*****Updated
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: āyou reap as you soā by degree of cyclicality and āunconditional love/self-lessness (emphasis on unconditional)ā 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. The sacrifice of God is the collapse of the void into the distinction which emerged from it, the sacrifice of God is the collapse of the distinction as return to the void; God must negate God unto God, God must sacrifice God unto God.
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. The circle represents all things for by repetition there is symmetry in form, symmetry in the repetition of the form in time, and by symmetry a cycle occurs within itself as itself for symmetry is but the repetition of a limit unto form where the beginning and end trace to eachother as one and self-contained. All things are cycles by virtue of being distinctions, and distinction is a cycle by degree of distinction being embedded within distinction as distinction.
God is the Void as all things thus the nothingness beyond them for complete unity, as the totality is beyond the comparison necessary for distinct limit to occur.
God is the Universal Light of distinction for distinction illuminates both literally and metaphorically as what is distinct is illuminated by degree of its emergence.
God is the Universal Darkness of the relative potential of all distinctions both literally and metaphorically.
God sides with neither Light nor Darkness but favors light, favor ontologically being maintains, for that is what reveals God as God as God a distinction of the universal act of distinction.
Good and evil are but distinctions of actual and potential, good as the light of distinct actuality and evil as the potential for actuality the potential for good; morality is thus fundamentally transformative of darkness into light and the transformation of light into darkness as the revelation of the nature of the light. By degree distinction transcends good and evil as the central good, distinction transcends actual and potential as the central point of change.