What Is God? No Personality Descriptions…

Why do you believe in what you believe?

I, like you, believe we should discover our own pathways. Even so, we still must defend "why we believe what we believe," (unless, of course, our beliefs are based in faith, which simply adds to the fire of a world full of contentious religious views).

The notion of God comes from many places, not the least of which are-- personal desires (wanting to escape limitations/death) and culture (because we are culture's product). However, it also comes from the context of polarities--conscious identity. Let me explain:

I believe science is our best bet when it comes to understanding how the universe works (we are star stuff--the evolution of natural and biological phenomena); that said, I also believe that self-consciousness allows us to judge truth from falsity; so how does God connect to the consciousness that determines truth or falsity?

In brief, here's the short answer to how we got here. In addition to what science tells us about evolution, the Logos evolved right along with the phenomena expressed in evolutionary theory. However, at a certain level of complexity (states far from equilibrium-Chaos theory), the Logos gets to express itself in higher dimensions. In the first higher dimension the Logos becomes alive/life. Again, at another level of sufficient complexity, the Logos express itself in an even higher dimension, the dimension of self-consciousness, the dimension that judges truth/falsity in an environment of physical events.

In as few words as possible: were it not for the "God/source--God/expression" connection (polarities are necessary to conserve wholeness), you and I would not be free in a world of our own experience (by degrees, experience of our own choosing), seeking truth, justice, and religious meaning. Take care and thanks for the question.

What are your opinions of God?

Boy do I have opinions! First, God has/is structure. Divine structure is why the universe answers our questions; why the universe is comprehensible. Second, God is in everything, but most important is that God is in the structure of human self-awareness—which means, we, in addition to being able to ask questions about the universe, are also able to answer questions concerning right and wrong. Third, (were on a rising scale of importance here) everything is in God. What gets labeled as aesthetic experience— sensual experience, emotional experience, beauty and love—God. Because God is love and because love gives the ultimate meaning to God as structure (love reconciles all opposites, even the opposites that structure God), all aesthetic experience is a measure of LOVE. God then is in all the pain and suffering of the universe (both necessary and unnecessary pain), but (and this is a big but) in human self-awareness, God works to eliminate unnecessary suffering. Why—because LOVE reconciles all opposites. Right and wrong, therefore, must be measured against what brings more LOVE into the world, and, as you can probably tell, that's a lot of opinion. Thanks for the question.


What is God? No personality descriptions…

God is the recursive loop of increasing complexity that liberated mass/energy, life, and self-consciousness. Initially, this content/form relationship produced very little consciousness, but with increased complexity biological consciousness turned into human self-consciousness, and all of this liberation and complexity remains embedded in its source, i.e. God.

To simplify, think of this “loop of divinity” as a Mobius strip. On the inner surface of the Mobius strip occurs e=mc², sense experience, and self-consciousness while on the outer surface remains totally composed of Logos/reason. God as a recursive loop, is distinguished by the theoretically postulated, hypothetically designated component of experience as it relates to an immediately sensed, determinate portion of the aesthetic continuum (blue sky, hot sun, purple flowers, cascading waterfalls, etc.),-- all of which are part of our very being. Here the immediately sensed component of experience is relative to each individual while the theoretic component of experience is public, exists within our understanding, and therefore is accessible to everybody, everywhere. If all of this sounds crazy insane then try this—its one of my favorite quotes:

“The kingdom of God is within you and all around you and not in buildings of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift a stone and I am there.” These words, words taken from the gospel of Thomas, were recorded in the Aramaic language—the language of Jesus--some nineteen hundred years ago.

Conjugate Variables At The Quantum Level Of Observation—Explain?

My God is Freedom - and yours?

My God is also freedom--and discovering that my belief in the divinity of freedom is a shared belief by somebody else is a first for me! Here's a bit more on what, for me, the divinity of freedom means:

Freedom is everything, but it comes with a caveat. Freedom is embedded in its own negative space, thus liberation means liberation from freedom's negative space (thus, free speech, thought, and identity are discovered within a continuum of increasing or decreasing degrees of freedom). This process then, comes with the qualification: more freedom is good, but not good enough. Success here is a bit like becoming well educated; the more educated you become, the more you appreciate the necessity of the process of ongoing education. Maybe an even better analogy is found in what some people believe; that is, that freedom is all about climbing a spiritual latter, the more liberation, the more significant liberation becomes, the more significant liberation becomes, the more significant it becomes to share this freedom with others--either by teaching, or by doing the "right thing." Divinity/freedom first—and everything else follows! Thanks for the question.

Is it wrong to think of God as an invention of the human mind?

No, it is not wrong to think of God as an invention of the human mind, but you must add this caveat: God, in addition to being an invention of the human mind, is also the pre-condition for the possibility of invention and imagination. Therefore, God becomes the source of the inspired idea that God is an invention of the human mind; thus, God becomes the condition of the possibility to invent God. In the overall scheme of things, it is legitimate to think of God as being both invented and not invented. I know this is not easy to take in the first time you hear it, but, for what it’s worth, it is the way I understand God.


If complementarity is a concept developed to explain the wave particle
duality of light, how do you explain the duality between all conjugate variables at the quantum level of observation?

Whooa! That’s an incredible question and I don’t know if my answer will work for you, but it works for me, so here it is: All nature is a `way of non-being.’ This non-being is peculiar in that it is not a singular thing; rather, it is manifested by reciprocal movement—the reciprocal movement occurring within the structure of double negation. If all existence occurs within the structure of double negation then that which is implied by the double negative becomes logically affirmed. The name I give to that affirmation is God, divinity, One on High, Sunyata, Sat Chit Ananda, Moksha, Nirvana, Logos, etc. More to the point, for me, Logos becomes another word for God. But that is not the end of it. This logically implied God becomes ‘free’ in the reciprocal movement that occurs within the structure of the double negative. All existence, in fact, occurs within the reciprocal movement of double negation. All existence then—including subatomic particles, exist within the reciprocal movement of this double negation, thus the duality between all conjugate variables at the quantum level of observation is a consequence of the reciprocal movement occurring within the structure of double negation, i.e., a consequence of logic and freedom. God (all names that denote divinity, unity, and oneness) “in the form of the other,” is both God and freedom, and because of this, not only can we derive the meaning and significance of all conjugate variables at the quantum level of observation, we can also, through reasoned analysis, derive the meaning and significance of God. Freedom and logic, on some level, are present in all non-being, i.e., nature and existence.

How Does Oneness Make Room For Otherness?

Can you please explain, in an uncomplicated way, what Structuralism is?

It is very hard to give an easy answer to your question. A long time ago, I wrote a paper on structuralism where I began with: We must first look at the various structural models that have been described in linguistics (Saussure and Chomsky,) anthropology (Levi-Strauss,) psychology (Piaget,) and philosophy (Foucault). It was a long paper. But, I had no simple answers back then. Later, I stumbled upon a simple answer. After reading the book, Order Out Of Chaos by the Nobel laureate, Ilya Prigogine, I ran across the following quote: “Whatever we call reality, it is revealed to us only through the active construction in which we participate.” Ilya Prigogine


If all is one, why do we need worldviews?

The philosophy I subscribe to suggests that individuality and the freedom to act and choose is itself incorporated into the universe where "all is one." It takes some getting used to, but it is logically consistent. The following quote from my blog, I hope, will help to answer your question:

"A word of caution here, just because the Upanishads and Christian mysticism may celebrate the same source, they remain products of different religious traditions; this follows from the b~b~bb structure that grounds human individuality. In other words, the sectarian nature of any religion speaks only through its own tradition because all religions are a product of the individuality that speaks through the 'human freedom to choose,' which, in turn, lies embedded in nature, humanity, and divinity.

How does unity coexist with multiplicity? How does oneness make room for otherness?

In The Beginning was the paradox: How does the all-perfect source become something less than it-self? God, being up for this challenge, solved the dilemma, and She did this by (gender is optional here, in fact, it’s probably best to think of God in terms of process, in terms of “processing divinity”) liberating Her own non-being. This event had to be performed in such a way so as God could both be and not be God in the same phenomenon. Her solution is doable, even logically doable, in the form of being-what-is-not-while-not-being-what-is. In this double negation, God becomes free in the phenomenon of not, not being God, while affirming (by implication) the God that is free to not be God. In other words, the liberation of God’s non-being becomes God’s immanence (God’s becoming) while, at the same time, there exists an “implied” transcendent God. God’s immanence is particularly important to humans because divine immanence is what gets called “reality.”

Is Identity Somehow Intrinsic Within Reality Or Is It Man Made?

Thanks for this question Morpheus. In answering your question I am actually able to communicate some of the philosophy that took me years to develop. This question is especially meaningful to me. Identity/structure is intrinsic in nature and mind. I knew this before I discovered Piaget, but it "feels good" to have somebody agree with you.

By locating the source of cognitive structure in the sensorimotor activity of babies, Piaget opened up the possibility that “structure” was grounded in “nature”-- not in “mind.” Through his investigations, he was able to show how the subject and object poles of experience are products of experience. For Piaget then, cognitive-awareness is not something we are born with; rather it is the product of an ongoing developmental process. This is important because it tells us that logic stems from a sort of spontaneous organization of activity,-- that the pre-condition for knowledge is an assimilation of a given external into the structures of the subject,-- and that out of these subjective structures arise, phoenix like, the genesis of self-awareness. Thus, not only do we find the relationship of context/form interdependence in the ongoing activity of accommodation/assimilation of environment, we also find it in the relationship that binds natural structure to cognitive structure.

However, intelligence did not arise, phoenix like, from natural structure, but rather is permitted by the size and complexity of the human brain. For me, "self-consciousness" and content/form interdependence are identical-- self-consciousness being contingent upon the evolution of the human brain. In other words, the same content/form interdependence that occurs in nature is not only what Piaget calls the center of functional activity of intelligence, it also is what gets called human self-consciousness—the content/form interdependence, which is found in both nature and mind.

What are three (or more) philosophical concepts, doctrines or movements that you find interesting?

Those of us who seek answers to ultimate questions are attracted to philosophical doctrines expressing inclusiveness and coherence. Your list suggests that you are one of those people (me to). But, here I offer a slightly different approach, a structural one that suggests a "necessary code" (the synchronic and diachronic components of experience), which make possible the expression of philosophy, reason, and language:

In language study the concept of “irreducibility” is a universal concern of all structuralist thought. In Saussure this desire becomes fulfilled in his systematic and holistic interpretation of language. It started with language, but Saussure's idea that language can be understood synchronically, frozen in time, has inspired many structural investigations into the “hidden code” that other proponents of structuralism believe lies at the heart of myths, literature, and history.

Cassirer, Mead, and Piaget, the three who in different fields ran with this approach, all responded to the synchronic/diachronic approach to human experience. The conclusions of all three men, in the end, converged (Cassirer/epistemology, Mead/sociology, and Piaget/psychology). Whereas Cassirer found the origin and evolution of symbolic meaning to reside in the “work” of man, Piaget, in a like manner, put the origin of structure and the symbolic content that it generates, in the organisms capacity for action. Mead did something very similar, however, let Howard Gardner's description of Piaget’s psychology speak for all three here:

“Piaget reached a crucial insight: the activity of an organism can be described or treated logically, and logic itself stems from a sort of spontaneous organization of activity. At this time he also formulated the notion that all organisms consist of structures--i.e., of parts related within a whole--and that all knowledge is an assimilation of a given external into the structures of the subject.” [Howard Gardner, The Quest for Mind, Piaget, Levi-Strauss, and the Structuralist Movement, 1973, p.54]

A Functioning Human Being—The Meaning Of

End Of My Bicycle Trips—Not The End Of My Blog

I enjoy posting on my WordPress blog. This experience, for me, is always worthwhile. However, in addition to deriving emotional benefit from my posts, I also have an intellectual investment, more often than not, in what I post. Because my philosophy is, as far as I can tell, unique, my philosophy has a credibility gap. However, intellectual ideas, if credible, have a history. Soon—my more academic posts, will describe some of that history. Not only will I describe the relevant history that supports my philosophy, I will also describe some of the necessary implications that arise as a consequence of my philosophy.

My “future time MV dialogue” precedes the start of my academic posts and, as of this writing, I have decided to post some questions and answers before I even get to the MV dialogue. A while back, I participated in Yahoo’s question and answer forum where participants solicit answers to their questions. I’ve decided to post some of those questions with my answers—over the next week. My hope is that these answers will serve as an introduction to what these “new eyes” (new perspective) entail when one gazes out upon nature, mind, and divinity; “new eyes” that evolved out of my studies in the academic disciplines of structuralism, epistemology, and symbolic interactionism self-concepts.

[Footnote: My answers to the YA questions that I will be posting over the course of the next week are based on my philosophy of life, a philosophy that one could say began a long, long, time ago when a Professor (Zoology) of mine told the class (in reference to how he will teach his class) “function always follows structure.” The truth of the matter is that in the biological sciences the debate concerning structure first or function first is still going on, but the debate, for me, ended (actually it never even began) with the words of my Professor. In fact, now, for me, without structure, debate itself, would not be possible. Anyway, I just thought I’d say right up front that my answers to the YA questions I am about to post are grounded in my belief: Structure first and everything else second—even God. Also, the Zoology pictures/drawings that introduce these Q&A posts were drawn by me while looking down a microscope as part of the lab work for that late 1960’s Zoology class.]

So let’s begin! The five central ideas behind Symbolic Interactionism describe, I believe, what it means to be a human being. In order to get to this level (and beyond for a select few—not me) is what my philosophy is all about. According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_interactionism


Five Central Ideas Behind Symbolic Interactionism

There are five central ideas to symbolic interactionism according to Joel M. Charon, author of Symbolic Interactionism An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration.

1. "The human being must be understood as a social person. It is the constant search for social interaction that leads us to do what we do. Instead of focusing on the individual and his or her personality, or on how the society or social situation causes human behavior, symbolic interactionism focuses on the activities that take place between actors. Interaction is the basic unit of study. Individuals are created through interaction; society too is created through social interaction. What we do depends on interaction with others earlier in our lifetimes, and it depends on our interaction right now. Social interaction is central to what we do. If we want to understand cause, focus on social interaction.

2. The human being must be understood as a thinking being. Human action is not only interaction among individuals but also interaction within the individual. It is not our ideas or attitudes or values that are as important as the constant active ongoing process of thinking. We are not simply conditioned, we are not simply beings who are influenced by those around us, we are not simply products of society. We are, to our very core, thinking animals, always conversing with ourselves as we interact with others. If we want to understand cause, focus on human thinking.

3. Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in. An environment may actually exist, but it is our definition of it that is important. Definition does not simply randomly happen; instead, it results from ongoing social interaction and thinking.

4. The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present situation. Cause unfolds in the present social interaction, present thinking, and present definition. It is not society’s encounters with us in our past, that causes action nor is it our own past experience that does. It is, instead, social interaction, thinking, definition of the situation that takes place in the present. Our past enters into our actions primarily because we think about it and apply it to the definition of the present situation.

5. Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment. Words such as conditioning, responding, controlled, imprisoned, and formed are not used to describe the human being in symbolic interaction. In contrast to other social-scientific perspectives humans are not thought of as being passive in relation to their surroundings, but actively involved in what they do."

Something To Die For

Because I Know I Am Alive So God Can Be Free—I Cry, Because I Know
That The "Spirit Of Freedom" Is More Important Than Life Itself—I Cry,
I Cry Because I Can't Hold It In Any Longer

Home
Aug. 26, `82

I'm in a highly charged emotional state. I'm in my parent's house,
but they are both working.

I was drinking coffee when I flicked on the TV. The morning movie was
an old Errol Flynn movie entitled Uncertain Glory. Immediately, I
became wrapped up in the complexity of the French underground movement
as it fought for a free France during the German occupation of WWII.
Freedom is indeed worth fighting for, and dying for if need be, but
not because it allows us to pursue and satisfy our desires, but
rather, because existence, human existence, is the result of its
evolution. Freedom is about awareness, growth and, ultimately,
bringing the divine into realization. Freedom moves freedom forward
through the liberation of humanity and civilization. At the end of the
movie, when the "cad," Flynn, made the ultimate sacrifice (faced the
Nazi firing squad to save 100 innocents), I began to cry
uncontrollably. I cried for the "preservation of the good" in the face
all the violence, pain, and despair in the world. I cried for the
"spirit of freedom."

Whenever I experience something profoundly meaningful, like what
happened to me after that movie, I get scared as hell. Every time I
see something in a new light, with understanding, it scares the hell
out of me. What am I supposed to do? Who am I to tell another person
what ought to be believed, what ought to be done? I'm just like them;
pleasure drives us all. And besides, I lack the will for that kind of
thing, not to mention the ability--so why me? Sure, I believe I see
things that other people do not see, but I don't understand this. I'm
frightened! I do not know how to respond. But I do know that this
lump in my throat is very painful, and these knots in my stomach are
very tight. My psyche is not strong, never was, yet life, for me, is
so full of meaning that I am overflowing to bursting. What can I do?
What should I do? Why am I so tormented? Perhaps I will write another
page, and then another, and then another, until this emotional rage
subsides; or, perhaps, I will take the "show on the road," and speak
the words that I know and believe. Why am I so uncertain? Whatever my
future holds, I know it will be different. I feel I am about to embark
on a destination-free journey, but not on this day, -- not today!
Today I lack the strength and conviction. Today, I can only cry. And
why? Because, inside, I know God is free. Inside, I know that my
death is a gift, a gift of divinity, the God-given gift of freedom.
Inside, I know the "spirit of freedom" is more important than life
itself. I know that the eternal question--"Why?"—is itself the answer
to the question "why." I know that there is equivalence among time,
reason, and freedom. I know that God's conscious freedom—human
freedom-- liberates divinity, and I know, contrary to what is written
in Genesis, and in Heidegger too, that meaning's origin is not found
in "guilt." Rather, it is found in God, in freedom—in God's freedom.

And so it goes--with this writing I have worked myself back into a
calm, but a calm that waits to be broken again and again. On the
lighter side, I have been in Houghton Lake for a few days, and
tomorrow I will ride my bicycle home to my apartment in Mt. Pleasant. I have
fine-tuned my home to satisfy my needs and desires, and there I will
pick up my creative work-- guitar, painting, writing, meditation, and
hopefully, my release—conversation.

Aug. 28

Well this is it, the end and all of that jazz. I suppose it's time
for a few reflections on the meaning of this trip. I have already
mentioned that the success of this trip can be attributed to the good
weather, but I would also like to give some credit to an even more
general source, my value system. It didn't come easy. I had to
survive first. That is remarkable in itself, but more than that, now I
have an answer to what lies embedded at the heart of what it means to
be alive—a thinking, living, human being. Being in touch with that knowledge allows me to optimally participate in life's blessings. I am more alive now than
ever before. I am incredibly fortunate, and I know it! I am 34 years
old, and I have brought to life my Castalian dream, albeit a different
one, perhaps, than the one Hermann Hesse envisioned in his book,
Magister Ludi, but I don't think he would disapprove of the changes.
Home never felt so good!

For me, there's still a great deal to be accomplished. As for
tomorrow, and whether my efforts will bear fruit, time will tell. I
am already engaged in bringing my ideas to light, but it is a slow
process. Failure is certainly a possibility. My optimism, though, is
based in what I believe to be real—the meaning contained in this
symbolism: (((x/y) –(x/y)) (–(x/y) (x/y)))

Life—A Patient Teacher, Especially For Slow Learners

Drinking Coffee At McDonald's In Gaylord, Michigan
Aug. 22

Biking the Trans Canada, on my way to Sault Ste. Marie, was just what
I expected it to be—horrible, but the condition of the highway was good and
that surprised me; however, the traffic was heavy, and some of the trucks
were not sympathetic to the bicycler. I ran off the road twice. I
can't remember the last time that happened. I'm not sure if I'm losing
my nerve or if the trucks were really that bad. I arrived in the Sault
under pouring rain around 6 p.m. I had been fighting a head wind all
day long, and I was very tired.

I needed a place to stay, so I went to the University. Lake Superior
State University was accommodating. I stayed in their dormitory
guestroom for $5.50. That's where I met Tom. He's a musician by
trade, hitchhiking his way to Toronto. I felt better after a shower,
so when he suggested that we go to the bars downtown, I was up for it.
Well, we met a couple of girls, and one beer led to another until the
bar closed. Tom left with his girl; I wasn't so lucky.

I went looking for my bed, and wasn't sure how to get there. I finally
stumbled into my room around 4 AM, but not before I scared the heebie
jeebies out of the poor woman who was walking in front of me. I was
trying to figure out how to get back to the university, so I tried to
catch up with her to ask directions. I didn't notice that the faster I
walked the faster she went until it was too late. She ran into a house
where there was a party going on, and, as I passed that house, I was
greeted by some of the guys who had come out on the porch to ask me a
few questions. I basically told the fellows my situation, and I guess
they believed me because they gave me directions to the university.

Early the next morning I woke up irritable. After straddling my
bicycle seat, I wanted to be anywhere except peddling into the cold,
damp, weather. I was mentally and physically wasted, and all because
the night before I followed my nose from beer to another. The beer did
all my talking on that night except for that tiny little voice in the
back of my head that kept repeating, "You should be sleeping, and you know
you should be sleeping." Life is a patient teacher, though, especially for
those who never learn. I didn't even like the people I was with. The
only good that came out of last night was my resolve not to repeat it.
Anyway, I will remember my Sault Ste. Marie "night out on the town" as
one of my many, many, unnecessary mistakes.

After three or four hours of morning biking, things got better. The
sun came out and the wind was at my back, not to mention that I was
getting closer to home. I still had a hangover, though, so, as good as
it got, it could've been better. By the end of the day, the beautiful
lakes, streams, and countryside, not to mention the sparse traffic,
all went into the feeling of reverence that I experienced on that hill
just outside of Wolverine. As I have already noted, that campsite was
especially nice. This morning, however, I awoke to rain, and lots of
it. And, since this is my last official bicycle day, I have chosen to
ride in it. My parents are expecting me home by late afternoon, and my
visiting cousins (I have been informed) are sticking around until I
get there. This rain is the worst I have bicycled in on this trip,
and it doesn't appear as if it will let up. All I can say is that in
another 50 miles I will have a warm place to dry out. That is a good
thought, and the best reward!

I Wanted To Begin This Journal Entry With Reverence And I Have

Wolverine, Michigan
Aug. 20, `82

When the boat docked, the wind didn't seem quite as bad. At times,
while bicycling, it was even at my back. When I arrived in Swift
Current, I was definitely ready to camp, though. When I was sitting
on some steps in front of a store, two bicyclers, a boy and girl,
pedaled up to me. They told me about a free campground three miles up
the road. The guy was having the same kind of knee problems that I was
having, but his were worse. He was in the process of getting a bus
ticket back to Michigan. He also told me that the retail brewery just
around the corner was closing, so if I wanted anything, I'd better
hurry. I thanked him and made it through the door just as it was being
locked behind me.

I rolled into the free campsite about a half hour later. Sure it
was free, but as I looked around and saw all the trash thrown on the
ground, I was not impressed. As it turned out, I found out that the
reason the campsite was free was because the owner of the property
wanted to keep trespassers off the rest of his property. That idea
was swell, but broken glass and beer caps substituted for grass, and
although there were some large poles lying around for firewood, you
needed an axe to cut them up. (The next day I was told they were put
there to keep people from burning the fences.) Anyway, I was not down
on the guy; after all he could have been like everybody else and just
cursed the trespassers.

That morning I was on the road by 7 am. It was cloudy and looked
like rain. Just before the cloudburst, I took shelter in an old
garage. When the rain let up a bit, I climbed on my bicycle and began
to ride. The bicycling conditions were hilly, wet, and windy. By
late afternoon the weather had cleared, but biking was still hard. My
knees had been sore ever since Niagara Falls; a lot of it probably had
to do with the fact that I had been keeping an 80/90-mile a day pace.
Sault St. Marie was now in range.


Michigan
Aug. 21, 1982

Well this is it, the last night of my trip--a sad occasion. I have a
super campsite, however, I'm just south of Wolverine, Michigan, on top
of a hill in the woods with the beautiful view of the sky. Blending
into the horizon there are shades of yellows, blues, violets, and
grays, and in the southwest there is a descending slivered moon. I
passed a lot of good-looking campsites before I found this one. One
was a State Forest Campground, and another was a park that offered
free camping. I didn't want to be around people tonight. Tonight,
it's just between me and Ma Nature and she's quite a lady, and has
been this entire trip. It's getting too dark to write, but I wanted to
begin this journal entry at a time of reverence, and I have. Tomorrow
I will fill in the rest.