Of course any number endings in his novels are no where near happy. And that often involves one or another made up “supernatural” entity. Which is what some insist that God is in the “real world”.
What I tend to focus on however are those contexts in which a “happy ending” depends on a particular subjective point of view rooted in moral and political and spiritual prejudices rooted in dasein.
From abortion and the right to bear arms to the role of government and animal rights, one person’s happy ending is anything but to another person.
What of a “A Final, Pantheopsychic Theory of Everything” then? Especially the part where the theory is yanked down out of the “wall of words” cloud and confronts those who insist that only their own happy ending counts.
In other words, only their own “a God, the God” decides that.
The concept of Pantheopsychism and Pantheopsychic Christianity does not exist for the sake of defeating the belief of anyone who doubts its objective existence. If a person insists on a certain view of reality, then that’s the end of the matter, isn’t it? And at the end of the day, we’re all taking the “holograms” of consciousness produced by the brain (I am using this methodology as I assume you believe consciousness and every instance of consciousness must be created by some process in the brain, though I do not believe the brain creates consciousness) and tying it to what’s “real” or outside the “Matrix-world” created by the brain (for those who believe the brain creates consciousness).
We’re all bandying about what one believes the external world is like. Some try to force (or so it seems) others to accept their fictional account: others simply present their fictional account, gingerly and lovingly unwrapping it from the cloth and placing it before the others on the table, allowing the others to look at it and perhaps say, “Hmm. I don’t believe this but, ehhh…could be.”
In a nutshell, Pantheopsychic theory and theism states:
The only thing that exists is first-person subjective experience because it is the only thing that “shows up” in existence and demonstrates it exists. One can see that by simply looking at the nature of oneself.
First-person subjective experience is essentially a substance with 7 properties (visual perception, auditory perception, gustatory perception, olfactory perception, tactile perception, emotion and thought) that only takes the shape of particular persons.
Only persons exist: there is no such things as planets, nebulae, black holes, dark matter, etc. These are only “holograms” within the mind of a person, made up of the subjective experience of the person perceiving them. Outside the person are only more persons, not things.
(1)-(3) can work if one is atheist, in which one would have a godless form of Panpsychism without need for microscopic particles of either matter or consciousness to form persons, which are the only things that exist. Persons just exist without having been formed by micro-objects. That is, they are “statues” constantly formed from the “clay” of subjective experience that does nothing but “morph” into this person and that, and the experience of this person and that.
A Judeo-Christian theology combined with the aforementioned version of Panpsychism yields Pantheopsychism, in which the external world contains nothing except persons, but contains one overarching Person that fills infinity and in whose mind every other person dwells. If this is possible and true, we dwell within the mind of God rather than outside God. The nature of this “mental geography” is hardly conceivable, but is implied by the temporal and contextual relation between the thoughts of God and the experiences of Man.
The Judeo-Christian God has three personalities (rather than being three separate Persons in several interpretations of the Trinity). The three personalities are the Supernal, The Lucid Dreamer, and The Crucified Man.
The Supernal, the first personality, existed for all eternity until a certain point, and cannot conceive of evil. Thus this personality can only imagine joyful experiences and worlds.
The Crucified Man, the second personality, emerged from the first (the only substance that exists, the first-person subjective experience that forms God Himself, arbitrarily stopped forming itself into the Supernal and formed the Crucified Man), and is the helpless and unwilling source of any and all evil, which exists as the content within a dream in the mind of this version of God as the God dreamt of being a Jewish prisoner dying by Roman execution of crucifixion.
The Lucid Dreamer, the third personality, emerged from the second (the subjective experience that forms God Himself intermittently stops forming the Crucified Man and forms the Lucid Dreamer, before returning to form the Crucified Man). The Lucid Dreamer takes the information in the dream of the Crucified Man and alters it, if He can, in the later-arriving experiences of humans to either ameliorate or outright prevent exact duplication or copying of the horrific experiences in the mind of the Crucified Man. The Lucid Dreamer is also the source and cause of all human death (i.e. the experience and process of dying itself, not the cause of death), using death as a means of “yanking” humans away from duplication or replication of the content of the dream of the Crucified Man.
The experiences of human beings are the previous experiences (experienced while dreaming) of one of the three personalities of God. The type of experience one has depends upon the personality that previously dreamt of one’s experience.
At an unknown point in cosmic history, the Supernal transformed into the Crucified Man. The Crucified Man, who dreamt of being a famous Jewish minister and philosopher suffering the Roman execution of crucifixion, had a dream within the dream of being crucified in which he dreamt of every evil that shall ever exist, and dreamt of himself in the role of victim and perpetrator.
The Lucid Dreamer, the third personality, intermittently appears and takes the place of the Crucified Man in the infinity of the external world.
The subjective experience not involved in the working memory of God in either personality takes the shape of humans (and animal and insects and non-human beings with human or greater intellect), but the experiences of humans can do nothing but replicate the prior experiences, directly or in amalgamation, of one or all the personalities of God.
Satan is not a seperate being equal to or greater than God (or even lesser in power but still separate), but a creation in the mind of the Crucified Man. Satan depends for his existence upon the continuance of the Crucifixion and the dream sustained by the Crucified Man (see [5] above). If the Crucified Man awakens, Satan and evil itself for that matter will cease to exist.
The Crucified Man will awaken and transform into an immutable form of the Supernal, ending the existence of Satan, evil, and human existence in the form of corruptible beings, as humans will transform or revert to immutable forms of the prior replicants of the dream of the Supernal, who cannot conceive of evil for even a Planck-second.
Hope this helps. Sounds wild, I know, but I contend it is a logically infallible version of Judeo-Christian theology.
The subjective experience making up God Himself can morph into the shape of the God dreaming of being a human that doesn’t know something, then form itself into the God dreaming of being another human who knows what the other human does not know. Omniscience by role-play.
Thus it is possible for the Pantheopsychic God to exist.
I know almost nothing about neurology. If god knew EXACTLY what it was like to be me, god has to know what it’s like to know almost nothing about neurology.
My interest though is in exploring the part where this concept is shared but those who share it still find themselves at odds in regard to such things as “abortion, the right to bear arms, the role of government, animal rights etc.”
The part where their belief in a particular religious path or God allows them to connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and the fate of “I” on the other side.
Thus, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, what one merely believes about the concept of one or another spiritual narrative, doesn’t matter nearly as much to me as it seems to matter to others. Let alone what one merely believes about a “theory of everything”.
But that’s okay. They are either interested in taking their own beliefs out into the world as I have come to understand it or they’re not.
Mostly, however, I am interested in how they go about connecting the dots here between what they believe reflects “objective reality” and how they go about demonstrating to themselves how and why it is in fact objective reality.
You may not believe that your brain creates consciousness but how do you demonstrate this to yourself such that you may be able to demonstrate it to others as well. Beyond just stringing words together in an intellectual/spiritual analysis/assessment/argument, the objective truth of which is predicated almost entirely on how you define the meaning of the words in it.
For me, it’s not the beliefs we bandy about, but the proofs. Or at least as close as we able to get to producing them.
But you’re not the only person other than God in existence, are you?
If according to Pantheopsychic theory God pre-experienced what it is like to be every human that shall ever exist (or every justified human)—while experiencing what it is like to be you in the eons prior to your existence, He would experience what it was like to be you knowing almost nothing about neurology (neurology is easier than it seems, btw), THEN move on from you to experience what it was like to be another person who happened to be a neurologist.
Thus “it doesn’t work that way” is only possible if only you and God existed.
All the above in Pantheopsychic theory are arbitrarily existing concepts created by the God-substance; the emotions and beliefs regarding and arising in response to them are part of the content of the Sacrificial Dream.
In Pantheopsychic theory, any behavior a person chooses on this side of the grave is (if a person is justified) and can be only a re-enactment of the same behavior pre-performed in the Sacrifical Dream, if the behavior is evil. The fate of “I” on the other side, if a person is justified, is salvation.
It will matter or not matter to others, as others may come to believe in Pantheopsychism, not understand it, or understand it but find they cannot believe in its objective existence.
True. The only thing a person can do is present the belief and have others judge whether or not it is logically and metaphysically possible.
Well, if a belief is based on something outside one’s consciousness, you can’t demonstrate to oneself or others its objective reality. You can only believe and have faith it objectively exists, given you happen to believe in it.
Take for example a noumenal chair. For those who believe the brain creates consciousness AND believe there is an external world-dwelling, not-consciousness composed doppelganger of the chair that would continue to exist and whose existence would not be the least bit threatened by the sudden cessation of function of one’s brain, (the cessation of function of one’s brain cancelling only the brain-created version of the chair), there is no way a person believing in the existence of the noumenal, external world-dwelling chair can demonstrate its existence to themselves or others or rationally explain and how and why it is objective reality.
Why?
Because the person is a creation of one’s brain and the only things a person perceives: chairs, mountains, galaxies, etc. are just constructs made up of subjective experience created and generated, like holographic Leia from the R2D2 robot in Star Wars: A New Hope, by the brain (for those believing the brain creates consciousness). As the only thing a person experiences must be created by the brain, we have no evidence of the existence of things not created by the brain. Non-brain created objects are entirely imaginative fiction that, like God, one can only have faith exists.
Because I and no one else can demonstrate any brain in the act of creating consciousness, as the only brains in existence are phenomenal brains composed of subjective experience: there is no evidence of the existence of noumenal brains not composed of subjective experience, that continue to exist in the event of the cessation of the function of the brain (which “winks out” the existence of phenomenal brains) of one perceiving their phenomenal counterparts.
Indeed, when it comes to noumenal brains, or noumenal galaxies, dark matter, stars, planets, etc. it is all 'just stringing words together in an intellectual/spiritual analysis/assessment/argument, the objective truth of which is predicated almost entirely on how you…irrationally believe the subjective experience-composed constructs of such things have external world-dwelling, not-consciousness composed counterparts that existed before and are not affected by the cessation of function of your or any brain" (my paraphrase).
Thus Pantheopsychism and noumenal doppelgangers of the content of visual perception are in the same skeptical boat.
Err…the only thing one can prove exists is one’s own consciousness and the subjective-experience composed constructs or objects that appear in one’s consciousness.
Everything else is only something you believe exists, without proof.
Humans can’t experience things billions of years before it happens, but logically and metaphysically, it is not impossible in principle for a being existing billions of years in the past, or that is eternal, to experience what other beings will experience billions of years in the future.
Why should that be impossible?
How is it impossible save only that one does not believe in it?
Not believing in something, if that “something” is nevertheless logically and metaphysically possible yields a “pseudo-impossibility” in which something is only “impossible” for no other reason than that you do not believe it. Objectively, however, the thing one does not believe in is entirely possible, and may even actually exist, albeit invisibly in the external world outside one’s consciousness. When we stop for a moment and walk away from the prejudice engendered by belief, particularly when it comes to things outside consciousness, we find we are certainly not in a position to say that something is impossible or not if it is logically possible.
The only “gas gauge” we have in judging impossibility, David Hume kindly granted, is if an imaginary state of affairs is logically contradictory.
Thus, for those of us who dream up states of the invisible external world either for fun or that we come to seriously believe, it behooves one to not dream up external world scenarios that are logically contradictory.
In the case of the Pantheopsychic God dreaming of being every human (or every justified human) that shall ever exist billions of years (as a random example of “lots and lots of time”) before said humans are formed from the God-substance and experience that which God had already imagined and experienced for them…the only thing you need is the logical and metaphysical possibility of eternal non-brain created consciousness and that consciousness arbitrarily and absurdly having content of consciousness that “just happened” to be the content of consciousness that will later be experienced by others in the future.
Is it “impossible” that the content of consciousness of me, for example, responding to the sound of my niece screaming in a hospital waiting room on the afternoon of May 13, 2018 as an emergency room nurse reported my brother died was not experienced billions of years ago by the Judeo-Christian God in the form of the Crucified Man, dreaming of being me receiving news of my brother’s death (and alternately dreaming of being my niece receiving news of her father’s death) as He intermittently dreamed of being a Jewish prisoner dying upon a cross?
The point being, we have to be cautious when it comes to external world beliefs, because there is a common tendency to make the logical fallacy in which one mistakes one’s beliefs for irrefutable, unquestionable fact. I see it in philosophical arguments all the time. One mistakenly thinks: “I wholeheartedly believe x, so x must be unquestionably and irrefutably true and every other possibility and belief therefore false and impossible.”
As long as a belief that cannot be verified by sensory perception is not logically contradictory (Hume), every imaginary states of affairs regarding the external world is equally possibly objectively true: one can only choose to not believe in this scenario or that, despite the fact the scenario may very well be true, amusingly winking its eye at the non-believer in the invisible world outside consciousness.
In theory. Yeah, I get that part. In theory though everything comes down to words defining and defending other words up in the general description spiritual contraption clouds.
How about the part where you actually demonstrate that in fact this is true objectively…empirically, phenomenally, existentially.
The rest from you is [for me] just more of the same: theory theory theory.
If someone believes exactly what you do about this theory they will “get it”.
Again, I call this the James S. Saint Syndrome. Along with dozens of others much like the two of you who have come in here over the years with these dazzling wall of words TOEs that seem to steer entirely clear of my own “thing” here: connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now an immortality there and then. Given particular sets of circumstances where conflicting goods abound.
Just spend a week following the news. Lots and lots of sets of circumstances like these right? And lots and lots of religious/spiritual dogmas to make them all go away.
And…in theory everything comes down to words defining and defending other words in consciousness’ failed attempt to show the brain creates consciousness and that there are objects (galaxies, mountains, black holes, “star stuff”, dark matter, etc.) that exist in the external world that are not made up or composed of subjective experience, but that magically and probably impossibly have the power to influence or even cause the existence of subjective experience.
See the correlation between this and religion?
How about the part where you demonstrate the existence of something other than a person, something other than subjective experience, or any object not appearing in a person’s consciousness that is not made up of the substance of subjective experience?
As before, I cannot demonstrate the objective truth of Pantheopsychism or Pantheopsychic Christianity, as it is a candidate, like non-subjective experience, of what exists in the external world outside the “Matrix” of human consciousness. At the end of the day, yet again, when it comes to external world “beauty pageant contestants” like Fundamentalist Christianity, Pantheopsychic Christianity, pagan gods and goddesses, multiverses, or even noumenal brains and its magical ability to cause something that does not exist (consciousness) to come into existence…its’ all just believing in the objective existence of these things and having faith they exist, despite the fact they can never be demonstrated.
Thus we are on the same “unable to demonstrate our theory” boat when speaking either of Pantheopsychic theory or noumenal brains creating consciousness, dark matter, or stating: we being “star stuff”.
Of course it is. Of course it must be. That is what it will always be until it demonstrates its objective existence (or not) beyond the grave. It cannot be demonstrated in the here and now.
To wit:
The Almighty is beyond our reach…
-Job 37:23
Or the New King James Version interpretation:
As for the Almighty, we cannot find Him…
The point being that God, for example, if God objectively exists, does not appear in the “Matrix” of human consciousness but exists in the external world. External world things can only appear in the form of concepts that happen to exist in the mind or is imputed into the mind by others, and appear only in the form of alphabetical letters strung together into words that are or may be represented Humean-style in the form of compositions of previous sensory experiences “cut and pasted” into visual thoughts intended to represent an external world entity. Aside from this lingusitic and imaginary representation, external world entities cannot be demonstrated.
But is this impossibility of demonstration a “knock down drag out” irrefutable indication of non-existence?
Of course not: it’s possible for something to exist without ever being demonstrated to exist.
While ‘morality here and now’ (or immorality, which is the basic unit of things depicted on the news) can be demonstrated to be true objectively…empirically, phenomenally, existentially—immortality ‘there and then’ cannot. Thus one cannot connect the dots existentially (if one means empirically) between the former and latter. One can only connect the dots theoretically.
Oh well.
But here’s the thing, and one should never ignore it:
The content of theory, if it is logically possible, may objectively exist behind everyone’s backs in the external world outside or beyond consciousness. It is never the case that there is a requirement (perhaps personally, but never in principle) that ‘immortality there and then’ must connect empirically to ‘morality here and now’ as an indication or proof ‘immortality there and then’ objectively exists. Why? Because One needs only the logical possibility that the non-demonstrable concepts of the theory objectively exist. That’s it. In the formation of ‘walls of words’ and TOES, all one needs is the possibility that the concept objectively exists despite all protestation to the opposite, despite the fact it cannot be ‘demonstrated it is in fact true objectively…empirically, phenomenally, existentially.’
At the end of the day, there is or was never an obligation to demonstrate it.
Thus there is never an obligation to cause someone to believe a non-demonstrable theory. One either believes it or not.
(Pantheopsychic Christianity, meanwhile, does not attempt to make the items of real-world news “go away”: rather, Pantheopsychic Christianity addresses real-world evils in the PC theory that real world evils are human-experienced re-enactments of a dream in the mind of Jesus Christ as he died upon the cross.)
Yes, your exact life was lived billions of years ago, in the form of it being dreamt.
I never said your exact life wasn’t lived billions of years ago, unless you mean “lived” in the form of it being experienced by the being in a non-dreaming way.
You can’t dream something without it occurring actually and exactly. Maybe you can imagine something and bring it into reality… but imagination does not have the precision of a dream.
I know that you’re quoting the garbage that is the Bible…
“I knew you before you were born”
Existence doesn’t work that way.
There was no me before I was born.
Additionally, none of us were ever born and none of us will ever die.
Of course: more words defining and defending yet more words still. None of them pertaining to this:
As for religion, I don’t know how to make it any clearer. My own interest revolves around the fact that “I” am a mere mortal on this side of the grave trying to figure out [philosophically or otherwise] how to connect the existential dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then.
But that’s not your interest in regard “A Final, Pantheopsychic Theory of Everything”?
Fine, no problem. There are others here who will go up into the intellectual/spiritual clouds with you and haggle over the optimal or the only rational manner in which construct a theory of everything. What I have come to call the James S. Saint Syndrome.
I skimmed the rest but it just appears [to me] to be more of the same general description intellectual/spiritual concoctions.
Are you referring to David Hume’s assertion that dreams require previous sensory experience, with parts of actual sensory experience taken apart and “cut and pasted” into the content of a dream (lucid or non-lucid)? Perhaps. No argument there. But Pantheopsychic theology is concerned only with the dreams of God, not the dreams of Man, as the dreams of God provide the content of the sensory experiences of Man and to a limited extent, the dreams of Man in terms of metaphorical illustration.
How would you know? You’re only stating something you don’t believe. Remember, it’s a logical fallacy to tout beliefs as though they were irrefutable fact.
For the record, “I knew you before you were born” is good enough biblical proof of God pre-experience of the content of consciousness of man in Pantheopsychic theology.
How would you know there was not? You only believe there was not—again stating something you believe as though it were known fact.
Don’t know about the “born” part, but I agree that we do not actually die (cessation of existence of consciousness) as there is (I believe) only transformation into another form of consciousness.
Everything, unless one is describing something oneself or another reports one has witnessed in the sensory first-person (that can be verified when one observes what the other has observed, and even then sensory observation is only Kantianly phenomenal, never noumenal) is only theory until it verifies itself in actual experience (or not). Thus all “theories of everything” will and can only be acts of the imagination that may (or not) be invisibly objectively real in the external world.
