God is the Event of Distinction

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Updated

God Is the Event of Distinction; Transcendental and Mediative of Distinction as Distinction

By distinction all things of the senses, mind and spirit are given limit and form via distinction;

By distinction the senses, mind and spirit are given form via distinction.

By distinction the realities of the subjective and the objective are given form via distinction;

By distinction subjective and objective are given form via distinction.

By distinction the finite and infinite are given form via distinction;

By distinction the comprehendable and incomprehensible are given boundary via distinction.

By distinction the transcendent and immanent are given boundary via distinction.

By distinction there is the form and formless.

By distinction there is rationality and irrationality, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is conditionality and unconditionality, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the known and unknown, knowable and unknowable; as the limits of each what remains is distinction.

By distinction is immanence and transcendence, the immanence of transcendence and the transcendence of the immanent; what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is omnipresence as distinction mediates all, by mediation of all there is the transcendence of all.

By distinction there is being and non-being thus both and as such neither.

The indistinct is distinct from distinction thus the indistinct is subsumed as distinction thus distinction contains itself.

By distinction there is distinction as the indistinct for the distinct is distinct by the distinction of the indistinct.

Distinction via distinction is a distinction;

Distinct from distinction is a distinction.

By distinction there is true and false, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the moral and immoral, what remains is distinction

By distinction there is the sacred and non-sacred, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the relative and the absolute, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the dual and non-dual, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the self-evident and non-self evident, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the assumed and unassumed, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is God(s) and the Absence of God(s), what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is creator and created, what remains is distinction;

The creator is creator via created, the created is created via the creator;

The creator transcends created via distinction, the creator mediates created via distinction; created scales as this via distinction;

The act of creation is the event of distinction, the creator is the event of distinction, creator and created are distinct and yet reflexive via distinction.

By distinction there is interior and exterior, beyond and present, what remains is distinction.

What is interior is but the container of what is exterior as the contained is but the limits of the exterior;

What is exterior is but the container of what is interior as the contained is but the limits of the exterior,

Interior and exterior are one via distinction, many via distinction;

the one and many occur via distinction thus non-dual multivalency is and what is is a distinction the the limits of non-dual multivalency

By distinction there is non-dual and dual, univalence and multivalence;

By distinction there is real and unreal; what remains is distinction

To reduce is to unify as the underlying distinction of the reduced, to expand is to multiply as the distinction scales; the division of a line is its multiplication, the multiplication is its division

By distinction there is gnosis and agnosis, what remains is distinction.

The contrast of contrast is contrast as unity of contrast;

The unity of unity is unity as the constrast of unity;

the absence of absence is presence as absence;

The presence of presence is absence as presence.

The darkness of darkness is darkness as light.

The light of light is light as darkness.

By distinction light and dark are, what remains is distinction.

God is the prime distinction from which all distinctions are mediated, transcendent of distinction by distinction itself, what remains is distinction.

What remains is distinction, ‘remains’ is subject to distinction, ‘subject to’ is a distinction.

++++

Distinction may be observed as such:

Self contained self contrast via recursion.

Here is a visual and direct formulation at the most or primitive level possible:

There is void •

This void is indistinct potentiality, the space by which what is actualized is actualized. What is not is the space by what is occurs, pure nothingness is by which thingness occurs as nothingness is that by which thingness is for a thing cannot occur where another thing is but only by which the relative nothingness of the thing is. Void is the same as potentiality in terms and nature.

This potentiality contains its potential to be distinct as potential, the distinction of potential is actuality of potential as potential, thus actually occurs:

••

Potential is distinct from potential as actual potential, the potentiality is recursive. This recursion is the contrast of • as • is indistinct until •• where it contrasts itself. •• is also the limit of • where • contains itself via ••.

In this respect •• is self contained self contrast.

Now • can be observed as:

0d point.
Point of attention.
Void as potentiality
Source\God

So what we know of distinction is self contained self contrast as recursion. In this respect both pattern and process are effectively one, patterned change.

Take for example the recursion of •

• contains •
•• contains •, ••
••• contains •, ••, •••
•••• contains •,••,•••,••••

Dually

•••• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•
••• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•
•• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•
• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•

Thus • contains and is contained by •

This containing by and containing nature of • is its own contrast as

The recursion of • is the contrast of •
The containing of and containing by • reveals • as its own contrast via the container and contained

So while •…• may go on indefinitely, a pattern is always present simultaneously thus at the proto-mereological level revealing both pattern and process as a false binary outside the respect context of each distinction being primary within context.

2

If ‘that’ is what God is to you, then okay.

3

“That” is subject to being a distinction.

4

From ‘what’, exactly?

And, what does “God is the event of distinction” mean, to you, exactly?

5

“What” is subject to being a distinction.

6

Were you not able to answer and clarify the below question?

Also, if ‘what’ is subject to being a distinction, and the Universe, Itself, is a ‘what’, what is the Universe distinct from, exactly?

7

The “universe” is distinct from “non-universe”.

If the universe is not distinct, it is indistinct, and your term means nothing.

But if it is indistinct, “indistinct” is distinct from “distinction”, and as such is a scaling distinction.

What remains is distinction.

8

Considering the irrefutable Fact that the Universe is always, which means there could not be any so-called “non-universe”, how can what exists always be distinct from what could never exist?

Do you really want to come to a publicly viewable philosophy forum and claim;

If the Universe is not distinct, the Universe is therefore distinct?

If ‘this’ is what you really want to believe is true, then okay.

‘We’ already knew what you believe to be absolutely true.

And, if ‘this’ is the best you can do to ‘try to’ back up and support your belief, then okay.

9

Distinctions are likely to be mostly perceptual constructions. We think from categories already existing in our minds and navigate through new informations through those categories. People most often think from their convictions rather than towards them. These categories can be changed and partialised, put to doubt by underlying distinctions or dead angles in “knowledge” and therfore the principle of distinction can be fragmented, diluated, if not dissipated or even anihilated. And it becomes even more bumpy by the fact that you make such delimitations through words.

As a mather of exemple, there is a smooth and rather hard to delimit neurophysiological connection between said “rationnality” and “irrationnality” in a way that one is not easily distinguishble from the other. On an even deeper level, we can say that we can more reliably make sense of perceived things through reason and logic, but nothing absolutely validate that it corresponds with the relations that absolute reality has beyond our perception (see epistemological solipcism, the thought experiment of the brain in the vat and the likes). A vertiginous thought indeed. This kind of of analysis apply to most if not all the distinctions you mentionned, making your approach, while interesting, maybe not as much a solid foundation for a constant and unvariable principle as you wanted to intuitively approach God.

There is a quote from hermetic texts I find interesting and helped me to have a more intuitve idea of God:

“If then you do not make yourself equal to God, you cannot apprehend God; for like is known by like. Leap clear of all that is corporeal, and make yourself grown to a like expanse with that greatness which is beyond all measure; rise above all time and become eternal; then you will apprehend God. Think that for you too nothing is impossible; deem that you too are immortal, and that you are able to grasp all things in your thought, to know every craft and science; find your home in the haunts of every living creature; make yourself higher than all heights and lower than all depths; bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold, dryness and fluidity; think that you are everywhere at once, on land, at sea, in heaven; think that you are not yet begotten, that you are in the womb, that you are young, that you are old, that you have died, that you are in the world beyond the grave; grasp in your thought all of this at once, all times and places, all substances and qualities and magnitudes together; then you can apprehend God.

But if you shut up your soul in your body, and abase yourself, and say “I know nothing, I can do nothing; I am afraid of earth and sea, I cannot mount to heaven; I know not what I was, nor what I shall be,” then what have you to do with God?”

― Hermes Trismegistus, Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius

In continuation with this intution, and if we want to cut through the noise of the expression of the different culturaly contingent expressions of universal spiritual instincts/intuitions that lead to the variety of transcendent ideas/revelations we know today, I think that, if you study patterns within the different religious perspectives, as well as what we call near-death and clinical death experiences’ accounts - people that have approached death or clinically died and came back to life - and other altered states, we have to approach potential transcendent truths through both ontology (examining categories, structures, and properties of existing things) and henology (study of the One, transcendant principle of unity beyond ordinary existence). My reasons being that a majority of NDE and CDE accounts report being one with everything, of making some sort of cosmic unity, dissolving of ego, union with a divine light/entity (henosis) and being “out of time”, experiencing time differently or experiencing everything at once (kairos) which are universal – meaning that it is met in all cultures. Out of body experiences too, being able to float out of their body and describe precise things that happened in other rooms while they were dead, and seeing dead relatives (even those they did not know had died according to some accounts collected) are universal in NDEs and CDEs, which might be at the origin of the idea that our conscious experience survive our own death.

“Birth is not the beginning of life - only of an individual awareness. Change into another state is not death - only the ending of this awareness.”
― Hermes Trismegistus, Corpus Hermeticum

Past the obvious epistemological ambiguity and concerns, people are making all sorts of theories about consciousness partially independent form the body, universal consciousness and so on (see for exemple one of the most popular of said quantum consciousness theory nowadays, Orchastrated Objective Reduction theory according to which the switch for consciousness - qualia - resides in microtubules within neurons and that these structures make interactions on a quantum level, with space time, and other stuff I did not yet study). There is of course, in the accounts, culture specific apparitions (angels for christians, ancestors for confucianists, etc.) and that you somewhat keep a part of your personnality once dead and so on. I think one way to approach those infos, admitting they reveal potential transcendent truths, is that they are both psychogenic and contingent to non-standard physics (beyond the the standard model of physics or the known interactions of its elements) and/or extradismensional interactions. Meaning that the realm outside of what we can normaly seemingly substantiate is also mechanistic and that we have “magified”[1] it like we magified complex, real, but elusive phenomenon in the past (chemical reactions were understood through the esoteric symbolism of alchemy, epilepsy was understood to be symptomatic of being possessed by deamons, Tesla was thought to be a sorcer following his impressive demonstrations of alternate currents, ect. you can see more of the explanations on this mechanistic vision of hidden/occult reality on my older-ish thread). Our psycho-physiological patterns might find some sort of continuation somehow after death through unknown mechanisms. Those are parts of my scientifically converging theory on the transcendent if you want to call it that. Speculatively, I think that after death we may meet God or make one with Him and the universe or something like that.

  1. understood, categorized, represented under a magic, intuitive, simple form ↩︎

10

A perceptual construction is distinct from a non-perceptual construction.

What remains is the event of distinction, transcendent and yet mediative of both subject and object, consciousness and unconsciousness, mind and matter, knowing and unknowing.

11

Did you observe distinctions in writing all of that?

12

I observed distinctions in writing just a bit of that. But this does not take away from the Fact that I pointed out and which you further demonstrated.

13

Is observing a distinction?

14

To you, absolutely EVERY thing is a distinction, correct?

Although, and obviously there is nothing distinct from an eternal and infinite Everything/Universe.

15

Are you making distinctions with those claims?

16

A distinction from ‘what’ exactly?

The Universe is clearly not distinct from any other actual thing as there is ONLY the One eternal and infinite Universe, Itself.

17

“What” is a distinction.

“What” is distinct from
who/when/where/how/why.

You fail to see that your question limits the answer and the limited answer results in a set of paradoxes and contradiction.

Here you are, asserting an infinite universe, and yet make it finite as a “what”.

Your methodology and intent contradicts itself.

18

But I did not do that.

What ‘methodology’ and what ‘intent’, exactly?

Show the readers here that you can actually explain what you are talking about here.

Now, I assert that the Universe is infinite and eternal, and therefore there is One only.

If you are able to express what this One Universe is distinct from, exactly, then will you do it?

If no, then why not?

19

Is the question distinct?

Is your assertion of what the universe is distinct?

20

From ‘what’, exactly?

And, from ‘what’, exactly?

Also, why do you ask me questions when you will not provide answers to my questions to you?