| Current Replies for "who built alphomism" |
|
 |
| |
who built alphomism
asantos
Posted: 15/7/2003
|
|
|
|
I like this theory a lot - it seems to hold a lot of truth. What I don't quite see is who were the 'creators of alphomism' and what lead them to blow it apart to create the universe - was everything we see today something set up by the bored souls in alphoma for a bit of fun?
Leading on from this, what is the moral necessity for us humans to help rebuild alphoma if, as I understand it, it will be rebuilt eventually anyway - is there any way, for example, that all the souls in the universe could, through free will, chose 'not to bother' rebuilding alphoma?
Thanks
Artur Santos
|
|
| |
Re: who built alphomism
(Richard)
Posted: 21/7/2003
|
|
|
|
Very many thanks for the positive comment. The questions you raise are crucial and, I agree, difficult. Paraphrasing some of the stuff from the web site, and adding bits too, here are my answers.
Apropos the first one, about the ‘decision’ to instigate the Big Bang, my response is that there was no such decision. Alphoma, and the evolutionary process which underpins it, have to be seen as a mutually-interdependent entirety. The Big Bang is/was inevitable because without it there can be no ‘opposites’ (light/dark, positive negative and so forth) and therefore no meaning. I admit that it is tricky indeed to wrench ourselves away from the strong impulse to see everything in linear terms but no linear account of ‘everything’ can ever work. (The diagram which I incorporated into the answer to the recent interesting question on the forum about chaos theory might be helpful here)
Incidentally, our Alphoma selves need never be bored; in that state we have the ability to do anything, including sleep if we wish. In a state of virtuality all things are possible. Individuals may choose to experience boredom, perhaps just to see what it is like, but they can just as easily decide to end that mental state and move onto something exciting.
To take the third question next; could it be that conscious beings could decide not to create Alphoma but take, instead, a destructive course? The answer has to be ‘no’ because the entire system exists. It is, I think, impossible to construct a theory of everything on the premise that the universe is predicated on a self-destructive principle.
Finally, concerning the ‘moral imperative’ – I argued in the text that, taken to the limit, morality is nothing more than enlightened self-interest. My contention is that, overall, enough people have chosen/will choose the creative route because the universe exists but the only arguments against destructive individuals are that, in the short and long terms, their happiness depends on going with the positive flow. At some point we will all have to be ‘educated’ into the cooperative, love-based ways of Alphoma. Those who choose a non-loving way of living their lives will have to go through some process eventually. This will not be punitive in purpose but it most probably will be acutely uncomfortable thanks to the guilt mechanism. (Though I think it is important to bear in mind that much of what passes for ‘evil’ behaviour at our current stage of evolution is not willful; very often people are not entirely free agents because of genetic and/or environmental pressures).
Richard.
|
|
|
|
|
