order, natural consequences, & justice

All of life is orderly. The orderliness may be perceived correctly or it may not be correctly perceived, but there is no actual randomness or chaos inherent in any aspect of life.

There is simply either the presence or absence of correct perceptions of order. The absence of the correct perception of order does not constitute the presence of a chaos or a randomness.

Similarly, a week with seven days does not have an absence of more days than seven, but simply has exactly seven days. So, there are only variations in the presence of hair, but no such thing as the presence of a baldness; there are only variations in the presence of saltiness, but no such thing as the presence of a saltlessness; there are only variations in wetness, but no such tangible thing as the presence of a dryness; there are only variations of heat, but no such thing as a coldness; there are only variations of sound, but no such tangible thing as a silence; there are only variations of light, but no such thing as a darkness, there are only variations in sight, but no such thing as the presence of a blindness; there are only variations in hearing, but no such thing as the presence of a deafness.

In other words, the absence of a particular thing does not constitute the presence of something else. The absence of a certain process is not the presence of a nonprocess. The absence of certain standard of development is not the presence of an underdevelopment. The absence of a certain orderliness is not the presence of a disorder. The absence of a certain functionality is not the presence of a dysfunction.

Thus, there are even only variations of health, and no such thing as an illness. Either the immune system and overall organism is functional and sufficiently nourished, relative to whatever waste is present, or else the functionality is inadequate. However, the absence of a sufficiently functional immune system or organism does not equate to the presence of an illness. Likewise, inadequate nourishment is not the presence of a starvation or of an undernourishment, while inadequate hydration is not the presence of a depletion or of an underhydration.

Further, just because humans do not hear the same range of sound as a typical dog, is the variation in the capacity to perceive sound the presence of a deafness? Dogs typically can hear very high-pitched whistles which we humans might, for our convenience, call “silent” (meaning that the sounds of the whistle are imperceptible to unaided human hearing), but still we do not say that all humans have an ultrasonic deafness or a deficiency for hearing ultrasonic pitches. We simply have exactly the range of hearing that we have.

The fact that human eyes do not perceive infrared light does not mean that humans have the presence of a blindness for the infrared spectrum. Similarly, dogs may not be able to perceive color, but that is not the presence of a color-blindness. That is just the presence of a certain capacity for vision.

Going even further into a sillier example, a black-and-white television mechanism does not have “a color impairment.” A sentence with 8 words does not have ”an absence of 9 words,” but simply the presence of only 8. A monophonic audio recording does not have a deficiency of stereo sound.

A deficiency is not the presence of something, but the relative absence of something. In other words, there is no such thing as having a deficiency, nor of having a disability, nor of having an absentness. Rather, we simply have the presence of the exact ability that we have. We only have the precise range of perception that we have- whether of sounds or sights or orderliness. There is no such thing as the presence of an absence of something.

Again, all of life is orderly. The orderliness may be perceived correctly or it may not be correctly perceived, but there is no actual randomness or chaos, but only the presence or absence of correct perceptions of order.

Therefore, all consequences are natural. Some developments may be recognized as the consequences of particular causes and other developments may have unrecognized causes.

An awareness that does not currently include a recognition of causality is not the absence of causality, but the relative absence of awareness or recognition. For instance, just because human hearing might not hear the vibration of a dig whistle, that does not mean that there is no reason that the dogs reliably start barking when they hear what humans may not hear.

Any one organism’s ability to predict natural consequences in any particular case never constitutes the absence of natural consequences. There is no such thing as the absence of natural consequences. There are no other kinds of consequences except natural and orderly consequences. Humans are part of nature, so consequences imposed by humans are not unnatural.

There will always be variations in the capacity to accurately recognize and predict patterns of cause and effect. For instance, dogs will never be intellectually equal to humans and humans will never be perceptively equal to dogs, even if using hearing enhancement technology!

No two things are literally equal. If two things are distinguishable from each other in any way, they are not absolutely equal, even if they may be generally equal in some quality, such as being very equal in weight or in height or in age.

All developments are just. In fact, all developments are just what they are, and none of them is anything else. There is no such thing as the presence of an injustice.

There is no such thing as the absence of anything. There is no such tangible thing as the absence of order, nor the absence of natural consequences, nor the absence of justice, nor the absence of awareness, nor the absence of infrared sight, nor the absence of health, nor the absence of equality, nor the absence of a deafness. There are only variations in presence, in order, in perception, in functionality, in intelligence, in health, in consequences, in curiosity, in clarity, in language patterns of conversation, and so on.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “order, natural consequences, & justice”

  1. jrfibonacci Says:

    Danijela Poropat wrote:


    I see, you don˙t sleep. Is it absence of sleep or presence of awareness? However, perception is always in categories of + and -. Perception of reality is combination of + and -, it is never absolute, it is always polarity. Where darkness disappears when you turn on the light? And what is presence? Something can be present and I even must not know it. I even could have imagination that something is present although it isn˙t. Presence of something can always be related with absence of something else.
    We can call chaos in my office order, but it will not change anything. Maybe it is some chaotic order, or orderly chaos, or orderly order, or chaotic chaos. I am pissed off with many things absent/present in this moment. I don˙t really care is it chaos or order, I care about functioning. Practical things are more important then words labeling.

    Labeling is a practice, a behavior. So is being pissed off.

    If one’s labeling is practical, that is functional. If the location of various things in an office is in an order recognizable to you, that is practical and functional. If a hurricane or thief or a curious toddler re-arranged an office, it can be practical and funtional to re-organize the office- or first to flee for safety, be angry at the thief to scare them, etc….

    It is like leaves that have fallen under a tree in autumn. Just because they are not arranged in a pile does not mean they are in a chaos. They may not be arranged in a circle either, or not in a square. So what?

    Leaves in a pile are not arranged in a non-square or a non-chaos, but in a pile. That’s all.

  2. jrfibonacci Says:

    Mayo said: It is terminology only.

    Yes, though believing in the existence of an illness, then responding to it as if there is an illness presence, rather than just the biological processes that are actually happening, like the immune system functioning to produce a particular symptom, sets up a whole model of action and results. It is terminology, but models of terminology (paradigms, interpretations, beliefs, conceptualizations) organize action and results.

    “War” and “being pissed off” are caused by specific causes including language patterns. People do not organize their behavior into wars (or corporations or sporting events without language). The organizing function of language is it’s ONLY function.

  3. jrfibonacci Says:

    Isabel said: Then why word “absence” exist if it corelate with nothing? If word “absence” exist than it corelate with something, otherwise it wouldn˙t exist.

    Danijela replied: Yes, it is question of quality always. Presence of one quality is absence of another quality.

    JR said:
    Absence refers to a relative condition, like “I was on vacation today, absent from work.” Many people are unconscious of their language and confuse things like relational adjectives (absent) with objective nouns (an absence). There is no absence in the objective or absolute or literal sense.

    Some people miss this spirit of the language and worship the literal confusions and build ideologies of pride on them. That is what Jesus warned about in Mark 7:7, quoting Isaiah. It is similar to “they say the words with their lips, but their hearts are far away,” like they are dreaming as in hallucinating.

    The term “absence” is just a convenience in language, like saying a “silent dog whistle.” Of course, that is a whistle for silent dogs. 😉

  4. jrfibonacci Says:

    JR: labeling is a practice, a behavior.

    Danijela: I don˙t think so. Yes, if I say glass is half full, then I am optimistic. If I say glass is half empty, I am pessimistic. But if I say tomato is apple, tomato will not change taste.

    JR replies:

    what people say is a behavior. Process is what is happening. In Hopi language, there is no confusion about “a wave,” like on the ocean. They call it a “waving.” Even a “standing wave” is a process.

    Similarly, we can look at a spinning fan and say “that is a circle.” Actually, it is a bunch of fan blades spinning faster than our eyes can track, but “circle” is close enough for our convenience.

    Same thing for “solid objects.” They are actually patterns of vibration, but they are stable relative to other patterns of vibration. They are potential energy, which is clear if set on fire. We perceive a stable energy process and call it an object. The “objectness” however is a function of language. It is actually just a packet of energy.

    An apple is a distinct stable form of energy from a tomato. But they are fundamentally energetic processes, and the stability of the process can “decay.”

  5. jrfibonacci Says:

    JR wrote: “If one’s labeling is practical, that is functional. If the location of various things in an office is in an order recognizable to you, that is pratical and functional.”

    Danijela asked: “And what labeling has to do with this?”

    JR:

    It is a way of relating, a forming of one’s own energetic process to say: “It’s in chaos and it should not be. I am pissed!” Being pissed is a capacity, a function… of language/neuro-linguistics.

    If one thinks “the cause of me being pissed off is out there,” that could be the activity of suffering, samsara, maya, victimhood, hell, which are behavioral modes of relating, processes, interpretations, creations in language. Language is programmed. Language is orderly. I invite you to continue noticing the order.

  6. Tera Says:

    I like it. It’s clean. Not the truth, and a powerful access for something new to show up, when allowed to seep in. I’m left with a lot of peace, and space, and inquisitiveness.

  7. Tera Says:

    oh, and thank you for your presence. I liked it best of all.

  8. Hell-raising Love Monster Says:

    I get that “Context is decisive”. Function depends on the context in which it is found. A lack or absence inside of the stated context is simply a lack of workability, or integrity.

  9. Hell-raising Love Monster Says:

    Which, to carry it a step further, there is no such thing as a lack of integrity. Only lying about it.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I love your last comment, HRLM. (I think that stands for His Royal Love Monster.)

      There is only integrity exactly however there is integrity and that is that. Lying about it, sincerely or not, is an interpersonal function. Lying either works in some context or not.

      However one of the “inconvenient” things about lying is that when it appears to have worked in a certain context, it may suddenly not to work anymore (or in some “larger” context).

  10. dunawords Says:

    Life is not this complicated, and as to what we ‘perceive’ and what we don’t ‘perceive’ is not always up to us… We are the creations and subjects of God and if there is something He doesn’t want us to understand then we won’t understand it.

    With that being said we need to accept the fact that we are part of the creation around us and don’t have the ability to fully understand the happenings let alone the reasons for the what happens around us.

    It’s really easy to start trying to explain what is and what isn’t but at the end of the day we still won’t have a handle on it and you’ve accomplished nothing.

    For instance:

    your comment that the abscence of one thing does not equate the prescence of something else…

    It is false; when you are cut and are bleeding that absence of tissue definitely equates to the prescence of something at one time to remove that tissue.

    “Cause and Effect” is not philosophical ‘perception’ it’s an observed pattern in this life…

    sometimes we have to accept the fact that we don’t understand, and we can’t explain things in this life… and when we try we end up talking ourselves in circles and resolving nothing,

    and that’s part of believing in our God… accepting what we don’t understand and can’t explain but trusting that He is in control.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you for your comment, Arthur. Yes, a prior presence “at one time” may no longer be present. However, when I burn something like firewood and that makes light and heat and sound, do we say that the light and heat and sound “equates to the firewood before it was burnt?” I would say that there are just a variety of things present: unburnt firewood can be present, plus flame and light and heat can be present. If I have a bunch of firewood and I am burning one piece at a time, then there is still firewood left even when I start burning a flame of light and heat and crackling sounds.

      There is never anything absent. There are just varieties of things present.

      However, of all of that language, it is not especially important in itself. What is more important is the presence that you call “I.” Do you believe that you exist or do you know? If you knew the presence of God like you know of your own presence- not just believing in an idea of God that you accept as possible, then there might be something that you would automatically understand without any issue of doubt or trust.

      With direct experience, one has faith. You do not need to believe that you are present or to trust that you are present. You know that you are present. You would never argue about it or defend it. You are absolutely certain that you are present.

      However, you may not know what you are that is present. You may see three letters and make a word out of them, but not know who is in control, who made the letters in to a word, who created letters and words and language, who created Santa Claus and Arthur and J.R.: God.

      Do you know whether God is alive? Do you just believe that God might be or should be alive or do you know from direct experience what God is and that God is alive?

      Do you read words like “I am in you and you are in me” and call those words confusing? Or do you read those words and know directly that the source of those words is what you are?

      See also:
      https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/eternal-life-or-mortal-symbol/

      • dunawords Says:

        I see what you’re saying, JR, but my point is that it doesn’t matter… your point on whether or not something is present or whether our we can perceive something is absent is irrelevent to life or reality.

        Trying to understand the existence of our awareness using the mind created by the same entity that created our existence is impossible and attempting to do so is a waste of time and will get you and those around you nowhere.

        If you were to receive a warning of impending danger advising you to duck, what do you do?

        The sensible thing to do is to duck… and avoid getting hit in the face.

        Your attempt to explain where the warning the came from, who it applys to and how it should be perceived will cause you to miss the point and you will take a hit to the face.

        Saying something is absent based on the evidence at hand is not a deep mis-conception of reality, it is just a way of describing what we may suspect is going on. So I may say that the heat and light of a fire does in fact equate to the absence of the fire wood… you may say that the firewood is there I just happend to perceive it as fire.

        One of the greatest physicists of our time may agree with you stating that energy is only transformed and nothing is ever lost… henceforth nothing is ever absent…

        But that physicist also stated that his theorty does not have much meaning or purpose without the technology or ability to take heat, light, and that crackling sound and transform it back into the chopped fire wood or even a tree.

        And when the fire has died and is gone it is no longer available to hold or reuse so I say it is absent because I perceive it to be gone.

        The important thing is, no matter our difference in views or how we describe the prescence of the fire wood, it is more important to know that the fire is very hot and very dangerous and we should both keep our distance.

  11. jrfibonacci Says:

    Arthur,

    Maybe you got it already, but perhaps not. You can of course say “the absence of firewood,” but that is just the presence of some speaking. There is no presence of an absence. There is no absence except in speaking.

    How is this saying useful? This saying points to the presence that we are. Oddly enough, we may be present without recognizing what it is that is present.

    To see the functionality of words as well as futility of words and even the complications of them is valuable, kind of like taking off the parking brake is useful before driving or unlashing a boat from the dock is useful. Baldness and deafness and scurvy and all other labels are just labels. If you let go of all labels- as in recognize them as just labels- will you be present still or suddenly absent?

    One may identify with specific words as if the presence of those words is the presence I am. That is simply false. Let go of the dock. Or, hold on to it. It is not holding on to you. The words do not confine or limit or create your presence. You as presence are independent of them. Does that resonate for you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: