What is and will be...

Another exercise in speculative metaphysics....

1. Before all worlds there is a mutuable and eternal primordial stuff, also called the 'apeiron' of formless. The nature of this is unconscious. There is also an eternal, absolute state or the 'isness of pure being'. The primordial stuff is like a 'bubbling' cauldron of energetic particles, while the is-ness of pure being is the background reality, absolute, limitless light.
2. The unconscious primordial stuff evolves following initial conditions into the Cosmos that we know
3. The Cosmos eventually evolves conscious beings over aeons.
4. The conscious beings either individually or collectively attain the 'Omega Point', the highest point of intellectual and spiritual evolution. These conscious beings are the 'evolved ones' who rule a Galactic Civillization.
5. The Cosmos gradually undergoes dissolution, and the 'evolves ones' ascend to the absolute state of pure is-ness, where they no longer act in any world.
6. Before this ascension the evolved ones of the Omega Point become the first cause of the initial conditions that set the creation of a new Cosmos in process.
7. Thus there is a cyclic process where the end point of one universe becomes the cause of another universe.

Theory #2: As above but the evolved ones attain a state of cosmic union of minds, a 'Godstate' ruling an advanced civillisation of sentients in our far future before they simply sleep as the universe dissolves into primordial 'soup'. The Cosmos evolution is therefore in a true sense the 'dream' of a God. They may also though still be the deliberate initial cause of the Cosmos evolution.

Theory #3: As above, but instead of an endless series of cycles, there is one great spiritual cycle. Eternally there is a primordial stuff that has two modes: a very large unconscious nature and also a primordial conscious nature. Through the evolution of space and time in the unconscious nature, the cosmic body as it were, the conciousness nature manifests itself, moving toward the Omega Point. The primoridal consciousness creates by pure will or desire to manifest.  By this manifestation, the consciousness reproduces itself through the creation of 'souls'. The purpose of these souls is to advance the manifestation of 'good' in the world, in particular beauty and creativity through a galactic civillisation.. When their bodies dissolve back into the primoridal stuff the advanced souls may achieve eternal communion with the primoridal conscious nature, indeed they may acheive  total union with the primordial consciousness.

Pan-ek-theism

I may have just coined this term...at least a quick Google survey didn't turn it up.

Some explanation of 'pan-ek-theism' which I intend by use of the ancient greek components of the word to mean 'everything - out of/from - God. The term by the way is my own, but the concept is very ancient, usually being described as a form of qualified monism or non-dualism.

For me Pan is 'everything, the all' the cosmos, but what I mean here by cosmos is physical, manifest nature including all matter and all forms, known through science and everyday reason
Theism is problematic as per the previous post, but if theism is allowed  ( thought my last post sought to disallow it!) to actually encompass spiritualities that deny that God has an individuated 'mind' or 'will'  or even a 'cosmic consciousness' e.g. pantheism then it follows the label 'theism' might also apply to me.
I don't think the Pan is 'in' God as fish are 'in' the sea. Panentheism is taken to mean that the divine is 'transcendent' as well as 'immanent', that God is in everything but God is yet more than 'everything' . Wrong, I say. There is no 'outside' of nature (though there might be a spiritual 'inside') The deeper reality which I am strongly disinclined to call 'God' (though Goddess is somehow perhaps more appropriate if such God terms be used at all - see previous posts)
ek or ex or even ec  Explains how I think the physical cosmos is realated to an Unus Mundus, deeper reality

Here is a general  but very rough draft of my metaphysical framework:

A rather subtle distinction I will make is between

Panentheism e.g. process theism  and  the religious end of the road for immanentism viz Scientific or Naturalistic Pantheism. My system is I think a 'middle term' and conceputally a form of  qualified non dualistic and dynamic monism. Perhaps I could use the term pan-ek-theism because everything we generally take to be the 'all' (i.e the physical cosmos) arises I think 'out of' the deeper 'spiritual' reality (by this I mean not efficient or mechanical cause and effect, but as a necessary metaphysical dependency like the notion of the Son of God as the 'only begotten' of the Father does not imply a creation in time of the former in traditional Xian theology).

However the deeper reality is in my view not 'also more than nature', it is not encompassing the pan or nature. So contrary to some definitions of panentheism I don't think we are fish swimming in the ocean of God. Rather I think the spiritual deeper nature is instead co-extensive with the physical nature we know, indeed it is the invisible interiority or dimension of physical nature (there is no 'outside' nature, only a 'surface' nature and an 'inside' nature in my view). As I say the 'pan' arises out of the deeper nature it is superficially perhaps similar  to an 'emanationist' viewpoint except for me what arises 'nature' is not better or more profound in its gloriousness than the hidden deeper reality or vica versa - logical priority (the pan is eternally begotten by the deeper reality) does not I think imply a value judgement. The spiritual is not 'more good' than nature, because 'Good' is seen as a relative and not absolute term as it seems to have been for Plato ( we must always ask, about any state of affairs, Good for whom?). That said the deeper reality involves not absolute  random chaos but a hidden harmony and patterns (c.f.the Tao)  and perhaps a spiritual 'great attractor' is the tendency to move toward manfiestation, to ultimately to know and be known, a creative will to be, even yes, a 'will to power' after Nieziche. This hidden harmony is probably also ultimately 'mathematical' in nature but involving a form of logic quite different to human conceptions of the same. It goes without saying that the hidden harmony of the deeper reality does not care about human individual interests.

No one in charge...

My  current philosophy I class as 'non-theistic' because I don't accept what I consider to be a cardinal belief of  theism, namely that it supposes the existence of a superior sentient conscious mind (or minds) that created and/or directs the universe in accordance with its will (or 'wills'). I assume one can't have a theism that insists that god doesn't even have the attribute of consciousness or a god that lacks a 'mind'. It follows that I don't consider that naturalistic pantheism is really a theism at all (indeed Dawkins was right when he called it 'sexed up' atheism).  I don't doubt that one can have a  naturalistic spirituality, only I think to call this a theism just perpetuates misunderstanding, implying as it does that pantheists 'worship' nature. Do they? I think most would deny they give nature the kind of attention that a theist would give to his deity (pantheists don't address prayers and petitions to nature for instance). I would also defend the right of atheists to insist they regard nature with awe and reverence just as much as any naturalistic pantheist, without having to accept the label 'pantheist' for themselves.

My non-theism is not consistently a 'naturalistic' philosophy, in that I give considerable importance to intuition and mystical experience  including mystical traditions as a source of 'knowledge' along with rationalism and empirical science. I am also fascinated by archetypal psychology and parapsychology; I also consider that the scientific method while highly reliable cannot discover all that is or may be. Also I am aware that science is undergirded by certain philosophical assumptions that cannot be definitely proved. Finally I believe that the scientific establishment often resists new thinking or minority viewpoints, and is full of 'egos' and subjectivity affects the way results are interpreted - but my point here is that  scientists are 'only human'.

I consider behind the world of phenomena described by science there is a deeper reality of interconnection, a fundamental unifying principle-substance-force. Others have called this the 'unus mundus', the 'one-ness' of the world (this is not the notion of a transcendent 'One') This deeper reality is not 'god' . It is not a cosmic mind. It is unconscious primordial material, not mind or matter, but the essential stuff of neutral monism. This stuff is formless and infinite, the womb of all being.  This deeper reality serves some traditionally theological functions - it is I consider a necessary and first cause. All things come from and return to this ground of being. It is also not 'out there' but 'in there', representing the ultimate interiority of everything. Everything phenomenal is an outgrowth of the deeper reality and is an expression of a 'will to create', (after Goethe) a non-cognitivie tendency to self transcend, to become more than what it already is, to become more complex, to be more free, to ultimately know and be known. Naturalistic evolution would deny this notion of nature having a will or a teleology  (goal orientated) but then we know what our will is and it is ultimately based in a psycho-biological drive that is more than a mere will to survive - it has an existential aspect I feel. At base iif our will does not require conscious thinking or rationality (rather the latter articulates and also justifies what will wants), so I don't think is it an inappropriate athropomorphism to ascribe an unthinking will to create even to non-sentient nature.

So life evolves by random process, but it seems to me that evolution has a 'direction'. Nothing however remains for ever - even  having acheived the highest state of evolution that sentient life must die eventually. There is the natural law requiring that all things must return ultimately to the primoridal reality..Form is limited both spatially and temporally, and nothing persists for ever except the unbounded formless deep reality itself. I consider it possible that the evolution of life and technology will result in what Tiellhard De Chardin called an 'Omega Point' entity. In my version of this, there comes a point where living entities will acheive almost god-like powers in the universe (or multiverse); indeed the ultimate survival adaption would appear to be the ability to transcend material limits altogether. I am  open therefore to the speculative idea that our universe was 'intelligently designed' by an Omega Point entity from another universe (I am even open to the extremely speculative possibility of a 'bootstrap' universe, that the Omega entity is the result of the evolution process set in train by the same Omega that has somehow transcended space and time)

But, apart from the notion of the Omega Point entity as a future end point of evolution, I do not consider there is anyone 'in charge' of the universe. It would be very nice to give up personal responsibility and hope that someone 'up there' care and is able to 'look after us'. It would be very comforting and reassuring. But there is no rational basis I believe for such a notion that satisfies only our wishful thinking and anxiety.

lets get metaphysical....

These notions appeal to me:

1. Neutral Monism

2. Everything is One or Unity at the deepest level of reality

3. The universe is manifest through a dialectical process - the interaction and synthesis of opposites

4. The 'force' of nature is 'creativity' or the 'will to be and self transcend'

5. There is no presiding 'mind' directing the cosmos instead there are 'fundamental principles and laws'

6. Though everything is a unity, the manifest universe is a 'process': the 'events' and 'incidences' of the underlying, primordial substrate. The closest analogy is the relationship of surface waves to the ocean as a whole.

7. There is only one 'substance' and everything is a 'mode' or 'appearance' of that substance.

8. The 'spirit' of something refers to its essential being, vitality and conscious state (including the unconscious)

9. The spiritual aspect of the world is its 'interiority'. Spirit is not 'out there' but the depths or ground of being.

10. Physical evil 'apparent' because what is evil to the individual may not be evil as regards the whole.Death and Chaos drive 'evolution'. The dialectical process also causes temporary imbalances and conflict before it is resolves. Sometimes physical evils may be the result of imbalances in health or ecosystems caused by human behaviour.

11. Moral evil is the result of a false notion of 'autonomy' and a refusal to accept the 'other' as essentially the same as ourselves. This leads to self-aggrandisement and finally injustice.

12. Injustice is exceeding our bounds or proper place  in the 'dance' of existence. It is the result of hubris or arrogance. It is demanding more than we need, taking more than our proper share, or interfering with another's integrity and capacity to fulfil their potential. The golden rule follows from the principle of equality, which in turn follows from the principles of identity or sameness and unity, and thus it is derived ultimately from the kind of 'monism' espoused above.

13. By the same token Justice seeks to recover sameness and unity, and to acheive this it is 'restorative' and sometimes 'equalising'. Thus who have taken too much must make amends by returning what they have taken. Where the damage to another individuals' integrity and capacity is more serious, a common view of 'justice' is that it appears to require that the damager experiences a punitive consequence of corresponding severity that detracts from the damager's integrity and capacity e.g. loss of freedom. Thus punitive justice tries to 'equalise' the pain and deriment of the offence  between victim and damager where it cannot be other wise be 'undone'.

14. Every actual incident or event has both a physical and mental 'aspect' (but not a dual  nature) - this notion is derived from Process Philosophy.  Essentially everything that exists has an interior mental aspect. This is not the same as saying everything has a cognitive mind or the ability to think. The mental aspect may be 'unconscious' but all beings would appear to have a 'subjective' mode - thus it is meaningful to talk about what it is like to be a 'rock', a 'tree' and so forth. The primordial universe  - the universe before the manifestation of space and time -  is 'unconscious' and potentially conscious, it becomes conscious only through the evolution of sentient beings who are conscious. Sentient beings collectively represent the 'consciousness' of the universe. However there is in our space and time no 'over mind' but sentient intelligence may one day evolve into an 'overmind', an intellectual 'omega point'.

15. Eschantologically, the 'omega point' over mind - the final state of sentient life in the universe - may become so cognitively advanced to be able to transcend all physical limits.It is possible this omega point over mind can also  transcend time and space, which opens the possibility of the ultimate paradox: that the self caused universe. However I consider this notion entirely speculative.

The language of myth

Of course all talk of the absolute, of  the dialectic, of the gods and goddesses is about 'myth making'. Myth is unverified, it is not scientific, it is the product of the imagination, relying on symbols not concrete provable realities. It is a device to think profound things, a language game.. It is not the public truth of science. It is about private truth.

God and Goddesss (Part Two)

A recap - The potential and dialectic of the absolute is resolved in the process of becoming. Becoming is creative and fecund; it is also the will to be, to manifest and ultimately to know and be known through the evolution of a self reflective consciousness in sentient beings, who might, just occasionally, perceive 'the whole'. They may also perceive that the centre of their individual being is the same ground of reality, where all is one and one is all.

We can personify the dialetical and evolutionary process of becoming as the erotic love dance of the god and goddess.

The god represents in this metaphor 'limit, form, will, analysis' and the goddess represents 'infinite, matter-energy, power, and synthesis. The god and goddess are the parents of us all - from these two after the first one, come the myriad of beings.

Of course, we mustn't strain these metaphors too far.....

Monism, God and Goddess

deleted.