Reciprocity, Balance, and Will
Messiah, aka Thor: Thanks for the reference to In The Beginning, by John P. Mcnally, 2003, at http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/genesis.htm . To quote from it:
“But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is being, itself. Before something can change - act or be acted upon - it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is the very antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect.
….
The principle of cause and effect is, itself, evolved from a far more fundamental phenomenon commonly called the balance of nature. Balance is evident throughout the very fabric of the Universe.”
**************
To comment, I do feel more comfortable thinking about existence from a perspective of balance, subject to three main qualifications:
Firstly, and lately, I intuit that the very process of working from an assumption that there may have been a beginning might drive new discovery, even if the assumption itself may ultimately not be falsifiable.
Secondly, balance seems to require, from at least one perspective, that offsetting forces are equivalent. But, from another perspective, why would not the very existence of the system of balance itself play, at least to some extent, an indeterminate role in our equations, measurements and observations? Under chaos theory, not much indeterminacy at all is needed in order to afford room for vastly different results in complex systems---such as human consciousness.
When we observe associated sequential patterns, they will often appear to have significantly reliable predictive value. In shorthand, we might say that one pattern “causes” the other. However, from a different perspective, we might intuit that the contemporaneous agent of cause may have actually been much wider.
Of course, that intuition is not particularly helpful in celebrating our day to day lives or our applications of beer drinking technologies. But, it may be helpful in leaving more room for faith in values. I am not smart enough to convey why that room for faith seems so important. But, John Stuart Mill was an astute fellow, and, if I recall correctly, he labored under depression for quite some time, which he attributed, at least in part, to being in despair about the concept of determinism.
It is for “God” and you—certainly not me—to look into your heart of hearts and know upon what basis, if any, you divide good from evil. For those who believe they are able to make good choices without ever needing a spiritual basis, more power to them. Many claim that power. However, any managing of society apparently necessitates managing many more who need spiritual beliefs to light their ways to moral decisions and meaningful lives. As Mister Rogers quoted of Saint-Exupery, from The Little Prince, “L’essential est invisible pour les yeux.” [See http://www.genderpsychology.org/girl/little_prince.html.;
http://www.earthrays.com/.]
Regardless of proof, merely *leaving open the possibility* that we are connected to a fundamental category of spiritual essence might foster a view of the Golden Rule as more a matter of enlightened self interest than a matter of selflessness.
Thirdly, given perfect balance, why could not a perspective of synchronized movement, manifested through all matter, including ourselves, be considered as an expression of a higher will in which our expressions are participatory---*without in any way stepping on science’s turf?* Given perfect balance, why suppose that we lack even vicarious participation in effecting choices? (I forget his name, but I think the man behind Bell Helicopter might have some mathematical way of viewing free will as being at right angles with something like balance.)
At present, that seems to work for me. My “sister,” Alice, however, is in Stringland, where, consistent with Fave patterns of Sysverse, the Wilance of Identarity is Votracted by Beliefcentities into Grulignment against Nothsets. Her Valutons bend through Practals towards Spiritilation and into Chodimensions that are attached to Mindbranes, leading her towards infinite Artropy.
]-"Differentiate" can be used in both a transitive and intransitive sense, so I think, in that respect, the sentence is correct. Though Kerrie could mean "can we differentiate logic from other branches of philosophy?", I assume that by "differentiate" Kerrie means "to express the specific distinguishing quality of", which would be the transitive sense, if my understanding of transitive is correct. I would guess that Kerrie chose "differentiate" over "define" since "differentiate" better implies a *unique* defintion, as opposed to a possibly ambiguous one. However, I would change "most simple" to "simplest", since I don't think Kerrie means "the greatest number of simple terms". This side note is not completely irrelevant to the question, but I'll leave it as a side note anyway...)