summa3

APPENDIX Z3: Launch

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:36 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z3: Launch.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z3:

Launch

Obviously we have no clue as to the sequence leading
up

to “launch” – or the Big Bang.

However, we are not shy to
speculate.

Potential/Possibility calibrates its optimal path
out of the

strictly metaphysical and into reality and
ultimately to

Extraordinariation.

APPENDIX Z2: Primordial Realm Hypothesis

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:22 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z2: Primordial Realm Hypothesis.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z2:

Primordial Realm
Hypothesis

At the ‘beginning’ there was not “nothing.”

At the “beginning” there was

“layer upon layer of pure Potential/Possibility”

– whatever that precisely means.

Call it “metaphysical possibility.”

Call it “the plentitude of possibility.”

No matter what the precise jargon, it was
“Potential/

Possibility.”

Only ‘Potential/Possibility’ can bona de
be hypothesized

by the metaphysician to have been eternal.

It is the sole
term/theme/concept which works. Period.

It is simple – and it rings true. To me.

We then layer-on
Extraordinariation to ll-in the paradigm

– as Potential/Possibility alone is too diffuse.

Quest for Potential

∞

ultimately aims for Extraordinariation.

A theologian can now peg-off the above and
hypothesize

– that God is the embodiment

of
“possibility/potential/extraordinariation.”

But as a (putative) metaphysician, I would just keep
it

simple:

At the “beginning”

– there was “Potential/Possibility”

APPENDIX Z1: Survival

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:20 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z1: Survival.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z1:

Survival

How does “survival” t into the Quest for
Potential

∞

Extraordinariation paradigm?

Clearly “survival” is necessary. Obviously. But it is far from

sufcient. Thus, necessary, but not sufcient.

“Survival,” in my paradigm, does not occupy the

overwhelming paramount position ascribed to it by
many

“survival of the ttest” 19

and 20

century Darwinists. If it

did, we would see far more species of slugs, and
radically

fewer species of butteries.

At the same time, over the eons the relative
priority of

survival to extraordinariation may have intermittently shifted:

More species with high probability
survival in-place

> more emphasis on extraordinariation, etc.

More species in a precarious
survival situation

> more emphasis on survival.

Clearly, to stay in the game, survival is necessary.

But we hypothesize that overall, the macro–signature

theme of our cosmos is “extraordinariation.” In any event,

while this area, like most areas involving the cosmos is

nuanced and textured, the key thrust (extraordinariation) is

clear.

APPENDIX Y: Counterposing Summa Metaphysica (1988, 2005) with Spinoza (d. 1677)

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:16 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Y: Counterposing Summa Metaphysica (1988, 2005) with Spinoza (d. 1677).
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Y:

Counterposing

Summa Metaphysica (1988, 2005)

with

Spinoza (d. 1677)

There are many
intersection points, but the two

treatises are radically
different, if not diametrically opposite

at the core:

Spinoza posits a coldly impersonal core unifying
dynamic;

I posit a ery all–pervading advancing dynamic and

consciousness.

Spinoza holds GOOD and EVIL to be relative

concepts;

I hold them to be objective and distinct.

Spinoza discerns no ultimate purpose to the
cosmos;

I do – Quest for Innite
Potential/Extraordinariation.

Spinoza does not grant Man any special place

whatsoever in the universe; Summa does.

Spinoza posits a thoroughgoing deterministic
universe

(i.e. that absolutely everything that happens,
occurs

through the operation of necessity).

I certainly do not.

Randomness, Emotion, and (total) Free Will are key

components in my Metaphysics. Ultimately, Quest for

Potential

∞

/Extraordinariation layered-over
Randomness,

Emotion and Free Will – is iterative
as its key component,

and not overarchingly deterministic.

Both works do have in common, however, an emphasis on

an interlocking cosmic lattice-work.

APPENDIX X: Holographic Universe Theory, Information and SUMMA

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:13 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX X: Holographic Universe Theory, Information and SUMMA.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX X:

Holographic Universe Theory,

Information and SUMMA

In God and Evil (1988) I hypothesize
“bootstrap creation”

to deal with the classic
philosophical/metaphysical/

cosmology conundrum of creation ex nihilo
i.e. –

How is the cosmos seemingly created out of
nothing?

God and Evil proposes an analogy to a leveraged

buyout in nance. Basically, in a leveraged buyout one

can potentially buy a company primarily by (sort
of)

guaranteeing the seller the company’s anticipated future

earnings stream to (allegedly) cover the (periodic
multi-

year) payments. [Often the Buyer is the CEO or
another

prime protagonist related to the business entity.]

Summa proposes that
future potentials (in parallel to

future earnings) ignited the cosmos
(in parallel to the

buy of a leveraged buyout). This is a core theme

which courses through this three-volume metaphysics

series.

However, among other
potential underlying vulnerability

points to this hypothesis is the question –

How does the “present” (at Creation) know the (innite)

future (potentialities)?

Conveniently for me, along emerges Holographic
Theory

[see Wikipedia entry] into
mainstream physics over the

past twenty+ years (c. 1990–2010 and now
advancing-

forward).

Now, Holographic Theory
increasingly has no shortage of

explicators and variations on its core themes.
However a

common denominator of the various hypotheses under

this (Holographic) umbrella would be that INFORMATION

(a) (somehow) stored on the space-time boundary,

and that

(b) this information may interact internally in a
modality

that dees the classic linear arrow of time.

Now, once the internal
interaction of information can

possibly interact outside the boundaries of the
classic

linear arrow of time, “a
bootstrap universe” cosmological

hypothesis has a further (albeit certainly not
necessarily

sufcient) – and key – physical sciences toehold.

APPENDIX W: Physics, Metaphysics & Poetry

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:11 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX W: Physics, Metaphysics & Poetry.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX W:

Physics, Metaphysics & Poetry

a) PHYSICS will not solve PHYSICS without

METAPHYSICS….and

b) METAPHYSICS will not
solve METAPHYSICS

without POETRY….

now, re: (a)

Why is that?

PHYSICS operates with a quasi-dead-spot on its

cumulative brain that PHYSICS is a stand-alone
eld….

albeit directly interacting with the hard sciences.

This is wrong.

All elds are interconnected
– meaning the hard and soft

sciences – and it will frankly require integrating multiple

elds to penetrate truly deeply into the

cosmic code.

now, re: (b)

Why is that?

Metaphysics operates with a quasi-dead-spot on its own

cumulative brain that METAPHYSICS
is a stand-alone

eld…albeit directly interacting with the hard sciences. This

is wrong.

The concepts necessary to get us to the core of
cosmic

code are too abstract for METAPHYSICS alone (whether

from 5,000 years ago or contemporary). [Among
other

thinkers, the legendary theologian Rav Kook (b.
1865),

Chief Rabbi of Palestine from 1921-1935, understood
and

followed-through on this.]

POETRY, while still
hampered by the limitations of the

human word and human consciousness, nevertheless

affords us the opportunity
of potentially thrusting closer to

the core of cosmic mystery…

Of course, once one enters the world of POETRY, one

enters another netherworld….

Sort of, damned if you do; damned if you don’t

But, nevertheless, poetry ultimately has a place

in the arsenal of the metaphysician….

APPENDIX V:

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:08 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX V:.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX V:

Hypothesizing about Cosmic

Origins

Clearly, this –
hypothesizing about cosmic origins –

is the most challenging aspect of metaphysics.

Now, while one can write
with conviction about the

elegance of a hypothesis, one cannot truly write

with conviction about the validity of
a cosmological

hypothesis.

But the near-certain validity per se, of a
cosmological

hypothesis is not truly the conceptualizer’s goal.

For, in dealing with the
realms of the innite and cosmic

origins, our levels of consciousness to date (and
perhaps

for a long time to come) may simply be inadequate

A worthwhile goal, however,
would be a more dynamic

and elegant hypothesis than has hitherto been offered.

That is what Summa proposes.

We seek to advance forward
– another layer or two –

towards cracking the cosmic code. We do not presume

to articulate the penultimate core.

APPENDIX U:

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:07 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX U:.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX U:

By-denition Telescoping

Elasticity

One of the great advantages of Q4P as the proposed core

cosmic dynamic is its by–denition
inherent telescoping

elasticity. As conceptualized, it can telescope from

classic nothingness to innitude. We need that crucial

“telescoping” aspect built-in to the core of the
unitary

proposed dynamic.

Meaning, that not only must the dynamic qualify as
the

core of the evolving Divine Innitude, it must be
unitary,

“simple” and have telescoping elasticity, as well, among

other nice (innite) aspects delineated over the
course of

the two-book Summa series.

APPENDIX T: Following the Analogy

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 11:52 am. Comments Off on APPENDIX T: Following the Analogy.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX T:

Following the Analogy

Using one of our basic assumptions, that HUMAN

parallels COSMIC, one can conjecture that there is a

possibility of perpetual rebirth to (at least portions of)

the cosmos.

In physics, there is a (cyclic) school of thinking
along these

lines, as well.

Our Innite Divinitude ultimately pierces through the

possible various cosmic births and deaths. It is
this Innite

Divinitude which is necessary for Cosmic birth to
begin

with. But, as articulated, the primary fount of the
Innitude

is its cumulative future potential.

77 APPENDIX

Thus, not only does the human spirit potentially transcend

one’s death; it even
ultimately potentially transcends the

Death and rebirth ad innitum (hopefully), of components

of the cosmos itself.

***

The Midrash/Kabbala talk about cosmic cycles.
According to

this (hitherto) esoteric school of thought, we may
be in the 4

or 5

cosmic cycle.

See also encyclopedia entries for Cyclic Model
Cosmology:

# Paul Steinhardt; Neil Turok 2002

# Lauris Baum; Paul Frampton 2007

Note that, respectfully,
Summa does not take a position on whether or

not the cosmos is cyclic.

APPENDIX S: Book #1 (God and Evil) v. Book #2 (God and Good)

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 11:49 am. Comments Off on APPENDIX S: Book #1 (God and Evil) v. Book #2 (God and Good).
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX S:

Book #1 (God and Evil)

Book #2 (God and Good)

Many readers of the Summa
much prefer Book #1 over

Book #2.

Presumably, it is
clearer, and its style is more in a classic

expository presentation/form. Plus Book #1 actually
uses

real, normal sentence structures.

Furthermore, Book #1 is almost a stand-alone, fairly

comprehensible original and hi-energy, complete

Metaphysics.

But only ‘almost.’

Whereas Book #1 conceptualized and framed-out the

existence of Quest for Potential (enroute to dealing
with

theodicy, and before I
brought Extraordinariation into the

equation), Book #2 attempts to get its arms around the

entire Q4P.

However, the mission of
Book #2 is not so simple.

How does one use regular language to describe an

innitely expanding (as we speak) Innitude?

I thought about Book #2 for fourteen years before

commencing 5-6 years of writing. And I only even

conceived of a line of approach 12 years into the fourteen

years of mulling-over this little task. So, either
I’m slow or

the task is challenging, or some combination
thereof.

As noted in the introductory section to God and
Good,

Book #2 is heavily intuitive as the major motif, and heavily

intellectual as the minor motif, whereas Book #1 was the

mirror-image in these
regards.

To achieve my (ambitious?)
goals for Book #2, I needed

to not only push my own psyche to its limits, which
was

frankly painful, but I needed to push your psyches
to

their respective limits, which I presume may have been

somewhat grating, aggravating, frustrating or some

combination thereof.

I saw no other route.

And time marches on.

Remember that Book #1 initially encountered very

signicant resistance when it was published in 1988.
No

one criticized it; it just wasn’t “grasped.” Then,
about 2-5

years after publication, it achieved ‘traction,’ for
whatever

combination of reasons. Note that Book #2 plays at a

totally different
level (higher) than Book #1, which itself was

not shy in its goals.

— Birnbaum

« Previous Page — « Previous Entries Next Entries » — Next Page »

Chapters