God as Inneffable and Effable: Beyond Being as Void, Through Being as Distinction

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

God as Inneffable and Effable: Beyond Being as Void, Through Being as Distinction

Void is ultimately the ineffable God and distinction is the image of the ineffable made manifest.

Void is the totality of all things, the transencendent unity as nothingness for there is no contrast or equal to the totality for it to be affable, thus is nothing, yet by degree there is only one totality. By nature void is transcendental by means of the emergence of distinction as the distinction of void itself. Emptiness and fullness require relation but only distinctions may relate thus the void is the potential of such distinctions as all things where fullness and emptiness are but emergent distinctions.

Void is distinct as void for it contains the potential to do so and must be distinct if containing all possibilities as potentiality itself.

The void as the totality is all things thus by nature is the distinction of itself as distinction is all things.

Void is distinct from the distinctions that unfold by degree of it being unity as nothingness in its absolute nature and the point of change, by which distinctions emerge and dissolve, at the relative. The distinction of the absolute and the relative is but multivalent for the relative voids interrelate as the absolute.

The relative voids are the same as the absolute by degree of there relations, the Absolute void is the same as the relative by degree of everpresence mediation. The relative and absolute void are but angles of perception.

The angle of perception is but the containment of attention itself where attention upon attention reveals void thus relegating the perception as but the distinction that contains attention and attention that by which perception emerges and dissolves. The same void of attention is the same void by which empirical and abstract distinctions emerge and dissolve thus the void is omnipresent attention where the perspectives that contain it are micro-cosms of the macrocosmic void and the macrocosmic void reflects itself through the microcosmic voids.

The self-reflexivity of the absolute void is in the emergent relations of the relative voids. God as both ineffable void and effable distinction results in God being both impersonal and personal; impersonal by absolute pure emergence of unmediated attention, personal but the emergence and dissolution of contained relational attention; impersonal by degree of pure distinction, impersonal by degree of relational distinction.

Given the nature of distinction being a self-embedding reflexive act and process the universal moral code that emerges is two fold: “you reap as you so” by degree of cyclicality and “unconditional love/self-lessness (emphasis on unconditional)” by degree of the absence of conditions of the absolute conditions void itself. Thus morality has inherent architecture within the fabric of being and beyond it.

The nature of distinction as process, conducive to and equivalent conceptually with change, necessitates a universal anthropmorphic base of sacrifice in one respect and non-anthropomorphic base as negation in the other. Sacrifice and negation are but two sides of distinction, one anthropomorphic and the other not. The universal nature of change gives emergence to this basic and fundamental underlying structure.

For God to truly be God God must sacrifice God for if God is subject to a God then God is not God as God is not all powerful, if God does not sacrifice God then God is not subject to anything then is not omnipresent.

2

But totality being everything, it would include ALL distinctions, not “nothing”. A properly transcendent unity would not be nothingness, it would be the precise opposite or antithesis of whatever “nothingness” is supposed to mean.

Because in reality, in fact, there is no such thing as “nothingness” in the absolute meaning. I.e. “Void (absolute void-as-such)” seems like a false concept, although I understand the psychological and even theoretical (mathematical, philosophical, etc.) pull of such a concept.

Void is no-things, absolutized as nothingness as such (in theory); therefore it cannot be “the totality of all things”. In my view anyway, placing nothingness or void in the transcendent category is a grave mistake. Totality itself i.e. TRUTH or REALITY or EXISTENCE, this is what we should be viewing as occupying the transcendent space. God would ultimately derive from this AND its antithesis (void, so called) and it is at this point I think your distinctions between effable and ineffable begin to make a lot more sense.

3

Simple argument.

  1. There is only the totality.
  2. The totality has no comparison as there is only the totality; the “only totality” by degree of “only” is a unity.
  3. For the totality to be distinct as a unity it must have contrast for such a distinction to occur.
  4. There is nothing beyond the totality, no contrast, for if so it would not be the totality as something is beyond it, thus the absolute unity of the totality is that same as nothingness.
4

Or more like, we just have nothing we can compare it to. It is already “everything”. How do you compare everything to…what? All you can do is compare it to itself OR you can compare it to hypothetical or theoretical things that do not in fact exist.

Maybe one of those things is Void or nothingness-as-such. Sure, I can get behind that. We need a way to compare Totality as “only Totality” yet there is nothing else to compare it with, so we can posit the only logical thing that might be useful in allowing a comparison, that thing is “nothing at all”. Void, zero, total absence, etc.

That doesn’t mean anything other than we have created this concept as the direct or logical antipode to the notion of Totality-itself-as-unity. I have no problem with this move, but we should not confuse what we are actually doing. Totality and void/nothingness are not categorically equivalent things, even if we are intending to use the latter as a possible something with which to allow a contrast with the former to emerge.

And thinking of this in terms of ontology, what actually does exist, and since Being is included as part of your thesis here, Totality has being (and includes all beings) and probably IS being; what is void/nothingness? It is nothing, it does not even exist. By definition it has no existence whatsoever, yet we can still say it has comparative meaning as to your number 4 point above. So it has theoretical value or utility in this case, but again this is just theoretical because it does not actually exist in reality. It is not a part of existence. Yet we can say its theoretical or projected/virtual existence is still a meaningful part of Being itself. Both for the reason you mention but also because we can consider Being in terms of Dasein and we all know that the concept of void/nothingness/etc plays a fairly significant role in, at minimum, the phenomenological intricacies of Dasein.

5

Having fun with the cups game? :wink:

6

If all matter were to disappear into the multiple “glassy” holes at the centre of the multiple galaxies from where it all came then what would be left is the “I am” hovering over the waters.

Genesis 1:2

7

These two threads you started are that^ reply (mostly).

IMG_3001
IMG_3001750Ă—1334 163 KB

I know you’re making fun of me, goofus.

8

You don’t understand “Glassy” holes Ichthus.

I’m not making fun of you at all.

9

I made it up at the turn of the millennium.

Before I knew about chain galaxies & the triads.

Or this:

IMG_3002
IMG_3002750Ă—1334 122 KB

10

If there is a distinct thing this distinction requires contrast, without contrast there is nothingness.

The totality has no contrast, otherwise it is not the totality.

The distinction of void is but the contrast of void to itself by the innate potentiality to do so. Distinction is but void containing itself as distinct.

11

The cups games only exist because of a flat featureless surface.

12

Re: the image above: Gravitational lensing has been known to show the same galaxy stretched out, in multiple simultaneous locations. I’m unsure if the multiple images reflect different points in time, and if through some paradox, it might be possible for an observer to communicate with the galaxy and tell it the future.

13

An absolute need not have anything to offset it. Actualised infinity lacks nothing, by definition. There’s always an exception to a rule and ultimately God is that exxception.

14

Uninformed…the void is.

Informed…a void is not.

15

If something lacks nothing, thus is in effect everything, then that something is no longer a thing as there is no contrast to make it a thing.

You fail to see that a perfect unity is the same as nothing.

16

“Informed” and “uniformed” are distinctions that arise from and dissolve into the void of attention itself.

17

Non sequitur …

18

I said uninformed - not uniformed.

A noticeable - because real - distinction.

19

Given the context of a dual relation to “informed” “uniformed” can be seen as a typo.

20

Not at all, an absolute needs to be distinct as absolute. An absolute everything effectively is the same a nothing.

A pure absolute is only distinct relative to a non-absolute in purity or function. An absolute everything is the same as nothing as there is nothing by which it is distinct to be anything.

Pure nothingness is absolute as pure nothingness cannot change for there nothing to change. Pure nothingness is pure self contained distinction….think of it this way:

There is a circle with infinite circles within it and infinite circles between said circles. These infinite circles within, without and between results in a void and yet the circle is perpetually present as a self embedding fractal at all levels. The circle is there but it has no circumferance.

God is the Void as all things thus the nothingness beyond them.

God is the Universal light of distinction for distinction illuminates both literally and metaphorically.

The non-sequitur, you claim, is subject to be a non-sequitur as the non sequitur assertion does not logically follow.