Panentheism in a nutshell

[Dimmesdale]

What are things made of? Matter? Okay, matter. What is matter made of? Elementary particles. What are elementary particles made of? If they are made of smaller things, then that leads us to an infinite regress. Furthermore, this cannot explain why given materials possess any substantiality at all. For the most basic particles need to be substantial themselves. They must reach toward a substratum that is stable in its essence. So, for the substantiality of all material things, there must be a prime, or base substantiality, at the root. And let us say this is Prime Materiality.

What would prime materiality look like? It would have to be simple, monadic. Absolutely simple and monadic. For we would be saddled with the same regress if it weren't. If the basic building block would be, something like a circle, then we would be able to cut that circle into two halves, and that would be non-monadic. So prime materiality cannot then have any shape or size, for that same shape and size can be deconstructed into something smaller, and on and on. If prime materiality then cannot have shape or size, it follows that it cannot occupy any space or time. For then, it would be extended throughout space and time, which means that it would have shape, size, and could on that account be reduced further into simpler forms.

Okay. So we have resolved that prime materiality must be formless, simple, monadic, and non-spatio-temporal. Does that ring a bell? Have I not given you the Western-dominated definition of God?

But whence comes space then? Is space not an object? We can divide space, in our experience. So space must have substantiality. Unless it doesn't. Unless space only appears to space. To our empirical vision. If all there is is God, then space is a non-starter. But I have not said that God is all. Only that prime materiality bears a resemblance to God. Still, we can abolish space at this time as an illusion, or as a moot point. It is an appearance, not prime materiality.

Something that is also formless, simple, and non-spatio-temporal could be said to be Energy, however. Pure energy. Energy is measured by the force it yields. As, a unit of energy is equivalent to the particle that exhausts itself in its death and releases it. Pure energy.

But all energy, as far as we can descry, has a source. Energy comes from somewhere. And if all (illusory) things partake of Prime Materiality, then that Prime Materiality, which bears the Image of the Western-dominated "Creator" may be said to originate there, as well..... Only on this reading, God is not distant... God is not apart. God is ready-to-hand. God is intimately wedded and Present to Energy..... Intimately united. Oned. A Moiety.

God. The Energetic, and His Energy.

[Dimmesdale]

I suppose you could say, instead of their being One Prime Materiality at the base of all its appearances, there are Multiple Prime Materialities, which are all likewise eternal, simple, monadic, beyond space, etc. I suppose you could posit that. But there is only one Soul of my soul as far as I am concerned.

[Dimmesdale]

I suppose you could say, instead of their being One Prime Materiality at the base of all its appearances, there are Multiple Prime Materialities, which are all likewise eternal, simple, monadic, beyond space, etc. I suppose you could posit that. But there is only one Soul of my soul as far as I am concerned.

But then, assuming there is a Source from which all comes, all those Prime Materialities would likewise be Sourced in That One. However, that One would not necessarily Be Simple Himself. He would have varieties to give birth to varieties.

[Dimmesdale]

I suppose you could say, instead of their being One Prime Materiality at the base of all its appearances, there are Multiple Prime Materialities, which are all likewise eternal, simple, monadic, beyond space, etc. I suppose you could posit that. But there is only one Soul of my soul as far as I am concerned.

But then, assuming there is a Source from which all comes, all those Prime Materialities would likewise be Sourced in That One. However, that One would not necessarily Be Simple Himself. He would have varieties to give birth to varieties.

Also, if there were multiple Prime Materiality, we would also not be able to distinguish them from each other. And would there be any reason to assume they are anything other than the same Prime Materiality. How would we know? If space-time is a non-starter, then what would prevent this just being a "mirrored phenomenon" where the same Prime Materiality is simply represented, rather than duplicated.

[Dimmesdale]

I suppose you could say, instead of their being One Prime Materiality at the base of all its appearances, there are Multiple Prime Materialities, which are all likewise eternal, simple, monadic, beyond space, etc. I suppose you could posit that. But there is only one Soul of my soul as far as I am concerned.

But then, assuming there is a Source from which all comes, all those Prime Materialities would likewise be Sourced in That One. However, that One would not necessarily Be Simple Himself. He would have varieties to give birth to varieties.

Also, if there were multiple Prime Materiality, we would also not be able to distinguish them from each other. And would there be any reason to assume they are anything other than the same Prime Materiality. How would we know? If space-time is a non-starter, then what would prevent this just being a "mirrored phenomenon" where the same Prime Materiality is simply represented, rather than duplicated.

At the same time, I do realize that that there is such a thing as difference in reality. People of a more monist stripe may still opine that space-time counts as an illusion if all things partake of the one monadic substratum. But to me, no. Even the appearance of difference, demands an explanation. Any phenomenon requires explanation based upon the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If everything in our experience requires an explanation, including Prime Materiality, the totality of space-time also is not exempt from this rule. Why would we make an exception to this datum, just because we experience it, but cannot experience Prime Materiality or Pure Energy?

[Dimmesdale]

[quote=Dimmesdale post_id=1163746 time=1737685463 user_id=13562

At the same time, I do realize that that there is such a thing as difference in reality. People of a more monist stripe may still opine that space-time counts as an illusion if all things partake of the one monadic substratum. But to me, no. Even the appearance of difference, demands an explanation. Any phenomenon requires explanation based upon the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If everything in our experience requires an explanation, including Prime Materiality, the totality of space-time also is not exempt from this rule. Why would we make an exception to this datum, just because we experience it, but cannot experience Prime Materiality or Pure Energy?
[/quote]

Returning to: But then, assuming there is a Source from which all comes, all those Prime Materialities would likewise be Sourced in That One. However, that One would not necessarily Be Simple Himself. He would have varieties to give birth to varieties.

That is where the Principle of Sufficient Reason comes into play. We do have a Sufficient Reason for the Oneness, or unicity, of Reality (Prime Materiality, and then the Source of said Materiality). But herein is where we enter into difference. Just as the Source must be One, so too, it Must be Many. The idea of the Trinity may be entertained here as well.

[Dimmesdale]

A Trinity can be entertained. But I think a Moiety is more to the point. Man and Wife. Male and Female. This I think is the more intuitively foundational dyad which gives "birth" to varieties that partake of the oneness yet also give rise to distinctions.

I do not wish to be blasphemous or rattle cages, or upset Christians or anything, but I think that the concept of a Trinity does not actively generate new life. Of course, the love between father and son is a great thing, and it certainly gives rise to a strong positive mutual emotion. But this emotion seems fixated on the relationship itself and does not give "birth" to anything extraneous. Thus, this relationship cannot be fecund the way a Moiety or Couplehood can, since we do have the analogy of birth..... If we apply Birth to that relationship, we see that it gives rise to other relationships. Whereas the Trinity, though a wonderful concept, seems fixated upon its own special relationship, as having pride of place. The Trinity stops at itself. The Moiety cannot but imply others.

[Dimmesdale]

Staring At Negation

Looking, yonder, at the nighttime sky, what do you see? Darkness. What we would term the absence of light. And yet, by virtue of the absence of light, we discern something which at least seems to us to have substance: blackness, darkness, a type of shadowy power....

This is the essence of material energy. It is a great big Zero. It is a shadow. So in one sense, the Principle of Sufficient Reason falls flat on its face trying to discern the essence of nothingness -- if that is what matter is. Yet somehow we discern an essence, even if it appears to us as a figment - darkness.

If we are not staring at negation, are we not staring at a placeholder that does, in one sense, have substance?

[Dimmesdale]

Negation is an abstraction. An abstraction is unseen. So how can night, the absence of light, be seen except by the juxtaposition of light and a divine placeholder? But this placeholder itself needs a Principle of Sufficient Reason for being.

[Dimmesdale]

[Replying to Dimmesdale in post #9]

Matter is pure Zero-hood. Matter is, in itself, the Lording It Over. Which actuates and potentiates all our symptomatic consciousness to gratify itself. But when it is in touch with the Lord's Energy and Power, it has value. God is the 1 at the forefront of all zeros. Which causes the zeros to have value.