Symmetry, Morality, and Reality

When I think of something like antinomianism, I have to admit, I get angry.

Antinomian means "against law", and more generally is synonymous with anarchism.

My issue with this claim, which can be found in ancient paganism, Gnosticism, Sabbateanism (a heretical branch of Judaism) some sects of Islamic Sufism (such as the sabbatean related group known as the Don Meh) and more or less basic to tantrism in the orient and anything that describes itself as a "left hand path", is that it is dissociative i.e. eliminative of aspects within perception, but not ontological reality itself.

Perception vs. Reality

Perception and Reality are two different things related to one another in essentially odd ways. Reality is reality, which means it is essentially that which constitutes our experience of existence. Science, from the bottom (zero point energy state) to the emergence of quarks, protons, nuclei, atoms, molecules, cells, etc, are growing according to a process of symmetry selection. For example, three type of quarks need to come together to create a proton, and another combination of 3 quarks give rise to neutrons. Reality here cannot be negotiated with. Only certain types of quarks will give rise to the balanced energy condition of a proton or a neutron. This is science.

Protons and neutrons when they come together form a nucleus, and when that nucleus comes into contact with an electron, all 3 give rise to an atom. Symmetry, essentially, is taken as something which complements something else. Protons/Neutrons become Nuclei; when an electron comes, atom's emerge.

The process does not finish here, of course, but the "clumping" of matter in coherent and larger structures continues, as atoms form co-valent and ionic bonds to form molecules. Again, there are specific rules here: the person who wants to be i.e. experience time, live, experience and be, must follow the rules if he wants to experience the intention of the game, and so have fun.

Molecules begin to develop strange behaviors when the Earth emerges and seas and atmospheres have formed. Deep in the sea, in hydrothermal alkaline vents, olivine spires extend hundreds of feet in height. These mesmerizing structures, however, occlude something far more fascinating happening within their nano-sized cavities: autocatalytic feedback loops are forming such that the naturally released chemicals from the vent supply energy for chemical reactions that systematically 'recreate' some essential condition of a protocell. One such condition, probably the first, is the vesicle itself. These vesicles are formed from phospholipids which have a peculiar hydrophobic and hydrophilic structure so that the phosphorous head faces the water while the fatty-acid tails tangle together. Eventually, these sorts of connections grow into a phospholipid sheet until they fold inward to become a closed geometrical sphere (usually). Inside this sphere, amazingly, a feedback mechanism forms between the outside nano-space of the vent and a chemical reaction within the vesicle itself. A precursor of phosphorus passes through the lipid outside (which has been experimentally verified in the lab) of the cell, into the inside, where it reacts in a process such that the end-product is a phosphorus molecule that will become part of the membrane. Other processes like this one, the most common being the TCA cycle (citrus acid cycle) replenish carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and amino-acids.

What this means in light of symmetry theory is this: the organism exists in a relationship with the outside world, such that the organism and the outside world form one entity - the one, 'generative', while the other, complementing its needs by affording it what it needs to keep going.

From here on out, symmetry continues to propagate when cells come together to form larger wholes that begin to function as systems divided in their relations as parts within a whole that relates to the world, increasingly, as a whole. The beginning of organisms is already a magical affair that is becoming increasingly more magical.

All of this, still, demonstrates a rule-based mode of progression where something else acts in such a way as to complement something else that is similar to it; together, when these things coalesce, they manage to establish a higher level material ontology, as well as bringing into awareness the presence of a conflict that was accepted before, but now lies within the "adjacent possible" of perception, and hence, becomes a problem to be solved.

Organism-Organism sociality is merely a continuation of a symmetry dynamic that grows (in quantity and informational complexity) into the logical next-phase of the systems development. Is not the viciousness of the life of a bacteria - or the hallowness of the life of a virus - not intimated, or implied, from the liveliness of the animal, the industriousness of the beaver, or the remarkable sociality of the bee? To those who say life has not progressed - morally - is deaf to what mammals are relative to dinosaurs and reptiles. This deafness is self-imposed and evidence of a history that is not known, and so affords the pleasant fiction that you, your self, doesn't function according to certain transformational rules that churn your consciousness from one thought to the next, usually around issues of "being known", which entails that the mind repeatedly transform its relations and representations so as to affectively enliven itself. This means, more basically, the choosing of identificatory states that exist to affectively metabolize projective situations.

Thinking is a late stage process - something too far along, and a good reason why most people alive today hold false views about reality - logically and demonstrably false vis-à-vis symmetry theory - but which the person holds onto because this very stubbornness which we innocently and unscientifically (unsystematically) treat as 'just' a human foible, is the very expression of a sign of who the person, what is needed from them, and what sort of history they must have had if they need to hold onto this mode of experiencing themselves and interpreting the world.

Psychotherapists learn that they have to accept such facts if they want to help - but this attitude of accepting lifes rules is not something this culture lets people do - indeed, it is downright dogmatic in its antagonism towards values that entail some moral position. From Islamism, and not recognizing the necessity of articulating a difference between Islam and other religions (say, the DESERT, as the background setting) to an obsessive fixation on homosexuality and transgenderism - this religiousness, no doubt, is what lies behind the stupid mindlessness of the democratic party and the general heedlessness of most liberals to the negative impacts of globalization on communities and localities.

Not responding to reality and the laws it shows us is breaking the rules of nature - and breaking the rules has consequences. When Donald Trump fails to pay attention to those facts which make climate change true, he is not complementing the external sign in its significance with his own internal representation of it i.e. in forming a complementarity and symmetry with the world.

Donald Trump can't do this because he is literally neurologically unable to. His brain would be akin to Temple Grandin's in it's unusualness, because unusual minds that behave in unusual ways have unusual brains. That is, behaving in certain ways, from certain feelings, from certain signs, use different brain-circuits, give rise to different electrodynamic behaviors, and so, express a different reality (a suboptimal one).

The facts of symmetry are real and true, and become expressed in our phenomenology as nonverbal signs in the body language of others and how that becomes signified in our body/mind a moment later. This complementarity is reflexive - i.e. outside our control. It is not something that can be negotiated with or destroyed, and yet, such an illusion seems to exist that the mind can literally be "cut off" from the body - in reality i.e. as in, ontologically.

But what this is, in fact, is simply the dissociation of the left hemisphere from the right hemisphere, such that ones openness to others becomes decreased, but not permanently, and not in a way so that your brain (but not your mind) would register a negative face, even if the mind itself doesn't register the negative face.

This is the ultimate difference between perception and reality. People who believe in perception - or in the a priori significance of perception, forget that they are bodies, with dynamics, that operate by rules, which correspond to states of your perception and cognition. This truth sits at the other end of those people who live lives believing that they aren't ontologically accountable to the effects they create, even though, paradoxically, these very people likely believe in a "supernatural' reality - except with them, i.e. as dumb, ignorant humans, as the "gods" - as sad as that would sound to experimental psychologists.

How can two such things exist? Such narcissistic belief in self, as well as a continuous tendency to be wrong, to act wrongly, to be bad, careless, myopic, pathetic, etc? This is the essence of the Gordian knot. Psychotherapy with such indiviudals - inasmuch as a profoundly plausible (from their perspective) narrative supports their self-states - would be impossible.

But isn't the ultimate goal singlemindedness as in the case of the alchemical wedding in which the right and left brains become one mind thus permitting one to be artistic and logical while not limiting oneself to any single belief system?

Symmetry is all well and good as balance is needed but unification is better as it opens up many more possibilities than the sense of duality created with symmetry.

a reply to: Astrocyte

You're making so many assumptions with this train of thought.

The stuff about quarks and the composition of atoms is still a highly theoretical branch of physics, and not all of it is known concretely yet. Our methods of experimentation are still primitive and crude and we often are forced to estimate.

There are many unknown factors that need to be appreciated or we will inundate ourselves in conjecture.

You're a really intelligent, well educated person. But you have to understand that even you are falling prey to the very environmental limitations that you note in others around you.

I do see you are getting some concepts correct like the necessity of symmetry and the importance of balance - so focus on improving there.

Question your assumptions more.

Especially scientific assumptions. History shows that most beliefs held by the scientist of the day were heavily edited by the generations following theirs.

And especially psychology which is still in it's infancy and most individuals involved in that field simply are not equipped with sufficient knowledge or a wide historical perspective, and as a result many of their concepts are primitive at best.

It's good to take all things into consideration but remain extremely skeptical, keep investigating, questioning, and thinking.

Don't be afraid of simplicity amid seeming complexity. Balance the paradoxes.

a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

Yes, for the most part you're right.

Balance and unification or convergence are intimately related. Balance is a necessary component to promote increased unification, and thus creating the conditions best suited for a healthy state of being and to make some serious breakthroughs conceptually.

a reply to: Astrocyte You make a good sounding thesis, but everything finishes with that. Claiming that "Not responding to reality and the laws it shows us is breaking the rules of nature" is ridiculous in all the ways you can look at it. Nature is not some movement of a nuclei or other scientific idea. Nature is the way of non-idealistic creation. Life itself. And if you carefully observed any living species of flora or fauna, you would not miss to acknowledge the fact that all of them are designed to break as much as possible all external laws and progress in the environment their own egoistic law. Plants do it, ants do it, I do it as well. Think about it and you'll see why I oppose your thesis.

What people believe effects their perception of reality. What society believes effects consensus of the time which interprets what evidence says. Scientific evidence doesn't actually mean something is really real. The evidence is interpreted by belief or intent of the observer.

Religion is based on belief and that belief when widely believed forms our reality

Scientific interpretation is also based on belief or knowledge presently held by the interpreter, if that evidence is not interpreted properly or is being applied to the wrong thing, the interpretation can form an improper reality.

That is where we are, we live in a fantasy world full of unreal reality. Maybe we should start looking for Todo, Dorthy might have lost him again.

originally posted by: rickymouse
What people believe effects their perception of reality. What society believes effects consensus of the time which interprets what evidence says. Scientific evidence doesn't actually mean something is really real. The evidence is interpreted by belief or intent of the observer.

Religion is based on belief and that belief when widely believed forms our reality

Scientific interpretation is also based on belief or knowledge presently held by the interpreter, if that evidence is not interpreted properly or is being applied to the wrong thing, the interpretation can form an improper reality.

That is where we are, we live in a fantasy world full of unreal reality. Maybe we should start looking for Todo, Dorthy might have lost him again.

This is a keen observation as I've noticed that some people put as much stock in science as others do in religion.

Science is the new religion but its myths (theories) are being heralded as somehow more true than religion which may in fact be as false as the geocentric version of the solar system and the FE of the 1500s.

FE is "trying" to make a comeback using science as an argument.

Came here for metaphysical/philosophical thread, ended up reading sciences

Thats a whole lotta text for 3 words in your title. A wise friend once told me, if you cannot express and explain things simply, you do not understand it yourself.

Needless to say i couldn't finish reading this lol, then i scrolled down and seen a paragraph starting with Donald Trump