|
Here's an idea:
Consider the idea of "voluntary counting":
Example: if it is my choice whether or not to enter a supermarket, as well as my choice what I buy (whether to buy (counted) 7 apples say); then my "base" for counting ("base supermarket"), and the counting itself (how many of whatever I buy there) are voluntary.
How does "nature count" in "base freedom"?
In mathematics; "base" involves a way of grouping the process of counting (say into powers of 10 for example).
The way "base" works is self-referent: base "3" involves 3 x 3 x 3 type patterns.
The way number works appears to be self-referent:
the number "2" does not specify "which one" is which.
It seems perhaps all right? to regard "base" as like "category": count in "base apple" would be like buying a whole lot of apples at the market and keeping track (making a string say) of this by placing a mark on a piece of paper next to the word "apple" for each apple?
You could decide to name each mark. After you ran out of names you might call the next mark "apple to power of apple" and start over?
The act of counting apples involves here distributing the one category "apple" among many names; then reaching the name "apple to power apple" and collapsing the distribution into apple such that the names can be assigned in any order. (In other words: count apples in base 10 and when you reach 10 apples you collapse the "string of numbers" into "any order" by calling it "one 10" and then building a new string
of numbers.
Nature counts in "base freedom" by allowing patterns to be brought together freely (like: you and supermarket meet freely; you can choose not to go there); and by allowing patterns inside patterns to be bought together freely (you choose whether or not to count apples inside the supermarket).
The law of non-contradiction means everything is whatever it is.
It seems that nature can be seen as involving voluntary association of patterns; new patterns created from freedom.
However; it appears there is a certain reality; it is known "Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life".
"Base freedom" apparantly say means "any base freely met, any common ground agreed to for creation to take place".
Suppose you are counting by forcibly attaching some other base to you; and thinking: I can have more. Example: in a Gospel parable, those who were hired early in the day to work in a vineyard were upset (understandably) to find they got paid the same as those hired late in the day (even though they had agreed to the wage offered).
They were counting their pay by forcibly attaching "base: the other workers who started late".
Now if you think you have less; from counting; when you do not have to count perhaps an idea is that "what little you had compared in "base looking at the other worker" COULD have been taken away? (Not really taken away; but if you no longer count in that base; what little count you got has ceased to be compulsory; so now you do not have to have less; you are free to have less?
Jesus said something didn't he about "to those who have more, more will be given; to those who have less; what little they have will be taken away"; but also "the first shall be last, and the last be first".
And if the later worker in the vineyard thought "I've got more than those workers who worked all day; as I got the (allegedly) "same" wage for just one hour": well; if he is free and does not have to count in "base referring to the other workers"; then he no longer has to have "more"; so he is now free to have more.
When both workers embrace freedom; then the first can be last; and the last can be first.
The message of Jesus Christ seems to be in these parables that if you bind yourself to a particular comparison in a compulsory manner; you can get trapped in a narrow mindset; whereas in the Kingdom of Heaven comparisons are free agreements.
It's interesting that very young children; when playing hide-and-seek; will reveal where they are as soon as they see the finder is struggling to find them (my impression).
It's like they understand the voluntary nature of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Many supposed "disabilities" may tell us about ourselves. Example: "dyslexia". Who really has "dyslexia"; the dyslexic, or us?
Surely the interpretation of words from their order is built up voluntarily; any "auto-pilot" deciphering of order is itself agreed to voluntarily?
Maybe dyslexics are showing the reality that the ordered deciphering of words from shapes on a page is meant to be optional? Maybe they reflect an overly compulsory-aspect; a lack of internal awareness of the role of freedom in ones history; in "non-dyslexics" deciphering of order of letters?
Who has cancer? Us, or those with cancer?
Maybe a seemingly compulsory interaction of us in the universe is reflected by a seemingly compulsory association of the universe in a cancer patient?
Our presence in the universe can be thought of as voluntary; the universe and us interacting freely in mutual honesty-consistent freedom?
An unnatural growth of us in the universe? An unnatural growth of the universe in a cancer?
If we are free; the universe will recognise us.
Diseases appear to be understandable in terms of
uncertainties in space-time definition of the body within its own distribution of roles; and the human race in its definition, and the environment?
A "certain thing" involves a match of patterns freely made; if this were counted (matched again) by definition it has become uncertain in that you have a choice of two ways of making the match?
An "uncertain thing" involves patterns that have various ways they could be matched. Make a match and you have a (certain) match, obviously.
But if you apparently HAD to make the match; whatever reason WHY you had to make it is in the mix and might be a freely chosen reason? (like: you choose to go to a film so then you have to go to the cinema where it screens? But you don't really have to, going back through the layers.)
If one doesn't have to assume what the future is; it seems to become more free.
Bit of a puzzle.
-Regards,
Alan
|
