God is Subtle

God is subtle. Here are three reasons why:
1) God is everywhere, but His omnipresence never 'pushes anyone off their chair'.
2) God always speaks, but he doesn't talk over anyone.
3) God makes the cosmos function, but His power never prevents anyone from making practical use of the Creation.

That third reason is most interesting to me as both a spiritual and practical man. It says to me two things: One, that God allows us to partake in his glory; and Two, that the physical world is rigged to give God maximum glory. These two things boil down to one great Gift: Human freedom. After all, we are made in God's image.

But, what is God's maximum glory through his Creation? Consider that anything God creates is necessarily infinitely inferior to himself. In other words, God's own glory can never be fully realized in anything he creates. So, I think his maximum glory cannot be in an 'end-state' kind of physical law---a 'Final' or 'Unified' theory of physics. I think God's maximum glory through his Creation can only be by our endlessly-new discovery of an endless depth of physical laws.

Objecting to this idea as a logically impossible 'infinite regress' both mistakes the point, and misses the point. The key to this idea is that the universe was not made for the satisfaction of fallen man at all. It was made for the never-ending wonder-and-use of the original, UNfallen mankind. God's maximum glory in His Creation is thus something which is simply-and-directly God-centric. In other words, it does not presuppose the existence of fallen man, nor of atheism, nor even of Satan (these creatures, rather, presuppose God and his glory). So, it is not a defensive physics at all. It is a purely pro-God view of physics. All God's enemies are simply ignored.

All theories of physics of fallen man tend to be formulated as 'Final' theories, rather than as practical and spiritual ones. By no coincidence, each of these theories has, in turn, had to be revised to account for the new-and-nearby discoveries of things which once were rejected as physically impossible. The question is, does there logically need to be a 'Final' theory? That may depend on your ultimately essential view of God---which, in turn, informs your view of the physical world. Is God basically rationalistic? Or, is He something more? Something better?

Did God make the physical world in order to satisfy the 'fallen' human wish for a means of salvation-by-works (technology, ritual, alchemy)? Or, instead, did He make it in order to satisfy that One Thing which it is said we shall do in the resurrected life: enjoy God forever? Is God's ulimate glory in an algorithm, or in an axiom? Which of the two is more meaningful, more beautiful? And, is a simple algorithm better than a complex one if the latter has far more practical and asthetic potential? Why stop there?

Even the Mandelbrot algorithm pays homage to God.

The way I came at all this was from an unassuming inquiry into the nature of space. What did I know directly about space, and about logic; and what kind of answer could that knowledge give me? I found that it all boiled down to the geometric point, and to what that point implies/presupposes. Einstein would be envious.

Isaac Newton formulated the most practical primitive conception of Motion without claiming a mechanism for gravity. Good thing for him AND us, because, since Newton left the scene, there has been so much effort to find a mechanism. I say there need be no mechanism, even in the face of an 'infinite regress' of physical laws. For what little I know of Newton's work, he may well not even have claimed that he had found the 'Final' theory of the Motions of All Things On All Scales (there seem to be reports that the current theories of physics include odd, and even bizarre, behaviors of subatomic particles).

Now, return to the topic of God's subtlety. Even pagans have a sense that there is, in fact, a certain Something, or Force, which is everywhere, and in everything, but which cannot be found like one finds a blue grain of sand on the beach. You can look and look and never find this Something, yet the 'spiritual' mind seems unable to help but admit that this Something exists.
The spiritual mental framework quite instinctively holds that a certain Something is omnipresent, yet also transcendent.

The mental framework of physical rationalism---or atheism---cannot, of course, readily admit that such a Something exists. But, this mental framework cannot be used to prove that this mental framework is sufficient to understand everything. Some persons simply hole themselves up into a particular-and-favored habit of mind in order never to fall into an erroneous habit of mind that produces increasingly severe errors.

Of course, in holing themselves up in a particular habit of mind, a person tends toward an increasing bias so that they end up rejecting as erroneous things which they later (if too late) are forced to admit are true. This tendency is a fact of the fallen 'human condition'. And, importantly, this tendency is a defensive one, rather than the ably-learning one of the small child of an unfallen world.

Even in the fallen world, it's better to seek the wisdom of an open-and-humble balance than the wisdom of arrogant defensivenes. The latter potentially results in a further fall into the arrogance of an untouchably tyranical personal Eden, in a fallen world that naturally-and-rightly demands that you equitably share what that Eden has cost them to produce for you. Christians don't need to get uppity with their theories. God is conceived as the 'Ideal Being'. The best and greatest possible. The notion, or thought, is easy to appreciate. But, the concept, or exact reality, can be difficult to formulate. That there are often obstacles to its formulation does not prove that the concept is impossible. As an excerise in intellectual humility, one can say that the obstacles may show only that there may be shortfalls in one's own thinking. After all, how many times, and in how many things, have you run into logical/conceptual obstacles that at first seemed inviolable, only later to find that you had made a conceptual mistake? It has happened to me so many times, and from so early in life, that I never have tried to keep track of them. Few people ever do.

The ideal concept of God includes both His ontological existence outside of spacetime, and His practical omnipresence within it. These are sometimes referred to as God's transcendence and immanence, respectively. Ideally, for the ideal being (God), He created space-time, rather than spacetime having existed as co-equal with God. So, God's ontology, that is, His very being, exists outside spacetime. But, ideally, also, God is omnipresent in spacetime. That is, ideally, God is both transcendent and immanent. By His omnipresence or immanence, God sees all. But, because He also transcends the cosmos, no-one-and-nothing can see Him without his choice. After all, if God made the eye, then God is invisible not because He is hiding behind a tree, but because He was hanging from one. He is invisible by nature, so that He can be seen only as He chooses. Just as importantly, He is everywhere and everywhen in such a way as never to 'occupy someone else's seat' so to speak. That's a humble God. His omnipresence never pushes any king off his throne, or any wanderer out of his tent. In short, God does not get in anyone's way. Everyone is free to be, and to move. On the face of it, the two ideals of omnipresence and transcendence seem unable logically to co-exist. Further, each ideal in itself seems impossible. How can something be present IN space and time and not take up any space and time? Much less, how can something be present everyhere and everywhen without 'butting' everything else out of existence? Both God's omnipresence and transcedence are possible by way of a single, all-but-ignored thing: the geochronic Point. Even the popular current theory of physics entertains the idea of such a point. Einstein's Theory of Relativity calls it the Singularity. But, the Singularity contains physical matter and energy, and need not be quite a true point. In logically considering the true, geochronic Point, however, it can be noted that this Point has no geometric nor chronological extension. It is purely there, as if without actually depending on either extensive space or extensive time for its own existence. In fact, both geometric and chronological Points are indistinguishable from each other: neither of them actually possess the properties of their respective referents. And, there can be an infinite number of them at a given Point, allowing an infinity of them throughout all of space and time. In short, they OCCUPY all of space and time without actually taking up any of space and time. Further, the geochronic Point cannot actually be located in terms of spacetime. You can't pinpoint it between your two fingertips. Nor can you stick the sharp end of a cartographer's tack through it. It cannot even be said that this Point is 'slippery', or 'fine-grained', as if to say that it 'slips through your fingers like liquid-teflon sand'. Oddly, the Point also logically allows that space, time, and matter can be 'infinitely' divided. That is, you can divide space, time, and matter endlessly without ever coming to the end of them, without ever finding the tiniest possible bit of them. In practical and asthetic terms, there is no tiniest possible bit of space, time, or matter; and no end to the ways in which it is organized, and thus to its practical uses. It's practical and spiritual uses need never end; its discoveries need never stop at a 'Final' theory. So, the geochronic Point seems to allow the only, directly theologically positive view of physics. Since the Point has no true referent, but rather all things are in reference to it, then there is not many Points, but one. God is not omnipresent in terms of spacetime, rather, all of space and time is everywhere and everywhen present to God. After all, God is transcendent. All this, if the true Point exists. It seems, at least from some mental framework, that the Point logically can exist, even though it cannot be directly empirically proved to exist. Like an axiom to the axiom's own algorithm, the latter unable to prove that its axiom is an axiom. Or, even like the 'self' to Allen Greenspan's original position of 'logical positivism: "If something cannot be measured in terms of something else, then nothing can be known about it, including whether it actually exists." This Point, as such, cannot be found. Not by you or me. It is not like a blue grain of sand that, by your seeing it as such, is proved to your senses to actually exist. Rather, the Point is so fundamental a Something that thought is possible only by subtlely presupposing it. In other words, like God, the Point does not get in your way. You are free to think.

Isaiah 58

Isaiah 58

There Is No Caste System in America; There Are No Oppressed Poor In America; There Are No Homeless Outcasts In America Who Didn't Deserve To Be Cast Out. No One In America Is Ever Misunderstood-And-Oppressed By Their Family, Their Militaristic Church, And Their Greedy Employer, Much Less To The Extent That It Results In Their Being Cast Out And Homeless; None Who Are Nearly Constantly Overwhelmed By The Discouragement Of The Effective Criminalization Of Their Homelessness Per The Sovereign Divine Right Of Those Who Are Well-off Enough To Borrow Money To Increase Their Own Already-Tolerable Lifestyle; None Who Are Endlessly Frustrated, Nor Suicidally Traumatized; None Who Ever Are Desparate Enough To Steal, To Do Violence To The Property-and-or-Persons Of Those Who Are 'Rich' In The Eyes Of The Destitute; None Who Are So Desparately Frustrated As To Blow Up And Start Hitting Things, Anything, In the Hope Of Communicating To You The PROBLEM WHICH YOU, At Least In Effect, DENY EXISTS.

If You Hate The Homeless, Then You Can Thank Your Own Pushy-and-Greedy, Profanely Dog-Eat-Dog Determination, and Your Health, and Your Connections, and Your Neurotypicality Contra Autism Spectrum Disorders, For Your Ability Never Yet To Be So Ruined As Never To Be Able To Help Yourself In The Rat-Race World Of Rats, Of The Normalization Of The Average Per The Profanely Sovereign Divine Right Of The 24/7 Protestant Work Ethic. There is Nothing Sacred, Including Christ In My Shoes, Unless You Knew It Was Him And Not Just Some 'Despicable' Homeless Person Who Has No Way Left In The World, For His Disabilities, Except To Scavenge In The 'Private Property' of Dumpsters. You Would Help Christ In My Shoes If You Knew It Was Him. But, His Point Was Not For You Kiss Up To Him, Nor Even So Much As To Help HIM AS SUCH. Rather, His Point Was For You To Help His Own Family--- Because It Is The Right Thing To Do. God, Who Is Omniscient, Makes It To Rain On The Just And On The Unjust. How Much More Ought You, Who Judge By Appearances, To Do The Same: To Water The WHOLE Field, And LIBERALLY SO, Lest You Fail To Get Sufficient Water To The Few Wheat Seedlings That Are Far Underneath The Shadow Of The Tares. Were I Your Son, Or Were I Your Mother, Or Your Long-Lost Uncle Who Went To War To Defend Your Safety, And If You Knew It, Then Would You Treat Me As If I Were The Lazy, Pot-Smoking Scoundrel That You Otherwise Love To Righteously Believe That I Am? HERE Is What I Am:


Imagine the U.S. Space Program found outerspace suddenly monopolized by a race of extremely friendly star-hopping aliens. And, imagine that these aliens, despite their awesome technological knowledge and power, consistently failed to see just how comparatively flimsy are our own spacecraft. The damage we would suffer from their friendliness would make us head back to Earth and stay there. This is autism.

As I hope is seen in this analogy, autism is not the disability. It is the 'place' of escape; the world of refuge. Like the heightened senses of blind persons, I think autism may be a neuro-plastic compensation for an underlying disability. Moreover, this compensation is of a type allowing a cognitive escape from the external context by which the disability manifests. In other words, autism is a specific type of neurological response to a 'vacancy' in the ecology of the brain; a type which creates a whole inner world out of what is left intact in the functioning of the brain. Nature abhors a vacuum---or, in the words of a character in the Jurassic Park movies, 'Life finds a way.'

The underlying disability of autism is a feebled dynamic autonomy. This is why autistic persons have difficulty facing the normal dynamic stressors that the rest of us take for granted. These stressors are what normal persons know as the substance of living; what stimulates growth and maturation, and what comprises the 'good stuff' of life itself. But, a person with a feebled dynamic autonomy lacks a well-formed, strong, dynamic sense of themselves as differentiated persons in a neurotypical social context. Worse, it is why they must avoid social contact on a normal person's terms. In short, they are unable to negotiate with the too-powerful aliens in the analogy above. It is also why the Sallyl-Ann test does not, in fact, directly test for the autistic person's ability to know of, and about, other minds, and other, independent points of view: the test is conducted by these aliens, these 'gods', and there is often too much damage involved for the autistic person in playing along with the test. Besides, it takes no great energy for him to simply rocket back toward Earth and then let gravity pull the rest of the way him home.

But, given the analogy above, imagine there were no Earth to head back to. The means of escape from the context by which the disability arises has vanished, yet the disability remains. The autism has vanished, but the disability remains. What does this mean? Here's a clue to my hunch: While the incidence of autism is rather higher among boys than girls, the incidence of the underlying disability may not be so disparate between sexes. The fact is that many 'normal' women (and some men) have a hard time genuinely believing that they have a right to have their own needs; they're psychologically so focused on the needs, wishes, and opinions of others. Autistic persons have a similar problem: the inability to stand up as their own persons under the pressure of the personal social autonomy of normal persons. Just like the U.S. Space Program in the face of the friendly aliens. Autistic persons cannot readily afford to admit to gods that they recognize themselves as differentiated persons, lest these gods take too much for granted that 'simply being friendly' will basically solve the problem.

Here is a quote from Motor behavior and the autism spectrum disorders--introduction
Reid, Greg; Collier, Douglas
Palaestra
10-01-2002

Given the array of observation scales for autism developed over the years (e.g., Schopler, Reichler, DeVellis, & Daly, 1980) one might assume that individuals are diagnosed rather easily by trained psychologists or psychiatrists. In general, such is not the case (Wing, 1997, 2000). Enormous heterogeneity of behaviors and developmental profiles make accurate diagnosis very difficult. The difficulty of diagnosis was apparent to one of the authors when it was learned that a local hospital used PDD-NOS most frequently with newly admitted children. Real children clearly did not fall into other diagnostic subtypes, and the more general (and vague) PDD-NOS was deemed most appropriate.

I myself have a very mild case of autism---at least in regard to most things. But, I believe I have the underlying disability in spades. In fact, I'm now very ill, and very homeless, for it. The neuro-plastic compensation in my case seems to be...

...Firstly, a hyper-focus on the feelings and opinions of others (similar to Williams Syndrome), including their feelings/thoughts about/for/against me. My entire sense of reality is forcefully, even violently, changed every two seconds when I find myself in an ordinary conversation, or even when simply as an anonymous bystander in the midst other people's conversations.

...Secondly, a creative intelligence so 'high' that it seems to me able to take up the slack wherever my nearly absent conventional knowledge acquisition-and-retention fails.

All-in-all, I often appear not disabled at all when in social contact with more-or-less socially aggressive persons, especially if I have enough nutritional support despite my severe digestive problems so that I can function well enough socio-cognitively to at least force myself to respond as a normal person. The stellar language ability of Williams people masks their severe general IQ deficit, and all my own abilities masks my severe disability. I cannot be my own person in the face of others, and, given my current state, requires something which I cannot obtain: completely isolation from other people. The more distress I experience from the presence of others, the less able I am to find rest in observing non-humanb life forms, even to the point where I must look away from wild birds, and even bugs. I was the last to know that I was thought of as a budding socio-economic superboy. Only when I was forced by my bowels to seek isolation (despite my wish to continue to comply with other's wishes that I keep company with them) for years did it begin to occur to me, because while in their company I was simply trying to stay both alive and sane at the same time. Their militarism didn't help, either.

Given a multiple of apparently distinct elements, the brain at first focuses on each element as if it actually were inherently distinct from the others (functional distinction). But, when a medical problem is first brought to the awareness of doctors and professional researchers, and also to the public, the medical establishment is at first presented with only a vary narrow subset of all the cases that actually exist in the general population. Of course, doctors are concerned to give an accurate diagnosis for each case presented to them. But, so many of them and their researchers tend to go through a learning process in which they are forced, by stages, to keep reassessing their current theory of the disorder. So, at the first stage, they assume that all the similar elements (autism, aspergers, Williams, Down, etc.) are mutually exclusive, only soon to be forced to 'admit' that some of this was a mistake. each talking/writing as if he or herself had always known the new truth of the matter. This false innocence on the part of the establishment is a source of the most grievous frustration for those of us who have, or are intimately associated with someone with, one of these disorders. I have the disorder, and I can tell you that it is not a neat little spectrum of autism, but an ocean of all cognitive disorders, and that everyone is in that ocean. Simon Baron-Cohen is right about this, although I guess he still puts it in terms of an autism 'spectrum'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The Anthropic Puzzle, and the Nature of Human Epistemology

Imagine you find a twenty-four-thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle in a thrift store. You assume it is twenty-four-thousand pieces because that's what it says on the box---and it's a huge box. The only other thing on the box is a picture of a man. There are no explanations.

The price tag sticker on the box says "2 cents". When you look inside the box, you see only a bunch of normal-sized pure black puzzle pieces that shimmer in the light. Despite the large number of pieces, you find this puzzle compelling. You estimate that its assembled size would be about 144 square feet---not too big for your living room floor.

So, out of an odd curiosity, you buy the puzzle and take it home. After all, it only cost you two cents. As you begin laying out the pieces on the floor, you notice that they all are randomly shaped on two opposing sides, while the other two sides are shaped like normal jigsaw puzzle pieces.

A few months later you have assembled enough groups of the pieces to realize that there is nothing random about the 'random' sides of the pieces: the puzzle is just a really huge border outlining the shape of a man. But, there is still something about this puzzle that puzzles you. Eventually, you get a hunch. You get working.

Your hunch is right: the shimmering quality of the pieces are parts of a faint hologram when laid out in a grid, with each piece simply abutting adjacent pieces. The hologram is of the words "You asked for it: my two cents."

At this point, you take a trip back to the thrift store to ask the employees, and hopefully also the owner, about this puzzle. You want to know who made it, and why. Strangely, every employee you find is identically reticent in their answer. They all reply with a shrug and say, "It's just a puzzle." This gets on your nerves.

Weeks go by before you finally track down so much as the store owner's phone number. It's an unlisted number---which increases your irritation. You call him up, your hands shaking in frustration, and you beg him to tell you about the puzzle. He replies simply, "It's just a puzzle". You explode.

You scream through the phone at him, demanding that he explain why everyone who knows about the puzzle keeps giving that same non-answer.

He replies that "that's the whole point: it's just a puzzle: the actual world is already assembled, and you're down in it."

"I'm down in it?", you ask. "What does that mean?"

He replies, "From your perspective, the actual world is highly topographic, and you are not able to look down on it. The only thing you can look down on is the puzzle itself----like a paper map of the world, it's not the actual world down in which you live. If you want to understand the world, you have to understand your relative position in it. You have to be willing to look up."

After a few moments of silence, you ask him, "Who made the puzzle?"

"You did." he says.

"I mean, who made the pieces?"

He hems and haws for a bit, and then says, "Why..., do you want your two cents back?"