For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
Write4U – “Absolute Being = Condition
Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space
I interpret that to mean; Potential, Brahman, Absolute Being, Condition, can never express themselves directly in our Reality.
Thus the terms like, ‘acts of God’, ‘miracles’, or ‘hand of god’ are false. It is all part of a continual mathematical process.
The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future. Thus it must also be a property (a potential) of the Wholeness.
Consider: when/where mathematical function fails, the result is either chaos or nothing.
Don’t misunderstand, with the term Mathematics I am not referring to our invention of mathematical symbols as a universal language. It is a Function in the dynamic wholeness. Can it be otherwise? I highly doubt it. The mathematical function (in the abstract) is a perfect function for processing ‘packets of information’, physical or metaphysical.
We even use it to create AI.“
I would be more inclined to say Absolute Being = Primal Awareness.
If you reference Brahman, what then about Atman? (and what does this imply for AI?)
“The Mathematical function is a common denominator of all things, past present and future.“
Yes, but the function arises with the first thing. The function is a result of the primal cause.
I understand that the function is not the language, but nature itself. Primal Awareness compounding in increasingly complex combinations. Like a hall of infinite mirrors. But there must first be something to reflect and to reflect upon.
My emphasis on “awareness” seems to be a source of difference between us. It reminds me of my own critique of the Deistic apartheid. Whereby the primal cause resides somewhere else, disassociated from the results of it’s causation.
My understanding would be that we humans particularize miracles as events. The hand of God, as actions in time. In “truth” though, the “miracle” is a constant state. A steady stream.
Residing in that awareness is enlightenment. The realization of Atman. Non-differentiation. Original nature.
Some thoughts and questions:
– What is the nature of awareness? (in it’s uncompounded sense)*
– How is uncompounded awareness different than uncompounded mathematical function?
– If mathematical function is latent, why not awareness? (This by the way, pretty much equates to the Sanskrit terms Prakriti and Purusha?)
– In “truth” (as in Infinitude of Singularity), are not mathematical function and awareness non-differentiated?
– Theistically, Brahman and Atman are about as neutral and non-anthropomorphic as it gets. Brahman being, entirety-centric, and Atman, human-centric non-differentiation. They in turn are not different, one from the other and equate to “truth”.
– To remain an atheistic humanist, must one continue the tradition of anthropomorphizing God? (it would seem so from your arguments)
Your conclusion about the royal flush anecdote of course, only indicates a preferred frame of reference. It does not actually remove Purusha from the equation.
* (Note: One could substitute Self for “awareness” aka Purusha. This, for me, makes the analogy more accurate and versatile. But these are just words after all. Go with whatever gives you the sense of it.)
@ Write4U #164
I’ve never had a handle on what metaphysics is exactly. I’m guessing that you mean it as something beyond empirical inquiry.
I would suggest that cultivation of Self realization (i.e. Atman) ought to be considered empirical inquiry, but most likely won’t be.
That aside, I’m not finding all that much to fuss about in your comments.
“By definition a god (any god) is metaphysical condition having the potential for being causal to our Reality). But that is a reach too far. God (by any other theistic name) does not create potential, God is just another name for the causal Potential which may become reality.“
Well? Yes. But, how is it “a reach too far” though? Especially if one factors in underlying infinitude as the primal cause of the causal Potential.
This strikes me as very satisfying definition of God. Primal cause. Both implicate and explicit. The question of sentience and the nature of that sentience is where it gets fun. But it doesn’t benefit much from debate. Since sentience is the foundation of experience, the proof is in the experience. Experience and Potential being a seamless dynamic.
I realize that the above statement is all over the map. (Don’t need Lausten to tell me.) But, there is a point where a neat, linear analysis completely falls apart in this discussion. All conditions, stages, effects, manifestations, as well as potential, are in “truth”, simultaneous and non-different.
[Note: Write4U has included some interesting links. To go along with his advocacy of David Bohm he has now introduced David Birnbaum author of Summa Metaphysica and developer of Potentialisim Theory.]