-time is structure, therefore space-time is also energy. The whole thing exists as a means to transfer meaning; at least in essence. It has to be thus because of the need for bounded elements and gap to make information possible in the first place. And of course, for the information probabilities to be realized, there needs to be a singular point of association. This singularity starts the expansion of association along a new vector of space-time; a new vector of structured energy if you will. Does that expanding structure cease simply because the original point of reference is no longer directly associating in its source reality?

You can probably see what has been a common viewpoint in this. If energy is neither created or destroyed, and our consciousness is energy, then we never really die, right? Something carries on and it is usually referred to as spirit. People usually make the previous statement, though, with little deep conviction (at least in my experience). It has, I think, been a hard thing to connect to viscerally; energy and consciousness being so abstractly connected most of the time. I believe, however, that Cosmolosophy gives us a way to understand spirit in a whole new way.

And this, of course, is where momentum comes in. It is more than just momentum though. Momentum in the bigger picture is the never ending process of transfer. We can see this in our original example. Applying force to an object is simply transferring structure from the object to space-time. And when we do that we change the meaning of the object relative to us (a meaning we just happen to call velocity at this scale of consideration). We change the meaning again when we transfer structure in the opposite direction. We have the expansion of this space-time structure in the first place because of the many different structural transfers taking place in the conceptual frame work of the associator whose consciousness forms our reality. As new ideas and object relationships take form in this consciousness, more and more space-time structure is created. This occurs at different scales of consideration, naturally, and along quite significantly different asynchronous time lines (they are, after all, different association vectors). The important point to remember, however, is that there must be, in my opinion, influence of one scale to another. There must also, in my opinion, be a point where the new associations, and their meanings, within the scale of the now expanding new reality, take on a continuing impetus of their own.

Does this not create a wondrous conundrum? How much of what we think, do and feel, transfers to the reality our consciousness creates at this other scale of consideration? How much of what occurs within that new reality transfers back to us? If we are full of wonder, imagination, openness and engagement, do we create a reality where magic really does happen? If we are closed, narrow in viewpoint, and bitter in general nature, do we create a much more cold and bleak sort of reality? I ask these questions because I can't help but feel that it imparts (or at least suggests) a great deal of what our spirit consists of. It also might explain not only why spirit continues on, but why some spirits actually come back to a singularity again.

I think this is why Meleagar's take on Story, Theme and poetic expression had such an effect on me. It presents an excellent metaphor for explaining spirit. One could easily think in terms of our lives being a story that is told indirectly to the reality at this different scale of consideration. And the way we live our lives forms the Theme that reality will take on as a guiding principle to its norms of association. And the amalgam of stories that reality then shapes will become the expression of our spirit going forward after we stop associating ourselves. Our spirit can then be seen both as what we where, but also the possibility for ongoing story that we shaped in very real terms. In this sense, having your story retold takes on a significant new meaning and importance.

In as much as structure interacting with structure creates more structure. And that structure and mass are the same thing, the more engaging and interactive a universe is, the more likely it will accumulate the mass necessary to counter limitless expansion after the initial singularity; coming back to that same (but still a bit different I suspect) point of reference. In this vein perhaps the Hindus have it wrong. Perhaps living a good (as in loving, nurturing, imaginative and open) life isn't meant to get us to any kind of final ascension; whereupon we exist in some more refined plane of existence. Rather it is that we are meant to come back and keep the possibility of good stories going. Perhaps it is precisely those kinds of Themes that make not only the best realities, but the best way to transfer meaning and momentum.

Transfer, meaning and momentum. I can't help but think that they form another important trinity. Perhaps it is that Love is one form of this trinity. Or maybe it's that Love is only one or two of them. I have already stated that Love and Mind form essential elements of the entirety. Certainly Mind could encompass the Question-Answer engine part of things. I have to believe, however, that it is Love that keeps at least transfer going (through the elemental embrace and the need to exchange). It is also why my faith lies in the hope that the telling of my story will keep these kinds of links together.

[Dewey]

The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued:
What carries on after a self no longer associates?

I have been much perplexed on this question these last few weeks.

Jeff, you’re perplexity is nothing compared to mine. Yours, however, is excusable. Mine is not. It’s probably my own fault that I have virtually no idea of what you folks are talking about. Allow me and perhaps others to catch up a bit. A suggestion or two, perhaps?

Should I start by studying the Tenets of Cosmolosophy to which you refer? If so, where is this collection of principles? I have searched the philosophic literature and found nothing, not even in the field of metaphysical science (to this novice, an oxymoron). I can't even find any mention of the term “cosmolosophy”.

Thanks for any help you can give.

[Jeff Vale]

Dewey:

I hope you can forgive the fact that I have not made it more clear that Cosmolosophy is an idea that I have been formulating in "E-Time." (as to say internet realtime). It is a distilation of over forty years of considering the why's and what for's of our existence. I called it Cosmolosophy because I wanted a clear indication that it attempts to employ cosmology as its foundation. The tenets that you see presented in the various Philosophy of Science topics are insights finally crystalizing in my mind. I write them down as soon as the words come to me and then post them. I am hoping that, both individually, and as a mosaic, the expressions presented provide a useful, and engaging, framework with which to think about the why's and what for's of our existence. Something that a questioning mind can have to hang a spiritual and faith based hat on without there necessarily being a deity involved.

I should also point out that there will soon be a Cosmolosophy web page. I want to emphasize, however, that this page will never have advertisements on it. Nor will it ever ask for donations of any kind. I want there to be no doubt or confusion about what motivates me to do this. The bottom line is simply that I have to do it. I am going to keep it up as long as I am both materially and spiritually able. I stumble over what feels to me to be meaningful insights and I simply have to express them. I am hoping that this new page will be an ongoing forum for asking good questions about what constitutes Loving Structure. Much as this good site is, only more focused I think.

In any case, if ever there is a question you have about Cosmolosophy, ask it here, on the new site, or send me a personal email. I love questions and I look forward to getting a lot of them.

[prodygi]

wouldn't its cessation suddenly stop the reality that the new associators were creating their new realities in? And if that were the case, wouldn't you suddenly have a geometrically expanding, cascade of cessation? One would think, if that were the case, that the recursive question-answer engine the entirety is would collapse to a complete halt fairly quickly. It hasn't of course, so that leaves the question of how to reconcile the logical inconsistency.

Perhaps that would tip that universe into Big Crunch mode and causality would run in reverse as entropy decreased as time passed...

I really think I'm in the same boat as Dewey on this subject but it sounds fascinating. I have just now found your posts and am enjoying them tremendously. Please could you explain more on Loving Structure? And if you ever get your Cosmolosophy site active please be sure to let me know.