The original substance
This is a list I found a while ago dealing with the matter of the god’s family tree.
I’m of the opinion that the tree was not made randomly by a single paranoid generation of persons.

There is a lot to be said about the original substance.

If a rout should effect the flow of the river,
it must be stronger and harder than the river’s waters and force.
Therefor we live in a tunnel universe, as regards time,
and outside of time is a stronger more permanent casting.

The lesser law, is a current. Each law of the universe effects the others.
This is because they are all a single casting.

Chaos also now has many castings.

More later.

From white light we can extract many types of light.
It only takes on the new appearance when it is split from its original condition.
If reality were one and only one true essence, it would be like a whole jug of paint,
which would not be able to make a painting of anything other than the one color.
We need many colors, many lights, many forces.
It seems to me that this world requires greatly the force of transmutation.
An equal change through a transmutation.
This would mean the white paint could make a red paint, for example, equal in power and quality to the first, so that it can function just as well, even though this is a new thing, a new state.

I see these two as separate:
Division and transmutation.
Division is easier, and can create a degree of ‘new’ forces.
However, transmutation is not reorganization. Transmutation is a mystery, even to describe.

It could be that the true, original gods, despite how humanly described, were not what they would seem.
They each represented living centers of energy, in our universe and others.
The very first gods were earth gods, and astrological gods.
They were from the living centers of energy that are closest to humanity.
This type of god is not all-powerful, either. It is the head intelligence of a specific astrological body.

A) no significant religion was ever formed merely by “paranoid” or fantasy illusions.
B) “Essence” and/or “principle make/support” would be a better translation for “arche” than “beginning” or “origin”.

I don’t see what any of this has to do with “original substance”… ?

Like a human needs a consciousness to be anything more than an organic robot, in origins i’d say that reality also needs one of some kind. No transmutation principle required ~ although it possibly is some aspect of mind.

Getting down to simplicity; if there were originally a reality prior to universe and no duality [originally], then the essence of everything we know exists now [at least that] would be within that oneness [emptiness].

So ‘consciousness’ but without the processes of the brain [I call that ‘mind’] ~ probably much like sleep without dreaming, and ‘energy’ but not the physical stuff. They are automatically – if you will, in an intimate relationship. Mind moves/motivates and organises both it and energy, and this is ‘action’ or maybe “arche” ~ but I only know the buddhist/hindu pov [hence ‘action’].

I can only assume that the original state is actually statelessness and is eternal. Thus as if like an ‘action’ engine - if I may.

certainly, consciousness is itself >the principle< [it is the very thingness of] primary to transmutation.


The hierarchy of gods is the first substance, then it lists derivatives and combinations of it, the aftermath of a changing substance.

So okay. What do you mean by “substance”? Physical substance? Electrons, atoms, gravity, and whatever?

Nope. None of that.

Substance means, in this case of the word, that which is substantial or real.
Atoms and electrons are made of the derivatives of the original substance.

The “changing”?

There are multiple ideas out there about what the original substance consists of and how it went from there.

Some say that chaos was the birth of all things, or the father of all things.

According to that, everything is a degree of change and chaos. As it all unfolds, there happens to be very stable and very unstable changing forces and cycles. Fast and slow changing.

But is all of that what you are talking about?

If so, I call all of that, “Affectance” = the original and only “substance” of the universe.

I’m trying, yes.
I also have a strong sensation that I’m not comprehending or seeing the whole picture.
However, some things are so redundant, that reality can be known by experiences across great distance.
For example, we would know certain types of stars are hot, and those stars are all over the place, similar to each other.

Well, you are certainly not alone in that. But “the whole picture” is somewhat “my business”. And I have found it to be simply too different than what Man has been thinking for so long, that any attempt to explain it (regardless of it being relativity simple), is too complicated for words to describe.

I feel like I don’t tend to get a lot of replies to my threads.
I tried to make this a good thread though.
One things I had wondered, is if originally, the Greek gods were the consciousness elements that existed within universal laws and processes. After some time of degeneration, the gods became literal anthropofied figures, objects of worship, attractions and fears.
I’m assuming that the Greek pantheon consists of beings similar to Loa with limited powers and not truly being ‘gods’.
More like the minority of the conscious gears of the universe. Maybe not even the universe but just the earth.

I have found that if one is not talking about other people, religion, sex, politics, or violence on this “philosophy” site, one is not being “interesting” to the audience at hand. :confused:

I’ve been wondering if chaos is good, bad, partly good partly bad, etc.
I wonder if it is something we should fight or embrace.
If you fight it, you try to make your life and self non random.
If you accept it, truly accept it, your body wont last long.

All from one and one from all is a monotheistic idea but i really don’t see how that’s possible.

Some things just don’t mix. Like water and fire being put together. One will screw the other one up.

It also must face “the problem of evil”. Or any type of disharmony.

That is a little like asking if your left hand is good, bad, partly good, partly bad, etc.

EVERY harmony is formed of bits of chaos that are held apart yet free to move within an general order. Without the bits of chaos, there could be no order or harmony. But as you noted, if the bits of chaos become too much of the whole, the order of the harmony is lost to complete chaos, “death”.

“Evil” (relative to a harmony) is not “any chaos”. Evil is “too much chaos for the harmony to withstand”. That is why it is so difficult to discern. How much is too much is much more difficult to know than merely “good/bad”. How much light is too much light? How much food is too much food? Evil is simply “too much”, no less and no more.

The entire universe is nothing BUT noise. Order forms when it is just the right amount of noise such as to fall into harmonic motion; atoms, molecules, Solar systems, galaxies,…

You seem to me to be saying that chaos diluted in akasha can be good and desirable.
Putting space between all things can make them not have friction, if you don’t want friction.
So chaos can have space between it, and have it broken down into little pieces, then if there is enough space, it can either do a bit of friction or none at all.

I am saying that “akasha” IS chaos, unconcentrated.

Space IS chaos or akasha, as is all that is within it. Order is merely the pattern of concentrations of the chaos. “Empty space” between the concentrations is merely thinner akasha, less chaotic noise.

I am having to disagree at this time.
Empty space is a vital component for the world.