Logically rationalize God

[sbbds]

Ok, I'm going to ramble now.

I've used this thought experiment before and will again. A friend brings an object that you've never seen before. It is a completely novel object to you. Yet the moment you view it, you still have a flash bulb thought. At first, you think to yourself "This has curves here, this could be some sort of engine here. These could be nuts, bolts, screws... wings..." Essentially, you are taking what you already know and are applying it to this new object to give it definition. In the future, after examining the object enough using your already inherent rules, you may give it its own distinct category in your mind. You are pretty much already bridging that together from the moment you see it. Essentially everything in your entire life you've ever viewed though has undergone this same examination and categorization. You take what you already know, apply it to the novel object or idea so that you can contextualize the object in your own terms. Everything you see, every person you know... all just manifestations of the self... things that you've contextualized using what is already inherent within from the very beginning of your existence

So, let's hit the rewind button and go backwards to the moment of your conception. At the beginning of your existence, there had to be a self-learning, self-propagating ideal inherent within you in order to learn. The reality that you exist in now already had to exist in potential disorganized state within you.

So we’ve defined Hitta’s first postulate.
Everything that you interact with, everything that you encounter, all the people that you perceive, this entire thing that you call a universe, and possibly all things you perceive outside the constraints of this universe are , from the smallest to the most largest component, made up of the same syntax.

Now three possibilities arise from this:

A) You cannot experience the entire universe, therefore, every single individual lives in this own perceptual shell that is distinct from the actual universe. I simply do not buy this for some very logical reasons that I will go into one of these days. I actually think Kant dropped the ball here.
B) Your perceptual reality is the universe, you are the only being that truly exists, and therefore you are essentially living in a solipsistic domain. This would require that you created entire personalities inside of yourself. Why are these personalities not real in themselves? This creates a paradox about what is real and what isn’t, specifically if you are not referring to transcendental identities. Why aren’t you just a fake personality that exists within someone else’s perspective reality. In a way this is true in the end, it’s just that the perspective is the transcendent … which leads us to C.
or the one I am fairly certain to be the correct answer

C) Your perceptual reality is the universe, everything within the universe contains the perceptual reality that is the universe, and that all things within the context of the universe share all the identical perceptual components because everything within the universe is written with the same linguistic identity. Tl;dr version: Everything in the universe is the same exact thing and are just complete manifestations of a transcendental identity a.k.a. god.
So exactly how does this occur?
I am the complete manifestation of god. Kassie is the complete manifestation of god. So how exactly does this resolve? There is a duality that exists between the observer and what he observers. Both the observer and the perceptive reality that the observer observes both make up the two transfinite realities that cross together to create the infinite whole.

So to understand what is meant by transfinite reality, one must understand the absurdity of counting. Limits go to infinity but limits themselves can never actually comprise infinity, because they can only show infinity based on the limitations of the observer and the ability of the observer to categorize. For example, if I were to observe 3 chickens, this would require both the internal focus and definition of what is a chicken to actually observe. So, if I were to ask the question, “If I have 3 chickens and 3 chickens are removed, how many chickens do I have left?” The obvious answer would be zero chickens. Somewhere along the way though, perception became fixated on the definition of a chicken… so something is still inherently/unconsciously being added to the mathematical formula. This is how transfinite domains exist differently from the infinite. Transfinite domains can be limitlessly expanded, but they always require internal categorization to do so. Dividing by zero on the other hand, de-contextualizes the number system, as a zero point can really only be understand if categorization is inherent… dividing by zero removes the bounds on the categorization so that you have a unbound number system that exists across unbounded categories... a true unbound state aka infinity.

This is what is meant by transfinite realities in terms of people. You have two main realms that are seemingly limitless in expansion potential that exist over space: observer reality and perceptive reality. That are fixated by pseudo focal categories aka personality characteristics. When something is not present within the observer reality it must exist within the perceptive reality. You also have parts of the observer reality which interact directly with the perceptive reality. If you haven’t figured out what I’m discussing yet, I’m referring to the Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious are the way we orientate god into our own personal status. The entirety of god exists within but is layered all the way from conscious to very very deep conscious. Shared unconscious space is what actually defines the shared physical reality in which we live within. So, to answer the question, me and Kassie are both god that has been layered in an alternate form. The self even has very unconscious awareness of multiversal reality. As the entirety of everything is within god. Tl;dr version: God is essentially the thing that all things are made out of. God cannot be actually pointed to, but only displayed through the pseudo dualism. I am god, you are god, everything is god. God is a transcendent form that can only be expressed via pseudo dichotomies. In actuality, dualism is not real. A monistic duality exists instead.

Best thing I've ever read lol.

A simpler version IMO: We can only exist as our own entity (and perceive it) in contrast with another thing, and a third neutral field or piece of an equation for that contrast/dichotomy and seeming separation with the other thing to be expressed. We also need at least one consciousness to perceive it of course, one more thing. This can all be expressed/condensed as one seamless "process" or interconnected existence too though. Part of why it's often said it's the "Holy Trinity", and a "Fourfold Universe", in some religions...

[Tearsofaclown]

Best thing I've ever read lol.

A simpler version IMO: We can only exist as our own entity (and perceive it) in contrast with another thing, and a third neutral field or piece of an equation for that contrast/dichotomy and seeming separation with the other thing to be expressed. We also need at least one consciousness to perceive it of course, one more thing. This can all be expressed/condensed as one seamless "process" or interconnected existence too though. Part of why it's often said it's the "Holy Trinity", and a "Fourfold Universe", in some religions...

This sounds like pluralism by William James. Which rejects Monism. Everything is externally related.


Pragmatically interpreted, pluralism or the doctrine that it is many means only that the sundry parts of reality may be externally related. Everything you can think of, however vast or inclusive, has on the pluralistic view a genuinely "external" environment of some sort or amount. Things are "with" one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything. The word "and" trails along after every sentence. Something always escapes. "Ever not quite" has to be said of the best attempts made anywhere in the universe at attaining all-inclusiveness. The pluralistic world is thus more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom. However much may be collected, however much may report itself as present at any effective centre of consciousness or action, something else is self-governed and absent and unreduced to unity.

Monism, on the other hand, insists that when you come down to reality as such, to the reality of realities, everything is present to everything else in one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness�nothing can in any sense, functional or substantial, be really absent from anything else, all things interpenetrate and telescope together in the great total conflux.

For pluralism, all that we are required to admit as the constitution of reality is what we ourselves find empirically realized in every minimum of finite life. Briefly it is this, that nothing real is absolutely simple, that every smallest bit of experience is a multum in parvo plurally related, that each relation is one aspect, character, or function, way of its being taken, or way of its taking something else; and that a bit of reality when actively engaged in one of these relations simultaneously. The relations are not all what the French call solidaires with one another. Without losing its identity a thing can either take up or drop another thing, like the log I spoke of, which by taking up new carriers and dropping old ones can travel anywhere with a light escort.

For monism, on the contrary, everything, whether we realize it or not, drags the whole universe along with itself and drops nothing. The log starts and arrives with all its carriers supporting it. If a thing were once disconnected, it could never be connected again, according to monism. The pragmatic difference between the two systems is thus a definite one. It is just thus, that if a is once out of sight of b or out of touch with it, or, more briefly, "out" of it at all, then, according to monism, it must always remain so, they can never get together; whereas pluralism admits that on another occasion they may work together, or in some way be connected again. Monism allows for no such things as "other occasions" in reality in "real " or absolute reality, that is.

The difference I try to describe amounts, you see, to nothing more than the difference between what I formerly called the each-form and the all-form of reality. Pluralism lets things really exist in the each-form or distributively. Monism thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational. The all-form allows of no taking up and dropping of connexions, for in the all the parts are essentially and eternally co-implicated. In the each-form, on the contrary, a thing may be connected by intermediary things, with a thing with which it has no immediate or essential connexion. It is thus at all times in many possible connexions, which are not necessarily actualized at the moment. They depend on which actual path of intermediation it may functionally strike into: the word "or" names a genuine reality. Thus, as I speak here, I may look ahead or to the right or to the left, and in either case the intervening space and air and aether enable me to see the faces of a different portion of this audience. My being here is independent of any one set of these faces.

James on God. Like humans, God cannot know all he knows at one time all the time. He is liable to forget. God has a subconscious in a sense that is he unaware of totally and is overlapped by a consciousness.


"God's consciousness," says Professor Royce,[2] "forms in its wholeness one luminously transparent conscious moment" -this is the type of noetic unity on which rationalism insists. Empiricism on the other hand is satisfied with the type of noetic unity that is humanly familiar. Everything gets known by some knower along with something else; but the knowers may in the end be irreducibly many, and the greatest knower of them all may yet not know the whole of everything, or even know what he does know at one single stroke: - he may be liable to forget. Whichever type obtained, the world would still be a universe noetically. Its parts would be conjoined by knowledge, but in the one case the knowledge would be absolutely unified, in the other it would be strung along and overlapped.

[sbbds]

This sounds like pluralism by William James. Which rejects Monism. Everything is externally related.


Pragmatically interpreted, pluralism or the doctrine that it is many means only that the sundry parts of reality may be externally related. Everything you can think of, however vast or inclusive, has on the pluralistic view a genuinely "external" environment of some sort or amount. Things are "with" one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything. The word "and" trails along after every sentence. Something always escapes. "Ever not quite" has to be said of the best attempts made anywhere in the universe at attaining all-inclusiveness. The pluralistic world is thus more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom. However much may be collected, however much may report itself as present at any effective centre of consciousness or action, something else is self-governed and absent and unreduced to unity.

Monism, on the other hand, insists that when you come down to reality as such, to the reality of realities, everything is present to everything else in one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness�nothing can in any sense, functional or substantial, be really absent from anything else, all things interpenetrate and telescope together in the great total conflux.

For pluralism, all that we are required to admit as the constitution of reality is what we ourselves find empirically realized in every minimum of finite life. Briefly it is this, that nothing real is absolutely simple, that every smallest bit of experience is a multum in parvo plurally related, that each relation is one aspect, character, or function, way of its being taken, or way of its taking something else; and that a bit of reality when actively engaged in one of these relations simultaneously. The relations are not all what the French call solidaires with one another. Without losing its identity a thing can either take up or drop another thing, like the log I spoke of, which by taking up new carriers and dropping old ones can travel anywhere with a light escort.

For monism, on the contrary, everything, whether we realize it or not, drags the whole universe along with itself and drops nothing. The log starts and arrives with all its carriers supporting it. If a thing were once disconnected, it could never be connected again, according to monism. The pragmatic difference between the two systems is thus a definite one. It is just thus, that if a is once out of sight of b or out of touch with it, or, more briefly, "out" of it at all, then, according to monism, it must always remain so, they can never get together; whereas pluralism admits that on another occasion they may work together, or in some way be connected again. Monism allows for no such things as "other occasions" in reality in "real " or absolute reality, that is.

The difference I try to describe amounts, you see, to nothing more than the difference between what I formerly called the each-form and the all-form of reality. Pluralism lets things really exist in the each-form or distributively. Monism thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational. The all-form allows of no taking up and dropping of connexions, for in the all the parts are essentially and eternally co-implicated. In the each-form, on the contrary, a thing may be connected by intermediary things, with a thing with which it has no immediate or essential connexion. It is thus at all times in many possible connexions, which are not necessarily actualized at the moment. They depend on which actual path of intermediation it may functionally strike into: the word "or" names a genuine reality. Thus, as I speak here, I may look ahead or to the right or to the left, and in either case the intervening space and air and aether enable me to see the faces of a different portion of this audience. My being here is independent of any one set of these faces.

James on God. Like humans, God cannot know all he knows at one time all the time. He is liable to forget. God has a subconscious in a sense that is he unaware of totally and is overlapped by a consciousness.


"God's consciousness," says Professor Royce,[2] "forms in its wholeness one luminously transparent conscious moment" -this is the type of noetic unity on which rationalism insists. Empiricism on the other hand is satisfied with the type of noetic unity that is humanly familiar. Everything gets known by some knower along with something else; but the knowers may in the end be irreducibly many, and the greatest knower of them all may yet not know the whole of everything, or even know what he does know at one single stroke: - he may be liable to forget. Whichever type obtained, the world would still be a universe noetically. Its parts would be conjoined by knowledge, but in the one case the knowledge would be absolutely unified, in the other it would be strung along and overlapped.

.... I said that it IS reducible to unity, in my second last sentence.